August 26, 2013 (pre-edit copy for comments) Commentary

Food Security, Field Logics and the Promise of Delivery

Aruna Pandey1

Amidst the cacophony of spasmodic parliamentary proceedings the National Food security Bill (NFSB) has finally received a nod from the Lok Sabha. The legislation holds the promise of empowering a country with one of the highest incidences of hunger and malnutrition. The extent and outreach of coverage, costs associated and the infrastructure involved, makes the NSFB, one of the most ambitious efforts in food security ever envisaged in the world. The Bill seeks to provide for food and nutritional security in human life cycle approach, by ensuring access to adequate quantity and quality of food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity and for matters connected th erewith and incidental thereto (NFSB2). For the beneficiaries, this means legal food entitlements that emphasise the duty of the government to provide subsidized food grains to 63.5% of the countrys population (75% rural population and 50% of the urban population) through a robust system of procurement and technologically enabled distribution networks. This would mean a supply chain that has the capacity to maintain the quality and safety standards of an estimated 63 million metric tons of food grains annually. Much has been written to establish the current context of food insecurity in India. Data from Nutritional Family Health Surveys (NFHS)3, India State Hunger Index 2008, and the 2012 Global Hunger Index4 all point to the abysmal performance of Government of India (GoI) in addressing concerns of food security. India is ranked at 67 in the Global Hunger Index 2012. The index estimates that undernourished population is 21 per cent and the prevalence of underweight children less than five year is 43.5%. While the nutritional indicators have stagnated, per capita calorie consumption and the GHI in India shows a downward trend in the last twenty years.

Aruna Pandey is a Senior Teaching Fellow and a PhD candidate in the Department of Development Studies at School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. This commentary is part of a working paper on Food Security: A promise of Delivery current under progress. For comments please write to ap72@soas.ac.uk 2 The National Food Security Ordinance (NFSO) 2013 was signed by the president on July 05, 2013. The ordinance required approval of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha within six months of promulgation to be established as a legislative measure to secure the Right to Food for beneficiaries covered under the proposition. The ordinance was cleared by the President on grounds that, if passed in the parliament, the ordinance would provide for a window period to streamline enforcement requirements of the legislation. 3 The National Family Health Survey of India (2005-2006) indicates that 45.9% of the children in the age group of 0-3 years are underweight, 79.6% are anaemic, and the incidence of anaemia among ever married women in the age group of 15-49 years is 56.2%, 24% for similar men; and 58% for pregnant women; 33% of women and 28% of men have a Body Mass Index (BMI) below normal. 4 For a detailed discussion on the Hunger index and Indias performance vis --vis the world please refer to 2012 Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger: Ensuring Sustainable Food Security under Land, Water, and Energy Stresses; IFPRI Cf http://www.ifpri.org/ghi/2012. The data of the 2012 IFPRI estimates can be downloaded from http://www.ifpri.org/book-8018/node/8058

Published in the IFFCO Foundation Bulletin 2013

August 26, 2013 (pre-edit copy for comments) Commentary

The GHI and the NFHS data when viewed against the economic growth data trends of the country point to three distinctive governance problematic resource distribution/ allocation (economic and institutional), adaptive management, and, democratic politics (perceptions of rights and entitlements; active citizenship). Food Security and Field Logics: The right to food security is a very complex proposition considering the economic and institutional resources it commands and the expanse of the co-ordination across the supply chain it involves. The complexity of the proposition is further enhanced with the lack of welldefined entitlements and responsibilities in the NFSO, 2013. Entitlements and Responsibilities under the NFSB: The National Food Security Bill (NFSB) defines food security as food and nutritional security through an assurance of access to adequate quantity and quality of food. Beneficiaries are identified in two distinct categories of Priority households and AYY households. For each of these category of beneficiaries the Bill lays down the benefits offered. This constitutes the what of the entitlement.
Entitlements to the beneficiaries under NFSB: 1. Eligible Households are divided in two categories. A) Priority households are entitled to 5 kgs of food grains per person per month, and, B) Antyodaya Ann Yojana (AYY) households are entitled to 35 kgs per household per month. 2. The PDS issue prices in Schedule I of NFSB: Rs 3/2/1 for rice/wheat/ coarse grains subject to revision in three years. 3. Children shall be entitled to, a. 6months 6 years old: free, age-appropriate meal through the local anganwadi. For children below 6 months, exclusive breastfeeding shall be promoted. b. 6-14 years old/ upto Class VIII: one free mid-day meal shall be provided every day (except on school holidays) in all government and government aided schools. c. Children who suffer from malnutrition will be identified through the local anganwadi and meals will be provided to them free of charge through the local anganwadi. 4. Pregnant and lactating mothers are entitled to a free meal at the local anganwadi (during pregnancy and six months after child birth) as well as maternity benefits of Rs 6,000, in instalments. Other priority beneficiaries include homeless persons, destitute persons, emergency and disaster affected persons, and, persons living in starvation. (Source: NFSO, 2013)

