Food Security and Food Production : Institutional Challenges in Governance Domain [1 ed.] 9781443881579, 9781443878203

Citation preview

Food Security and Food Production

Food Security and Food Production: Institutional Challenges in Governance Domain Edited by

C. Sheela Reddy

Food Security and Food Production: Institutional Challenges in Governance Domain Edited by C. Sheela Reddy This book first published 2015 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2015 by C. Sheela Reddy and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-7820-0 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-7820-3

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements .................................................................................... vii Authors of the papers.................................................................................. ix List of Abbreviations................................................................................... xi Commentary ............................................................................................... xv Brief about the Papers ............................................................................... xix Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 C. Sheela Reddy Chapter One ............................................................................................... 11 Knowing and Administering Food: How do we Explain Persistence? Rajeswari S. Raina Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 45 Food Security: India from a Global Perspective Swati Narayan Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 69 Millets in Defence of India’s Food Security P. V. Satheesh Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 83 Food Security or Food Sovereignty: The Required Need of the Era S. C. Roy Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 93 Biodiversity, Biopiracy and Food Security Bhargavi S. Rao

vi

Contents

Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 105 Food Security in the Era of Climate Change: Need for a Paradigm Shift in Agriculture Neha Saigal Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 113 National Food Security Act: Implementation Challenges Dipa Sinha Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 121 Food Security through Good Governance from the Indian Public Policy Context Sunkari Satyam Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 133 The Indian Concept of Food Security: A Social Policy Intervention Approach in Policy Making Ajitesh Chatterjee Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 143 Food Security and Food Production: Planning and Governance Frameworks Pooja Singh and Vinay Lohia Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 155 Climate Change and Food Security: Challenges and Prospects Shyamli Singh Chapter Twelve ....................................................................................... 167 Social Dynamics and Determinants of Food and Nutrition Security: Empirical Research Evidences in Uttar Pradesh Archana Sinha Chapter Thirteen ...................................................................................... 183 Agroecology: An Ecological Approach to Food Production Jayakumar C. Chapter Fourteen ..................................................................................... 195 The Food Security Bill: Giving Priority to Farmers and Farming D. Narasimha Reddy

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The present volume is the product of a two-day national seminar on Food Security and Food Production—Institutional Challenges in the Governance Domain, organised by the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), New Delhi, during October 31 to November 1, 2013. I would like to acknowledge the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), New Delhi, for the generous financial assistance to the seminar. My sincere gratitude goes to Padma Vibhushan Shri. T. N.Chaturvedi, Chairman, IIPA, and Dr Tishyarakshit Chatterjee, Director, IIPA and Former Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests for their guidance and encouragement during the seminar. I am thankful to the staff of the Research and Coordination unit and the administration of IIPA for their cooperation in the smooth conduct of the seminar, which led to the compilation of this volume. I am grateful to Dr D. Narasimha Reddy, Member, Consultative Committee, Cotton Advisory Board and Director of the Pesticide Action Network of India for his unstinting support and valuable input in organising the seminar. Thanks are also due to my colleague at IIPA, Dr Shyamli Singh, for her moral support during the entire course of the seminar. Their contributions have added intellectual value to the volume. I am indebted to all the scholars who have been kind enough to rework their papers for this volume. I extend my thanks to all those scholars who actively participated in the deliberations of the seminar. My thanks are due to the discussants and chairpersons in the various sessions of the seminar and for being part of my endeavour. I also thank Harsh Mander, formerly IAS and currently Director, Centre for Equity Studies, New Delhi, and social worker, for a special session on Debates on Food Security in the seminar, which comprehensively covered all aspects of food security and set the discussion on food security in the right perspective. I am grateful to Cambridge Scholars Publishing, United Kingdom, for patiently waiting for the volume to take shape.

viii

Acknowledgements

I thank all my friends, well-wishers and family who inspired and motivated me to document and edit the selected papers of the seminar for further dissemination. Last but not least, I am thankful to B. Haridasan, typist at IIPA, for assisting me with the typing of the manuscript.

CONTRIBUTORS

Rajeswari S. Raina

Scientist, National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies (NISTADS - CSIR), New Delhi.

Swati Narayan

Independent Education and Food Policy Specialist. Currently with the Right to Food Campaign.

P. V. Satheesh

Director of the Deccan Development Society (DDS) Hyderabad, and National Convenor of the Millet Network of India.

Dr S. C. Roy

Associate Professor at the Chanakya National law University, Patna.

Bhargavi S. Rao

Environment Support Group, Bengaluru, Karnataka.

Neha Saigal

Greenpeace India, Bengaluru, Karnataka.

Dipa Sinha

Right to Food Campaign.

Dr Sunkari Satyam

Assistant professor at the Council for Social Development, Hyderabad .

Ajitesh Chatterjee

Urban Planner, Mumbai.

Pooja Singh* and Vinay Lohia**

*Assistant Professor at the IIMT & School of law, GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi; **B.A. LL.B 4th Year, IIMT & School of Law, GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi.

x

Contributors

Dr Shyamli Singh

Assistant Professor of Environment Management & Climate Change, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi.

Dr Archana Sinha

Fellow and Head at the Department of Rural and Urban Studies, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi.

Jayakumar C.

CEO of the Pesticide Action Network India.

Dr D. Narasimha Reddy

Member of the Consultative Committee, Cotton Advisory Board, and Director of the Pesticide Action Network of India.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AAY

:

Antyodaya Anna Yojana

APL

:

Above Poverty Line

AWC

:

AnganWadi Centre

BC

:

Backward Caste

BJP

:

Bharatiya Janata Party

BP

:

Blood Pressure

BPL

:

Below Poverty Line

BRAI CACP

: :

Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Commission for Agriculture Cost and Prices

CAG

:

Comptroller and Auditor General

CAP

:

Cover and Plinth

CBD

:

Convention on Biological Diversity

CCD

:

Colony Collapse Disorder

CIA CIPHET

: :

Chemical Intensive Agriculture Central Institute of Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology

CO2

:

Carbon dioxide

CPI

:

Communist Party of India

DDS

:

Deccan Development Society

DDT

:

DichloroDiphenylTrichloroethane

DoAC

:

Department of Agriculture and Cooperation

DORB

:

De-Oiled Rice Bran

EPA

:

Environmental Protection Agency

ESG

:

Environment Support Group

List of Abbreviations

xii

ETC

:

Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration

FCI

:

Food Corporation of India

FDA

:

Functional Data Analysis

FDI

:

Foreign Direct Investments

FICCI

:

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry

FSA

:

Food Security Act

GDP

:

Gross Domestic Product

GFSI

:

Global Food Security Index

GHI

:

Global Hunger Index

GM

:

Genetically Modified

GMC

:

Genetically Modified Crops

HT

:

Herbicide Tolerance

HYV

:

High Yielding Varieties

IAASTD

:

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development

IARI

:

Indian Agricultural Research Institute

ICAR

:

Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR),

ICDS

:

Integrated Child Development Services

IFOAM

:

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements

IFPRI

:

International Food Policy Research Institute

INCRA

:

National Institute of Colonisation and Agrarian Reform

INSIMP

:

Initiative for Nutritional Security through Intensive Millets Promotion

IPCC

:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISHI

:

India State Hunger Index

IUCN

:

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

Food Security and Food Production

KBB

:

Karnataka Biodiversity Board

KBBE

:

Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy

LANSA

:

Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in South Asia

LEISA

:

Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture

MDG

:

Millennium Development Goals

MDM

:

Mid-Day Meals

MGNREGA

:

Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Act

MINI

:

Millet Network of India

MoEF

:

Ministry of Environment and Forests

MSP

:

Minimum Support Price

MSSRF

:

MS Swaminathan Research Foundation

MT

:

Million Tons

NAMAs

:

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions

NAP

:

National Agriculture Policy

NAPAs

:

National Adaptation Plans of Action

NBA

:

National Biodiversity Authority

NDC

:

National Development Council

NFHS

:

National Family Health Survey

NFSM

:

National Food Security Mission

NHRM

:

National Rural Health Mission

N-P-K

:

Nitrogen, Phosphate and Potash

NSFB

:

National Food Security Bill

NSS

:

National Sample Survey

NTC

:

Normally Traded Commodities

PDS

:

Public Distribution System

PUCL

:

People's Union for Civil Liberties

R&D

:

Research and development

xiii

List of Abbreviations

xiv

RBI

:

Reserve Bank of India

RPF

:

Relative Price of Food

S&T

:

Science & Technology

SC

:

Scheduled Caste

SECC

:

Socio-Economic Caste Census

SHGs

:

Self Help Groups

SRI

:

Systems of Rice Intensification

ST

:

Scheduled Tribe

TNC

:

Trans National Corporation

TPDS

:

Targeted Public Distribution System

UAS

:

University of Agricultural Sciences

UC

:

Upper Caste

UK

:

United Kingdom

UNCTAD

:

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

UNEP

:

United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCC

:

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

UP UPA

: :

Uttar Pradesh United Progressive Alliance

UPDS

:

Universal Public Distribution System

USD

:

US Dollars

UV

:

Ultraviolet

WFP

:

World Food Programme

WHO

:

World Health Organization

A COMMENTARY

Putting together this discussion on food security has been a learning experience. In recent times, food security has been a hot topic in India and discussed intensively. Human beings, unlike non-human life, were for centuries concerned with food security, building agriculture and agricultural societies from a foraging and food-collecting life. In earlier times, human societies were concerned about production, and after so many years we are still talking about food security. Now, it is more about quantity and distribution, and food security is seen as more of a management issue, while also being projected as a productivity issue. There are many other dimensions to this problem, which have been untouched, under debated and less understood. The participants in the Food Security and Food Production—Institutional Challenges in the Governance Domain seminar presented and shared their perspectives, ideas and opinions, testing and contextualizing them. However, in my view it was also about getting down to the issue of governance. Has the governance of our societies failed to ensure food security, after so many years of emancipation? What role has governance played in undermining the food security of traditional agricultural societies? Did governance as a system have a role in pushing agrarian societies into industrial societies, and the world into a food-insecure era? With the Indian polity seizing the issue of food security, especially before, during and after the enactment of the Food Security Bill, governance becomes either an enabling factor or a stumbling block. In an era of globalization and the free trade of goods between countries (notional though it might be), the role of governance becomes crucial. Governance seems to have been the least discussed factor in the whole debate on food security. Of course, governance cannot be discussed in isolation. The World Food Summit defines food security as the condition when: “all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” The summit goes on to say that: “the four pillars of food security are availability, access, utilization and

A Commentary

xvi

stability. The nutritional dimension is integral to the concept of food security.” The four pillars can be explained as: x

Availability—Food of an adequate quality/nutritional value is physically available to people.

x

Access—Individuals can afford to purchase nutritious food supplies.

x

Utilization—People have the ability to access an adequate diet along with clean water, adequate sanitation and other non-food inputs to food security.

x

Stability—The assurance that people will have access to food at all times, including during crises.

India’s major concern is that more than a billion people have to be fed, producing sufficient, quality food. Increasingly, scientists are seeing the environment as perhaps the missing, underpinning fifth pillar. However, an important cross-cutting factor determining food security—the foundation of the country’s food system—is often overlooked. While the above four pillars certainly provide a useful framework for understanding food security, there is also a vital governance dimension of food security that underlies these pillars. This can be termed the “institutional foundation” of food security. Undermining the institutional foundation of the food system creates a strain on food security in two ways. Firstly, the basic systemic conditions needed to produce food are challenged (e.g. capacity building, policies, schemes and projects). Secondly, the problem of producing side effects that are not sustainable cannot be ruled out (e.g. subsidies and debts). The institutional challenges in ensuring food security have been underexplored. As food security is dependent on its ecological foundation, competition for water, land, human and financial resources and the suitability of the existing institutional system in ensuring food security need the attention of policy makers and planners. Institutions, through policies, schemes and programmes, need to address the following issues that impinge on the ecological foundation of food security: x

competition for water

x

competition for land

x

conventional agricultural practices

Food Security and Food Production

x

traditional agricultural practices

x

deforestation and pesticide contamination

x

climate change.

xvii

While there is a lot of discussion on entitlements and rights in relation to food security, there is lesser attention to the public institutions that are likely to play critical roles in ensuring food security. The discussion in the seminar centred on the following sub themes. (1) Food related policies and institutions—The issue of food security is comprehensive in nature and has to be viewed in the context of policies and institutions related to land, water, agriculture and environment. The policies/factors that impact food security need discussion and deliberation. (2) Biodiversity strategy—Food security has a number of dimensions that extend beyond the production, availability and demand for food. It exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for active and healthy lives, and for which a good biodiversity strategy is crucial. (3) Planning and governance frameworks—Food security has three components: availability, access and absorption (nutrition). The performance, challenges and policies in food security in terms of availability, access and absorption need proper planning and governance frameworks. The lively and democratic debate in the seminar has brought out various perspectives and necessary work around food security, identifying the gaps, issues and challenges before governance systems that are tasked with the goal of achieving food security for the majority, if not universally. This edited volume provides theoretical and practical intellectual insights on the issues outlined. It is a worthy contribution to the academic body of knowledge and a useful anthology to the scholars, researchers and students of policy science, politics, public administration, rural development, economics, development studies and regional studies. C. Sheela Reddy

BRIEF ABOUT PAPERS

Rajeswari Raina states that: If food security is 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 … then food crisis is when access to food is hindered due to changes in any of these factors or causal relationships.

The big question is—does the National Food Security Act respond to such hindrances? She goes on to say that: There are is a need for rigorous analysis of the institutions and concepts that inform different paradigms of food security, demonstrating flawed problem statements and delusionary readings of causal relationships, and explaining scientifically, socially and ecologically, the evidence from alternatives.

For the past few decades, production of food has been equated with food security, as if more production alone would ensure food production. Raina emphasizes the need for a willingness to step out of the current policy framework to identify and modify or reform the institutions or rules that distort or disrupt the “secure bridges between agriculture, health and the environment.” She concludes: “There are several options to initiate institutional reforms; new institutions and rules framing a new national food, agriculture and nutrition policy.” Swati Narayan touches upon the emotional slogan of food justice, questioning the frameworks that ignore the rights of many sections of people to food. She says that the crucial food distribution priorities are universal access, child nutrition and gender empowerment, and social inclusion. The food production/resilience priorities could be increasing agroecological sustainability, agricultural production, reducing wastage and climate-proof agriculture. Referring to “rights resurgence,” she shares that a global movement for food justice merges the priorities of food distribution and food production.

xx

Brief About Papers

P. V. Sateesh argues that the major reason for India’s acute hunger and malnutrition can be attributed to the systematic marginalisation of millet in the Indian food and farming systems. He highlights the importance of millet in encompassing social, health and ecological environments in achieving food sovereignty and addressing food security. He pleads for a change in the discourse on agricultural productivity from “how much does an acre of land produce to how much nutrition is an acre of land is producing.” Alluding to this kind of discussion, S. C. Roy analyzes food security versus food sovereignty. He points out that food security is a short-term policy, but food sovereignty is long-term. He wants India to follow the sui-generis policy of food sovereignty. Bhargavi Rao raises concerns about the loss of biodiversity, which is threatening food security. She feels that it is imperative to realize the connection between loss of biodiversity, biopiracy and food security. Preserving our commons and protecting our biodiversity from biopiracy constitute the need of the hour for food security. A wide range of crop genetic resources is very crucial for future food security. Loss of agricultural biodiversity increases the risk of relying on a limited number of staple food crops. Neha Saigal expresses concern for the impact of climate change on food production. She says that in the wake of depleting natural resources and impending climate change, Indian institutions have to shed the businessas-usual approach while promoting agricultural models. She underlines the fact that increasing biodiversity can be a key strategy. Agriculture needs a winning solution that mitigates the negative impacts of climate change and also makes food security and sustainable livelihoods productive and achievable. Dipa Sinha is disappointed with the content of the National Food Security Act, even while agreeing that it has the potential to “address acute hunger and improve the PDS, particularly in states where it has not been doing well.” The act takes us forward as far as the PDS and maternity entitlements are concerned, but is miles away with regard to adequately addressing all aspects of food security, such as ensuring sufficient production, protecting farmers’ livelihoods, meeting nutritional requirements and reaching out to the most vulnerable sections such as the urban homeless, migrants, the aged and the disabled.

Food Security and Food Production

xxi

Sunkari Satyam is of the opinion that the current policy processes underestimate the value of policy frameworks. He wants governance reforms to be integrated with minimum support prices, buffer stocks, a public distribution system, and a consumption pattern of food grains (especially rice and wheat), which should properly institutionalize cereals and non-cereal food for proper availability. In a multi-cultural society with socio-economic inequalities like India, any policy needs appropriate governance instruments to meet the needy or reach the society targeted. Policy making and good governance are significant governmental tools that have to be given priority. Ajitesh Chatterjee brings out an argument for a social policy intervention approach. As per his conclusion, Indian programmes and policies have problems in implementation and monitoring. Pooja Singh and Vinay Lohiya maintain that inefficient warehousing is a major problem, expressing the need for policies that stimulate more private investment in the agricultural sector through incentives, tax concessions or other supplementary benefits. Shyamli Singh elaborates on the link between climate change and food production, even while looking forward to administrative and policy measures that strengthen the resilience of farmers and rural people to help them adapt to the impact of climate change. She discusses the challenges with respect to climate change and presents evidence-based actions and necessary interventions to achieving food security. Archana Sinha looks at the empirical evidence on the social dynamics and determinants of food and nutritional security. Based on this evidence, she concludes that the overall performance of food and nutrition security programmes would improve at the macro as well as micro levels, if they are demand-driven. She adds that specific initiatives are needed to increase the scale of the programmes to reduce food insecurity, malnutrition and poverty. Jayakumar C. forcefully argues for food quality as an inherent concern of food security, stating that: “Agricultural production issues cannot be considered separately from environmental issues.” Jayakumar wants food security policies that take a new, technological and developmental agroecological approach to provide for the agricultural needs of the present and future generations without depleting our natural resource base. Given that there is an increasing global realization of the limits of

xxii

Brief About Papers

chemical-based agriculture,Jayakumar observes the need for farming that does not harm the planet and its people. D. Narasimha Reddy highlights that: “All hunger programmes have inefficiencies, leakages and corruption, undermining their effectiveness,” bringing the discussion into the spheres of policy and administration. Systems of production and distribution have not been focused upon, even while the National Food Security Act provides a framework for addressing the problems of all kinds of nutrition, including hunger. D. Narasimha Reddy raises some interesting questions and concerns with regard to the National Food Security Act. He also lists possible threats to the act in the future.

INTRODUCTION C. SHEELA REDDY

The world produces enough food for everyone, but not everyone has enough food. Food security for all is a basic need and fundamental necessity, and ensuring it is the primary responsibility of a government. The National Food Security Act (NFSA) 2013, hailed as groundbreaking and game changing, is considered a conscious policy and long overdue social welfare measure. Various developing countries have launched successful food security programmes, such as Brazil’s Zero Hunger programme and Mexico’s Progresa Oportunidades. Drawing inspiration from the Brazilian programme, Egypt also launched a US $2 billion programme for a food-insecure population. With NFSA, India is also one of those few countries of the world giving food security to their people. The landmark legislation legally binds the Indian government to the provision of very cheap grain for two-thirds of households, school meals to all children in government schools, universal infant feeding and nearuniversal maternity entitlements. However, the passage of food security law in 2013 became a moment of intense national debate both inside and outside Parliament, including the principal question of whether the state should provide food as a component of its duties for social protection at all. Public opinion in India still remains deeply divided about the merits of this law. A Commission for Agriculture Cost and Prices (CACP) study showed that in its first year the food security law will cost the exchequer Rs 2.41 lakh crores—two and half times the budgetary allocation. Some dismiss this cost as inconsequential. However, it is argued that money alone cannot be a deciding factor when the welfare of the people from the poor strata of the society is the issue at stake. There can be hundreds of reasons for not doing anything but one reason is enough for launching a welfare scheme

2

Introduction

that takes care of the life of the citizens. The food security programme of India, the largest in the world if fully operationalized, will amount to an annual expenditure of about Rs 1,25,000 crore, covering more than 67% of the country’s population. The Green Revolution, initiated in the late 1960s, was a historic watershed that transformed the food security situation in India. Though India was a food deficit economy over the two decades after independence, the subsequent national self-sufficiency in food grain has been a major achievement at the macro or national level. Despite the achievement of macro-level food security and the discernible improvement in per capita consumption, India is still home to a fifth of the world’s undernourished population. The liberalization of the economy and its impact on agriculture, the establishment of the WTO and the agreement on agriculture, climate change and its impact on food production and prices, the introduction of a targeted public distribution system, the Right to Food campaign and the National Food Security Act are important issues that need to be analysed and understood in the context of the debate on food security in India.

Food Security—a Conceptual Understanding Food security is a multi-dimensional concept and extends beyond the production, availability and demand for food. It is also about understanding food insecurity. The extent and nature of food insecurity can be broadly categorised into: chronic food insecurity, nutritional insecurity, food insecurity caused by lack of food absorption, and transitory food insecurity. Chronic food insecurity is long-term or persistent and occurs when people are unable to meet their minimum food requirements over a sustained period. There are several factors, both on the supply side and the demand side, that may cause chronic food insecurity. The most important supply side determinants of food insecurity are the level of domestic food production, the importing of food and the distribution of food. The determinants of the demand side are population growth, purchasing power, product prices/subsidies and the extent and effectiveness of supportive social programmes and schemes such as the Integrated Child Development services (ICDS), the Midday Meal Scheme, Food for Work Programmes (FWP) and rural wage employment programmes.

Food Security and Food Production

3

Food security is a constituent part of the broader concept of nutritional security. A household can be said to be nutritionally secure if it is able to ensure a healthy life for all its members at all times (adequate in terms of quality, quantity and being culturally acceptable), and when it is not at undue risk of losing such access (ACC/SCN 1991, 6). Nutritional security thus requires that household members have access not only to food, but also to other requirements for a healthy life, such as health care, a hygienic environment and knowledge of personal hygiene. Food security is a necessary but insufficient condition for ensuring nutritional security. Food absorption in the body is a major problem in rural areas as well as urban slums. In the words of Amartya Sen and Jean Drèze: “the capability to be nourished (for the body to absorb food) depends crucially on other characteristics of a person that are influenced by such non-food factors as medical attention, health services, basic education, sanitary arrangements, provision of clean water, eradication of infectious epidemics and so on” (Singh n.d.). The inability to absorb the food intake or where the body is incapable of absorbing the nutrients can be termed absorption food insecurity. Transitory food insecurity is short-term and temporary and occurs when there is a sudden drop in the ability to produce or access enough food to maintain a good nutritional status. It results from short-term shocks and fluctuations in food availability and food access, including year-to-year variations in domestic food production, food prices and household incomes. Transitory food insecurity is relatively unpredictable and can emerge suddenly. This makes planning and programming more difficult and requires different capacities and types of intervention, including an early warning capacity and safety net programmes. It is also important to understand how hunger, malnutrition and poverty are related to food insecurity. Hunger is an uncomfortable or painful sensation caused by insufficient food energy consumption. Scientifically, hunger is referred to as food deprivation. All hungry people are food insecure but not all food insecure people are hungry, as there are other causes of food insecurity, including those due to the poor intake of micronutrients. Malnutrition results from deficiencies, excesses or imbalances in the consumption of macro- and/or micronutrients. It may be an outcome of food insecurity, or it may relate to non-food factors, such as inadequate

4

Introduction

care practices for children, insufficient health services and an unhealthy environment. Poverty is undoubtedly a cause of hunger. The lack of adequate and proper nutrition is also an underlying cause of poverty: “Poverty encompasses different dimensions of deprivation that relate to human capabilities including consumption and food security, health, education, rights, voice, security, dignity and decent work” (Food Security Information for Action 2008). Economic growth alone will not take care of the problem of food security. A combination of income growth supported by direct nutrition interventions and investment in health, water and education is needed. The food and nutrition security systems must also address the three issues of availability, access and absorption. The availability of food at the household level depends upon food production, and the operation of a resource-poor consumer-friendly Public Distribution System (PDS) operated with homegrown grain stocks or imports. Access to food depends on livelihoods and purchasing power. Absorption of food is influenced by access to clean drinking water, environmental hygiene and primary healthcare. The Indian economy is now one of the fastest-growing in the world. More than three quarters of the population live in households with per capita calorie consumption below 2,100 per day in urban areas and 2,400 per day in rural areas—numbers that are often cited as “minimum requirements” in India. The undernutrition levels in India remain higher than for most countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, though the latter are currently much poorer than India, growing much more slowly and with much higher levels of infant and child mortality. Nutritionists suggest that people need 1,600 kilocalories daily to keep the body functioning with almost no activity, so if a person does nothing except lie down all day they still need 1,600 kilocalories to sustain their body metabolism. If they eat less than that, they are starving. Ahmad et al. (in Deaton & Drèze 2009), using household survey data from 1999, estimated that 17% of people in India survive on less than 1,600 kilocalories a day, which they classify as the condition of being “ultrahungry.” If these trends continue, the stark truth is that one in five or six people will grapple with starvation as an element of daily living. Even if a person consumes enough calories, this does not guarantee the adequate intake of essential micronutrients. Micronutrient malnutrition—often called “hidden hunger”—can lead to mental impairment, poor health and

Food Security and Food Production

5

productivity, or even death. Hidden hunger arises from micronutrient malnutrition, caused by deficiencies of iron, iodine, zinc and vitamins. It can coexist with the adequate or even excessive consumption of dietary energy from macronutrients, such as fats and carbohydrates, and therefore with obesity in a person or a community.

