[Reader-list] RTF (Right to Food) Articles - 16

[Rakesh Iyer]

Source: The Hindu Business Line

Date: Friday, Sep 12, 2008

Link:
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/09/12/stories/2008091250220900.htm

Article:

*Food security for thought *
------------------------------
*

The goal of ‘food for all’ is proving more elusive than ever in the face of
rising prices and falling production.


*

*Devendra Mishra
Subhash Sharma *

 Way back in 1946 at Noakhali, Mahatma Gandhi had perceptively remarked: “To
the hungry, God is bread.” Right to food is a basic birthright for all and
is an integral part of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1948). However, in the last 10 years, the goal of ‘food for all’ seems
farther away than ever for the developing world, including India.

In the last three years, food prices worldwide have risen 83 per cent,
raising fears of increased malnutrition, hunger and political instability.
In much of the developing world, where 60-80 per cent of a family’s income
is spent on food, every 20 per cent increase in food prices pushes 100
million more people into the ranks of the poorest of the poor — those who
live on less than $1 a day.

According to Prof M. S. Swaminathan (2008), “Sustainable food security
involves physical, economic and social access to a balanced diet and clean
drinking water for every child, woman and man in the country.”
 Farmers in need

In India, a small/marginal farmer is forced to sell a part of his food
production, even when it is insufficient to meet his family’s yearly needs,
to be able to pay for necessities such as utensils, clothes, health,
education and so on. Thus, there exists a ‘compulsive involvement’, to use
Krishna Bhardwaj’s terms (1974), in the market.

Second, the farmer also grows cash crops, which are more remunerative than
food-grains. Third, during sowing they have to pay the labourers wages in
cash. Fourth, most farmers also have to meet expenses for social obligations
such as festivals, debt payment, and so on.

To encourage farmers to produce more the Government provides subsidies on
fertilisers and irrigation (electricity charges), crop loans, and so on. In
addition, it fixes the minimum support price (MSP) for various foodgrains,
pulses, oilseeds and cash crops.

 One may adjudge the country’s performance on foodgrains in three ways:
compare India’s average yield per hectare with the world average yield per
hectare; India’s percentage share in world production; and compare India’s
per capita annual average availability of foodgrains with the global figure.
India lags far behind the world average yield .

Second, for wheat India shares 11.1 per cent of total world production and
ranks third; for rice it shares 21.6 per cent of world production and ranks
second; but for maize it shares just 1.7 per cent of world production and
ranks seventh (with Romania).

This is not satisfactory in view of its large population, which constitutes
about 17 per cent of world population. Third, in terms of per capita
availability, India has only 176.3 kg of foodgrains a year (an average for
1999-2001) against the world average of 358.4 kg a year, though the minimum
requirement in India according to the National Institute of Nutrition
(Hyderabad) is 182.5 kg per head a year (that is, about half a kg daily).
 Availability at local level

However, irrespective of the availability at the national level, unless
foodgrains are available at the local village/panchayat store, the local
market, the public distribution system outlet or the cooperative store, the
farmers and labourers will not have physical access to it.

The third important aspect of food security is at the household level. It is
a bitter fact that though India had 30 per cent of its grain production in
public stock (over 60 million tonnes) in 2000, about 25 per cent of Indians
were undernourished and food insecure. As the MSP is not adequate — nor are
the purchase centres — farmers are compelled to sell paddy to local traders
or ‘net buyers’ of villages. Therefore, as far as economic accessibility is
concerned, people living below the poverty line (26 per cent) cannot afford
to buy food.

The fourth aspect of food security is the consumption pattern for wellbeing
at the intra-household level — there is often a visible discrimination
against females, children, elderly, disabled, widows, wife and children of
non-earning males and so on either due to scarcity of food in the family or
discriminatory social practices or individual biases of the head of the
family.

Finally, food absorption is another aspect of food security at the
individual level. As some family members often do not get nutritious food in
terms of required calories, there is an increase in the number of
underweight children, children with stunted growth, diseases due to
malnourishment, and infirmity leading to early mortality.
 What is to be done?

A popular view has emerged, mostly in developing countries, that diversion
of agricultural land for biofuel (ethanol) production should be reversed
immediately, as it has led to 30 per cent increase in global food prices,
pushing 30 million people worldwide into poverty. The solution however is
not that straightforward.

We must ensure that the basic needs of all people are met in an integrated
manner, and not merely as a risk management or relief measure. Development
programmes/schemes like the National Rural Employment Guarantee, midday
meals, ICDS, sanitation and hygiene should ensure supply of nutritious food
and safe drinking water through entitlement card to promote inclusive social
development.

Second, implementation should be decentralised through panchayats. Third, as
adequate foodgrains are always available in government godowns, and given
the increasing costs of storage, minimum foodgrains should be supplied even
to the so-called ‘Above Poverty Line’ (APL) families; this would also prove
more remunerative for PDS dealers as they will lift more quantities.

Fourth, there should be greater public investment in agriculture as nearly
two-thirds of Indians are engaged in it. This must ensure bringing wasteland
under cultivation as well as increasing yield per acre — production and
productivity.

Various case studies have clearly found that public investment in
infrastructure induces private investment in various agricultural
activities.

Fifth, while agriculture subsidies (fertilisers) should continue, it should
be shifted from chemical fertilisers to green and bio-fertilisers, from
chemical pesticide/insecticide/weedicide to integrated pest management, from
GM seeds to improved indigenous seeds, from flood irrigation to drip
irrigation.

Traditional indigenous knowledge systems should be fully tapped. Thus a
paradigm shift from green revolution to ‘Evergreen Revolution’, to use Prof
M. S. Swaminathan’s term, is called for.

 (The authors are members of Indian Revenue Service and Indian
Administrative Service respectively. The views are personal.
blfeedback at thehindu.co.in)