One of the most contentious arguments under NFSB entitlement provisions has been the provision of alternative cash based food security allowance for beneficiaries covered under the scheme. The legislation outlines that such allowances shall be made available only in situations of non-fulfilment of entitled distribution of food grains/ meals. While Aadhaar (UID)5 based e-cash transfer systems have the possibility to plug leakages associated with TPDS, it exposes beneficiaries to the volatility of the food market and does not, in any which way, guarantees expenditure of these allowances on food and nutrition items by households.
5

Aadhaar (UID), as a system of biometric identification and maintenance of public records, has been not approved by the parliament yet. It currently faces debates on issues of information safety and security of citizens and impingement of civil liberties of subjects through surveillance and tracking. The legal status of the Aadhaar is questionable and its use within the NFSB is seen as illegitimate, opportunist behaviour on part of the current government to leverage UID.

Published in the IFFCO Foundation Bulletin 2013

August 26, 2013 (pre-edit copy for comments) Commentary

If the Bill receives as affirmation from the Rajya Sabha, the process of identification of beneficiaries that defines the who and how under the NFSB is one of the biggest upcoming challenges for the government. The responsibility of identification of eligible households has been left to respective state governments. While this creates space for contextualisation and adaptive implementation of the proposed scheme, one cannot deny the need for a guided process, with established protocols and verification systems. A process which ensures effective and efficient delivery to the deserving beneficiaries. Lack of clear outlined institutional process with appropriate signposted checks will leave manoeuvring spaces for corrupt malpractices. Which brings us to the question of who should be held accountable within the current delivery mechanism. The complex nature of the concept of Food Security creates difficulties in identifying the exact nature of responsibilities associated with the right to food. The primary accountability is definitely with the State, because its the State that controls and allocates economic and institutional resources associated with the legislation. Also, the State becomes the primary accountable authority for safeguarding the rights specified under the NFSB. However, in a country marred with severe vulnerabilities associated with gender, caste and class; there are serious difficulties in making the right to access to food, completely justiciable. It is in this context that the possibilities of radical change associated with NFSB becomes a function of political awareness and participation of underprivileged groups in democratic politics. Ensuring food security in such social contexts is likely to counter challenges of exclusion and intentional wrongful inclusions. This is one of the reasons why all successful programmes of public food distribution, across the world, have been those that have gone in for universal or near universal access. This reduces the transactions costs associated with implementation of such security measures and allows for better public provisioning. This is one of the reasons why states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh have been able to plug the leakages in the PDS through including a vast majority of the population under the scheme. Other measures by these states include reductions in price, computerization of systems, de-privatization of shops (from private dealers to co-ops, Gram Panchayats and Self Help Groups. Such provisioning at a national scale commands institutional and economic capacity of the State apparatus to be able to re-allocate and distribute resources upholding the principles of distributive growth and broad based economic development. Resource Distribution and Allocations: Food security has often been linked to poverty alleviation, increased per capita income and high economic output6. The logic of redistributive growth further comprehends that a sustainably progressing economy needs to re-distribute its benefits. This facilitates creation
6

Strauss and Thomas (1998) found strong positive co-relation between BMI and per capita wages in Brazil. Sumiter Broca (2002) further established that in rural Ethiopia one per cent increase in Body Mass Index [BMI] resulted into increases of farm output up to 2.3 per cent and wages 2.7 per cent (Cf. Kodan and Chhikara (2013), Food Security in India: An overview; International Journal of Social Science : 2(1) 1-10, June, 2013) .