Indian food security in comparison India moved from 65 to 63 in the Global Hunger Index (GHI) in 2013, a marginal improvement since 2012, but it continues to languish far behind other emerging economies. The index is prepared by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), along with Welthungerhilfe and Concern Worldwide. The score for the country improved slightly from 22.9 in 2012 to 21.3 in 2013. India improved its position further in 2014, climbing to 55th position among 76 emerging economies from 63rd position in 2013. The 2013 report states that India continues to trail behind countries like Thailand, China, Ghana, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh on the index. The level of hunger in India remained at “alarming levels,” and the report notes that it is one of the three countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa to fall into this category (the other two being Haiti and East Timor). It further notes that India continues to record a high prevalence of children under five being underweight at more than 40%. In comparison to India, other emerging economies with high growth trajectories have done much better jobs at pulling people out of hunger. China improved its ranking by 57.69% during 1990–2012, but India showed only a 34% improvement in the same period. Brazil, by comparison, had a much better score to begin with, and by 2012 entered the select block of nations doing the best to fight hunger. The GHI ranks countries on a 100-point scale. Zero is the best score (no hunger) and 100 is the worst. A lower GHI score implies a better nutritional standard and a higher rank for the country. The GHI highlights successes and failures in hunger reduction and provides insights into the drivers of hunger. To reflect the multi-dimensional nature of hunger, the GHI combines three equally weighted indicators: undernourishment, underweight children and child mortality in one index number. The countries that have achieved the best progress on this front include Venezuela, Mexico, Cuba, Ghana, Thailand and Vietnam, all with a 55% or more increase in their GHI scores. The UN Food and Agricultural Organization states that 17% of Indians are still too undernourished to lead productive lives. In fact, one-quarter of the world’s undernourished people

6

Introduction

live in India—more than in all of Sub-Saharan Africa. More distressingly, one-third of the world’s malnourished children live in India. According to UNICEF, 47% of Indian children are underweight and 46% of those under three years old are too small for their age. Undernourishment is often an invisible problem, jeopardising children’s survival, health, growth and development. According to the 2014 Global Hunger Index, the hunger status in India has improved from “alarming” to “serious.” Still, more than 190 million people continue to starve, which is quite deplorable.

Food production or distribution Farming output has been setting new records in recent years, having increased from 188.7 million tons in 2005–6 to an estimated 238.5 million tons for 2013–14. India needs between 204 and 208.6 million tons of food per year. In the current situation, despite population growth, food production is clearly not the main issue. The most disturbing and disheartening fact is that a high proportion of the food that India produces never reaches consumers. The number of hungry people in India has increased by 65 million—more than the population of France. According to a survey by Bhook (an organization working towards reducing hunger), in 2013, 20 crore Indians sleep hungry on any given night, and about 7 million children died in 2012 because of hunger/malnutrition. In India, along with steps to achieve adequate food production, initiatives were taken to get foodstuffs to areas facing shortages at affordable costs through the public distribution system—the world’s most extensive and dispersed food-based safety net, with half a million retail outlets, even penetrating the deep interiors of rural India. For food-insecure families, the Indian government has an impressive range of schemes—the largest in the world—for food transfers and livelihood security. However, N. C. Saxena (in Mander 2012) observes that food grain production per year per head has fallen from 208 kg in 1996–7 to 186 kg in 2009–10. He also finds that per capita food grain production has dropped 11% from 1996–7 to 2009– 10. This, coupled with India's average exports of nearly 7 million tons of cereals per year, has further reduced the per capita availability by 15% between 1991 and 2008.

Food wastage The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations estimates that one-third of food produced annually for human consumption

Food Security and Food Production

7

worldwide is lost or wasted. In India, where millions of people in a country of 1.2 billion go without food every day, the question of hunger is less about insufficient food production but of excessive food loss and food wastage. There is also a meaningful difference between the concepts of food loss and food waste. Whereas the former captures losses in the food supply chain that occur from harvesting through processing, food waste addresses losses that occur during distribution and consumption. The biggest contributors to food losses are the lack of refrigerated transport and the lack of high quality cold storage facilities for food manufacturers and food sellers. The food is wasted due to the absence of modern food distribution chains, poor transportation facilities, and the erratic electricity supply. A study by the Indian Institute of Management in Kolkata estimates that cold-storage facilities are available for only 10% of perishable food products, leaving about 335 million tons of products at risk. The lack of refrigerated transport and storage facilities means food can’t stay fresh when on the road for many hours. Estimates show that this logistical problem has resulted in US $8.3 billion worth of food being thrown away every year. The Emerson food wastage and cold storage report cites studies that have pegged the value of fruit, vegetables and grain wastage in India at Rs 44,000 crore annually. Fruit and vegetables account for the largest portion of that wastage, and 18% of India's fruit and vegetable production—valued at Rs 13,300 crore—is wasted annually. According to data from the Central Institute of Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology (CIPHET), Punjab (Bhosale 2013): “India wastes fruit and vegetables worth Rs 13,300 crore every year.” Currently, India has 6,300 cold storage facilities unevenly spread across the country, with an installed capacity of 30.11 million metric tons. Studies have shown this to be half the amount of cold storage facilities that India actually needs (61 million metric tons). In order to reach that target, the report says an investment of more than Rs 55,000 crore is needed by 2015–16 just to keep up with growing fruit and vegetables production levels. It is not only perishable food that is squandered. An estimated 19 million tons of wheat—equivalent to Australia’s entire annual crop—is eaten by insects or rats owing to inadequate storage and poor management at the government-run Food Corp of India (FCI). Food-price inflation since 2008–9 has been consistently above 10% (except for 2010–11, when it was “only” 6.2%); the poor, whose grocery bills typically account for 31% of the household budget, have suffered the most. Statistics suggest that

8

Introduction

food spoilage, and not production, is the issue. India produced an estimated 263 million tons of food last year (2013), of which 33 million tons were excess output. The government has instead tried to end shortages by increasing production, without considering that up to half of the food will be lost. India will not have enough arable land, irrigation or energy to provide enough nutritious food to India’s future 1.7 billion people if 35–40% is left to rot.

Prices—a factor The situation of malnutrition and food insecurity is further exacerbated by the utter failure of the Central Government to control the relentless price rise of essential commodities. The prices of rice, wheat, edible oil and salt have increased by 12–20%, and in the cases of some vegetables by over 100%. The prices of commonly used dals (pulses) like Arhar have doubled and are sold at between 80 to 100 rupees a kilo. Sugar is a better commodity in the market today at thirty rupees a kilo. India may be the world’s largest milk producer and grower of the second-largest quantity of fruits and vegetables (after China), but it is also the world’s biggest waster of food. As a result, fruit and vegetable prices are twice what they would otherwise be, and milk costs 50% more than it should. High prices have led to increasing food insecurity because families are forced to cut down on their food intake. In particular, poor women and female children are the worst affected. Food security for a household is defined by the Food and Agricultural Organisation as: “access by all members at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life." According to this definition, a large majority of people in India are food insecure. All these factors point towards the need for an inclusive universal PDS that includes several items at affordable prices linked to the capacity to pay for the majority of Indian people. It has been conclusively shown through evidence backed by NSS data that the targeting system started in 1996 has excluded large numbers of the poor. For example, over half of the agricultural labourers, Dalit and tribal communities are excluded from the BPL category. Nutrition programmes like the ICDS and the midday meal scheme are hostages to budgetary considerations instead of being recognized as constituting a statutory right. It is necessary to include all food and nutrition schemes of the Central Government in the proposed food security

Food Security and Food Production

9

legislation so that the most vulnerable sections of our society—poor children—are guaranteed food security. The intention of the Food Security Act is to enable assured economic and social access to adequate food and life with dignity for all persons in the country, at all times, in pursuance of their fundamental right to live with dignity. It is still a puzzle as to how the government will choose between the destitute, the poor and the barely surviving, or the starving, the chronically hungry, the malnourished, the anaemic and the food insecure.

Conclusion India has achieved food security at the national level, but food security at the individual and family levels has not been adequate. Ironically, half of all food-insecure people are smallholder farmers. Even though they grow food, they lack the resources to meet all of their needs through either production or purchasing. The number of land holdings is on the rise and the size of most of them is less than three acres. The whole structure of agricultural institutions, departments, agencies and corporations has been established precisely to protect farmers from the vagaries of nature. However, the institutional structure has grossly failed in delivering the goods due to petty bureaucratic procedures and inane programmes and policies. Political considerations rather than the needs and requirements of the situation have governed irrigation investments. Many schemes have been launched. However, a regionally differentiated strategy based on agroclimatic regional planning which takes into account agronomic, climatic and environmental conditions needs to be adopted to realize the potential growth in every region of the country. Most policies are cut off from the reality of climate change and the declining role of farmers in decision making is a matter of concern. Seed policy needs to be revisited with the aim of increasing control over and access to good quality seeds. Growth in cereal production is a top priority. Water availability needs to be combined with soil fertility and crop choices. Nature-friendly agricultural production is the only answer to the challenges brought about by climate change. It is difficult to conceive of a policy cutting across all regional specificities and peculiarities. Agroecological diversity can never be ignored. Food security for millions of people is a top priority, and no policy can afford to ignore this consideration. “States can and must achieve a reorientation of their agricultural systems towards modes of production that contribute to the progressive realization

10

Introduction

of the human right to adequate food” - Olivier De Schutter, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.

References Awan, Zain. 2014. “Millions go Hungry in India, but Food Goes to Waste.” Asia Pacific. October 16. www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/millions-go.../1417866.htm. Biswas, Asit K. & Cecilia Tortajada. 2014. “India’s Homemade Food Crisis.” Korea Joongang Daily, August 14. Biswas, Asit K. & Cecilia Tortajada. 2014. “India’s Fast-growing Population Faces Critical Food Waste Crisis.” Taipei Times, August 12. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2014/08/12/2003 597214. Bhosale, Jayashree. 2013. “India Wastes Fruit and Vegetables Worth Rs 13,300 Crore Every Year: Emerson Study.” The Economic Times, November 28, 2013. articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com. Devereux, S. 2006. “Distinguishing between Chronic and Transitory Food Insecurity in Emergency Needs Assessments.” SENAC, WFP, Rome. Food Security Information for Action. 2008. “An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security.” Published by the EC FAO Food Security Programme. www.foodsec.org, www.fao.org/docrep/013/al936e/al936e00.pdf. Gibson, Mark. 2012. “The Feeding of Nations: Redefining Food Security for the 21st Century.” CRC. “India still far behind in the Global Hunger Index.” The Hindu, October 15, 2013. www.thehindu.com. International Fund for Agricultural Development. n.d. “Food Security—a Conceptual Framework.” www.ifad.org/hfs/thematic/rural/rural_2.htm. International Food Policy Research Institute. 2014. “Global Hunger Index.” www.ifpri.org. Mander, Harsh. 2012. “Hunger Amid Plenty.” The Hindu September 22. www.thehindu.com. —. 2014. “Hunger Games.” The Hindu, December 13. www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns. Singh, R.B. n.d. “Towards a Food Secure India and South Asia: Making Hunger History.” http://www.apaari.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/towards-a-foodsecure-india-making-hunger-history.pdf. UNICEF India. n.d. Nutrition. www.unicef.org/india/nutrition.html.

CHAPTER ONE KNOWING AND ADMINISTERING FOOD: HOW DO WE EXPLAIN PERSISTENCE? RAJESWARI S. RAINA1

An Introduction to Persistence I am asking for a national policy of food, agriculture and nutrition, that can be implemented on a decentralized basis, taking full account of local resources, availabilities, costs, preferences and traditions, and has for its objective the minimization of nutritional inequalities among the people, irrespective of their money incomes and their urban or rural residence. (V. K. R. V. Rao 1982, 137)

Despite a successful Green Revolution that increased food production, hunger and malnutrition are major problems in India today. Clearly, a few economists in the 1980s noted the crucial linkages between agriculture, food and nutrition. They called for one national policy, a decisive political framing of the relationship between food, agriculture and nutrition (see the quotation from Rao above). Today, well into the second decade of the twenty-first century, there are new legislations to ensure that “adequate and quality food is available and accessible to all,” schemes to ensure that “food production is increased,” “guaranteed rural employment provided” to ensure that purchasing power is enhanced, and research programmes to “leverage agriculture for nutrition” (like the NSFB, NFSM, MGNREGA, LANSA). These are all policy instruments chosen to address specific 1

This paper was presented at the IIPA Conference on Food Security and Food Production: Institutional Challenges in Governance Domain, October 31– November 1, 2013. It draws from Raina (2011; 2013), the research in the SIID (Systems of Innovation for Inclusive Development: Lessons from Rural China and India) project, sponsored by IDRC, Canada (2009–12), and the study on Development Policy and S&T: Research Policy for Indian Agriculture conducted for an NAIP sub-project on Visioning, Policy Analysis and Gender (V-PAGe) (2011–12).

12

Chapter One

problems about the food, agriculture and nutrition. Yet, an overarching policy framework linking the three is missing, or is simply assumed to exist. The causal relationships and the coherence between the goals and instruments, between the actors and actions, and outcomes are left untouched. In the quotation above (Rao 1982), it is not the demand for a policy of food, agriculture and nutrition that strikes us as visionary—it is the critical insight into the problem. The act of asking for a policy, the specification of agents of production, distribution and consumption, the contexts of centralized planning and implementation in a country with persistent nutritional inequalities—for which the reasons may be economic (e.g. incomes), social (gender or caste), or locational (urban or rural)—the articulation of the agency of local resources (e.g. labour, natural resources), costs and preferences, and the specification of the purpose or objective to minimize nutritional inequalities2 make this a multidisciplinary and intellectually compelling statement, and truly visionary. Beginning with evidence that such an articulation exists, this paper explores the current national articulation of a policy for food, agriculture and nutrition. It asks why there is a disjuncture between what we know (about agricultural production, food consumption and nutrition status) and what we do (about governing or administering the same). The paper uses the available evidence about food, agriculture and nutrition to identify and analyse the institutions or norms that frame and define the relationships between them. The paper presents an explanation of the persistence of what we do, and our prevalent ways of articulating the problem and addressing the solution. Following the resolution passed by the National Development Council (NDC) in 2007, the Government of India launched a National Food Security Mission (NFSM) in 2007–8. The objective was to achieve food security by increasing the production of rice (by 10 million tons), wheat (by 8 million tons) and pulses (by 2 million tons) within the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007–12). “For the first time in the history of this Department, the NFSM brought us a mandate to address food security” (Joint Secretary, National Food Security Mission, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation [DoAC], Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India 2011). In the 1960s the DoAC put together a strategy comprising investments, 2

We use the Burkean pentadic of action, agent, context or scene, agency and purpose to highlight the narrative (Knapp 1999) inunderstandingthe complexity of the problem that some economists discussed in the past.

Knowing and Administering Food: How do we Explain Persistence?

13

inputs, prices and delivery mechanisms based on the technology package of the Green Revolution, which led to a massive increase in food production. However, food security was always the mandate of the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies. By launching the NFSM within the DoAC, the Government of India made explicit the core assumption or norm that food production was the key to food security. These norms and institutions were implicit in the strategic administrative components that complemented the cereal production technology package of the Green Revolution. However, the norms of productionism were explicitly endorsed and articulated as a Government programme with the launch of the NFSM. The key interventions in the NFSM are technology demonstrations, crop varieties (seed distribution and replacement, input supply and management) fertilizers, pesticides, equipment supply (especially for irrigation and plant protection), and procurement or market development. The NFSM guidelines give detailed allocations, including those made to some innovative interventions like the Systems of Rice Intensification (SRI) and the Initiative for Nutritional Security through Intensive Millets Promotion (INSIMP). In the latter, with a specific objective of achieving nutritional security, the government incorporated an explicit agenda to demonstrate and provide inputs for improved production techniques, postharvest technologies and value-addition technologies. Within the research component of the INSIMP scheme, the objectives are the replication of processing technologies, pilot testing and up-scaling of technology, collection of baseline data on consumption and demand, and analyses of bioavailability of minerals and their clinical trials. The set of technologies for increased food production and the ways in which these technologies and production inputs are supplied to farmers by the agricultural administration constitute the current policy framework and instruments or what we do to achieve food security. Even within the current policy framework there is increasing evidence of a range of drivers and causal relationships that impact food security and nutrition (Dev & Sharma 2010; Planning Commission 2010). Yet, within the agricultural knowledge and administration systems in India, calorie supply through food grain production remains the major instrument for agriculture to enable food security and nutrition. Why is that so? What explains the persistence of production and supply as the political, economic and scientific goal for both the knowledge and administration of agriculture and food?

14

Chapter One

India’s framing of food, agriculture and nutrition policies, , reveals the dominance of the productionist paradigm governing agricultural research and the administration of agriculture. The persistence of productive power within the current national policy framing of the problem has different goals for the policies of food (food security defined as access and affordability), agriculture (food security defined as availability through food grain production) and nutrition (food security defined as absorption and stability, with an emphasis on quality and quantity). There is evidence that several drivers and dimensions besides production and productivity are critical to achieve food and nutrition security. There is an increasing attention to production and distribution mechanisms that worsen nutritional inequalities. Though the state is aware of the diminishing returns to the Green Revolution paradigm, current policy instruments and investments promote the same productionist paradigm, as is evident from the launch of the NFSM. Domestically as well as globally, the evolution of agricultural knowledge and policies shows how different phases of agricultural knowledge have evolved with corresponding changes in institutions, rules or norms. Following the realization in the 1980s that the Green Revolution had not delivered the promised freedom from hunger and had added ecological degradation problems, knowledge and administration of agriculture today is deliberated in two parallel worlds with two institutional frameworks. The first, governed by norms of centralization and productionism, and the second, governed by norms of decentralized location-specific agroecosystems productivity and health, compete for policy attention. The centralized productionist paradigm that the planners and programme implementers are familiar with prevails. This persistence can be explained as that of actors who have evolved with and are trapped in the institutions or norms of productionism that demand the centralization and commercialization of centrally produced technologies, inputs and food. Though norms of decentralization, systems productivity and human and ecosystem health govern several agroecological alternatives, and the dominant actors (the administration and public sector research and extension) are aware of these norms, they maintain a superficial engagement with them (for example, farmer participation in productionist decision-making bodies, and sustainable intensification) without breaking out of the current paradigm. Well-intentioned and welldesigned as it is, the National Food Security Bill (NFSB), being part of the centralized productionist paradigm in its design and implementation, can only go thus far. In order to achieve the vision of a hunger-free India through the policy goal of minimizing nutritional inequalities, the evidence emerging from

Knowing and Administering Food: How do we Explain Persistence?

15

agrarian alternatives will have to be supported with appropriate public investments and institutional arrangements. There is a need for a rigorous analysis of the institutions and concepts that inform different paradigms of food security, demonstrating flawed problem statements and delusionary readings of causal relationships, and explaining the evidence from the alternatives scientifically, socially and ecologically. Presenting evidence from the alternatives in the terms set by the prevalent productionist paradigm is counter-productive; it can only worsen the already disrupted relationships between agriculture, food and nutrition.

Productive Power vs. Evidence … hunger, given the enormous expansion of productive power that has taken place, making it possible to guarantee adequate food for all, is now morally outrageous and politically unacceptable. (Drèze & Sen 1989, 4)

If food security is 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 (FAO 2001), then food crisis is when access to food is hindered due to changes in any of these factors or causal relationships. The definitions of food security and crisis thereby involve four dimensions: availability, access, utilization and stability (FAO 2006), the latter constitutive of the former three . In this section, we briefly reflect on the national policies and action plans for food, agriculture and nutrition. A brief overview of the literature reveals that the enormous expansion of productive power (Drèze & Sen 1989) not only guaranteed adequate food for all, but also impeded and disrupted the three dimensions (access, utilization and stability) of food security (UNEP-IISD 2004; Nellemann et al. 2009; UN-HRC 2010). Here, we discover the overarching agendasetting role of the productive power of modern technologies, and the state’s self-proclaimed role of supplier of knowledge and commodities (technologies and inputs, food, and the subsidies and services to use them). The section prompts questions about the dominant norms or institutions that prevail, despite the contrary evidence.

Policy framework—embodied productive power Policy goals and instruments for food security, nutrition and agriculture are in place in India to address the various dimensions of food security. A food policy was articulated even before the launch of the Green

16

Chapter One

Revolution, mainly regarding the import and distribution of wagonloads of HYV Mexican wheat seeds to different wheat growing states in the country. Ensuring national food security was the mandate given to the Food Corporation of India (FCI, established in 1964), with the main objectives of effective price support operations to safeguard farmers’ interests, distributing food grains (PDS) to consumers, and maintaining satisfactory levels of operational and buffer stocks of food grains to ensure National Food Security (fciweb.nic.in).Similarly, the National Plan of Action on Nutrition (1995, based on the National Nutrition Policy [1993]), adopted by the Inter-ministerial Coordination Committee, emphasised 24 objectives with specific targets to be achieved by the year 2000. It is important to note that this action plan covered targets in 14 different sectors in the economy, of which agriculture was only one. India’s first National Agriculture Policy (NAP 2000), a document that appeared after the food security mandate and the nutrition action plan were discussed in the 1980s and 1990s,3 stated the policy goal of achieving a 4% growth rate in the sector, producing 250 million tons of food grain using modern technologies. The food security objectives and nutrition policy statements (referred to above) contained an explicit statement about the availability of adequate food. Production targets thus became the established policy goal for administering agriculture for food security. Agricultural research, focusing on the generation of knowledge and technologies for crop, animal and fisheries production, is one among six major policy instruments used by the state to increase production. The policy instruments are: (i) infrastructure; (ii) land and water management; (iii) research and extension; (iv) inputs, including agricultural credit; (v) marketing, including price policy; and (vi) diversification and development of the rural non-farm sector (Dev & Sharma 2010). But it is agricultural research, specifically the productive power of technology, that 3

This policy, which appeared in 2000 within the Ministry of Agriculture, must be seen in light of India’s policies for industry, tabled and debated in Parliament, and going back to the pre-independence debates between stakeholders in industry, academics and politicians leading to the Bombay Plan (1948). Further policies for industry in India—the IDR Act (1951), the Industrial Policy Resolution (1956, followed by 1964, 1969 and 1970) and the Industrial Policy Statement (1973, with several amendments in 1977, 1980, 1991, 2004 and 2006)—reveal how governance in agriculture did not really need a policy articulation, debate or any revisions thereof. Contrast India’s agricultural policy document and processes for drafting it (NAP 2000) with the Chinese policies for agriculture (revised every ten years) by the national, provincial and county governments.

Knowing and Administering Food: How do we Explain Persistence?

17

dictates the contents and magnitudes of the other five policy instruments. For instance, infrastructure interventions mainly involve irrigation and energy (electricity) infrastructure, with some storage facilities and roads. This may be part of the domination of centralization and science-based development interventions that is characteristic of the state’s planning and policy instruments for poverty alleviation and rural development in general (Mody 2005), but it is painfully evident in agriculture. The enormous expansion of productive power in Indian agriculture began during the colonial period. In a new and young democracy free from colonial rule, research and investments in commercial crops used as industrial raw material (in the West or within the state) were soon replaced by research on food crops to cater to the national policy goal of achieving food security. Between 1960–1 and 1973–4, with the intervention of some international philanthropic organizations (Rockefeller, Ford and the Kellogg Foundation) and governments (especially the United States), and the launch of the Green Revolution by the Government of India, public investment in infrastructure (over 90% on irrigation), inputs (fertilizer factories and agri-machinery), and agricultural research grew rapidly (Rajeswari 1995; Raina 2011). By the end of the 1970s all public sector organizational components to address food production were in place, instruments of India’s New Agricultural Strategy (Subramaniam 1972) and the national food security policy. The Agricultural Prices Commission (to announce Minimum Support Prices, especially for the major cereals), the Public Distribution System, the Food Corporation of India, the National Seeds Corporation, the State Trading Corporation, the Central Water Commission and the Agricultural Produce Market Committees and regulated markets were among these. Supporting minimum price, subsidized inputs (fertilizers and farm machinery), credit (including the politically motivated waiver of loan repayments), irrigation and electricity costs, and procurement processes (especially for rice and wheat) were the key issues addressed by the large, farmer-led peasant politics, and provided by the state (Raina 2011). The consolidation of S&T organization and contents with development programmes/schemes, in agricultural R&D (which grew threefold between the V and VII Five Year Plans), rural development R&D (which increased almost tenfold, though miniscule in size compared to agriculture) which was later divided into various components of the erstwhile integrated community development programme (and became new departments and

18

Chapter One

ministries), and irrigation R&D (which increased fivefold), marks a watershed in the formal centralized productionist paradigm in India.4 The choice of technological trajectory and supply of technology have always been key concerns in India (Desai 1985). In the centralized national efforts to ensure food security, the state’s schemes and programmes, based on certain S&T outputs and recommendations to invest in produce and supply inputs, have become part of a key legitimization for S&T itself—a lock-in that ensures the status quo.5 This more enduring impact—the emergence and maintenance of the new relationship between different policy instruments deployed by the state and the S&T that it supports—is rarely discussed within food security debates. Embedded in and abetted by specific production investments and organizations, these relationships and trajectories persist. Globally, the four pillars of food and nutrition policy do not include food production. The pillars are nutrition, food safety, sustainable access to food, and a healthy lifestyle (WHO 2008). Production is only a necessary condition for one pillar, i.e. sustainable access to food, and is not in itself a policy goal to pursue. Today, technologies for production govern the choice of other policy instruments and ignore the other pillars of food and nutrition policy. The powerful technocratic vision of science-based development interventions for poverty reduction (Mody 2005) and food security (Dev & Sharma 2010), and the institutions that govern them, make it impossible for S&T to engage with, analyse and solve problems that are not articulated as such within this paradigm. The current policy framework, or the productionist framing of the relationship between knowing and administering food, is difficult to dislodge.

