Securing food security: Financial Express 22nd December 2011

In a country like India, the state of human deprivation is high. The level of poverty, depending on which side of the fence one is sitting, ranges from 25-45% based on different yardsticks used. We operate in a market system where the private sector, driven, as it were, by the profit factor, has enough room to work for self-fulfilment. The government, on the other hand, by its very nature, has to balance contradictions in society and hence has an obligation to providing the poor with a minimum sense of existence. Based on this thought, the Food Security Bill should be welcomed as it aims at providing food to the poor. The why of this cannot be questioned provided the delivery is as per the objectives laid down. What are the issues involved in the successful implementation of such a Bill?

First, the Bill looks at providing foodgrains, which include rice, wheat and coarse cereals. But this is not comprehensive as people cannot really live only on cereals without having access to other food components like, say, edible oil, fuel, etc, which are outside the purview. Therefore, some thought should have also gone into making the package self-sufficient rather than leaving it open. The poor should move beyond survival.

Second, identification of the targeted people is important. There is already some controversy regarding the people covered under MGNREGA. Will it be a case that the incorrect set of people gets targeted in this scheme? We need to have the targeted groups identified quite correctly through systems to ensure that there is no adverse selection. The UIDAI can be a solution but would take time to be put in place.

Third, we need to look at our own ability to deliver the quantity of foodgrains that we are talking of. Today, the FCI procures around 55 million tonnes of foodgrains, which will have to increase to enable the successful implementation of the programme. Currently, the procurement is restricted to specific states such as UP, Punjab, Haryana, Orissa, Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, etc. We need to have strong machinery for widening this coverage so that not only do farmers across the country benefit from procurement but also delivery becomes easier. The disconnect between procurement and PDS creates inefficiencies that need to be plugged.

Fourth, the basic productivity levels have to increase to ensure that we are able to provide these foodgrains to a growing population. As the coverage ratio is going to increase, we need to have substantial investments in farming, which has to come mainly from the government. Therefore, we need to have the right allocations in place and address issues of productivity, cropping pattern, irrigation, use of fertilisers, etc. The government’s budgetary numbers should hence be viewed beyond plain vanilla subsidy numbers as the pressure on the allocation side will increase. We must also realise that while additional procuring through increased MSPs has worked in the past, it has been at the cost of cropping patterns, with farmers moving away from pulses and oilseeds, where there is a perennial shortage.

Fifth, we need to improve our agriculture infrastructure post harvest from the farm gate to the consumer, which is constrained by limited warehousing and transport facilities. To ensure free movement, we also need to improve the sale laws involving APMCs, which means revisiting agro reforms.

Sixth, and most important, is the delivery mechanism. The government machinery is considered to be sub-optimal when it comes to delivery of PDS and various modalities have been argued. A way out is to actually privatise the distribution system to bring in efficiency, which can be achieved through selective outsourcing. This can be experimented with at the stage of procurement too in non-FCI states so that the entire system works in harmony.

Hence, it does appear that administration of food security is a challenge beyond budgetary numbers, which seems to have caught everyone’s attention. Ideally, one needs to have all the agro reforms in place before embarking on such an exercise or else the scheme will be a non-starter or a simple failure. On the positive side, this issue should inspire us to get our act together, because successful implementation of the Food Security Act would necessarily bring about far reaching changes in the way in which farming is done. The PDS system will also get reformed.

Now, practically speaking, given that we have an impasse relating to any reform in this sector, whether it is FDI or APMC laws or contract farming, it will be quite ambitious to really think that this can be done in a couple of years’ time despite the political expediency here. A more prudent approach will be to actually implement this scheme through pilot projects in specific states and communities that are really in need of such support or else we run the risk of only making allocations without creating value, which will be self-defeating.

The message clearly is that we definitely need food security and the amount involved cannot be the reason for not doing it. We should seize this opportunity and create structures that can transform the lives of the poor. MGNREGA was a good beginning, albeit without much focus, and we should ensure that this works, because it can if we want it to.