Published in the IFFCO Foundation Bulletin 2013

August 26, 2013 (pre-edit copy for comments) Commentary

of a consumer base that has aspirational, social and economic access to goods produced by the economy as well as has the ability to contribute to/ sustain economic growth through appropriate economic output. In the past 66 years, India has failed to address the severe problem of malnutrition and rising poverty through a strong welfare security mechanism for its citizens. The Food Security Bill seeks to strike at this very heart of the problem. However, the delivery of such a legislation involves a much deeper engagement. The end to end delivery mechanism under the NFSB commands multiple stages of performance, coordination and provisioning by a robust network of organizations. This includes sustainable agricultural production supported by appropriate technologies and knowledge access support to producers; decentralised, technology equipped aggregation and procurement centres; modular, in-situ warehousing and storage solution for these decentralised satellite aggregation and procurement centres; cost-effective transport links that connect procurement centres to distributive networks - a long-term solution could mean reduced actual distance between the procurement and distribution points; and, a socially conscious distribution network that understands the value proposition of food security.

Published in the IFFCO Foundation Bulletin 2013

August 26, 2013 (pre-edit copy for comments) Commentary

Sustainable Production
Decentralised, satellite procurement centres Organised & empowered producer groups Modular in-situ storage & warehousing solutions Transparent information management systems

Appropriate Technology Input-Output linkages Robust Knowledge systems access Secure agricultural land tenure system

Aggregation and Procurement

Storage and Transportation

Socially sensitised &constantly monitored through citizen groups Technologically enabled for transparent information exchange Modular safe storage solutions at the site of distribution Educated and skilled personnel to ensure coverage of priority groups at regular intervals

High-spec weather resistant warehousing solutions Reduced distance between procurement and distribution networks Appropriate fleet of transport vehicles to link procurement and distribution points

Distribution Networks

Fig1: The NFSB supply chain commands a robust, efficient, effective supply chain network

Although the existing supply chain network under the TPDS has been often labelled as a decentralized system of procurement, 70% of rice procurement is done from Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and, Uttar Pradesh. 80% of the total wheat procurement is done from the states of Punjab, Haryana and MP alone. Other than concerns of concentrated procurement from specific regions of the country, this also imposes the angle of centralised warehousing and storage by the FCI wherein large amount of grains are brought to central storage facilities and are then transported to respective states for storage and distribution. Such systems of centralised procurement and storage automatically increases the pressure on existing infrastructures and associated costs. The NSFB could have addressed it through decentralised satellite procurement and distribution networks with modular well equipped decentralized storage solutions. Given the projected rise in stock requirements and associated costs, such systems of decentralised supply chain networks is of immense long term benefit.

Published in the IFFCO Foundation Bulletin 2013

August 26, 2013 (pre-edit copy for comments) Commentary

The impact of policy neglect of agricultural value chain over the past two decades is likely to be visible once the NSFB is rolled into action. While the pressure on production requirement of grains is likely to increase manifold in the coming years, the Bill is yet to contemplate the modus operandi to revitalize agriculture and create a decentralised system of procurement highlighted in schedule 3 of the legislation. Diversion of agricultural land for other economic activities, rising costs of inputs, inadequate delivery of agricultural research and extension services, inadequate access to institutional credit for farmers, and the ever-posing challenges of climate change are bound to make things difficult in the current scenario. One clear measure that could ease the pressures of performance from the shoulders of NFSB is to establish close relationships with other legislations/schemes/provisions that address the growing needs of the agricultural value chain. To illustrate, the recent efforts of the government to establish Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) and Producer Groups/ companies could be directly linked to procurement and distribution networks envisaged under NFSB. While the FPOs could function as unified procurement entities in specific regions / States, linking them to distribution networks within the same region and state will automatically decrease costs associated with to and fro transportation to FCI storage and warehousing facilities. Another example, could be that of linking the agricultural revitalization clauses under schedule 3 of NSFB to existing networks of agricultural training and extension services offered under various schemes of the Central Government. Such of such inter-linkages however, is dependent on three important components. i) Establishment of a central co-ordination authority that serves as implementation agency with responsibilities of facilitation of joint operations across all departments and ministries associated the Agricultural value and supply chain, ii) Diversification of food commodities covered under the NFSB for decentralized, contextual and relevant procurement and distribution networks on the basis of nutrition value and quantity of current and possible production, iii) inclusion of specific directions relating to actions required by specific line authorities to achieve the components of schedule 2 and 3 of the NFSB 2013.