4

Dominance of the Central Government in the national S&T effort goes hand in hand with the centralization of development administration (see Ghosh 1991 and Annexure 11—S&T outlay and expenditure of the Socio-economic Ministries), and several key changes in the organization and conduct of S&T from the mid1970s to the 1990s. 5 Today, in the face of jobless industrial growth, many agree that stepping up infrastructure is a key requirement. But the centralized norms prevail, especially fiscal orthodoxy and the promotion of international capital (and associated technologies) in infrastructure. This adherence of the decision-maker to certain “means rather than the ends seems galling” (Nagaraj 2011, 54), but few see that the relationship between the S&T actors and the decision-makers is one that ensures this galling persistence of institutions.

Knowing and Administering Food: How do we Explain Persistence?

19

Evidence—contexts and causal relationships Often, the argument for a new or modified policy framework hinges on the difficulty of generating evidence for the same. In this sub-section we present evidence on the contexts of and causal relationships between production and the access, affordability and stability dimensions of food security. Even after fifty years of food security policy instruments based primarily on life science-led production knowledge (technologies and inputs), and an increase in food production to mark the national food self-sufficiency level, these selective modern technological interventions co-exist with increasing hunger and malnutrition (Vaidyanathan 2010; Gillespie et al. 2011). Though production of food was the major policy instrument deployed, the average rate of growth of yield per year fell from 4.4% (between 1980–90) to 2.8% (between 1991–8), and further to 0.6% (between 1999–2009) (Gillespie et al. 2011). Without doubt, the country now hosts several well-designed schemes focused on generating employment and incomes, supporting rural infrastructure and production systems in both agricultural and non-farming to ensure access to food for the poor in India, the NREGA being a prime example. But these domestic measures address distribution (access to food through assured employment and incomes) after food has been produced through ways that engender unemployment, environmental disruption and food crisis (Friedman 1992; UNEP-IISD 2004; Vanloqueren & Baret 2004; IAASTD 2009; Lang 2010).

Chapter One

20

Table 1.1. Calorie poverty rises even as consumption poverty falls Year

Consumption poverty (%)

Calorie poverty (%)

Rural

Rural

Urban

Urban

1983

46.5

42.3

66.1

60.5

1987–8

39.3

39.2

65.9

57.1

1993–4

36.8

32.8

71.1

58.1

1999–2000

--

--

74.2

58.2

2004–5

28.1

25.8

79.8

63.9

Source: World Bank team (2011), based on Deaton & Drèze (2009) Table 5, and World Bank estimates.

Though the Green Revolution has been celebrated, despite many ecological and social disruptions, for increasing per capita food availability in India (IFPRI 2002), the disconnection between agriculture and food-nutrition in the country is now evident (Gillespie et al. 2012). Agricultural production and food security seem to be at the core of the development paradox today (see Table 1.1 above). The increasing calorie poverty in many ways mirrors the macro-economic picture—a massive section of the population living on a thinning share of the economic pie. Further evidence on the availability and access to food shows how the high levels of malnutrition in rural India are related to increasing unemployment levels and consequently lower purchasing power (Planning Commission 2011).

Knowing and Administering Food: How do we Explain Persistence? Fig. 1.1. Rural per-capita calorie consumption (1983 and 2004–5)

Source: Deaton & Drèze, Fig. 4 (2009, 48).

21

Chapter One

22

In India, there is a realization today that the increase in rural malnutrition may not be due to a decline in calorie consumption alone (see Fig. 1.1 above). Recent concern about mal- and under-nutrition in India (Deaton & Drèze 2009; Mohmand 2012; Dev 2012) highlights other concerns expressed repeatedly over the past decade. This stems from evidence about the limited increase in aggregate cereal (and cereal + pulse) availability in the country since independence (Patnaik 2007), inadequacy of per capita cereal or calorie intake as an indicator of nutrition (Vaidyanathan 2003), and the increasing incidence of zinc deficiency in cereal-growing crop lands and cereal-consuming populations in the country (Stein et al. 2007). The evidence of micronutrient and vitamin deficiency and inadequate protein intake is found not only among the poor but also among middleincome families (Gopaldas 2006), with an alarming proportion of anaemic women being a major cause of pre-and post-natal morbidity and child malnutrition (Ramalingaswamy et al. 1996). Table 1.2. Distribution of number of operational holdings by major size groups for all social groups in all India ('000 Number) Year

Total (‘000 numbers)

% of marginal and small (together) to total

Total (‘000 hectares)

% of marginal and small (together) to total area of holdings

number of holdings 1970–1

70493

69.67

162124

20.86

1980–1

88883

74.47

163797

26.19

1990–1

106638

78.28

165507

32.46

2000–1

119930

81.80

159436

38.86

2005–6

129222

83.29

158323

41.14

Source: All India Report on Agriculture Census (Various Years), Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Agricultural Census Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India: New Delhi.

Less than 44% of all cultivator households are net sellers of the main food crops (Vishwanathan & Serajuddin 2010, quoted in Dev 2012), making them vulnerable to food inflation and accentuating the disconnect between

Knowing and Administering Food: How do we Explain Persistence?

23

food production and nutrition in India (Gillespie et al. 2012). Increasingly, women and the smallholder peasants (handling over 40% of the operational area and 84% of the operational holdings—see Table 1.2 above) are the most undernourished (with inadequate calorie and protein levels). The increasing share of cash purchases in the total food and fuel expenses of the poorest—the marginal farmers, landless labourers and female-headed households (UNDP 2007)—makes them vulnerable to any increase in the price of modern inputs (most of them being dependent on fuel prices) and food. Even with a subsidised supply of food through PDS, the decline in the share of self-produced and processed foods in the food baskets of these marginal and small producers makes them vulnerable to food price shocks (Dev 2012). Worse still is the loss of generations of wisdom about local foods, food processing and preservation, which further weakens the linkages between food and nutrition for these rural producers. Their opportunities to participate effectively in production, distribution and consumption systems in the economy are limited. Characterised as the chronic poor, they are likely to remain in poverty (Gangopadhyay 2010; McKay & Baulch 2004; Planning Commission 2010). Some policy entry points with an impact on nutrition through agriculture draw upon existing evidence. They are: (i)

inclusive agricultural growth with increased investment in rainfed and dry-land agriculture productivity (ii) food price stabilization, especially for the food-purchasing rural poor (iii) targeting women in agriculture and rural India (iv) increasing rural non-farm employment (v) better storage, transport, processing and other infrastructure (Dev 2012; Dev & Sharma 2010). There have been schemes and interventions (public and private) focused on these entry points within the prevalent knowledge-policy framework. They supply (with subsidies and incentives) the irrigation-chemical intensive technologies to rain-fed agriculture, provide food grains at cheap rates through targeted distribution systems, and invest in rural industries and infrastructure in economically backward districts (again with due incentives). The entry points in agriculture to impact nutrition are, however, also located in the overarching macro-economic context of employment and incomes, which are mainly informal. During the period of rapid economic

24

Chapter One

growth (the 1990s to the late 2000s), not only did the size of the informal workforce grow (from 361.7 million to 427.22 million), but the share of informal workforce in the total workforce also increased (from 91.2% to 92.8% of the total workforce) (Raina 2012; computed from the NSS 66th round for 2004–5 and 1999–2000; NCEUS 2007). The combination of informal and unorganized employment in rural India is critical when the problem statement and solutions for food security and nutrition are framed within the prevalent centralized and formal knowledge-policy framework. The urban informal workforce has some semblance of organization (though still informal, as in contract labour in the power loom sector or construction labour) compared to the rural informal workforce. The latter (many of whom are marginal and smallholder farmers), unlike those in the power loom or construction industries, are unorganized private producers, lacking agency, and are treated in the centralized productionist paradigm as receivers of all the technology and support supplied to them. Given the location and participation of the informal workforce in diverse agroecosystems and their multiple functions, a centralized supply of knowledge and production services to these actors falters on several counts. Mainly, food security policy interventions ignore and interfere irrevocably in the close relationships between “many of the constituents of well-being and the provisioning, regulating and enriching components of ecosystems” (UNEP-IISD 2004; Nellemann 2009). Also, most critically for any intervention enabling food security, it must be acknowledged that the rural poor (especially smallholder farmers, women, herders, pastoralists and landless labourers who constitute over 80% of the poor anywhere in the developing world, as in India) have been: (i) subject to “exclusionary practices—intentional or unintentional—by the ‘non-poor’,” and thereby prevented from accessing the various services offered by the ecosystem; and (ii) “bear a disproportionately heavy burden of the impacts of ecosystem degradation … caused by the non-poor,” and consequently are excluded from participating in an equitable manner in the commercial activities introduced into converted ecosystems (UNEP-IISD 2004, 21–2). These disruptions impair the stability dimension of food security, at times permanently, rendering ineffective many well-intentioned policy instruments for food and nutrition security. Within the current productionist policy framework, actors endorsing centralized research and production strategies are aware of the nature and extent of poverty. In effect, they note that: “there is typically little mobility out of extreme poverty, and many households remain poor for generations” (von Braun et al. 2005). The NFSM and the agricultural

Knowing and Administering Food: How do we Explain Persistence?

25

research establishments that supply inputs and technologies for food production are also well versed with the informal workforce, low levels of human capital and minimal physical asset base of the poor. In addition, the labour productivity of the poor is currently impaired by nutrition problems, including “hidden hunger” in the form of micronutrient deficiencies. Agricultural research and production programs should focus on addressing these deficiencies through supplementation, fortification of foods (including complementary foods), and attention to making low-cost foods that are rich in micronutrients. (von Braun et al. 2005)

Within the productionist paradigm, if hunger, malnutrition and land degradation are contexts that must be addressed, then agricultural research and production programmes do have many technological solutions for the fortification of food and increased production, like golden rice, genetically modified and fortified crops, chemical fertilizers specific to each form of micronutrient deficiency, plant growth promoters and hydro-gels (to retain moisture). Here, in the reductionist science-based approach, more focused technologies have to be centrally designed and supplied to the undernourished and under-employed (workers and small farmers) in rural India. The dominance of the science-based technology supply approach should, however, not be misread as due regard for scientific knowledge or evidence on production systems. Right from the Eighth Five Year Plan, it was evident that the techno-centric agricultural administration had reached a phase of diminishing returns (Bhalla & Singh 2010; Vaidyanathan 2010; Planning Commission 2011). Though S&T leaders called for a re-thinking in agricultural S&T to push the technology frontier further up and enable the adoption of production and productivity enhancing technologies available (Swaminathan 2005), the formal knowledge generation (agricultural research) component received less than 0.4% of agricultural GDP during 1990–2009 (Raina 2012). During this period, the subsidies for technological inputs ranged from 8% to 11% of agricultural GDP (RBI and CAG, various years), despite the evidence of significant stagnation in production growth rates in the irrigated rice-wheat systems, the brand ambassadors of the Green Revolution and the main users of these inputs thus far (Bhalla & Singh 2010). Having invested in a particular set of production inputs, the administration of agriculture did not want new scientific knowledge or technological capacities to transform or even sustain production capacity. Technology generation, having shaped these

26

Chapter One

production capacities at the outset, had become subservient to past production capacities and was tuned to generating more technologies for prevalent production investments and capacities. The two domestic policy planks of output price support and input subsidies (Ray 2007) were legitimized by science-based agricultural modernization. Even when the macro-economic forces that work against agriculture are acknowledged (Planning Commission 2011, 88–9), and evidence is presented on how changes internal to the sector, like diversification and enhanced investment (borrowed), are futile in enabling sectoral growth or an increase in farm incomes (ibid.), the productionist paradigm of food security persists.6 In 2007, for the first time ever, the NDC held a special meeting exclusively on Agriculture where it discussed the Eleventh Plan strategy for the sector and adopted a Resolution on the subject. These consultations established that, in addition to stressed natural resources and very inadequate rural infrastructure, there was clear evidence of technology fatigue, runǦdown delivery systems in credit, extension and marketing services and of insufficient agricultural planning at district and lower levels. (ibid., 89)

With the launch of the NFSM in 2007, the actors involved in the knowledge and administration of agriculture proved their unwillingness to re-think or envision a new paradigm to enable the access, affordability and stability dimensions that go beyond food production and supply. The NFSM strategy as discussed above , was: (i) an expansion of the Green Revolution into the eastern states with ample groundwater (which the first phase of Green Revolution, ending in the mid-1980s, had bypassed); and (ii) an extension of production support to other crops besides cereals, by focusing on pulses, oilseeds and millets. The eastern states and pulse-oilseed-millet-based cropping systems in rainfed, coastal and mountain ecosystems and their diverse agroecosystemspecific crop, livestock and fishery systems, that today reveal higher growth rates than the irrigated production systems (Economic Survey 2012), despite being excluded from the productionist paradigm, are now being reined into the centralized knowledge and administration regime. The NFSM embodies persistence. In its articulation of the problem of food security, its objectives and programme contents, it maintains the same relationship between the science-based knowledge and production-targeted 6

This section is partly drawn from Raina (2014).

Knowing and Administering Food: How do we Explain Persistence?

27

administration of food and agriculture. This is not for want of alternatives. Ranging from organic farming, agroecological systems and SRI (systems of rice intensification), to niche ecosystem-specific tribal production cultures, the rain-fed croplands, dry-land, coastal and mountain agriculture systems have generated several alternatives. However, the centralized productive power persists, despite scientific evidence about worsening causal relationships between agriculture, food and nutrition.

Knowledge for agriculture—two parallel universes The political patronage and legitimization offered to the productionist paradigm and its science-based interventions have perhaps been evident since Borlaug’s Nobel Peace Prize in 1970.7 The expansion of productive power (see the quotation above from Drèze & Sen 1989) was fuelled by knowledge in modern technologies and institutions. Many political leaders (India’s former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru being one among them) were wooed by the productive power of irrigation and specific technologies like hybrid corn, chemical fertilizers and agri-machinery. They invested in these production support systems, establishing the R&D needed to sustain technology generation and the production of inputs that embody these technologies. The growth of productive power vested with the state and the S&T establishment, and the industrial investments it promotes with specific institutional arrangements, began long before the launch of the Green Revolution. An attempt is made to explore this evolution, tracing two parallel universes of knowledge and policy for agriculture that exist today. This helps us to understand how the centralized consolidation of productive power across the world governed by the norms of production, and the decentralized knowledge-based niches in diverse agroecosystems governed by the norms of human and ecosystem health, have come to co-exist.

The evolution of productive power In the history of the agricultural sciences, the most significant change has been in the motives and rationale of research. From the desire to reduce drudgery to seeking an increase in production with an indirect interest in 7

It is important to recall that this scientist, a pathologist whose plant-breeding programme using the Norin-10 genes from Japan generated the high yielding dwarf varieties that launched the Green Revolution, did not win the Nobel Prize for biology.

28

Chapter One

higher rents, and the quest for the “principles” underlying production practices, the objectives of research were relatively clear and uncomplicated. Formal institutionalised R&D is a relatively recent actor in the history of agricultural development.8 The agricultural revolution in England in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries brought to light innumerable technological changes that made revolutionary changes in production possible (Chambers & Mingay 1966; Riches 1967; Russell 1966). These were driven by the prospects of higher rents, security of tenancy, competitive prices and the increasing urban demand for food, all of which were important incentives for landlords and tenant farmers (through their guilds or local organizations). The Rothamsted Experiment Station was founded by John Lawes, a county gentleman, and was run from the profits he made from the manufacture of super-phosphate fertilizer (Russell 1966).9 The legislation for state-sponsored experiment stations through the Hatch Act in 1887 was the first ever public legislation for national agricultural research (Marcus 1986; Rossiter 1975), marking the birth of a new era of institutional arrangements. Debates in Congress (1886–7) about the role of scientists, farmers, rural communities and the Government (including federal versus state responsibilities and powers) marked the first informed debate on conflicting interests and compromising decisions on the level, nature and allocation of research investment (Schweikhardt & Bonnen 1986; Marcus 1986). Formal experiment stations, and regional and national research systems, were created and operated by European Governments in their Asian 8

See Raina (1997). The first agricultural experiment station in France (1834) was established by Jean Boussingault in his estate in Bechelbrom (Russell 1966). In Germany, the first experiment station established at Mockern, Saxony, was set up in 1852 in response to an initiative by the Saxon farmers whose draft charter for the station was legalized by the Saxon government. (Russell 1966; Ruttan 1982). Using financial grants, the Royal Agricultural Society of England (1840) encouraged both practicing scientists and farmers to contribute inventions and discoveries for raising agricultural output. Scotland's Edinburgh Laboratory (founded in 1842) was supported by the Agricultural Chemistry Association of Scotland, a voluntary agricultural society (Russell 1966). In Japan, following reports of these European attempts, agricultural research was initiated by the Meiji Government in 1871. (Hayami & Yamada 1975).

9

Knowing and Administering Food: How do we Explain Persistence?

29

colonies. The latter half of the twentieth century witnessed a variety of legislations, organizational formats and investments in agricultural research, and an expansion of organized research happened in the Third World (Trigo 1987; Ruttan 1982). By the 1960s it was accepted that the “public good” nature of agricultural technology was the rationale for the institutional (legal) arrangements and investment by the state. Though farmers benefit from use of new technology: "it is not feasible for them to organize and finance national agricultural research enterprises" (Schultz 1984, 341). Moreover, the state has a responsibility to provide technology that is openly and equally accessible to all, in an area where private profitability is not assured; i.e. due to the public good character of the research products (Schultz 1984). Appropriate institutions for the public provision of agricultural technology were also prompted by: (i) the relative disadvantages of individual farmers/entrepreneurs in the private sector in investing in such “nonprofit” sectors of economic activity (Griliches 1958); (ii) economies of scale (with absolutely no returns until a certain take-off level of investment is reached); and (iii) increasing returns with contact or by being part of large universities (Hayami 1971) that are part of an overall public commitment to development.10 As the state invests in or enables investment by industry in the agricultural sciences, it also enables the industrial appropriation of the production and distribution of technologies thus generated for the farming community. The history of agriculture reveals that changes in rationale and the nature of investment in research or enquiry correspond to new actors (organizations) and new laws or institutions under which knowledge is produced, accessed and used. The changes in rationale and investment evolved from the passing of time and individual efforts for new ideas, to bequests for private research. Following these came legislations for national and international public funds to produce public goods for the increased production of food. These legislations or institutional changes correspond to changes in the actors (e.g. women in the Neolithic period to modern scientists, research administrators, private industry and international aid agencies and development consortia) involved in research.

10

Besides these relatively apparent economic justifications, public investment in agricultural research is a prerequisite to ensuring long-term commitment to basic disciplinary science (Clark 1980; Nelson 1959), a commitment to the progress of humanity.

Chapter One

30

Fig. 1.2. A history of discursive themes and concepts framing agricultural policies and practices 1950 1960 Modernization Dual economy Backward peasant

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

The Green Revolution (High Yielding Varieties [HYV] and mechanization) Small farmer as the engine of growth Rational peasant Open critique and debate Redefining small-scale/petty commodity producers Basic needs Participatory projects and approaches Structural adjustment lending Redistribution with growth Rise of NGOs Women and development Farming systems Rapid rural appraisal Poverty alleviation (food security) Microcredit Decentralization Participatory rural appraisal Individual responsibility Poverty reduction Environment and sustainability Global assessments Ecology and livelihoods Good governance Social protection and cash transfer programs Poverty eradication Second Green Revolution (Africa) Public-private partnerships Grassroots, global mobilization Food and energy crises Global market chains Food sovereignty Equity and social justice Biotechnology Biofuels Climate change Water

See special issue of Journal of Peasant Studies (2010, in Feldman & Biggs 2012).

Knowing and Administering Food: How do we Explain Persistence?

31

The evolution of the knowledge-policy discourse since the 1950s reveals the emergence of the state and public sector science as the key actors in agricultural modernisation and growth. Agricultural growth was essential for the eventual transition from poor developing countries to industrialised developed nation states. Central to the public investments made by developing country governments in agricultural research and all the other production support systems (ranging from irrigation to price incentives and subsidies) was the assumption that agriculture, like industry, could be modernised provided the right type and quantity of (subsidised if needed) inputs were supplied, based on technologies generated and transferred by public and private investments in research and extension, to be used by the backward peasantry caught in a low equilibrium trap (see Fig 1.2 above). When the Green Revolution was launched in the 1960s, it was clear that a centralised and controlled system of knowledge generation and administration of agriculture was essential. Corresponding public investments were also necessary, along with incentives to tailor appropriate private responses, be it from industry (producing chemicals, providing services, processing and marketing agricultural commodities) or from farmers (producing the agricultural commodities). As the challenges of this approach (especially the defiance of the laggards—the backward risk-averse peasants who refused to adopt modern technologies) became evident by the mid-1970s, the era of participatory approaches was launched. It was argued that farming communities and their voices ought to be included in decision making about the nature of technologies and their dissemination. The new norms and organizations for the participation of farmers in the knowledge agenda are evident in the participatory water-user associations, participatory technology-development groups, and many forums including increasing farmers’ representation on the boards and decision-making seats of national and international agricultural research organizations, donor agencies and even investment banks. When research findings about the stagnant productivity responses to Green Revolution technologies, increasing global hunger, economic distress among small farmers, and worsening ecological consequences became evident in the global agricultural knowledge and governance systems (FAO 1987), the discourse evolved further but in two directions. The first, stemming from concerns about the limited adoption of technologies that can increase production, the emergence of participatory rural appraisal, participatory varietal selection and other participations in centralized knowledge generation and governance, built a convincing agenda for the increased and more focused supply of knowledge, technologies and inputs. This would entail public-private partnerships in technology generation and

32

Chapter One

the implementation of technology-based agricultural growth projects, and the more focused research for production systems (like rain-fed or mountain agriculture) that were bypassed in the first phase of the Green Revolution. The second, stemming from increasing resource degradation, unsustainable application of external inputs and limited growth in farm incomes, led to a wide range of (historically and politically) contextspecific agrarian alternatives and enabling mechanisms for them. These alternatives, striving to achieve food sovereignty and avoid or limit the extent of ecological and social disruption due to production, were also attempts to reclaim the energy and inputs supplied externally to agriculture into the local economy. Two examples of the diverging agenda, spaces and actors in the agricultural knowledge and policy discourse of the 1990s are the launch of the second Green Revolution, also called “doubly green” (Conway 1997), and the emergence of movements (e.g. la via Campesina) and platforms like the IFOAM for organic agriculture and Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) (Altieri 2000).11 Many alternatives have gained space in India. Some, like the organic agriculture policies by eleven states of the Indian Union, are beginning to gain political and scientific attention. Others, like the Right to Food Campaign initiated by the Supreme Court, the area-based technology and development approaches generating employment, ecological and economic returns, hundreds of civil society organization or community based agroecosystem specific production and marketing networks, as well as local and fair trade food systems that shun chemicals, pesticides and child labour, have significant consumer awareness, private investments and some scientific research support.

Institutional strangleholds The recent food crisis and riots (2008–9) in many developing countries, and increasing climate variability and change, are e cause of concern for both the proponents of the “doubly green” revolution and the agroecological systems enthusiasts. In this sub-section, we explore the dominance of the productionist paradigm over several alternatives, though they exist in two parallel institutional frameworks of knowledge and policy. 11

For further reading on the relationship between small-scale producers, natural resources, food and nutrition security, see HIVOS (2011), IAASTD (2009) and Pretty et al. (2006).

Knowing and Administering Food: How do we Explain Persistence?

