“Food
security refers to a situation that exists when all people at all times
have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and
nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for
an active and healthy life,” says an FAO report ‘State of Food
Insecurity in the World, 2001’.
It
is now well recognized that the availability of food grains is
necessary but not a sufficient condition to ensure food security to the
poor. It is also necessary that the poor have sufficient means to
purchase food. The capacity of the poor to purchase food can be ensured
in two ways – by raising the incomes or supplying food grains at
subsidized prices. While employment generation programs attempt the
first solution, the PDS is the mechanism for the second option.
There
are several ways in which food security can be improved. The strategies
constitute several policies. India's strategies in this regard comprise
economic growth, direct anti-poverty programs, which include
wage-employed and self-employed targeted programs, public distribution
system (PDS) nutrition-based programs and provision of health
facilities.
India
has a large program of public food distribution, mainly food grains,
through a network of Fair Price Shops (FPS), both in rural and urban
areas. The program has evolved with the twin objective of providing
incentive prices to the farmer for a sustained supply of food grain and
subsidizing its consumption. Until the seventies the focus of food
distribution program was urban and the food deficit areas. The welfare
focus of the program assumed importance during the eighties and coverage
extended in rural areas, first in the south Indian states and later all
over India. However, due to the mounting costs of subsidy, targeting
was more focused during the nineties, first, with the revamped public
distribution system in 1997. The program covered poor households as the
target group, generally, and tribal and drought prone areas,
universally.
The
Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) was introduced in June,
1997. It envisaged that the Below Poverty Line (BPL) population would be
identified in every State and every BPL family would be entitled to a
certain quantity of food grains at specially subsidized prices. While
BPL population were offered food grains at half the economic cost, the
APL, who were not to have a fixed entitlement to food grains, were
supplied grains at their economic cost. Thus, TPDS intends to target the
subsidized provision of food grains to ‘poor in all areas’ unlike RPDS,
which laid stress on ‘all in poor areas’.
Issues with Public Distribution System
1.
The most important issue related to the TPDS is identification and
definition of poor. The poverty estimates of various institutions and
organization differ remarkably. A slight change in the identification
criteria of the poverty line can have huge implication on a large number
of families. According to the critics the definition of poor in India
has severe limitations and the official numbers are abhorrently
underestimated by the government agencies under the pressure of
ballooning food subsidies.
2.
The second issue after identification and definition of poor is that of
proper targeting. In many states the cases of fraudulent BPL ration
cards are rampant. As a result the “genuine poor” are unable to get
benefits of this system. Several empirical studies, based on PDS
purchases, have shown that the poor were not benefiting much from the
PDS. In a study on the effectiveness of the PDS in reaching the poor,
Parikh (1994) says that 'the cost effectiveness of reaching the poorest
20 per cent households through PDS cereals is very small'. For every
rupee spent, less than 22 paisa reach the poor in most states
3. The large scale diversion and black marketing of PDS food grain is also a pertinent issue that this system is facing.
4.
The quality of the food grain supplied through the PDS is also inferior
in quality and low in nutritional value. Thus even in a very few
pockets where the leakages are absent the malnutrition among the
vulnerable section of society is not arrested.
5.
In the PDS large quantities of grains are procured from one part of the
country to the other, stored in warehouses and moved to other parts.
There are high storage and transportation losses. Also the existing
centralized system is a major hurdle in ensuring availability in various
remote pockets.
6.
The availability of cheap rice and wheat at PDS outlets has dissuaded
many a rural households from trying food that is grown locally out of
the environmental and socio-economic condition in a given area.
Measures for strengthening the Public Distribution System
1.
The proportion of population with food insecurity should be identified
with Planning Commission’s poverty ratio. The Planning Commission should
make appropriate adjustments in the method of BPL identification that
would enable the States to limit the size of the target group in the
neighborhood of its own estimates of people with food insecurity
2.
Families, who do not have a secure source of regular income, should be
included in the BPL list, irrespective of their income. This would
benefit a large majority of the poor, particularly, those with economic
insecurity. The Planning Commission in its study conducted between 2002
to 2005 found that many daily-wage earning families have been left out
of BPL category because their current income levels were above the
Planning Commission’s Poverty Line.
3.
Since the BPL identification survey is critical to the success of TPDS,
it is appropriate that this be carried out with the assistance of
reputed agencies such as the NSSO and State level research /survey
institutions. The database should be then computerized for effective
monitoring and regular updating.
4.
A major cause of diversion of food grain is non-availability of food
grains, as per allocation, at FCI based depots or State Agency's
distribution centers. Hence, in FCI based depot (which is generally
present in each district) six months' stock, as per allotment, should
remain. At present, it has been instructed that stocks for three months
should be kept, but in many districts three months' stocks are not
present. If there is sufficient availability of stocks, on one hand food
grain will be made available, as per allotment, and on the other hand,
diversion will be checked and food security will be strengthened.
5.
The involvement of local bodies in overseeing the functioning of PDS
is, generally, nominal/non-existent in most states. A committee should
be formed among members of each Municipality/Gram Panchayat, which
should be responsible for effective functioning of Fair Price Shops.
6.
Composition of food grains offered, through PDS, in different States
should give due weight ages to local preferences, in terms of cereals
and their varieties, wherever feasible. Various studies have revealed
that variations in such preferences, significantly, affected their
decision to buy food grains from the PDS.
7.
A large majority of the BPL cardholders do not lift or lift only part
of the ration quota during the harvest and sowing seasons in rural
areas, as many of them receive wage payment in kind and also because
market prices during harvest season are low. This seasonal pattern
varies across states. Thus, it is necessary to accommodate such lifting
pattern into the delivery schedule of PDS to minimize leakage and
diversion.
Two
major reasons for diversion of food grains are, (a) the PDS outlets are
run by individuals and, (b) they are unviable. Regarding (a), it is
proposed that the retail PDS outlets be handed over to cooperatives or
institutions like Mahila Nagrik Banks, Regional Rural Banks, etc. These
organizations will not be solely dependent on PDS for their existence,
as is the case with individuals and even in many cases ‘Self Help
Groups’ and ‘Consumer Federations’. Such organizations would be able to
cross-subsidize the PDS operations through other profitable operations