The Promise of Delivery: It is not difficult to comprehend the complexity of the National Food Security Bill. With varying entitlements, costs and coverage envisaged and challenges of institutional reforms within existing practices, the NSFB has extra-ordinary amounts of work cut-out for the following governments. To illustrate, PDS with a network of 4.89 Lakh FPS is perhaps the largest retail system of its type in the world. However, the PDS has virtually collapsed in several states in India due to weak governance and lack of accountability. In north India, about half of the grain meant for distribution to poor households through the PDS seems to end up in the black market, rising to 80 per cent in Bihar and Jharkhand (Ghosh, 2010). Endemic corruption, errors in inclusion, inefficient handling of agricultural stocks, and poor monitoring mechanisms are

Published in the IFFCO Foundation Bulletin 2013

August 26, 2013 (pre-edit copy for comments) Commentary

some of the reasons for such an appalling condition of the PDS. The NFSB proposes inclusion of the PDS infrastructure within its operation. Effective delivery of NSFB mandates would require complete overhauling of existing institutions like the PDS. The proposal for modernisation and computerisation of PDS by the States, is likely to induce some amounts of transparency in the system. In most cases, PDS within the NSFB involves an investment of 50% of the associated costs by State Governments, with an exception of North East states and Jammu and Kashmir (where the Central government shall bear 90% of the costs). With little or no provisions in the State budgets to accommodate such costs the extent of costs associated with the implementation of the NSFB is grossly underestimated. The stated expenditure of Rs 1, 24,827 crores annually is merely the tip of the iceberg. Enhancement of production, warehousing and transport systems, market infrastructure, and, delivery mechanisms will require unaccounted additional expenditures. This unaccounted expenditures are yet to be listed by respective state governments on the basis of target beneficiary numbers advised under the NSFB. The estimate of food subsidy, post implementation onset of NFSB will depend on associated economic costs, number of beneficiaries covered annually, central issue price of food grains, and the quantities of food grains allocated. This is likely to gallop given the yearly projections of food grain requirement in the coming years. The need to keep raising the Minimum Support Price (MSP) to cover the rising costs of production and to incentivise farmers to keep producing is further going to add to the expected costs of the NFSB. These issues raise serious doubts on the sustainability of the legislation and governance obligations involved in the coming years. Having said that, the National Food Security Bill (NSFB 2013) does hold a promise of an India that can guarantee access to food for 63.5% of its population. While the regulation intends to open pathways to a hunger free India, the entitlements for the deserving require an efficient delivery mechanism and an articulate civil society that understands its democratic responsibilities of engagement and rights. The logic of re-distributive growth through the NSFB promises larger gains both on economic and social principles. The challenge is for us to be able to maximise the prospects.

References National Food Security Bill, 2013. http://www.nac.nic.in/foodsecurity/explanatory_note.pdf Sharma, V P (2012), Food Subsidy in India: Trends, Causes and Policy Reform Options, Working Paper WP2012-08-02, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, August 2012. Jayati Ghosh (2010), The Political Economy of Hunger in 21st Century India; Economic & Political Weekly, October 30, 2010; Vol. xlv no 44. NRAA 2011: Challenges of Food Security and its Management 2011, National Rainfed Area Authority, NASC Complex, DPS Marg, New Delhi, 110012, India

Published in the IFFCO Foundation Bulletin 2013