33

Proponents of the doubly Green Revolution (invariably beginning with the spectre of nine billion mouths to feed in the near future) demand increasing investments in industrial agriculture, with sustainable intensification and the fortification of foods to address specific malnutrition problems (Foresight 2011; Royal Society 2009; von Braun et al. 2005). Advocates of alternative agricultural systems (invariably beginning with prevalent hunger, ecological disruption and unemployment) promote a variety of agroecological approaches, with investments in and specific research agendas for ecologically and economically appropriate production and distribution systems for diverse agro-food cultures and markets (Allaire & Wolf 2004; Niggli et al. 2008). The latter came with several institutional innovations, including the design of new scientific research coalitions, support for short value-chains, more local employment generation, and local information collection and analysis to emphasise a production paradigm that was integrated with human and ecosystem health. The institutional arrangements for the latter—for instance organic certification, territorial characteristics, product identities, quality labels and farmers markets—were initially promoted without state support in many countries (whether in Mexico, Bolivia, South Korea, the European Union, India or China). Today, there is some government support for them (with some like Austria and Cuba making organic agriculture a clear national policy with appropriate institutional arrangements), but they are still seen as alternatives, with the post-1960s Green Revolution approach holding sway as the mainstream or dominant knowledge-policy paradigm.12 The emergence of recent global debates about food production and consumption can be traced back to specific private, public and civil society actors, and the institutional arrangements they brought about. The articulation of sustainable intensification or environmentally friendly production using more advanced technologies in more intensive ways (such as more crop per drop of water extracted or grain yield from genetically modified seeds designed for pest control) (Conway 1995; Garnett et al. 2013) contrasts with the specifications for diverse ways of the eco-functional intensification of production and distribution systems (enhancing ecological and social gains and contributions to agricultural 12

In a paper titled “The System of Rice Intensification: A Re-discovered Agrarian Alternative,” presented at the workshop on “Cultivating Futures—Ethnographies of Alternative Agricultures in (South) Asian Landscapes of Crisis” at the University of Heidelberg, December 12–14, 2013, Dominic Glover discussed the Green Revolution as an anomaly, a mere blip in the larger and diverse trajectories of global agriculture.

34

Chapter One

production) with the increasing substitution of industrial products and energy, using knowledge, labour and local farm-based inputs (Allaire & Wolf 2004; Niggli et al. 2008). Vanloqueren & Baret (2009) and Levidow et al. (2012) conceptualize these as two different paradigms—one a life science based decomposable value-chains paradigm, and the other a paradigm based on an agroecological knowledge and comprehensive integrated product identity. Among the key features and plethora of concepts, criteria and parameters deployed in agrarian alternatives, the one that strikes the greatest discord with the life science based reproducible productionist paradigm is that of productivity. Productivity is conceptualized and measured as individual commodity production measures (per unit of land, and other inputs) in the life science based paradigm, and as system productivity (stocks and flows of each part of an agroecosystem) measures of interactions and synergisms in the KBBE paradigm (Levidow et al. 2012). Yet, almost all the agrarian alternatives strive to gain legitimacy within the dominant paradigm of knowledge and policy. The question about why the formal organized agricultural research systems do not endorse agroecological alternatives (Vanloqueren & Baret 2009) should ideally come after asking why agroecological alternatives seek legitimacy from the formal agricultural knowledge-policy paradigm. Given the persistence of institutions and norms of the dominant life science based paradigm, the attempts by agroecological alternatives to gain acceptance or legitimacy within formal agricultural research and administration systems are a futile effort. The developmental state (as the actor personifying national imperatives and transnational development norms) has invested in agricultural modernization, and centralization and productionism have been global knowledge and policy norms since the 1960s. The power and persistence of the productionist paradigm is best illustrated with some of the current debates about GM food crops, chemical fertilizers, energy use, water and subsidies. Because they are pitched on production and productivity measures, these debates are polarised with entrenched pro and anti positions. Being equally technocentric, they are unable to engage with the social, political and ecological contexts of the problems and solutions spaces where technologies are generated and deployed (Standing Committee Report 2012; IAS 2010). Entrenched in their respective paradigms, refusing to question and analyse the conceptual basis and causal relationships that shape their “scientific” truths, the polarisation continues.

Knowing and Administering Food: How do we Explain Persistence?

35

The persistence of institutions is acknowledged by celebrated agricultural economists whose work proclaimed the unquestionable successes of the Green Revolution. Ruttan (2005) states that the problem today is not just that public and private sector agricultural research (within the conventional life science based Green Revolution paradigm) has begun to experience diminishing returns. It is also that the difficult jobs of thinking about and designing institutional innovations are not being addressed. It is evident now that, though the yield growth rates in the Green Revolution paradigm have stagnated since the mid-1980s, the physical productivity gains are not the only outcomes of the dominant life science based paradigm (Evenson & Pingali 2009; Feldman et al. 2010). The broader socially embedded institutions governing the Green Revolution live on in the organized knowledge and policy actors, the national and international agricultural research systems, the industries producing and supplying inputs, and subsidies, price incentives and other mechanisms provided by the state (Evenson & Pingali 2009). These actors, whose evolution has strengthened the centralized productionist institutions or norms, are now trapped in these norms. They are unable to step out and “build secure bridges between the island empires of agriculture, health and environment” (Ruttan 2005, 465), and will resist the attempts made by agroecological alternatives to do so. Given the institutional stranglehold of productionism, the privileged knowledge and policy actors and past production investments, problem statements and solutions for food security within the current policy framework will always be inadequate and ineffective.

Identifying and transforming institutions “The rules we create shape our future and our future food systems.” (Tansey & Rajote 2008)

This paper shows how evidence of one kind of “productive power” has always been a winner, even when there is evidence about increasing calorie poverty, a massive informal and unorganized workforce which includes marginal and small farmers, and major gender and social inequities. It persists even in the face of agri-environmental consequences that worsen production capacities. The paper then traces and explains the evolution of the organized knowledge for agriculture and the administration of the science-based productionist paradigm. It highlights the norms of decentralization, local knowledge resources, capital, labour and accountabilities that have evolved with different knowledge and policy actors over centuries. In concluding this paper, we ask if institutions

36

Chapter One

or norms can be identified and institutional reform be enabled so as to draft an alternative policy framework for food, agriculture and nutrition. Several agroecological alternatives are governed by or subscribe to alternative institutions and norms, and create new measures or indicators like systems productivity (as opposed to individual commodity production) and soil health (beyond soil fertility). Well intentioned and designed as they are, the National Food Security Mission (NFSM), that focuses on producing more food, and the National Food Security Bill (NFSB) are both located within the same centralized productionist paradigm, and technically both are about supply—of seeds, inputs and equipment to produce food, and of food itself. To illustrate the contrasting institutions framing the two paradigms (productionist and agroecological) of food, agriculture and nutrition, we refer to India’s National Food Security Bill 2013 andvia Campesina’s Food Sovereignty Principles (http://dfpd.nic.in/fcamin/FSBILL and www.viacampesina.org, respectively). While the NFSB is safely located within the current productionist paradigm that ensures the maintenance of the current relationship between production investments and technological capacities, la via Campesina’s principles challenge them and offer an alternative system, relating informal labour and knowledge to dignity and livelihood capabilities to enhance productivity in ways that nurture ecosystems and social systems. Within the prevalent productionist policy framework, it is not essential that programmes like NFSM or acts like the NFSB be conceptualized, planned and implemented on a decentralized basis, or account for local resources, costs, preferences or traditions (Rao 1982) of food and agriculture. The policy framework to address food security through production targets is different from that which addresses food security with the policy goal of minimizing nutritional inequalities (ibid.). There is evidence that rural-urban income differences, and the incomes of smallholder farmers and rural workers in particular (ibid.), are affected or disrupted by production targets and inputs or the support services deployed to achieve them (UNEP – IISD 2004). In effect, the prevalent policy framework cannot address food security and nutrition—a different policy goal and different institutions or norms are necessary. Some elements of alternative policy frameworks have been recommended before. That the distribution of productive assets like land and skills must be more equal and enabled by the state (Raj 1976), region-specific access issues must be addressed on an urgent basis compared to national foodproduction targets (Patnaik 2007; Jodha 1989), and regions and

Knowing and Administering Food: How do we Explain Persistence?

37

populations with chronic hunger and malnutrition must receive special attention (WFP-MSSRF 2009) have been prescribed time and again. The persistence of minimal calorie intake, unsafe drinking water, inadequate sanitation and highly anaemic women and children, characteristic of rural Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Gujarat (WFPMSSRF 2009), especially in the tribal belts in diverse agroecosystems, demands that water and sanitation be included in the institutional framework for food and nutritional security. If “minimal nutritional inequality” was the policy goal (Rao 1982), decentralized and responsive knowledge and administrative support systems would be in place to report and monitor calorie intake levels and nutritional inequalities. There would also have been support for the increasing numbers of smallholder farmers and rural labourers (main and marginal workers in agriculture) to their livelihoods and income opportunities in respective agroecosystems, food systems and non-farm industries. But the rules or institutions demanded for this reduction of nutritional inequality are very different from the ones that exist for the centralized knowledge and administration of food, agriculture and nutrition. As a first step, it is important to acknowledge that the rules we create shape how we produce, access and consume food (Tansey & Rajote 2008). A willingness to step out of the current policy framework is essential to identify and modify or reform the institutions or rules that distort or disrupt the secure bridges between agriculture, health and the environment. There are several entry points enabling modified or new institutions or rules, and corresponding objectives, actors, acts and agency. To begin with, the neglect of the environmental consequences of the “productive power” unleashed on agriculture is acknowledged by the state (Planning Commission 2008), and there is a policy demand for correcting these knowledge and administration systems. This offers opportunities for decentralized natural resource-based, location-specific agricultural production programmes. The state also recognizes the evidence showing that these environmental impacts cause an overall decline in the incremental response to input use (irrigation and chemical fertilizers in particular) (Vaidyanathan 2010; Planning Commission 2011), thereby demanding new ways of working or institutions of agricultural research, modified contents and partners in knowledge. Even the demand to assess subsidies against potential public investments offers an opportunity to pilot test institutions that enable the substitution of external inputs (subsidised and supplied) with local input generation and employment opportunities, which can also erase the aggregate demand constraint in rural India. An important argument branching out of the expected

38

Chapter One

sequential development of economies is that the rural poor dependent on agriculture must be moved to urban industrial employment, and the intensification of capital and energy inputs in agricultural production must be promoted to increase productivity and produce more to feed the hungry and development-displaced populations. In India, the much touted agrarian transformation did not happen (resulting in an increase of areas under marginal and smallholdings), and jobless industrial growth has become the norm. Therefore, even this consideration of a policy to move over four hundred million people out of agriculture and into urban industrial livelihoods offers an opportunity for institutional reform. New norms are necessary for regional and local food systems that employ people on and off farms in the processing and distribution of food, and maintaining quantity, quality and safety standards. In order to achieve the vision of a hunger-free, well-nourished population, the policy goal of minimizing nutritional inequalities is necessary. There are several options for initiating institutional reforms, and institutions and rules for framing a new national food, agriculture and nutrition policy.

References Allaire, G. & S. Wolf. 2004. “Cognitive Representations and Institutional Hybridity in Agro Food Innovation.” Science, Technology and Human Values 29 (4): 431–58. Altieri, M. 2000. Agroecology—the Science of Sustainable Agriculture. Boulder: Westview Press. Bhalla, G. S. & G. Singh. 2010. “Final Report on Planning Commission Project Growth of Indian Agriculture a District Level Study.” New Delhi: CSRD, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Biggs, S. & S. Feldman. 2012. “International Shifts in Agricultural Debates and Practice: An Historical View of Analyses of Global Agriculture.” In Issues in Agroecology: Present Status and Future Prospects, Volume 2: Integrating Agriculture, Conservation and Ecotourism, edited by Campbell, B. Springer: Societal Influences. Chambers, J. D. & G. E. Mingay. 1966. The Agricultural Revolution 1750–1880. London: B T Batsford. Conway, G. 1997. The Doubly Green Revolution—Food for all in the 21st Century. Penguin: New York. Deaton, Angus & Jean Drèze. 2009. “Food and Nutrition in India: Facts and Interpretations.” Economic and Political Weekly 44 (7): 42–65. Desai, A. V. 1985. “Market Structure and Technology: their Interdependence in India.” Research Policy 14 (2): 161–70.

Knowing and Administering Food: How do we Explain Persistence?

39

Dev, S. M. & A. N. Sharma. 2010. “Food Security in India: Performance, Challenges and Policies.” Oxfam India Working Paper Series VII. September 2010. Dev, S. M. 2012. “Agriculture-nutrition Linkages and Entry Points in India.” Working Paper 6, IGIDR: Mumbai. Drèze, J. & A. K. Sen. 1989. Hunger and Public Action. London: Clarendon Press. Evenson, R. & P. Pingali. 2009. Handbook of Agricultural Economics Vol. 4. Amsterdam: Elseveir. Feldman, S. & S. Biggs. 2012. “International Shifts in Agricultural Debates and Practice: An Historical View of Analyses of Global Agriculture.” In Issues in Agro Ecology Vol. 2, Integrating Agriculture, Conservation and Ecotourism-Societal influences, edited by B. Campbell. New York: Springer. Feldman, S., S. Biggs & R. Raina. 2010. “A Messy Confrontation of a Crisis in Agricultural Science.” Economic and Political Weekly 45 (3): 66–71. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1987. Agriculture Toward 2000. Rome: FAO. —. 2001. The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Rome: FAO. —. 2006. Food Security, Policy Brief No.2. Rome: FAO. Food Corporation of India. 2015. Report of the High Level Committee on Reorienting the Role and Restructuring of Food Corporation in India. New Delhi. Foresight. 2011. The Future of Food and Farming—Executive Summary. London: The Government Office for Science. Friedman, H. 1992. “Distance and Durability—the Shaky Foundations of the World Food Economy.” Third World Quarterly 13 (2): 371–83. Gangopadhyay, S., P. Lanjouw, T. Vishwanath & N. Yoshida. 2010. “Identifying Pockets of Poverty: Insights from Poverty Mapping Experiments in Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal.” Indian Journal of Human Development 4 (1): 5–28. Garnett, T M., C. Appleby, A. Balmford, I. J. Bateman, T. G. Benton, P. Bloomer, B. Burlingame, M. Dawkins, L. Dolan, D. Fraser, M. Herrero, I. Hoffmann, P. Smith, P. K. Thornton, C. Toulmin, S. J. Vermeulen & H. C. J. Godfray. 2013. “Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture: Premises and Policies.” Science 341 (6141): 33–4. Gillespie, S., J. Harriss & S. Kadiyala. 2012. “The Agriculture Nutrition Disconnect in India- What Do We Know?” IFPRI Discussion Paper 01187, IFPRI: Washington DC.

40

Chapter One

Gopaldas, T. 2006. “Hidden Hunger: The Problem and Possible Interventions.” EPW 41 (34): 3671–4. Griliches, Z. 1958. “Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations.” Journal of Political Economy 66 (2): 419–31. HIVOS. 2011. “Small, Competitive and Resilient—how Small Scale Produces Contribute to Food Security.” Position Paper. Netherlands: HIVOS. Hayami, Y. 1970. “Elements of Induced Innovation: A Historical Perspective of the Green Revolution.” Staff Paper Series, 70–1. University of Minnesota. Indian Academy of Sciences. 2010. “Inter-Academy Report on GM Crops.” http://www.ias.ac.in/academy/inter_academy/GMCrops-inter Academy-report-updated.pdf. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. 2009. Agriculture at a Crossroads: Synthesis Report. Island Press. Knapp, S. J. 1999. “Analyzing Narratives of Expertise: Toward the Development of a Burkean Pentadic Scheme.” The Sociological Quarterly 40 (4): 587–612. International Food Policy Research Institute. 2002. “Green Revolution— Curse or Blessing?” Briefing Paper. Washington,D.C. Jodha, N. S. 1990. “Rural Common Property Resources: Contributions and Crisis.” EPW 25 (26). Lang, T. 2010. “Crisis? What Crisis? The Normality of the Current Food Crisis.” Journal of Agrarian Change 10 (1): 87–97. Levidow, L., K. Birch & T. Papaioannou. 2012. “Divergent Paradigms of European Agro-Food Innovation: The Knowledge-Based BioEconomy (KBBE) as an R&D Agenda.” Science, Technology and Human Values 38 (1): 94–125. Marcus, A. I. 1986. “From State Chemistry to State Science: The Transformation of the Idea of the Agricultural Experiment Station, 1875–87.” In The Agricultural Scientific Enterprise: A System in Transition, L. Busch & W. B. Lacy, 3–12. Boulder: Westview Press. McKay, A. & B. Baulch. 2004. “How many Chronically Poor People are There in the World? Some Preliminary Estimates.” CPRC Working Paper No. 45. Chronic Poverty Research Centre. Mohmand, S. K. 2012. “Policies without Politics: Analysing Nutrition Governance in India.” IDS. Sussex and DFID. Mody, A. 2005. “Quest for Inclusive Growth: Continuity and Constraints in Indian Economic Policies.” Economic and Political Weekly 37: 4052–61.

Knowing and Administering Food: How do we Explain Persistence?

41

National Agriculture Policy. 2000. Department of Agriculture and Cooperation. New Delhi: Government of India. Nellemann, C., M. MacDevette, T. Manders, B. Eickhout, B. Svihus, A. G. Prins & B. P. Kaltenborn (eds). 2009. The Environmental Food Crisis—The Environment’s Role in Averting Future Food Crises. Arendal: United Nations Environment Programme. Niggli, U., A. Slabe, O. Schmid, N. Halberg & M. Schluter. 2008. “Vision for an Organic Food and Farming Research Agenda to 2025.” Brussels: IFOAM-EU Group. http://www.tporganics.eu/upload/TPORganics_VisionResearchAgenda .pdf. Olby, R. 1991. “Social Imperialism and State Support for Agricultural Research in Edwardian Britain.” Annals of Science 48 (6): 509–26. Palladino, P. 1990. “The Political Economy of Applied Research: Plant Breeding in Great Britain, 1910-1940.” Minerva 28 (4): 446–68. Patnaik, U. 2007. The Republic of Hunger and Other Essays. New Delhi: Three Essays Collective. Planning Commission. 2008. Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007–2012),Vol. III. Planning Commission. New Delhi: Government of India University Press. Planning Commission. 2011. Approach Paper to the XII Five Year Plan. Planning Commission: Government of India. —. 2012. Twelfth Five Year Plan 2012–17 Vol. II. Planning Commission, Government of India. Pretty, J. et al. 2006. “Resource Conserving Agriculture Increases Yields in Developing Countries.” Environmental Sciences and Technology 40 (4): 1114–19. Raina, R. S. 1997. “Public Patronage and Political Neutrality in Agricultural Research: Lessons from British experience.” The Economic and Political Weekly 32 (39): 2473–85. —. 2011. “Institutional Strangleholds: Agricultural Science and the State in India.” Shaping India – Economic Change in Historical Perspective, edited by D. Narayana & R. Mahadevan, 99–123. New Delhi: Routledge. Raina, R. S. & P. S. Vijay Shankar. 2011. “Rainfed Agriculture: Enabling New Rules of the Game.” SIID Policy Options, No. 1, December. New Delhi: Centre for Policy Research. Raina, R. S. 2012. “Institutional Immunity: Limiting the Scope and Space for Innovation and Development in India.” Presented at the Conference on India’s Economy—A Longer and Broader View, organized by CDS

42

Chapter One

and NMML, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi. December 14–15. —. 2013. “Food, Work and Employment: Agricultural S&T in Context.” In Rural Development: S&T Strategies and Capacities (Chapter 5), in India S&T Report, edited by Raina and Mandal. New Delhi: CSIRNISTADS and Foundation Press. Raj, K. N. 1975. “Linkages in Industrialization and Development Strategy: Some Basic Issues.” Journal of Development Planning 8 (1): 105–20. Rajeswari, S. 1992. “The Organisation of Agricultural Research in India: An Economic Analysis of Technology Generation, 1860–1990.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum, University of Kerala. —. 1995. “Agricultural Research: Conceptual Clarity and Measurement.” World Development 23 (4): 617–35. Ramalingaswamy, V., U. Jonson & J. Rohde. 1996. The Asian Enigma— the Progress of Nations. New York: UNICEF. Rao, V. K. R. V. 1982. Food, Nutrition and Poverty in India. Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd. Riches, N. 1967. The Agricultural Revolution in Norfolk (2nd revised edition). London: Frank Cass and Company. Rossiter, M. 1975. The Emergence of Agricultural Science—Justus Liebig and the Americans, 1840–1880. London: Yale University Press. Royal Society. 2009. Reaping the Benefits: Science and Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture. London: Royal Society. Russell, Sir E. J. 1966. A History of Agricultural Science in Great Britain 1620–1954. London: George Allen and Unwin. Ruttan, V. W. 1982. Agricultural Research Policy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. —. 2005. “Scientific and Technical Constraints on Agricultural Production: Prospects for the Future.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 149 (4): 453–68. Schultz, T. W. 1984. “The Economics of Agricultural Research.” In Agricultural Development in the Third World, edited by Carl K. Eicher & John M. Staatz, 335–347. The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore. Schweikhardt, D. B. & J. T. Bonnen. 1986. “Policy Conflicts in Agricultural Research: Historical Perspective and Today’s Challenge.” In The Agricultural Scientific Enterprise: A System in Transition, edited by Busch & Lacy, 13–27. Boulder: Westview Press.

Knowing and Administering Food: How do we Explain Persistence?

43

Shrum, W. 2000. “Science and Story in Development: The Emergence of Non-governmental Organizations in Agricultural Research.” Social Studies of Science 30 (1): 95–124. Stein, A. J., P. Nestel, J. V. Meenakshi, M. Qaim, H. P. S. Sachdev & Z. A. Bhtta. 2007. “Plant Breeding to Control Zinc Deficiency in India: How Cost Effective is Bio-fortification?” Public Health Nutrition 10 (5): 492–501. Subramaniam, C. 1972. A New Strategy in Agriculture. New Delhi: ICAR. Tansey, G. & T. Rajotte. 2008. The Future Control of Food. London: Earthscan. Trigo, E. 1987. “Agricultural Research Organization in the Developing World: Diversity and Evolution.” In Policy for Agricultural Research, edited by Vernon W. Ruttan & Carl Pray, 251–82. London: Westview Press. UNEP-IISD. 2004. Exploring the Links. Manitoba: UNEP and IISD. UN-HRC. 2010. Agro-ecology—Report Submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Oliver De Schutter, to the UN General Assembly, December. Vaidyanathan, A. 2003. “Food Consumption and Nutrition Status: A Reexamination based on Indian Experience.” In Economy and the Quality of Life: Essays in Memory of Ashok Rudra, edited by Ashok Rudra, Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Manabendu Chattopadhyay & Ratana KhƗsnabiĞa. Kolkata: Dasgupta and Co. —. 2010. Agricultural Growth in India: The Role of Technology, Incentives and Institutions. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Vanloqueren, G. & P. V. Baret. 2009. “How Agricultural Research Systems Shape a Technological Regime that Develops Genetic Engineering but Locks out Agro Ecological Innovations.” Research Policy 38 (6): 971–83. Von Braun, J., M. S. Swaminathan & M. Rosegrant. 2005. Agriculture, Food Security, Nutrition and the Millennium Development Goals. Washington, DC: IFPRI. WFP & MSSRF. 2009. “Report on the State of Food Insecurity in India.” MSSRF, Chennai and WFP New Delhi. World Health Organisation. 2008. “Food and Nutrition Policy and Plans of Action.” Report of the WHO-FAO Intercountry Workshop, Hyderabad, December 17–21.

CHAPTER TWO FOOD SECURITY: INDIA FROM A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE SWATI NARAYAN

Introduction1 India is home to a quarter of the world’s hungry people.2 Since the Green Revolution the country has produced enough to feed itself, but it has not yet been able to wipe out mass hunger. Currently, more than 40% of all Indian children below the age of five are underweight3—a decrease of only 10% over the past three decades. Though food prices have soared in recent years, small-scale farmers have not benefited from high retail prices as they usually receive far less for their produce and are often net food buyers. In fact, in the past 15 years, in an unprecedented wave, a quarter of a million farmers crippled by debt have chosen to commit suicide.4 Clearly, the country is in the midst of both a nutrition crisis and an agrarian crisis. This paper aims at a broad-brush analysis of both strands. In the next two sections it encapsulates India’s problem of food distribution and food production. The concluding section coalesces these strands to explore the concept of “food justice” from a rights perspective to unearth the priorities for eliminating hunger in India. 1

This section draws heavily from Narayan, “Why India is Losing its War on Hunger,” Oxfam Case Study (Oxfam International, 2011) 2 FAO Statistics Division (http://bit.ly/14FRxGV). 3 International Institute for Population Sciences, (2007), India National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005–6 (Vol. 1). International Institute for Population Sciences. 4 P. Sainath, “1.5 lakh farm suicides in 1997-2005,” The Hindu, 2007. The entire archive by Sainath on farmer suicides and agrarian distress in India can be accessed at http://www.indiatogether.org/ opinions/psainath/#vid.

46

Chapter Two

Food Distribution Since independence, public pressure in the thriving Indian democracy has ensured that large-scale famines have become politically untenable.5 However, India has not been able to wipe out mass hunger and malnutrition. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) definition: “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” More specifically, it identifies “undernourishment” as the consumption of fewer than about 1,800 kilocalories a day—the absolute minimum that most people require to live healthy and productive lives.6In India, more than two-hundred million people fall below even this highly minimalistic benchmark.7

Hunger is declining globally On the other hand, hunger is on a declining trend globally. From 1990–2 to 2010–12, the prevalence of undernourishment declined 17% globally. While the number of people who are chronically undernourished has fallen by twenty million from 2010–12, an estimated 842 million remained hungry in 2011–13.8 China is one of the frontrunners in the battle against poverty and hunger. In 1981, 84% of the Chinese population was below the poverty line of $1.25 a day,9 but by 2005 their share declined to just 5

Amartya Sen, Poverty and Famine. An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981). 6 “Under-nutrition” goes beyond calories and signifies deficiencies in food intake and/or the poor utilization of nutrients due to illnesses, or a combination of factors caused by household food insecurity, inadequate maternal health or child care practices, or insufficient access to health services, safe water, and sanitation. “Malnutrition” refers more broadly to both under-nutrition (problems of deficiencies) and over-nutrition (problems of unbalanced diets, such as consumption of too many calories in relation to requirements with or without a low intake of micronutrient-rich foods). 7 FAO Food Security Indicators http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/foodsecurity/Food_Security_Indicators .xlsx (last updated December 20, 2013). 8 FAO, 2013, “The Multiple Dimensions of Food Security: State of Food Insecurity in the World" (SOFI 2013), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Food Programme (WFP). 9 in 2005 prices.

Food Security: India from a Global Perspective

47

16%—a 6.6% proportionate annual rate of poverty reduction.10 Brazil’s Fome Zero [Zero Hunger] strategy is also an inspiration, including a range of initiatives such as food banks, community kitchens, school meals, cash transfers, support for family farms, subsidised restaurants and crop insurance.11 Within five years, Brazil’s child mortality rate reduced by 13% and twenty million people rose above the poverty line.12

South Asia is worse than Sub-Saharan Africa South Asian children are twice as likely to be malnourished than those in Sub-Saharan Africa.13 South Asia also has cumulatively more hungry people than all of Sub-Saharan Africa. In 1991–2, 17% of the world’s hungry lived in Sub-Saharan Africa compared to 32% in South Asia. By 2011–13, the former contributed to 26% while the later rose to 35% (see Fig. 2.1 below). Fig. 2.1. Percentage distribution of number of undernourished persons

Source: FAO Statistics Division (http://bit.ly/14FRxGV).

10 Martin Ravallion, A Comparative Perspective On Poverty Reduction In Brazil, China And India, World Bank Working Paper, 5080, (2009), http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-5080. 11 http://www.fomezero.gov.br. 12 Kate Kilpatrick, “Fighting Hunger in Brazil: Much Achieved, More to Do,” Oxfam Case Study (June 2010). 13 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MALN.ZS.

48

Chapter Two

In fact, 25% of the world’s hungry lived in India in 2011–13 (see Fig. 2.2 below). More pertinently, the Global Hunger Index14 marks this hunger in India as being of “alarming” severity—one among only 18 countries in the world. Fig. 2.2. Number of undernourished persons in India and globally

Source: FAO Statistics Division (http://bit.ly/14FRxGV).

Children, women and marginalised communities are the most vulnerable Children under the age of six, who are entirely dependent on adult caregivers, are particularly vulnerable to malnutrition and related deaths. In 2005–6, more than 40% of all Indian children under five were underweight.15 From day one, the odds are heavily stacked against Indian 14 GHI = (proportion of population that is undernourished + prevalence of underweight in children under 5 + mortality rate of children under 5) / 3. 15 International Institute for Population Sciences (2007), India National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005–6 (Vol. 1), International Institute for Population Sciences.

Food Security: India from a Global Perspective

49

children. Almost 15% are born with low birth weight, one of the highest proportions in the world (see Fig. 2.3).16One of the reasons for this is that young mothers are ill equipped for childbirth and care. In India, for example, two-thirds of girls are married as teenagers,17 and these underage, often illiterate, malnourished and impoverished mothers are more likely to perpetuate the inter-generational cycle of hunger. Fig. 2.3. Levels of malnutrition in Indian children by age (months)

Source: National Family Health Survey, 2005–6.

The traditional family structure also breeds subtle forms of social exclusion and deprivation. Women often eat last and the least, and the food price hikes have worsened this practice of “maternal buffering.” India is also one of the few countries in the world where gender disparities are prevalent even in child malnutrition.19

16

UNICEF, “The State of the World’s Children 2011: Adolescence—An Age of Opportunity” (New York: United Nations Children Education Fund, 2011). 17 Ibid. 19 In all, 47% of girls are underweight compared to 44% of boys. UNICEF, “A Report Card on Nutrition,” Number 4, May 2006.

50

Chapter Two

Fig. 2.4. Malnutrition levels based on caste and tribe

Source: Fred Arnold, Sulabha Parasuraman, P. Arokiasamy & Monica Kothari, “Nutrition in India. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), India, 2005–06,” Mumbai: International Institute for Population Sciences (Calverton, Maryland, USA: ICF Macro, 2009). Men and women refer to (married) adults in the 15–49 age group.

Food Security: India from a Global Perspective

51

Caste, which has regimented occupational choices in India for generations, also plays a role in aggravating poverty and hunger, and nutritional indicators bear testimony to this consistent deprivation. Malnutrition levels are distinctly higher among men, women and children from scheduled tribes and castes (see Fig. 2.4 above).20 A three-decade study across rural India has revealed that poverty is increasingly becoming hereditary and geographically concentrated.21 The systemic discrimination faced by marginalised communities has become almost endemic.

Food Distribution Priorities The right to food is the most basic of human rights enshrined in many international instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Olivier De Schutter, the former Special Rapporteur on the right to food, stated that: “Any hungry person is one whose right to food has been violated.”24 The Indian Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, also upheld that the right to food arises from the fundamental “right to life.” More specifically, to protect the right to food governments need to ensure the effective delivery of social entitlements with a special focus on the most vulnerableʊwomen, children and marginalized communities. From this analysis, the crucial food distribution priorities in the Indian context are: ƒ

Universal Access

Given the scale of hunger, the country cannot afford to settle for less than universal coverage, as food insecurity is widespread—77% of Indians in 2007 lived on less than 50 cents per day.25 Malnutrition has even seeped into affluent families, with a fifth of children from the wealthiest 20% of families being malnourished.26 The National Food Security Act, 2013 falls 20 The technical definition is: “married women or men are persons who have been married at least once in their lives although their current marital status may not be ‘married’.” 21 Richard Mahapatra, “Poverty Begets Poverty,” Down To Earth (May 31, 2011). 24 Statement by Olivier De Schutter, Special Rapporteur on the right to food at the Interactive Thematic Dialogue of the UN General Assembly on The Global Food Crisis and the Right to Food Trusteeship Council Chamber, April 6, 2009, New York. 25 National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector, Report on Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganised Sector, (2007). 26 Ibid.

Chapter Two

52

short of universal coverage, but provides state governments with the opportunity to take the initiative to expand coverage within their boundaries with their own resources. ƒ

Child Nutrition and Gender Empowerment

Pregnant and lactating women and children have special nutrition needs. Young children, for example, need to be fed several times a day and the first two years offer a critical window of opportunity to combat malnutrition. The Lancet Child Survival Series27 identifies breastfeeding28 as the single most effective malnutrition preventive intervention in saving lives. Mothers therefore need the support of crèches and cash entitlements, which can enable them to recuperate after giving birth and give adequate time to feed their vulnerable infants. ƒ

Social Inclusion

Marginalised communities in particular need special attention. The Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA 2005), without any explicit targeting, has proved to be remarkably effective in focussing on the most vulnerable, as half of the workers in 2009–10 belonged to the most socially marginalised and impoverished communities.29 The self-selection mechanism ensures that only those who are really needy will be willing to undertake physical labour. But to revive the efficacy of the programme it is essential that the chronic delay in wage payments is resolved.30

27

Lancet, The Lancet Child Survival Series, (2003), http://www.who.int/child_adolescent_health/documents/lancet_child_survival/en/. 28 Including exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months, starting within one hour of birth and continuing for two years. 29 Lapses in NREGA implementation admitted on anniversary day, poverty, infochange.org, newscan, (February 3, 2010). 30 “Congress Ruled the Worst Performing States in MGNREGA Implementation,” Economic Times, (January 37, 2014).

Food Security: India from a Global Perspective

53

Food Production Fig. 2.5. FAO Food Price Index

Source: FAO 2014.

Globally, food prices are stabilizing after the peaks in 2010 and 2011 (see Fig. 2.5 above). But Indian agriculture is in the grip of a crisis. Its contribution to GDP has declined from 62% in 1960 to a mere 17% in 2011.31 The crux of the problem is that more than half the population continues to survive on cultivation.32 Today, their plight is increasingly shrinking into oblivion.

31

World Development Indicators http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS (World Bank and OECD). 32 World Development Indicators

54

Chapter Two

Since the 1990s, agriculture has been deliberately sidelined, globally.33 In India too, agricultural investments have shrunk, 34 fertilizer subsidies replaced,35 extension services wiped out36 and district agriculture research centres37left to become almost moribund.38 It is little wonder that the number of indebted smallholder farmers has doubled since 1991.39

Food supply is adequate Though food grain production has more than trebled in South Asia over the last 30–40 years,40 per capita food availability struggles to keep pace with the burgeoning population.41 By 2050 (37 years from the time of writing), India will be the most populous nation on earth. increasing from the current 1.2 billion to 1.6 billion.42 But the productivity peaks of the Green Revolution are also undeniably over. Even as India's population grew by 17% in the last decade, farm output has expanded at just half that

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS (International Labour Organisation). 33 W. Bello, “Why Africa Goes Hungry.” Business Daily Africa (2008). 34 Jha, “Investment and Subsidies in Indian Agriculture,” ASARC Working Paper (2007/03). Oxfam International, “Double Edged Prices: Lessons from the Food Price Crisis: 10 Actions Developing Countries Should Take,” Oxfam International (2008). 35 Sacchidananda Mukherjee, “Nutrient Based Fertiliser Study: Will Farmers Adopt Agricultural Best Management Prices?” Economic and Political Weekly (December 4, 2010). 36 P. Sainath, “Corporate Socialism’s 2G Orgy,” The Hindu (March 7, 2011). 37 Krishivikaskendras. English translation: “Agricultural Advancement Centres/Universities.” 38 Rahul Goswami, “Industrial Farming Versus the Peasantry,” Himal South Asian, (October 2010) 39 Officially, within ten years from 1991, the number of Indian farm households in debt almost doubled from 26% to 48.6%. P. Sainath “Of Luxury Cars and Lowly Tractors,” CounterPunch (December 28, 2010). 40 One World, “Food Security in Bangladesh” (2011). 41 According to the GOI Economic Survey, food-grain production in India declined from 208 kg per capita per annum in 1996–7 to 186 kg in 2009–10, a fall of 11%. Despite reduced production, India has been exporting an average of 7 million tons of cereals per annum, causing availability to further decline by 15% from 510 grams per capita per day in 1991 to 436 grams in 2008. C. Saxena, “Food Security in India,” Inclusion, www.inclusion.in (2011). 42 French Institute of Demographic Studies (INED).

Food Security: India from a Global Perspective

55

rate.43 Nevertheless, India’s present food availability (2,321 kilocalorie per person per day) remains comparable with international averages (2,831 kilocalories) (see Fig. 2.6 below). Fig. 2.6. Food supply in India—crops equivalent (kilocalories/capita/day)

Source: FAO Statistics Division (http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/home/E).

The food supply is not balanced The production and availability of food is heavily biased in favour of cereals (see Fig. 2.7 below). In India, 57% of the kilocalories available per person per day are only in terms of cereals. Vegetables cover only 1% of the world’s total agricultural area and in India they form only 2% of food availability.44 Projections indicate that in the next quarter century, the demand and consumption of milk and vegetables is expected to rise by 70%, and of meat, eggs and fish by 100%. In India,45pulses as the main source of protein in largely vegetarian diets are also deficient in terms of their availability. 43

Aarati Krishnan, “Harvest the Agriculture Theme for Profits,” The Hindu Business Line (2011). 44 In 2009, in terms of food supply the total available vegetables is equivalent to 46 kilocalories per person per day of the total food supply of 2,321 kilocalories per person per day 45 Kumar and Birthal, in Impact of Rising Global Food Prices and Policy Responses in South Asia, edited by Jayatilleke Bandara & Saroja Selvanathan (ARC Asia Pacific Futures Research Network 2007).

56

Chapter Two

Fig. 2.7. Food supply in India—crops equivalent, aggregated items (kilocalories/ capita/day)

Source: FAO Statistics Division (http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/home/E).

Amongst cereals, there is also a heavy emphasis on water-guzzling and resource intensive rice and wheat, rather than traditional varieties of millets. In all, 37% of the cereal production in India comprises wheat, while rice enjoys the lion’s share at 51%. Coarse grains including millets constitute only 12% of food produced (see Fig. 2.8 below). In the last five years, the yields have been virtually flat, even for rice.46 Even in the lush wheat fields of the northern state of Punjab, farmers complain that the productivity increases of the Green Revolution are a distant memory.47

46

Government of India, “Economic Survey, 2010–11, Chapter 8: Agriculture and Food Management,” (2011), http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2010-11/echap-08.pdf. 47 Anand, “Green Revolution in India Wilts as Subsidies Backfire,” The Wall Street Journal, (February 22, 2010).

Food Security: India from a Global Perspective

57

Fig. 2.8. Food supply in India—crops equivalent, cereals (kilocalaries/capita/day)

Source: FAO Statistics Division (http://faostat3.fao.org/faostatgateway/go/to/home/E).

Fertilizer use is increasing Marginal and smallholder farmers are also facing a crisis due to the increasing costs of inputs. The Green Revolution, which relied on the massive use of pesticides and fertilizers, has made farmers dependent on the substantial use of agro-chemicals. In India in the last decade alone, fertilizer use has skyrocketed (see Fig. 2.9 below) compared to international standards. Unfortunately, the price of food is increasingly linked to energy prices. As energy prices soar, the cost of agriculture increases. More expensive oil leads to higher costs for energy usage on farms, greater transportation costs and more expensive inputs such as fertilizer.

58

Chapter Two

Fig. 2.9. Nutrient use on arable and permanent crop area (tons of nutrients per 1,000 Ha)

Source: FAO Statistics Division (http://faostat3.fao.org/faostatgateway/go/to/home/E).

Food Security: India from a Global Perspective

59

Fig. 2.10. Satellite images of depleted groundwater tables across the South Asia breadbasket (2009)

Source: Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)/NASA/Tiwari, V. M. J. Wahr & S. Swenson, Dwindling groundwater resources in northern India, from satellite gravity observations. (Geophys, 2009).

60

Chapter Two

Water tables are drying up Across South Asia, nearly 95% of fresh water is used for agriculture.50 In parts of India, poorly managed irrigation systems have already led to widespread salinity and water logging.51 With three-fifths of the cultivated area in India being rain-fed, farmers are very dependent on the regularity of the monsoons. As a result, climate change is predicted to disproportionately affect impoverished rural households dependent on climate sensitive agriculture.52The IndoGangetic plain, home to one-seventh of the world’s population, and which produces one-fifth of the world’s wheat, is likely to be hit especially hard,53 and could threaten the food security of two-hundred million people.54 Smallholder rain-fed farms, with the least capacity to adapt to climate change, are likely to be the most affected.

Forty percent of rural households are landless Two-thirds of India’s poor people live in rural areas55where access to land is all-important. But even after decades of failed land reforms, 41% of rural households are effectively landless.56 Furthermore, three-quarters of 50 UNEP, “Freshwater under Threat: Vulnerability Assessment of Freshwater Resources to Environmental Change,” United Nations Environment Programme and Asian Institute of Technology (2008). 51 Hazell & Wood (2008); World Bank (2006a) quoted in the Government Office for Science The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and Voices for Global Sustainability (London: The Government Office for Science). 52 Oxfam Novib, “Global and Regional Drivers of Food Insecurity: Briefing Note for the Development of the Oxfam Novib Special Programme on Food Security and Climate Change in South,” unpublished. 53 The Economist, “A Special Report on Feeding the World: No Easy Fix: Simply Using More of Everything to Produce More Food Will Not Work” (February 24, 2011) 54 CGIAR, “Global Climate Change—Can Agriculture Cope?” Briefing Papers (Washington: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, 2009). 55 The rural population in March 2010 was 70% of India’s total. Estimates based on the recently revised poverty lines (based on the recommendations of the Tendulkar Committee Report) show that about 42% of the population in rural areas and 26% in urban areas live under the poverty line. 56 In 2003–4 about 41.6% of households in rural India did not own any land other than homestead land (of these, about 10% did not even own that). The extent of landlessness went up by as much as 6% between 1992 and 2003–4. The Gini coefficient of ownership of land other than homestead land increased from about 0.73

Food Security: India from a Global Perspective

61

farm owners possess only subsistence plots of less than one hectare (see Fig. 2.11 below), from which they are barely able to eke out a living. Fig. 2.11. Distribution of agricultural land area among rural households

Source: V. Rawal (2008), “Ownership Holdings of Land in Rural India: Putting the Record Straight,” Economic and Political Weekly, March 8, (2008), 43–7.

to about 0.76 over this period. V. Rawal, “Ownership Holdings of Land in Rural India: Putting the Record Straight,” Economic and Political Weekly, (March 8, 2008), 43–47.

Chapter Two

62

Food Production/Resilience Priorities ƒ

Increase agroecological sustainability

Vast expanses of Indian farmland are un-irrigated and at the mercy of increasingly erratic annual rains. The over-exploitation of groundwater is already a lived reality in many parts of India. The over-use of fertilisers on large farms57 and the depletion of natural resources also threaten agrarian productivity. In ecological terms, only one-third of Indian farmland remains in good health.58 The International Assessment of Agriculture Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report of 2008 provides a robust blueprint on how to prioritise smallholder agriculture, especially for women farmers. It also strongly recommends support to agroecological, climate-resilient and sustainable agriculture techniques.59 This is essential not only for meeting the region’s food security challenges, but also for replenishing precious public goods such as clean water, groundwater recharge and soil conservation that are teetering on the brink.60 The inclusion of nutritious millets in India’s National Food Security Act, 201361could go a long way to fighting hunger, even during droughts.62 ƒ

Increase agricultural production and reduce wastage

At present, four billion tons of food are produced globally, out of which 30–50% (1.2–2 billion tons) is being wasted. Loss and wastage occurs at 57

India’s annual fertiliser subsidy bill increased to more than $20bn in 2008 from about $640m in 1976. Anand, “Green Revolution in India wilts as subsidies backfire.” 58 Soils are suffering from varying degrees of degradation owing to deforestation, poor irrigation, inadequate drainage and overgrazing. 59 Goswami, “Industrial Farming Versus the Peasantry,” Himal South Asia (October 2010) 60 Ibid. 61 India’s National Food Security Bill is currently under debate and is expected to be tabled in the monsoon session of Parliament. The 2011 draft version referred to here is http://nac.nic.in/foodsecurity/nfsb_final.pdf. The undated government draft presented to the Empowered Group of Ministers is available at the Right to Food Campaign website righttofoodindia.org/data/right_to_food_act_data/July_2011_egom_nfsb_draft.pdf. 62 Ramesh Menon, “Millet Revolution: Winning the Battle against Hunger, Silently,” indiatogether.com (April 19, 2010).

Food Security: India from a Global Perspective

63

all steps in the food supply chain. In low-income countries, most loss occurs during production, while in developed countries much food—about one hundred kg (220 lb) per person per year—is wasted at the consumption stage. In India, twenty million tons of wheat are lost annually due to poor harvesting and inadequate infrastructure. Each day, around Rs 130 crores (US $27m) of fruit and vegetables spoil before they reach the markets.63 Large quantities of food grains in government warehouses are also routinely damaged for want of suitable storage facilities.64 It is estimated that Rs 4,000 crores are required for creating the storage capacity under the National Food Security Act. ƒ

Climate-proof agriculture

India’s ambitious Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 has reaped unexpected dividends to climate-proof agriculture and the environment. Since it is the panchayats65 who decide and plan 70% of the public works, they have invariably prioritised environmental protection.66 In the last three years, as many as 1.9 million “works” have focused on water conservation and drought proofing alone. The Central Government now even plans to quantify these unanticipated benefits on agricultural productivity67 and climate change adaptation.68

Food Justice Olivier de Schutter, the former Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, stated that: “… food security laws and policies based on rights and entitlements—to productive resources, to accessing foodstuffs, to social protection—is [sic] ‘food security-plus’.” Appreciative of the worldwide “rights resurgence” in the past decade, he says that: “at a time when multiple, conflicting visions for food security 63

M. J. Prabhu, “Why Agricultural Policies are Outdated and Contradictory,” Farmer’s Notebook, Sci Tech, The Hindu (February 24, 2011). 64 Gargi Parsai, “Twin Challenges in Agriculture,” National, The Hindu (February 23, 2011). 65 Panchayats are decentralised elected bodies in rural India. 66 Rita Sharma, “NREGA and Climate Change,” Indian Express, December 17, 2009. 67 “They Don’t See a Drought,” The Financial Express, August 17, 2009. 68 Krittivas Mukherjee, “Govt to Quantify Climate Benefits from NREGA,” Reuters (May 29, 2009); Aurangzeb Naqshbandi, “Rural job plan a carbon-credit spinner?,” Hindustan Times, December 15, 2009

64

Chapter Two

have been put on the table, it is impressive to see so many states adopting laws, policies and strategies to realize the right to food, and so many people driving forward what is now a global right to food movement” (srfood.org 2013). This global movement for food justice merges the priorities of food distribution and food production. Within India, the two main priorities have been the enactment of the legal right to food and the promotion of sustainable agriculture. A. The legal right to food Fig. 2.12. Countries that are developing or have adopted framework laws on the right to food

Countries which have adopted a framework of law framework of law

Countries drafting a

Framework laws are more specific than constitutional provisions, as they lay down obligations and entitlements which cannot be withdrawn with changes in government. These are also crucial tools for synergizing policies, administrative responsibilities and monitoring mechanisms. With the passage of the 2013 National Food Security Act, India is one of only eleven countries to have adopted laws on food security or the right to

Food Security: India from a Global Perspective

65

food in the world, alongside eight countries in the process of developing frameworks, largely in Latin America.69

Delivered on Time However, while the National Food Security Act, 2013 brings under one umbrella several existing and new schemes aimed at providing food security, the most crucial aspect is the implementation of the act. In 2005–6, The National Family Health Survey revealed that among children under six who live in areas covered by an AWC (Angan Wadi centre), only 26% received supplementary nutrition at any time in the twelve months preceding the survey. Of them, one-third received it less than once a week (see Fig. 2.13 below). Provisions of entitlements are meaningless unless they are suitably delivered on time. The National Food Security Act, 2013 offers a golden opportunity to revamp and revitalize the existing food schemes, especially the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), the Public Distribution System (PDS), and Midday Meals (MDM). In addition, the introduction of new maternity entitlements is a positive step for supporting mothers recuperating after giving birth, allowing them adequate time to feed their vulnerable infants. The Lancet Child Survival Series70 identifies breastfeeding as the single most effective malnutrition preventive intervention for saving lives. Though the act mandates a two-tier grievance redressal mechanism with the creation of State Food Commissions and the fresh appointment of District Grievance Redressal Officers (DGROs), many states are unfortunately handing over the responsibility to district collectors, which blurs the line between the implementation and monitoring agencies. Similarly, in the last five years the Mahatma Gandhi National Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, which now covers fifty-three million households (30% of rural households in 2009–10), has established itself as an important safety net in reaching vulnerable families.71 Though timely payment is one of the most critical elements of the rural jobs programme,

69

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food. The Lancet Child survival series. 71 S. Narayan, Hall Full, “Half Empty: India’s Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act” (MGNREGA), The International Food Security Network (IFSN) and ActionAid International (AAI) (2011). 70

66

Chapter Two

Fig. 2.13. Frequency of supplementary nutrition received in the last year by children living in an area covered by an Angan Wadi centre (%)

Source: Based on Lidija Knuth, “Constitutional and Legal Protection of the Right to Food around the World,” Margret Vidar, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2011).

Food Security: India from a Global Perspective

67

on average 30% of all scheme beneficiaries had to wait for anything between fifteen days to more than three months for their wages.72 B. Sustainable agriculture Hunger among food producers across the developing world is an ironic reality. Though in 2008 the Indian government, in response to the spate of suicides, cancelled the debt of $15bn of forty million smallholder farmers, this has remained a one-off initiative.76 In this context, there is an urgent need to sustainably support land redistribution and protect land rights, increase investment in smallholders and support agroecologically sustainable agriculture where major gains in productivity, sustainability, poverty eradication and resilience can be achieved. Apart from redistribution, it is also important to protect the land rights of existing farmers. India’s archaic Land Acquisition Act of 1894, for example, which forces farmers to hand over their land for undefined “public interest” without consensus, consultation or the right to negotiate, has finally been repealed.77 The newly enacted Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ensures that displaced farmers receive comprehensive resettlement and rehabilitation packages.78 But the National Right to Homestead Bill, 2013, prepared by the Ministry of Rural Development, which promises every landless and homeless poor family in rural areas a homestead “of not less than ten cents” (0.1 acre or 4,356 square feet), a long-standing civil society demand, has still to be passed by Parliament. The International Assessment of Agriculture Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report of 2008 provides a robust blueprint on how to prioritise smallholder agriculture, especially for women farmers. It also strongly recommends support to agroecological, climate-resilient and sustainable agriculture techniques.79 This is essential not only for meeting the country’s food security challenges, but also for replenishing precious public goods such as clean water, soil conservation, carbon sequestration 72

“Congress Ruled the Worst Performing States in MGNREGA Implementation.” http://indiabudget.nic.in/ub2008-09/bs/speecha.htm. 77 Radhika Ramaseshan, “Sonia Council Seeks Land Bills Merger,” The Telegraph, Nation (May 18, 2011). 78 May Sehrawat, “We Need a New Land Act,” Financial World, Tehelka (May 12, 2011). 79 Rahul Goswami, “Industrial Farming Versus the Peasantry,” Himal South Asia (October 2010). 76

68

Chapter Two

and flood protection.80 The inclusion of nutritious millets in the National Food Security Act, 2013 can also go a long way in fighting hunger, even during droughts, and improving the production of non-Green Revolution technology crops.81 Its emphasis on decentralised procurement could also strengthen and revive localized food production, procurement, storage and distribution systems to reduce wastage and protect the right to food.

80 81

Ibid. Menon, “Millet Revolution.”‫ٰ ٯ ٮ‬

CHAPTER THREE MILLETS IN DEFENCE OF INDIA’S FOOD SECURITY P. V. SATHEESH

It is a fact that India is a country of acute hunger. On the global hunger scale it is ranked at 65. On the malnutrition index its record is even more dreadful. Many Sub-Saharan African countries, which are described as experiencing intense poverty, are several notches above India both in hunger and malnutrition. According to the United Nations, more than twohundred million people in India are malnourished. The National Family Health Survey-III (NFHS) 2005–6 indicated that 49% of children in India were malnourished. NFHS-III also pointed out alarming incidences of underweight children and anaemic adolescent girls. All these figures run counter to the dominant narrative of an economic tiger, with India fifth among the countries with the highest number of billionaires in the world, surpassing industrialised countries like the United Kingdom, Japan and Canada. The reasons for this alarming reality are many. The major reason for India’s acute hunger and malnutrition can be attributed to the systematic marginalisation of millet in the Indian food and farming systems. This marginalisation has happened counter to the food and farming realities of India. The unfathomable X factor in the country’s food sociology, history and politics is that India is the largest producer of millet in the world. Globally, it is also the largest consumer of millet, accounting for more than 40%.These irrefutable truths should have propelled millet to the top of the food and farming policy table of the country. But this has not happened. The millet cultivation area in India has suffered a great crash, while wheat cultivation, piggybacking on the Green Revolution (i.e. chemical) technology, has exploded and rice has held its ground. As the era of economic neoliberalism swept into India in the 1990s, agriculture followed suit, tuning into the cultivation of commodity crops such as cotton and sugarcane. Thus, Indian farming policy was shaped to earn money instead of creating a billion plus food-secure homes. This policy

70

Chapter Three

push towards the total monetisation of Indian agriculture was to make it compatible with other sectors of the Indian economy, whose primary aim is to contribute to growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This has taken the soul away from agriculture, and instead of cultivating life, poison farming has become the norm at the cost of food quality and safety. Millet, which has contributed enormously to both the quality and safety factors of agriculture, has taken a beating in the emerging militaristic farming environment. Millet farming, that symbolised an agriculture controlled by the poor and the marginalised, women and the excluded communities (i.e. Dalits and indigenous farmers), is steadily giving way to corporate farming. Though the situation has not reached alarming proportions, the signs are becoming increasingly clear. Nevertheless, one cannot say that everything is completely lost. The resilience that characterises millet farming and farmers (Dalits, indigenous populations and very small-scale peasants) has kept the millet flame burning in its own silent way, and they have continued to feed 40% of the Indian population in the face of a very hostile political and media environment. A majority not only continue to grow millet but also nourish the biodiverse farming environment that characterises millet farming. The future of India’s food and nutritional security lies in supporting and enhancing this resilience of the peasant farmers, which is also the road to reclaiming India’s food and social justice. This is the challenge confronted by the Deccan Development Society (DDS), a grassroots organisation working for over twenty-five years with nearly five thousand very small-scale Dalit women farmers in the Zaheerabad region of Medak District in the south Indian state of the then Andhra Pradesh. The society is focused on creating a sovereign community of the poor in order to produce a new dignity and self-reliance for themselves strategized through producing a cycle of autonomies (marked by autonomous food and seed production systems, autonomous healthcare, autonomous market and autonomous media). A major initiative of the society in this creation of dignity and self-esteem for the poor is manifested in its work of reclaiming millet in the farmscapes and food systems of the Dalit women. In doing so, more than one hundred traditional land acres of food crops have been brought back under wide cultivation and more than five thousand women farmers of the region banished hunger from their homes and communities, demonstrating what food and seed sovereignty can do for the excluded people. They were awarded by the International Federation of the Red Cross for this unique achievement.

Millets in Defence of India’s Food Security

71

This agenda of food sovereignty and the practical steps of achieving it has to be taken beyond the DDS communities and the region where the society works geographically. This prompted DDS to create a couple of Food Sovereignty networks in order to see if the strategy of the DDS women could work for other communities. These networks, which began around the year 2002, took shape as the Millet Network of India (MINI), the first ever network that chose to work exclusively on millet. The choice was critical. The DDS and the MINI have always seen millet not just as a crop but as a concept which encompasses a whole range of complex issues, such as biodiversity, climate crisis compliance, and a system that can be easily controlled by the most marginal farming population. In the year of International Family Farming, millet stands out as the most symbolic farming system as the hallmark of family farmers. As a matter of fact, in DDS the conviction in millet springs from the fact that this is a profound lesson taught by the amazing Dalit women farmers, with whom it has been working for nearly three decades. These women, who are owners of tiny pieces of rain-fed land not exceeding 2–3 acres, are the most ardent conservers of biodiversity on their farms. Most of their crops are millet anchored. None of them grows less than ten crops on each acre of their farms. The more progressive of them grow up to 25 crop varieties per acre. Seed saving and exchange are traditions for them. Similarly, farmyard manuring is something they have practiced for centuries, making their agriculture completely ecological and free from any kind of external input. In recent years, they have also become experts in backyard biofertiliser production. As their farms sport a breath-taking biodiversity, their rituals and celebrations mirror their reverence to biodiversity. The household tradition of saving seeds has been institutionalised by the DDS sanghams (village-level voluntary organisations of women) in the form of community seed banks of traditional land acres. This not only marks their food and seed sovereignty but also signals a dignity not seen in most farming communities which are external input dependent. It is this consciousness of their sovereign seed and farming systems that spurred the communities of DDS to initiate India’s first community led, community managed Public Distribution System (PDS) in 1997. Under this, the women of DDS decided that the tyranny of rice- and wheat-based PDS was a political subjugation of their agriculture, and that they would fight against it and install a community-based local PDS.

72

Chapter Three

This PDS was based on the principles of Local Production, Local Storage and Local Distribution. The vision was to develop a PDS that not only shuns outside support but also becomes totally decentralised in contrast to the highly centralised PDS that offers no participation or decision making powers to the local communities. Within one year, the women, through the retrieval of cultivable fallows in their communities, were able to produce over 15,000 kg of extra grain in each of their thirty-two communities. This initiative would spread to over fifty-five of their communities and over 120 communities outside of their region in the years to come. The farmers who were helped financially to cultivate and retrieve their fallows would return the loan in the form of grain to their community PDS managers. These women managers would store the returned grain in their traditional ecological methods. This is a fascinating example of participatory democracy led by the lowest echelons of rural society—Dalit peasant women who had not been allowed to play any leadership roles within or outside of their communities. The women sat in the village squares, drew maps of all the households, discussed and debated the criteria they would follow to decide the level of poverty in each and marked them with a specific colour to denote level of poverty on a scale of one to five. Different colours denoted a certain level of poverty—dark blue for the extremely poor, red for the hard-core poor, green for the poor, yellow for the less poor and white for the non-poor. Every household thus marked was given an entitlement to draw a certain quantity of jowar from their community grain fund at a price approximately 30% lower than the prevailing market price. Each such household was given a jowar ration card that depicted the colour marked for that household. In this fashion, the first ever localised, local community controlled PDS was born in India. Within a couple of years, over fifty thousand persons were covered by this Alternative PDS. Apart from producing highly nutritious grains, it also produced fodder security for their communities. Each community was able to produce enough fodder to support 200 extra cattle, creating nearly Rs 7,500 extra in wages for the landless. Apart from ensuring community food security, this programme was also able to provide multiple securities for food, fodder, fibre, health, nutrition and livelihood. Therefore, it can be argued that what was possible for a group of marginalised peasant women from Dalit communities should be possible for the entire nation. As a matter of fact, MINI, the Millet Network of India, which was born out of the inspiration provided by the women of

Millets in Defence of India’s Food Security

73

DDS, struggled for over ten years to shape a new national food policy which ultimately recognised the importance of millet in the Indian public food system. The inclusion of millet in the PDS by the National Food Security Act is the most important manifestation of this reinvention. The importance attached to millet is very simple and clear—it is the future of food and farming in India. In the context of the shameful position of India at 128th in the Global Malnutrition Index, its need to look for nutritional security is paramount. Millet, with its superior nutritional quality, will be a major answer for this situation. Table 3.1. Nutrient values of Millets in comparison to Wheat and Rice Protein (gram)

Fibre (gram)

Minerals (gram)

Iron (Mg)

Calcium (mg)

Pearl Millet

10.6

1.3

2.3

16.9

38

Finger Millet

7.3

3.6

2.7

3.9

344

Foxtail Millet

12.3

8

3.3

2.8

31

Proso Millet

12.5

2.2

1.9

0.8

14

Kodo Millet

8.3

9

2.6

0.5

27

Little Millet

7.7

7.6

1.5

9.3

17

Barnyard Millet

11.2

10.1

4.4

15.2

11

Sorghum

10.4

1.6

1.6

4.1

25

Wheat

11.8

1.2

1.5

5.3

41

Rice

6.8

0.2

0.6

0.7

10

Crop

74

Chapter Three

Fig. 3.1. Graphic representation of Protein in Millets

Millets in Defence of India’s Food Security Fig. 3.2. Graphic representation of Fibre in Millets

75

76

Chapter Three

Fig. 3.3. Graphic representation of Minerals in Millets

Millets in Defence of India’s Food Security Fig. 3.4. Graphic representation of Iron in Millets

77

78

Chapter Three

Fig. 3.5. Graphic representation of Calcium in Millets

Millets in Defence of India’s Food Security

79

Table 3.1 above is a clear damnation of the PDS policy followed by the Indian Government for four decades. As the table indicates, on all parameters of nutrition, rice occupies the last place. Therefore, the discourse on agricultural productivity must make a paradigm shift. It must now stop asking how much an acre of land produces. Rather, the question should be how much nutrition an acre of land is producing. For a country that is 128th in the malnutrition index of the world this is the only road to salvation, and here millet leads the way. It is, as Table 3.1 above shows, not only the leader in all the major nutrients, but also top of the list of micronutrients, which food specialists are now discovering are answers to the major problems in India. We struggle to find our Bt Carotene in pharmaceutical capsules such as Spirulina, but we are tragically unaware of the fact that most millets are storehouses of micronutrients like Bt Carotene, Niacine, Thiamine, Riboflavine and Folic Acid. Incidentally, Folic Acid is compulsory in the Indian Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) system for pregnant mothers in the form of Iron and Folic Acid tablets. If this deficiency is plugged by producing millets which are replete with both these nutrients in their natural form, this would be an integrated food and nutrition solution instead of a pharma solution. For example. pearl millet [Bajra] has nearly twelve times more iron and eight times more folic acid than rice, while sorghum [Jowar] has six times more iron and 2.5 times more folic acid. Therefore, it would be an act of common sense to offer these grains as food to people. However, common sense seems to be the most uncommon thing, particularly in the policy formulators. Table 3.2 below demonstrates the micronutirients that different millets flaunt.

Chapter Three

Thiamine mg

Riboflavin mg

Niacin mg

Folic acid mg

2

3

4

5

8.0

1.9

0.06

0.06

0

Rice Vari

45.5

2.3

0.25

0.33

Pearl millet Sajjalu 132

15.0

3.2

0.11

0.59

Foxtail millet Korralu 32

Source: Nutritive Value of Indian Foods, NIN, ICMR, Hydearbad,

Carotene ug

Nutrient

20.0

3.1

0.13

0.37

47

Sorghum Jonnalu

Table 3.2. Micronutrient Content for 100 G of Food Grain

1

80

18.3

1.1

0.19

0.42

Finger millet Taidalu 42

9.0

3.2

0.09

0.30

Little millet Samalu 0

-

4.2

0.10

0.33

0

Kodemillet Argulu

Millets in Defence of India’s Food Security

81

Besides being nutrient rich, almost all millets sport medicinal properties, both preventive and curative. Foxtail millet has sulphur, which is good for high blood pressure (BP). Finger millet (Mandua) is a boon for diabetics. Most millets, being high in fibre, release sugar very slowly and thereby help diabetics absorb it comfortably, unlike rice which creates a surge in sugar that the bloodstream finds difficult to absorb. This fibre content also helps those afflicted by heart disease. If we accept the principle upheld by Ayurveda that “our food is our medicine,” millets are the best bet for the food, nutritional and health security for the people of India.

Millet for climate crisis Millet is a very hardy crop that can fight climate change. Traditionally, it is largely grown in a biodiverse environment (along with many pulses and oilseeds) and can be a strong answer for the low carbon economy demanded by climate change. Some of the predictions for the coming decades of climate crisis say that global temperatures are to increase from 2ºC to 5ºC by 2050. If this happens, one should be prepared for extended droughts and unreliable rainfall. Consequently, high malnutrition will be unavoidable, and it is predicted that 70% of India will suffer from severe malnutrition. If temperatures rise by 2ºC, wheat may disappear from Indian farming since it is highly thermally sensitive, and one crop on which India’s food security excessively depends becomes unavailable. The way we grow rice for our PDS is a disaster, creating soil salination and leaching. Some places, such as the Tungabhadra basin in Karnataka, are already turning into deserts because of the uncontrolled water use and chemical fertilisers. If we continue to grow the Green Revolution model rice in India with two inches of standing water and tons of nitrogenous fertilisers, the greenhouse gases emanating from the paddies will exacerbate global warming to a severe extent. In the face of this challenge, rice farming might be forced to take a backseat. In the event of the disappearance of our principal PDS grains, the only alternative could be millet, which will be central to Indian food and farming. Thus, it will be the defender of India’s food security. Millet can grow on some of the poorest soils in the country. It can withstand high heats, does not need irrigation and can grow under rain-fed conditions. Traditional millet farming has always been at risk from excessive rainfall, low rainfall and erratic rainfall. Therefore, under the climate crisis

82

Chapter Three

conditions, millet can survive strongly. Most importantly, it is extremely nutritious and can be the main tool to fight malnutrition, especially among the poor who cannot compensate for the low nutrition grains such as rice. Thus, millet becomes central to the food and nutritional health security of India. Millet is not just a food grain—it also represents the entire gamut of oppressed food systems in the world. By bringing it into the PDS, the government has taken the first step to reverse the socio-economic marginalisation that millet, millet farmers and millet farmscapes have suffered for decades in India. The peasant farming revival can speedily take place if this agenda is pursued further. A key to this agenda is a decentralised procurement system for millet for PDS. Thus, all the grains, particularly millet, needed for PDS are grown in the same geographical area in which they are consumed. This will herald a new model of food governance. If every village is confident of producing all the food it consumes, they will strive to materialise Mahatma Gandhi’s concept of Gram Swaraj. Besides, this will reenergise India’s more than thirty-million hectares of millet farms and farmers, thus paving the way for the regeneration of local economies and resulting in a resurgence of farming, economy and ecology in dry land India. Making millet a solution for the enduring food security of the country will have multiple beneficial effects for India.

CHAPTER FOUR FOOD SECURITY OR FOOD SOVEREIGNTY: THE REQUIRED NEED OF THE ERA S. C. ROY

Almost half the population of India is suffering from starvation. The concern of the welfare government to provide the required calories to the poor men, women and children is a constitutional obligation to achieve the goal of social justice. If bags of grain are exposed to the open sky even in the rainy season, then it is better to make them available to the needy. In this respect, the Food Security Bill 2013 is the most challenging but humane ambition. This challenge will go on increasing in geometrical progression, whereas the food grain production increases in arithmetic progression. This has created another problem of seed dependency for multinational seed producing companies. Indian farmers were once sovereign in terms of seed, preserving them for the next crop season. But now, in the name of the high-yield variety of seed and high production, the farmers have lost their traditional seed storage rights. These high variety seeds require heavy investments in fertilizer, water and pesticides, all of which have a negative impact on the environment, climate and quality of soil. At the same time, the cultivable land area is shrinking due to the development plan, the construction of housing colonies, the establishment of industry or factories, and the construction of roads, educational institutions and hospitals. This paper seeks to discuss the pros and cons of the National Food Security Act 2013.

Introduction It can never be denied that food is the basic and primary need of all animals on this earth. It provides energy, sustains physical growth and maintains all possible progress. Human beings are not an exception. In the hunting age, humans hunted not for fun but for food, later becoming food gatherers and then farmers. Thus, the journey from hunter to farmer has

84

Chapter Four

ended in the bread earner of the modern age. Each activity has an end to fulfil the first primary need, i.e. food. But, in the twenty-first century, people are starving. Around 70% of India’s population are below the poverty line, earning less than Rs 330/- per month, also suffering from rising prices and commercial exploitation. In this scenario, the Food Security Act 2013 has the pious ambition to provide food grain at a “token price” in all seasons. But, before this enactment, the bill faced many oppositions and much uproar in Parliament. It is the primary duty of the government to provide basic needs, i.e. “food.” It is said that “Sariram Khalu Dharm Sadhanam,”1 meaning “if there is a healthy body, one can practice dharma.” Thus, the Act2 is likely to create the world’s largest welfare scheme, but it has caused much hand wringing amongst political pundits, economists and the media. India is already suffering from a budget deficit and struggling with a slowing economy and a depreciating currency. Hence, it was felt by some that India cannot afford the extra burden,3 as it will have to purchase 62 million tons of food grain every year. But it is a fact that India already buys that much food to manage flood and drought situations. It bought 72 million tons of food grain in 2012–13 and 63.28 million tons in 2011–12. So, such misgivings are baseless. It may be submitted here that the concern should not only be to provide food security but also to achieve “food sovereignty.” This calls for a discussion on the condition of Indian agriculture. The cultivable land area is shrinking due to the increase in population, industrialization, infrastructural development and urbanization. Moreover, the Indian agriculture still depends on its “rain god.” The agriculture is also facing the brunt of “climate change.” All these phenomena adversely affect the production whereas the demand is in geometrical progression. Besides, Indian farmers are dependent on “terminating seeds,” having lost their sovereignty over traditional seeds that were recycled in the cultivation process. The Indian agriculture universities are not producing seeds as per the requirement of the farmers. Thus, the food grain production is totally dependent on the foreign seed-bleeding multinational companies. In this scenario, food security, though a noble intention of the government, has become a subject of criticism.

1

Upanishad. Food Security. 3 How bad really is India’s new food Security Bill? Wikipedia. 2

Food Security or Food Sovereignty: The Required Need of the Era

85

Food security mission Food is the basic essence of life—life cannot sustain itself without food. It is rightly said that “Bubhukshita kin na karoti papah,” meaning that the hungry man can do any wrong. Thus, food security has a mission to protect and preserve healthy bodies and minds, and is also essential to control further poverty-related wrongs forced in the society. This is the reason why, after independence, the welfare government has taken steps to eradicate food scarcity among the poor people. Among many steps, land reform is noteworthy, creating a common ceiling of land tenure and distribution among the landless people. The mission was to provide food grain production resources as well as the maximum “social use” of the land. Unfortunately, this could not materialise in its true spirit, in spite of the impetus given by “Bhoodan Andolan” by Acharya Vinoba Bhave... The government also implemented many programs, i.e. Food for Work, Antyodaya Anna Yojana (ANY), and nutritional support to pregnant women & lactating mothers, children between 6 months and 14 years, malnourished children, disaster-affected persons, and destitute, homeless and starving persons. Prior to these programs, the public distribution system (PDS) functioned in the country and provided, along with food grains, kerosene oil and sugar at subsidized rates. However, the leakages in this system never satisfied the people. The Green Revolution made it possible to provide food grain, and though it was not termed “food security” it was certainly a government “monopoly over grain management” for “subsidized food grains.” Despite all efforts to mitigate food insecurity, the starving population went on increasing. At the same time, low incomes and high food prices prevented individuals from accessing food. After over three decades of operation, the PDS system dealt with less than 10% of consumption of PDS rice and wheat by the poor. Surging food grain prices and worsening global supplies are now bringing the domestic food crisis to the boil. Grain output has been stagnating for over a decade and there is a growing gap between supply and demand. Thus, the growing starvation has forced this bill and a lot of debate. Food security comprises of three facts: food availability, food access and food use.4 Food availability means sufficient quantities of food on a consistent basis. Food access means the sufficient resources, both economic and physical, to obtain appropriate food for a nutritious diet. 4

As defined by WHO (World Health Organization).

86

Chapter Four

Food use is the appropriate use based on the knowledge of basic nutrition5 and care, as well as adequate water and sanitation. The fourth fact of food security is the stability of the first three dimensions over time.6 At the national level, food security mainly refers to the availability of buffering stocks of food to meet the domestic demand in the country, either through domestic supply or imports. Unfortunately, agriculture is in the grip of poor performance. The traditional sources of augmenting income are decreasing, and the production environment is not dominated by small holders. Therefore, food insecurity is inevitable, despite the “new Green Revolution.” Ten years after the dismantling of the universal public distribution systems, the statistical jugglery of the targeted food distribution system actually excludes millions of poor in both the BPL (below poverty line) and APL (above poverty line) categories. It also limits the Government’s welfare responsibilities, as only those who are officially identified as poor can access food. It is shocking that anyone earning above Rs 330/- a month is classified as APL and excluded from the right to subsidized food grain. Thus, the very words “above poverty the line” are misleading. They exclude the majority of poor people who have been denied their human rights through statistical fraud to serve a neoliberal agenda.

Food security vs food sovereignty To the prevalent terms in the constitution of India, i.e. social security, job security or livelihood security, the new term “food security” is added. The word “security” refers to real assurance and implementation of the same. As the social security7 enshrined in the constitution is done to provide insurance, old-age pensions, shelter and medical security, likewise MNREGA 20058 provides job security for one hundred days to the adult persons living in rural areas. The reason behind social security is the rapid disorganization of the family due to urbanization and a decrease in the cohesiveness of family relationships. The job security guarantees jobs in slack seasons, showing that the rural area itself is not producing/creating job opportunities, and so the government scheme does so with two missions: to provide employment for empty hands, and create rural infrastructure. Likewise, the welfare government has taken the initiative of 5

Ibid. The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 7 Ibid. 8 MNREGA Act 2005. 6

Food Security or Food Sovereignty: The Required Need of the Era

87

food security, which also refers to the availability of food grain at token prices to the BPL and Antyodaya households who have niether crop lands nor employment to manage food grain throughout the year. In this context, food security is a subject of concern for all, whether they are APL, BPL or middle class tax payers. Food security refers only to the availability of food, regardless of the type, method or location of production, and so on. It exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and preferences for active and healthy lives.9 However, food sovereignty is a broader concept. It implies “the right of peoples, communities, and countries to define their own agricultural, labor, fishing, food and land policies which are ecologically, socially, economically and culturally appropriate to their unique circumstances.”10 It includes the true right to food and its production, which means that all people have the right to sustain themselves and their societies. Food security is merely a guarantee through legislation in the welfare state as per Article 21 and the directive principles of state policy. Thus, food sovereignty is embedded in larger questions of social justice, rights of farmers and indigenous communities to control their own futures and make their own decisions. “Food security is more of a technical concept, and the right to food a legal one, food sovereignty is essentially a political concept. Food sovereignty emphasizes local control and self-sufficiency, while food security emphasizes reliance on the global economy based on liberalized agricultural markets.”11 Thus food security and food sovereignty are poles apart. The first sets the goal, the other defines its realization. Food security means that all people have physical and economic access to basic food at all times.12 Poverty eradication is a key factor in the achievement of household food security. Thus, the recognition of small-scale agriculture is essential for income and livelihood in the pattern of small-scale industries. Therefore, land distribution among the landless people is the first requirement towards food security. At the same time, motivation towards seed production is an urgent need. At present, two-thirds of Indian seed requirement is fulfilled 9

Food and Agriculture Organization. Declaration of Nyeleni, Forum for food Sovereignty 2007. 11 Wind fuhr and Jonsen, Food Sovereignty: Towards democracy in Localized food system, 2005. 12 United Nations definition. 10

88

Chapter Four

by multinational seed companies. If they withdraw the supply the Indian agriculture will starve, resulting in the pitiable condition of the poor or vulnerable people. To achieve food security, seed sovereignty is required. Thus, the concept of food sovereignty is linked with civic mobilization. Food sovereignty is a policy framework that underlines the right of nations and their people to define their own food production systems, i.e. production, distribution and consumption, without depending on fluctuating international markets. Food security refers to communities’ access to food. It does not necessarily stipulate the type of food to be provided or whether or not that food is local or brought in from other regions. It does not require the direct involvement of the community to attain and administer that food. It is like having access to food as in disaster relief situations, in which food arrives from outside. Thus, food sovereignty puts the ownership of food systems into the hands of the communities themselves. It involves a sustainable, long-term process in which the community can establish its own food systems and produce its own local products, without being subject to fluctuating international markets or dependent on external sources for the acquisition of seeds. Thus, food sovereignty includes food security.

The National Food Security Act, 2013 After much hue and cry, the Indian Parliament finally passed the National Food Security Bill, 2013 for the 67% of its starving population, providing food and nutritional security to the human life cycle, and ensuring access to adequate quantities of quality food at affordable prices to people for dignified lives.13 The act14 defines food security as the supply of quantities of food grains and meals as specified under Chapter II.15 Thus, every person belonging to a priority household,16 identified in u/s 15(1), is entitled to receive five kg of food grains per person per month at subsidized prices specified in schedule I, i.e. Rs 3 per kg for rice, Rs 2 per kg for wheat and Rs 1 per kg for coarse grain for a period of three years from the date of commencement of the act, and thereafter at such a price 13

Object and reason for food security, Bill 2013. The National Food security Act 2013 (the act). 15 S. 2 (7) of the act. 16 Priority household means the household identified as such in u/s 5, i.e. households covered under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana to the extent specified in u/s 3(1), and the remaining households as priority households to be covered under the targeted Public Distribution System (PDS). 14

Food Security or Food Sovereignty: The Required Need of the Era

89

not exceeding the minimum support price for wheat and coarse grains, and the derived minimum support price for rice.17 The act envisages the continuation of the Antyodaya Anna Yojana scheme.18 Moreover, it seeks to provide free-of-charge meals to every woman and lactating mother during pregnancy and six months after child birth through the local Angan Wadi to meet the nutritional standards.19 The act also provides maternity benefit of not less than Rs 6,000 in instalments.20 The act excludes women in the regular employment of central or state governments or public sector undertakings, or those in receipt of similar benefits under any other law. There is now a trend for “contractual appointments” on lump sum pay packages even for central and state governments and public sectors, whose economic conditions are not better than those of unorganized sector workers. Despite this, they have been excluded. The act also provides appropriate free meals to children aged six months to six years, as per the nutritional standards.21 The children aged 6 to 14 are provided one midday meal, free of charge, every day, except on school holidays, in all schools so as to meet the nutritional standards.22 Every Angan Wadi should have the facilities for cooking meals, drinking water and sanitation. In urban areas, there should be facilities for centralized cooking.23 The guarantee of food security has also been made by the provision of a food security allowance.24 The act also envisages doorstep deliveries of food grains to the targeted public distribution system outlets.25 The act plans to empower women by recognizing heads of households aged 18 and above. Where a household only has a female member below this age, then the eldest male member is identified as the head for the purpose of issuing the ration card, and the female member becomes the head of the household on reaching 18.26 The act also envisages a “grievance redressal mechanism” for each district relating to the distribution of entitled food grains or meals. The act 17

Schedule I of the act. The scheme launched by the central Government on December 25, 2000. 19 S. 4 (a) of the act read with Schedule II. 20 S.4 (b) of the act. 21 S.5 (1) (a) of the act. 22 S. 5 (1) (b) read with schedule II of the act. 23 S.5 (2) of the act. 24 S. 13 of the act. 25 S. 18(2) (1) of the act. 26 S. 19(1) & (2) of the act. 18

90

Chapter Four

determines transparency and accountability measures by providing periodic “social audits” on the functioning of fair price shops, a targeted public distribution system and other welfare schemes.27 The local authority or body is authorized to publicize its findings and take the necessary action28 for ensuring transparency and the proper functioning of the targeted public distribution system and accountability of the functionaries in such a system, with a provision to set up a vigilance committee.29 The act provides a special focus on the needs of the vulnerable groups living in the remote areas that are difficult to access, such as hilly and tribal areas, for ensuring their food security,30 appending schedule III to S. 39. It also talks about the revitalization of agriculture through agrarian reforms, and an increase in investments in agriculture including research and development, irrigation and power to increase production and productivity. It mentions the “livelihood security” of farmers, prohibiting the unwarranted diversion of land and water from food production. It also provides for the procurement and movement of food grains. It has a mission to provide safe and adequate drinking water and sanitation, health care, nutritional health and educational support to adolescent girls, and adequate pensions for senior citizens, persons with disabilities and single women. Thus, S. 39, read with schedule III of this act, deals with the same provisions in the directive principles of state policy. . Thus, the National Food Security Act, 2013 has made food security a legal right over subsidized food grain for 67% of the population. The bill has continued the Antyodaya Anna Yojana. There is national support for nutrition, health and female empowerment. It also has provisions to utilize the existing infrastructure. However, the credibility of the PDS system— the Angan Wadi—is well known. Moreover, the cost of food grain is rising globally due to the high costs of seed, fertilizers and irrigation. The very low price of the subsidized food will distort the market. There is no proper implementation mechanism, and the Government does not have enough resources to implement the bill. This is a huge initiative and will require a huge food subsidy, and it will widen the already swollen budget deficit.

27

S. 20 & 21 of the act. S.36 (1) of the act. 29 U/S 37 (1) of the act, vigilance committee as specified in the public distribution system (control) order 2001, under the Essential commodities Act 1955. 30 S.38 of the act. 28

Food Security or Food Sovereignty: The Required Need of the Era

91

Conclusion The National Food Security Bill was originally introduced in December 2011, cleared by the Parliamentary committee in January. However, it could not be passed in the summer session of Parliament due to vehement opposition from the various parties. Despite this, the UPA Government managed to pass the bill in 2013. The Act seeks to provide food and nutritional security by ensuring access to adequate quantities of quality food at affordable prices, allowing people to live their lives with dignity. It seeks to provide for around 70% of the rural population and 50% of the urban poor. However, such provisions have been enacted for three years only, after which the prices will be the minimum support price for wheat and coarse grain, and the derived minimum support price for rice. It is too ambitious to presume that the centre and the state will eliminate poverty and the country and community will be sovereign in food within three years. The act has novel provisions and concerns for agriculture and land reform but the possibility of their materialising within such a short span of time cannot be guaranteed. The act depends on the Public Distribution System and Angan Wadis, which themselves are in pitiable conditions. The act also provides a Grievance Redressal System and has transparency and accountability provisions such as Social Audit through the local selfgovernment body. It is a fact that the experience of Social Audit in MNREGA 2005 could not check the siphoning of funds. The provisions under Chapter II of the act are alluring and enchanting but are difficult to implement and achieve. The act has concern for the poor, senior citizens, disabled and single women, but says nothing about the beggars huddling at various places in cities and rural areas. At the same time, the act can encourage dependency on the welfare scheme. There are no provisions for the development of self-esteem through work opportunities and developing the habit of health and hygiene. The dire need of the era is to develop the sense of creativity, diligence and efficiency, and self-esteem. The demarcation of APL and BPL is full of faults and is quite distinct from the reality on the ground. The act does talk about female empowerment, but by having control of a ration card only they cannot in turn control a household. This act no doubt shows its concern for the dismal condition of India, especially the rural and hilly areas, surging food grain prices and worsening global supplies. The domestic food crisis is coming to the boil. The food grain yields of Indian farmers are not increasing. The grain output has been stagnating for over a decade and there is a growing gap between supply and demand, and there is no “social use of land.” Thus, this legislation can be appreciated in its

92

Chapter Four

depiction of the pathetic condition of two-thirds of the population in terms of basic needs. However, the mechanism to achieve the target is inappropriate, and will create an inefficient group of people dependent on Government plans. Thus, it may be submitted that the existing anti-poverty programs be made more transparent to minimize the leakages. Simultaneously, agriculture needs to be reformed by improving incentives and increasing investment to create job opportunities, fetch better incomes and provide a sense of dignity. The APL and BPL demarcation is creating great problems in the society. Many APL have become BPL, whereas many real BPL are still far from accessing the benefits. In this scenario, it is better to universalize access to the PDS system, create job opportunities and make the people aware of job availabilities/opportunities instead of allowing them to take recourse to easy and free access benefits. Much clamour is made by the political parties for 5 kg of food grain because the Antyodaya Anna Yojana is already available. It may be submitted here that this act will offer no major relief to the poor people. Food security is a short-term policy, but food sovereignty is long-term. The need of the hour for India is to follow the sui-generis policy of food sovereignty. The required quantity of grain with the passage of the act will create a burden on revenue in terms of subsidy which will ultimately fall on the middle-class tax payers. Such a policy will not make the people self-sufficient in the long run, and may lead to dependency on foreign seed companies and throw them into a vicious circle of poverty and humiliation.

CHAPTER FIVE BIODIVERSITY, BIOPIRACY AND FOOD SECURITY BHARGAVI S. RAO

Introduction The biodiversity of the planet earth developed over millions of years. Extremely diverse habitats such as tropical rainforests have taken long stretches of geological time to develop. However, many species are being lost almost every day. The loss of species results in gaps in the food chain, food links and the web of life itself. Nature takes extremely long periods to adapt to such changes. The impacts of such changes in the food web result in drastic impacts on food security as food crops are dependent on nature for the simple processes of pollination and fertilisation. The extinction of species today is therefore an important concern—once they're gone not only are they gone forever, but it takes millions of years for new species to evolve in their place. Although some extinction is natural, many human activities have vastly increased the number of species disappearing every day. The current rate of species loss is believed to be some 100 to 1,000 times greater than the pre-industrial rate. In addition to extinctions, more species are endangered than ever before. and the number of species at risk continues to rise. Many species are experiencing declining populations, which is a potential precursor to extinction. Reduced populations also reduce genetic variability, which in turn reduces the species’ resilience or ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions. In all, 21% of all known mammals, 30% of all known amphibians, 12% of all known birds, 35% of conifers and cycads, 17% of sharks and 27% of reef-building corals assessed for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species are threatened with extinction according to the International Union for Conservation

94

Chapter Five

(iucnredlist.org). Bill Jackson, Deputy Director General of IUCN, has this to say about the situation: If the world made equivalent losses in share prices there would be a rapid response and widespread panic, as we saw during the recent economic crisis. The loss of biodiversity, crucial to life on earth, has, in comparison, produced little response. By ignoring the urgent need for action we stand to pay a much higher price in the long term than the world can afford.

The Indian forests may still look lush, green and pristine in patches, but in the wilderness of India’s biodiversity hotspots everything is not fine. Habitat loss due to deforestation and human encroachment is silently pushing hundreds of tree and plant species to the brink. While we know we are left with just 1,411 tigers, 250 great Indian bustards and falling numbers of black buck, nilgai and other, we don’t know how many plant species are slowly slipping into extinction because of overuse in medicinal and religious practices. The loss of biodiversity is realised in the food we eat. Until a few years ago, the food basket consisted of a variety of indigenous cereals, pulses, millets and more. A wide range of genetic resources is very crucial for future food security. The loss of agricultural biodiversity increases the risk of relying on a limited number of staple food crops. India was once home to a wide variety of paddy, wheat, millets and herbs that formed the staple diet of millions, protecting them from a variety of diseases. However, with the changes in policies, programmes and the embracing of the Green Revolution, India has lost several of its indigenous crop varieties. Worldwide stock markets are forever predicting the rise and fall in the economy in terms of dollars, gold, silver, real estate, energy, bank failures, political tensions and unemployment. However, there are never any predictions for the falling numbers of the variety of flora and fauna, including food crops. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), world leaders have failed to deliver on the commitments made in 2002 to reduce the global rate of biodiversity loss by 2010, and have instead overseen alarming biodiversity declines. These findings are the result of a new paper published in the leading journal Science and represent the first assessment of how the targets made through the 2002 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have not been met. Habitat destruction, encroachment, overexploitation of natural resources, dumping of toxic waste, use of pesticides and fertilizers, introduction of new species and climate change continue to threaten biodiversity and could result in irreparable impacts.

Biodiversity, Biopiracy and Food Security

95

Legal provisions to protect natural resources While such pressures continue to loot them, a simple question arises as to who is the owner of the natural resources? The answer is simple—the people are the owners and the state is the custodian. However, in practice, the state has arrogated to itself the power of ownership. Several movements and struggles to reclaim control of natural resources and commons have been patchily successful, despite having a constitutional provision stating that: The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood; that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub serve the common good; that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. (Article 39 of the Constitution of India)

In addition, other legal provisions that help protect our natural resources include the Right to Life, the Right to Clean Environment and Livelihood, the Polluter Pays Principle, the Principle of Absolute Liability, the Principle of Intergenerational Equity, the Doctrine of Public Trust, the Precautionary Principle and the Principle of Prior and Informed Consent. However, these principles rarely guide administrative decisions, and have often been ignored by the Judiciary in enforcing compliance. Globalisation has induced policies promoting high economic growth, push for FDI and private sector participation, but has skewed relationships between ownership, use and control of natural resources. Examples of strong influencing factors that have pushed for the exploitation of natural resources are the Govindarajan Committee on Investment Reforms, 2002, the National Environmental Policy, 2006, the National Water Policy, 2002, the National Agricultural Policy, 2000, and the National Mineral Policy, 2008. The resulting trends have shown that extractive industries have achieved the second highest growth rates in the country. Also relevant are the high growth sectors which show that growth rates have been escalating with mining and quarrying at 7.9%, electricity, gas and water supplies at 6.2%, construction at 7.1%, trade, hotels, transport and communication at 8.1%, financing, insurance, real estate and business services at 8.1%, and community, social and personal services at 6.8%. The growth rates in agriculture, forestry & fishing and manufacturing are estimated at 2.4% and 3.4%, respectively (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation).

96

Chapter Five

In addition to understanding what a GDP-based economy consumes, prime biodiversity habitats disturbed and destroyed in West Bengal where at two million hectares between 1947 and 2000 for industrialisation, but the state has committed 93,995 hectares over the past decade. Orissa used 40,000 hectares for industry between 1951 and 1995 but planned to acquire 40,000 hectares more in the succeeding decade. Between 1996 and 2000, Andhra Pradesh acquired half as much land for industry as it did in the preceding forty-five. Goa acquired 3.5% of its landmass between 1965 and 1995. If all its plans go through, it will acquire 7.2% of landmass this decade. Gujarat has promised land for 27 SEZs, and around 200 SEZs are being planned all over India. Almost all the iron ore in the Bellary district of Karnataka was mined illegally for export to China while destroying forests across the region. While the National policies and budgets have largely moved away from implicitly protecting biodiversity, various reports produced annually by the many sections of the United Nations continue to influence the governments of developing economies across the world to make way for Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs). Such reports advise and influence governments to make the necessary amendments in country policies and laws to make way for FDIs in various sectors to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). For example, the World Investment Report 2009 states: “The government could … promote contract farming between Trans National Corporations and local farmers in the direction of enhancing farmers' predictable income, productive capacities and benefits from global value chains.” However, to deal with the extensive adverse impacts: “… the international community [needs to] devise a set of core principles for transparency in large-scale land acquisitions, respect for existing land rights, the right to food, protection of indigenous peoples, and social and environmental sustainability.”

Laws to protect biodiversity While habitats across the world are destroyed, threatening biodiversity, sometime in the late 1980s governments across the world realised the need to protect biodiversity as the earth's biological resources are vital to humanity's economic and social development. As a result, there was a growing recognition that biological diversity is a global asset of tremendous value to future generations. In response, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) convened the Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts on Biological Diversity which culminated on May 22, 1992

Biodiversity, Biopiracy and Food Security

97

with the Nairobi Conference for the Adoption of the Agreed Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Convention was opened for signature on June 5, 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Rio "Earth Summit"). It remained open for signature until June 4, 1993, by which time it had received 168 signees. The Convention entered into force on December 29, 1993, which was 90 days after the 30th ratification. The Convention on Biological Diversity was inspired by the world community's growing commitment to sustainable development. It represents a dramatic step forward in the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. In conformance with the CBD that India signed in 1992, the Biological diversity Act 2002 was enacted, governing all aspects relating management, conservation, access and use of biodiversity in India. The Biological Diversity Rules became effective in 2004 and the guidelines for use and access of biological resources were notified in 2006. All offences under this act are tried under criminal law. It also recognises, protects and rewards traditional knowledge and ownership of biodiversity by local communities. The law established biodiversity regulatory systems led by National Biodiversity Authority, State Biodiversity Boards and Local Biodiversity Committees. The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) is the nodal administrative and regulatory agency for monitoring and approving use, access and conservation of biodiversity in India. State Biodiversity Boards are constituted for a similar purpose, specifically empowered to monitor the use and access by the Indian industry of biological resources. Biodiversity Management Committees are constituted under Panchayats and Nagarpalikas for the conservation, sustainable use and documentation of biodiversity and the chronicling of knowledge relating to biodiversity.

Brinjal biopiracy Biopiracy has become one the greatest threats to Biodiversity today. It involves the ownership of stolen biological wealth and patenting it in part or whole. India’s fights against the patenting of Neem, Turmeric and Basmati rice are well-known biopiracy cases which were fought in international courts. By contrast, the case of brinjal biopiracy happened within the country. Brinjal being stolen to make it the first genetically modified food crop in India is a classic case of daylight robbery. In

98

Chapter Five

October 2009, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee assented the commercial release of genetically modified brinjal in India. However, the then Minister for Environment and Forestry decided to hold public hearings across India, especially in the brinjal-growing states, and took a consensus among farmers and scientists before its commercial release. Public hearings were conducted from late 2009 to early 2010 in many cities across the country, the last in Bangalore in February 2010. Like most others, we at the Environment Support Group (ESG) examined the environmental and social implications of Bt brinjal, particularly against the backdrop of the Bt cotton experiences and concerns of organic farmers, considering to whom the cotton and now brinjal belonged, especially considering that by 2010 about 90% of the cotton seed market had been monopolised by Mahyco’s Bt Cotton. When contacted, the National Biodiversity Authority openly acknowledged that the regulatory agency had not approved access to the local varieties of cotton and brinjal. Such non-compliance amounted to a serious crime and an act of biopiracy. This was alarming as what was at stake here was not merely commercially accessing local varieties of brinjal, most of which are endemic in very local geographies, but that they were being genetically modified and commercially commodified. Twelve varieties of Indian brinjal were accessed by agreements made in April 2005 between the Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. (Mahyco), the Indian subsidiary of Monsanto (Owner of the Cry I AC gene inserted into brinjal), the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad (allowed access to six local varieties, including those bred by farmers), the Tamilnadu Agricultural University (four varieties of brinjal), the Indian Vegetable Research Institute, Varanasi (eight varieties, including two hybrids), Sathguru Management Consultants Pvt Ltd, Cornell University (for the Cry I AC gene patent) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The sub-licensee agreements were for accessing local varieties of brinjal, into which the patented B.t. gene was inserted at Mahyco lab in Maharashtra. The Bt brinjal product is a commodity and the property of Mahyco/Monsanto. About fifty varieties of brinjal are available in Karnataka, of which Matti Gulla is one. It is known for its low moisture content, which makes it ideal for delicacies and ensures its long shelf life. It is sacred because of its legendary origins attributed to Vadiraja, one of the seers of the Dwaita school who supposedly gave its seeds to the impoverished inhabitants of Matti to sow. With a Global Indicator tag marking Matti as the exclusive

Biodiversity, Biopiracy and Food Security

99

growing place of the Matti Gulla, the first harvest of this jade-and-moss green striped brinjal from the tiny hamlet is traditionally taken to the Udupi Srikrishna temple, as it is considered the Lord’s favourite vegetable. Sit down for a meal at the temple and it'll show up on your leaf, shallow fried with a freshly-ground masala of red chilli, curry leaves, mustard, methi and coriander seeds. It could also be served as a fragrant “bolu huli,” cooked with tur dal as a base and seasoned with hing to counter its astringency. Is inserting a transgene into Matti Gulla an ethically correct decision, particularly considering that it is a sacred offering in a temple revered for its vegetarian purity? The Environment Support Group (ESG) formally raised brinjal biopiracy and the 190 plants of the Normally Traded Commodities (NTC) in the last public consultation on Bt brinjal held by Jairam Ramesh on February 6, 2010. Jairam Ramesh publicly ridiculed this submission. Two days later, in his unprecedented decision ordering a moratorium on the environmental release of Bt brinjal, he specifically chose to rebut the biopiracy claims, evident in the first footnote of his decision. ESG filed formal complaints with the Karnataka Biodiversity Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) in February 2010 on both biopiracy and 190 plants (NTC) issues. The Board systematically investigated the issues raised, and repeatedly confirmed its intent to prosecute violators on biopiracy. No concurrent action was evident from NBA or MoEF through 2010 and much of 2011. Monsanto, the global corporate giant, is known to sue small farmers for patent infringement after Monsanto's GM seeds spread wildly into surrounding farmers' fields, contaminating their conventional crops. Monsanto is a company that is taking many steps to keep farmers and everyone else from having any access at all to buying, collecting and saving normal seeds, thereby disturbing the traditional practice of sowing, growing, harvesting and saving of seeds by traditional methods. Monsanto is slowly buying up the seed companies, and has shares in the local seed companies of developing countries. The company has written Monsanto seed laws that make the cleaning, collecting and storing of seeds so onerous in terms of fees and paperwork that having normal seed becomes almost impossible in the United States. The company also has Monsanto regulations buried in the Functional Data Analysis (FDA) rules that make a farmer’s seed cleaning equipment illegal, because it is now considered a “source of seed contamination.” Monsanto is pushing for laws that ensure farmers and citizens cannot block the planting of genetically modified crops (GMCs, GM crops, or biotech crops) even if they can contaminate

Chapter Five

100

other crops. The pressure to pass the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill (BRAI BILL) is a classic example of how the company enters developing countries and takes control of what food is grown and what is eaten by the people. More importantly, Monsanto has sued more than 1,500 farmers whose fields were contaminated by GM crops. Against this background, Indian farmers who are mostly marginal land holders, and growers of indigenous varieties of crops, vegetables and fruit, will be badly hit if the company were to take control of their lives and livelihoods. The Indian farming community’s widespread resistance to the introduction of Bt brinjal resulted in the moratorium of its commercial release. Although the case of brinjal biopiracy was raised at the public hearing conducted by Jairam Ramesh for the commercial release of the same, the then minister for Environment and Forestry completely ignored the complaint at the public hearing and throughout his term. This forced us to approach parliamentarians in a public campaign, and many, cutting across party lines, took up the issue. The Communist Party of India (CPI), the Samajvadi Party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Janata Dal (S) and others took up the issue with the MoEF and demanded to know from Jayanti Natarajan, who succeeded Jairam Ramesh, why action was not being initiated on the ESG complaints. Under pressure, NBA finally confirmed in a meeting held in June 2011 that it would initiate prosecution of Monsanto/Mahyco and others involved with biopiracy charges, based on ESG’s complaint. Natarajan, in the submission to Parliament, said the prosecution was the joint responsibility of the National Biodiversity Authority and State Biodiversity Boards (Karnataka, Tamilnadu and Uttar Pradesh) NBA resolution, June 20 2011: A background note besides legal opinion on Bt brinjal on the alleged violation by the M/s. Mahyco/M/s Monsanto, and their collaborators for accessing and using the local brinjal varieties for development of Bt brinjal without prior approval of the competent authorities was discussed and it was decided that the NBA may proceed legally against M/s. Mahyco/ M/s Monsanto, and all others concerned to take the issue to its logical conclusion.

Dr Manmohan Singh, the then Prime Minister of India, proclaimed in his address at the High Level meeting of 11th Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity at Hyderabad in October 2012 that:

Biodiversity, Biopiracy and Food Security

101

We believe that the treasure trove of traditional knowledge should be used for the benefit of all humankind rather than for private profit. We will continue to work to strengthen our institutions to record this knowledge, to value its science and to provide benefits to its custodians.

He also asserted that: “we need to build a movement to conserve traditional varieties of crops.” The strength of such statements in international fora is best proven by the manner in which governments demonstrate support for tackling biopiracy. From the manner in which India's first major corporate biopiracy case is being handled, the Prime Minister's statements clearly appear rhetorical. When matters failed to take their own lawful course, ESG was forced to take recourse to public interest litigation in 2012 filed before the Karnataka high court, seeking, among other reliefs, that NBA, the Karnataka Biodiversity Board (KBB) and other concerned agencies must: “perform their statutory duties under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 with regard to existing cases of biopiracy.” The court acted in due course, and so did the NBA and KBB, filing a criminal complaint against the accused. It was only after the High Court issued notice in ESG's PIL did NBA and KBB file the criminal complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dharwad. The criminal complaint No. 579/2012 filed by NBA and KBB officials was admitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court on November 26, 2012, and summons were issued for past and current officials of UASDharwad, but rather interestingly not for officials of Mahyco and Sathguru as police claimed they could not find their addresses. While this issue was pending resolution, four of the accused—Dr S. A. Patil, former Vice Chancellor of UAS-Dharwad, Dr Hanchinal, Vice Chancellor of University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Dharwad, Dr H. S. Vijayakumar, Registrar of UAS-Dharwad, and the University—moved the Circuit Bench of the Karnataka High Court at Dharwad and got an order from Justice B. V. Pinto to delay the entire criminal proceedings for six months on January 3, 2013. All offences under the Biodiversity Act are cognisable (violators can be arrested without warrant) and also non-bailable. When companies are violators, the company and officers in charge are accountable. Punishments under the Biological Diversity Act are in addition to those already provided in laws protecting forests (the Forest Conservation Act) and

102

Chapter Five

wildlife (the Wildlife Protection Act). Provisions of the Forest Rights Act further apply. The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed petitions seeking to protect senior representatives of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad (UAS), agri-biotech company Mahyco, and consultants Sathguru from criminal prosecution. This means that they can be tried in the Bt brinjal biopiracy case wherein they have been accused of criminal conspiracy in using local brinjal varieties to develop the GM vegetable. This has been a big step in helping the authorities take appropriate action against brinjal biopiracy.

Biodiversity, trade and food security Biodiversity strengthens the economic, social and cultural lives of billions of people globally, particularly indigenous communities. Needless to say, the preservation of biodiversity in the face of a variety of well-documented biopiracy cases, such as the Bt brinjal case, is more than an environmental concern. Agriculture, pharmaceuticals, forestry, fisheries and tourism, among others, are all major economic areas that are heavily dependent upon biodiversity, attracting the keen attention of industry and investors. Habitat destruction as a result of such competing human industrial needs has resulted in the loss of numerous species of flora and fauna, some known and others unknown. However, the recent unprecedented commercial interest can also play a devastating role in preserving biodiversity as well as irreparably destroying it. In this context, we also discovered another shocking act of negligence on the part of MoEF and NBA who, without any public consultation, notified 190 plants as Normally Traded Commodities per sec. 40 of the BD Act. Of the 190 plants, 15 species were found to be highly endangered, a fact confirmed by IUCN. There is absolutely no regulation on trade in biological resources in India. Once listed as NTC, the weak regulatory framework completely exposes the bio-resources to over-exploitation and the potential extinction of species. The case of a fish Puntius denisonii, also known as Miss Kerala, is indicative of the threat that exists. Miss Kerala, discovered as a collector’s item in the 1996 Rome Aquarium Congress, had by 2010 come close to extinction due to commercial trade. IUCN has now placed it on the Red List, meaning it is nearing extinction. If endangered plants are removed from the purview of the Biological Diversity Act (BD Act) will they not meet the same fate?

Biodiversity, Biopiracy and Food Security

103

In the article "India Losing Rare Medicinal Plants," published on the front page of The Asian Age, February 14, 2010, Jairam Ramesh is quoted as saying that "a five-year moratorium should be placed on the export of all raw materials in order to save these plants from extinction,” while admitting that “annually, Rs 800 crores worth of rare medicinal plants are being exported in raw form. These plants then get re-imported back into the country as medicines which are sold at much higher prices.” Despite this, no action has been taken to review the listing of 190 plants as Normally Traded Commodities over two years since we filed the complaint against the decision. The loss of biodiversity has disastrous consequences on food security. All food on planet earth has come from the wild, including the staple crops of rice, wheat, corn, ragi, vegetables and fruit, spices and many herbs and shrubs, which are used in a variety of ways across the planet. Destroying the wild habitats of these plants will wipe out the wild varieties forever. Humanity has manipulated the existing food crops beyond imagination and if calamity has to strike, there is nowhere else to find wild and alternate varieties for food security. The forests, grasslands, deserts, rivers, lakes and oceans are storehouses of food, and destroying them will leave us in peril. It is imperative that we realise the connection between the loss of biodiversity, biopiracy and food security. Preserving our commons and protecting our biodiversity from biopiracy comprises the need of the hour for food security.

CHAPTER SIX FOOD SECURITY IN THE ERA OF CLIMATE CHANGE: THE NEED FOR A PARADIGM SHIFT IN AGRICULTURE NEHA SAIGAL

Globally, agriculture is at the threshold of a necessary paradigm shift where business as usual will not work to fulfil the needs of food security in times of climate change and in a scenario of land and water scarcity. The current models of agriculture are input intensive and oriented towards more production and trade. This has resulted in some disturbing trends, like the 30–40% of all food at every step of the food cycle being wasted, and the fact that for the first time in history there are as many overweight people as there are undernourished. Another trend is the concentration of a few corporates managing the food production and distribution, meaning that although we have over fifty thousand edible plants, over half of our food comes from just three of them.1 While the current model of agriculture continues to push for more and more production for the sake of food security, it is an irony that the world currently produces enough food to feed everyone but at least one billion people remain food insecure. The shifts in climate will make agriculture more unpredictable and uncertain and will have huge socio-economic impacts for a country like India, which is predominantly reliant on an agricultural economy. A study by the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) predicted that this will have huge impacts for rice and wheat production in India which would also lead to boundary changes suitable for growing certain crops. An increase in temperature of 2–4 degrees will lead to a reduction in rice 1

Food and Agriculture: The Future of Sustainability, Sustainable Development in the 21st century (SD21).

106

Chapter Six

yields and the eastern regions are going to be most impacted.2 But at the same time, agriculture is also a major driver of climate change, contributing anywhere between 25–30% of global greenhouse gas emissions, depending on the analysis.3 In this scenario, agriculture needs a winning solution that mitigates climate change and also makes it productive in achieving food security and sustainable livelihoods. As suggested by Anne Lappe, the founder of the Small Planet Fund: “if we are to continue to feed the planet and feed it well in the face of global climate chaos, we should be radically rethinking the industrial food system.” A solution was brought to the table in 2008 by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) with contributions from more than four hundred scientists and agriculture experts, supporting climateresilient, multifunctional agriculture that enables us to sustainably confront poverty, hunger and climate change. In addition, small-scale farmers that produce more than half of the world’s food supply will play a key role in achieving food security. While many credible bodies including the UN FAO, UNEP and the UN Conference on Trade and Development echo the view of the IAASTD, models around the world continue to centre on Chemical Intensive Agriculture (CIA) as a means to achieve food security, and this is reflected in agricultural policies. An examination of the trends in Indian Agriculture only go to show that India is not progressive in that respect, and the current policy debate on food security and agriculture is on the high external input industrial agriculture and related biotechnology, where chemical packages are the best and only options for feeding the population. In the mid-1960s, India embraced the Green Revolution, which helped to achieve grain security but bought about problems like environmental degradation, particularly in soil, vegetation and water resources. This showcases a model of agriculture that does not have a long-term vision and is not a sustainable option in an era of climate change and increasing populations. One of the impacts of the Green Revolution was to change the cropping patterns with an over-emphasis on wheat and rice replacing 2

http://agricoop.nic.in/Climatechange/ccr/india-climate-6-agriculture.pdf. Reynolds & Nierenberg, Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture: Supporting Climate Friendly Food Production. World Watch Report 188, 2012. 3 Ibid. 3

Food Security in the Era of Climate Change

107

pulses, bajra (pearl millet) and jowar/sorghum (Syricum) as the dominant food crops.4 One of the evils that came with the Green Revolution was the indiscriminate use of fertilisers, which is hampering food production today. As a result, synthetic fertiliser consumption increased from a mere 0.07 million tons (mt) in 1950–1 to a staggering 23.15 mt in 2008–9.5 One of the reasons for the increased fertiliser usage in the country is that the Central Government fertiliser subsidy, as the amount of subsidy outgoing on synthetic N-P-K fertilisers (domestic and imported) in India during the last three decades, has grown exponentially from a mere Rs 60 crore during 1976–7 to an astronomical Rs 40,338 crore during 2007–8,6and the Government now spends roughly Rs 70,000 crores every year on sustaining the subsidy system. The increased use of fertilisers over five decades has degraded the natural resource base, especially the soil. As a consequence, food production is no longer increasing and is affected by diminishing returns and falling dividends in agricultural intensive areas. Many long-term experiments conducted at several locations in India show signs of yield fatigue, i.e. a stagnating or declining yield (Ladha et al. 2003; Singh et al. 2005; Yadav et al. 1998). Many authors have related this yield fatigue to a number of factors, with the loss of soil fertility and/or problems of soil degradation linked to the over- or inappropriate use of synthetic fertilisers being significant determinants (Dawe et al. 2003; Dwivedi et al. 2003; Ladha et al. 2003; Masto et al. 2008; Singh et al. 2005; Yadav et al. 1998). Caught in a vicious circle, farmers are at the same time being compelled to apply higher fertiliser rates to obtain the same yield they achieved with lower fertiliser inputs (Singh et al. 2005). Not only are synthetic fertilizers responsible for soil degradation and thus yield stagnation, but synthetic nitrogen fertilisers also contribute to 6% of India’s greenhouse gas emissions.7

4

R. B. Singh, “Environmental Consequences of Agricultural Development: a Case Study from the Green Revolution State of Haryana, India,” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82 (2000): 97–103. 5 Dr Roy et al., Subsidising the Food Crisis (Greenpeace India, 2009). 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid.

108

Chapter Six

Fig. 6.1. Impacts of intensive agriculture on Indian soil

However, India has not learnt any lessons from the Green Revolution and continues with a narrow minded approach to food security. The FAO defines Food Security as existing “when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” In the Indian context, to achieve food security there should be a focus on the access to food and purchasing power, but instead there seems to be a disproportionate focus on food production. This has led to the trends of unsuitable models in Indian Agriculture, and the latest one seems to be the “gene revolution.” There is strong propaganda from Genetically Modified (GM) crop developers and their promoters to project this risky technology as a necessity if we want to achieve food security. Thirty years of GM crop research and twenty years of GM crop cultivation around the world only go to show that there is no evidence that GM crops will help achieve food security. Yield, as acknowledged by all, is a multigenic factor, and is dependent on various environmental factors as well. It is also important to know that so far there has been no single GM crop developed for increasing yield, there are only traits that comprise the majority of GM crops being cultivated—herbicide tolerance (HT) and

Food Security in the Era of Climate Change

109

insect resistance (Bt).9 These are not traits that are developed to sustain food productivity in an unpredictable climatic environment. Table 6.1 below indicates no direct correlation between GM crop adoption and cultivation to food security in countries where GM crops are widely cultivated. Table 6.1. Absence of correlation between GM crop adoption and cultivation to food security USA

According the United States Economic Research Service in 2011, 14.9% of American households were food insecure at some point in the year, that is around 17.9 million households in the country that is the largest producer of GM crops. This is an increase of 15% of the population in 2011 being food insecure from 12% in 1995, before GM crops were commercialised in 1996.

BRAZIL

Brazil is the second largest producer of GM crops in the world. The percentage of malnourishment has increased from 12.6% in 2004–6 to 25.5% in 2010–12. The increase in malnourishment is almost double for the period of transgenic crop expansion.

ARGENTINA

In Argentina, the third largest producer of GM crops, there has been no significant change in the hunger situation. The malnourishment has been less than 5% of the population in 1999–1 and 2010–12. There has been no change in the years of expansion of transgenic crops.

Source: Scientist’s letter to Jayanthi Natrajan submitted on the February 9, 2013. Coalition for a GM FREE India, indiagminfo.org.

A look at the Bt cotton situation in India would explain the yieldproduction myth of GM crops very well. Ten years of official cultivation of Bt cotton raises many questions about its sustainability for Indian farming. One of the biggest myths promoted by the proponents of this technology is that Bt cotton has been responsible for phenomenal cotton production in India. A look at the government statistics tells a different story. In 2004–5, when Bt cotton was a mere 6% of the total acreage, the 9

ISAAA Brief 43-2011. Executive Summary as accessed.

110

Chapter Six

yield was 470 kg/hectare. In 2011–12, when the Bt cotton acreage reached 96%, it was 481 kg/hectare. In fact, a 10-year review for the same period by the Central Institute of Cotton Research notes that: “the Cotton Advisory Board data show cotton yield increased by about 60% in three years between 2002 to 2004 when the area under Bt cotton was a meager 5.6 % and non Bt area was 94.4 %. The yields did not increase significantly more than the pre Bt era even until 2011 when the Bt cotton area touched 96%.”10 This has also been accepted by the Planning commission of India in its draft of the 12th Five Year Plan.11 An analysis of the 2050 vision document of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), which is India’s premier agricultural research institute and also the largest in the world, only shows that while we have recognised the real problems for agriculture in the coming years our agricultural institutes are not willing to find the real solutions. In fact, the false solutions are based on production models using the Green Revolution as a standard and the strengthening and further focus on the research of GM crops and an increase in public private partnerships in research and beyond. There are also models like crop diversification and conservation agriculture which are promoted under the ICAR’s vision, but which in reality are not as good as they sound as they promote an increase in monocultures, use of herbicides and hybrid seeds. Given that India has an increasing population which will reach 1.5 billion by 2050, depleting resources, and unpredictable climatic changes, the present and the future of Indian agricultural models as visualised by our institutions are business as usual, ignoring the solutions provided by credible reports like the IAASTD. A review of recent scientific literature underlines that the most effective strategy to adapt agriculture to climate change is to increase biodiversity. A mix of different crops and varieties in one field is a proven and highly reliable farming method for increasing resilience to erratic weather changes. We cannot afford to adopt false solutions like chemical intensive agriculture and GM crop packages and be blind to the real solutions that so many credible agencies have directed us to.

10

K. R. Kranthi, “Bt Cotton: Questions and Answers,” Indian Society for Cotton Improvement, (Mumbai, 2012), 32. 11 http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/12thplan/welcome.html.

Food Security in the Era of Climate Change

111

A survey by Action Aid in 2012, funded by the European Commission, clearly warns that the current food system is under threat from the: “combined effects of climate change, land degradation, cropland losses, water scarcity and species infestations [which] may cause projected yields to be 5–25% short of demand by 2050, and 600 million additional people could be affected by malnutrition as a direct result of climate change by 2080.” The report also suggests that the current model of agriculture that is promoted will fail to feed the world in the future and does not address the real problems of food security, which are poverty and inequality.

CHAPTER SEVEN NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY ACT: IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES DIPA SINHA

The National Food Security Act (NFSA) was passed by the Indian Parliament in September 2013. For over four years, since the UPA government in June 2009 announced its intent to bring in legislation on food security until it was finally passed, there was intense debate and discussion on what the act must contain. Various drafts of the bill were put forward. The initial draft bill by the Ministry of Food was widely criticised for a lack of vision, being too narrow and only putting into law the PDS in the current form without addressing any of the well-known flaws in its implementation (See righttofoodindia.org for various versions of the NFSB and critiques). The National Advisory Council (NAC), under the Chairpersonship of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, drafted its version of the bill, which was broader in its vision and took on many suggestions of the civil society, such as entitlements for children and women, community kitchens, destitute feeding, interventions for people living in starvation, and a strong grievance redressal mechanism. The NAC Bill however failed to address the issues related to production, procurement and adequate storage of food. Further, the system it laid out for entitlements under the PDS once again had the same problems that the existing targeted PDS was experiencing across the country. The bill then underwent further changes based on the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee. At this stage, the framework for the PDS was changed, delinking it from the poverty line based targeting, but was still not universal. Based on the standing committee recommendations, however, the Government also deleted provisions for community kitchens and destitute feeding programmes which were part of earlier versions. Therefore, the act that was finally passed in Parliament is a mixed bag, taking us forward as far as the PDS and maternity entitlements are concerned but miles away with regard to adequately addressing all aspects of food security such as

114

Chapter Seven

ensuring sufficient production, protecting farmers’ livelihoods, meeting nutritional requirements and reaching out to the most vulnerable sections such as the urban homeless, migrants, the aged and the disabled. However, now that the bill has been passed and we have an act in place, it is time to look at what is required to ensure that the entitlements provided reach the people, while the larger battle for a more comprehensive legislation continues. This paper looks at some of the aspects of the act which do not provide enough clarity and therefore affect implementation. These are the issues to be kept in mind when the rules are being made.

Identifying Beneficiaries for the PDS The central issue related to PDS consists of the exclusion errors resulting from the system of targeting. Under the Targeted PDS, the Central Government fixes the quota of grains each state is allocated at BPL (below poverty line), with the prices based on the poverty ratio in the state according to the NSS consumption expenditure survey data and official poverty lines fixed by the Planning Commission. In state after state, it has been seen that it is almost impossible to accurately identify the number of poor as determined by the poverty ratios. As a result, in spite of different criteria being used to conduct a BPL Census that would identify BPL households, there have been many exclusion errors. The NSS data itself showed that about 50% of households below the official poverty line did not have BPL ration cards (Saxena Committee Report, GoI 2009). The pilot survey of the Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC) conducted across the country by the Ministry of Rural Development also found that it is not possible to identify them on the basis of pre-fixed “caps” (derived from poverty ratios) without large exclusion errors (Himanshu & Murgai 2011). It has therefore been recommended by many that the PDS must be universalised (Himanshu 2010; Drèze 2010; and many articles available on www.righttofoodindia.org). Universalisation has other benefits, such as providing support to a large number of households that are food insecure or are just above the margin. Further, when a large number of people are included in the PDS, there is a greater chance of public pressure. On the other hand, any system that is targeted only for the poor tends to be poorly monitored.

National Food Security Act: Implementation Challenges

115

This will also result in higher procurement which, if done in a decentralised manner, can provide much needed price support to small farmers. In India, half the population is undernourished and almost 80% of the people are living at very meagre levels of income. The calorie consumption in the country is reducing and more than 80% of people are consuming less than the required amount of food. In such a situation, a targeted PDS linked to some arbitrarily defined poverty line is bound to fail. While the NFSA is fairly limited in its outlook, it could still have a significant impact on hunger if it is implemented properly. By moving the PDS away from targeting on the basis of the poverty line, it provides an opportunity to set right one of the structural problems in the public distribution system. The NFSA does not universalise PDS entitlements but has significantly expanded coverage and has also put in place a mechanism of uniform pricing. The NFSA provides 5 kg of cereals per person per month for 75% of the rural population and 50% of the urban population. The price of rice will be Rs 3 per kg, wheat Rs 2 per kg and millet Rs 1 per kg. Those who are currently beneficiaries under Antyodaya Anna Yojana will continue to receive a household entitlement of 35 kg per month at the same prices, irrespective of the number of members in the household. The coverage across different states will be in such a manner as to reflect their levels of development, so that the national average is what the act proposes to cover. The NFSA gives a schedule with the amount of food grains that will be allocated to each state. Therefore, no state will get a lesser allocation while many will get a much larger amount of food grains at a much lower price. The state-wise coverage of the populations in rural and urban areas under the NFSA is given in Fig. 7.1 below. The critical step for the proper implementation of the act is therefore the proper identification of beneficiaries. The NFSA does not specify any identification criteria and only says that it is to be finalised in consultation with the state governments. The act further provides a period of one year for the identification of beneficiaries and roll-out of the entitlements.

116

Chapter Seven

Fig. 7.1. PDS Coverage under NFSA—Statewise, Rural and Urban

Source: Planning Commission.

National Food Security Act: Implementation Challenges

117

As mentioned earlier, developing identification criteria has been one of the most contested issues right from the beginning of a targeted PDS. As a second-best option to universalisation, many have suggested (and this is also backed by the SECC pilot) that an “exclusion-approach” would work best (Drèze & Khera 2010; Government of India 2009; Mehrotra & Mander 2009). The proposal here is to identify the rich and exclude them from the benefits, while including all the rest with uniform benefits. Several simple, objective and verifiable exclusion criteria have been suggested by various people including the Saxena Committee, the SECC pilot survey and the Chhattisgarh Food Security Act. With some states getting coverage of about 80% or more in the rural area, this can be a chance to identify beneficiaries based on an exclusion approach so that nobody is left out. However, the experience so far (for example in Rajasthan and Delhi) has been that even after the NFSA, the states are coming up with complicated identification criteria that might once again result in inclusion and exclusion errors. Further, it has also been seen that states are not willing to start afresh, and only want to build on the existing systems. Therefore, those who already have BPL cards are not being scrutinised. The best way to approach the issue would be to wait for the SECC to be completed and use this data to develop exclusion criteria for rural and urban areas for each state so that the included population matches the allocation for that particular state. Further, state governments can also decide to universalise the PDS, if not in the entire state then at least in the poorest districts. This will save them from the hassle of identification in areas where most of the population will in any case be included. Especially in states such as UP, Bihar and Jharkhand, where there will be a doubling of coverage, an exclusion approach will be the best method and will also ensure that no poor household is left out. In states such as Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, where the coverage has already been expanded or is universal, they can continue with their current systems. New ration cards will have to be distributed in the name of the eldest adult female of the household, as the act recognises her as the head of the household.

118

Chapter Seven

PDS Reforms and Implementation Mechanisms Along with the issue of identification, reforms in PDS need to be addressed for the NFSA to be implemented properly. Here again, while there are now a proven set of reforms, the act only specifies these in a recommendatory manner and it is not clear how many states will actually adopt them. Based on the experiences of well-performing states, clear guidelines need to be given for the identification of beneficiaries as well as reforms in the PDS. This includes the de-privatisation of ration shops, doorstep delivery of food grains to the ration shops, the computerisation of PDS records, activating vigilance committees and introducing transparency and accountability mechanisms (most of these have been done in Tamil Nadu and Chhattisgarh, and some in other states such as Andhra Pradesh and Odisha). Further, the cost sharing norms between the central and state governments for expenses such as transportation, commission to FPS dealers, grievance redressal mechanisms and so on also need to be worked out. In doing so, it needs to be kept in mind once again that the states where the NFSA has the potential to make the greatest impact, such as UP, Bihar and Jharkhand, are also very poor states that cannot afford to invest much from their own budgets.

Maternity entitlements One of the historic achievements of the NFSA is that it introduced a universal maternity entitlement of Rs 6,000 for every pregnant woman who is not otherwise eligible for maternity benefits because of being employed in the Government or public sector undertakings. While there have been small maternity benefit schemes, and a pilot central scheme (Indira Gandhi Matritva Suraksha Yojana, IGMSY), other than in the states of Odisha and Tamil Nadu such a large-scale maternity entitlement programme has not been put in place. The maternity entitlements find a place in the NFSA primarily because this is an enabling intervention to ensure exclusive breastfeeding, the only “food” for children aged under six months. The act specifies that this entitlement shall be provided through schemes designed by the government. Since there is already a pilot scheme in place and schemes in two states, lessons from these need to be taken on board while rolling out this entitlement. There are some concerns which need to be addressed. For

National Food Security Act: Implementation Challenges

119

instance, in all the current schemes, the entitlements are restricted only to the first two births. Studies have shown that this leaves out some of the most vulnerable women and most risky births. Further, from a rights perspective it is not correct to discriminate against the third child just because of the order of birth. In a situation where there is such inadequate access to health care and contraceptives, and where women do not have complete control over reproductive decisions, such a conditionality goes against women and only serves to exclude those who most need support. Similarly, the IGMSY also includes conditionalities such as completing immunisation and attending nutrition counselling, and while these are very desirable, the onus of delivering these services should be on the government rather than punishing the women in cases when the services are not available. The government can impose such conditionalities only if there is a service guarantee from its side (Sahayog 2012). Along with this, there are other issues that need to be resolved. One is the practical issue related to opening bank accounts for all women and ensuring easy and smooth payments. Second, and more importantly, a system needs to be worked out to ensure that the woman gets her entitlement irrespective of where she is currently living. This affects a large section of women who might go to their natal homes for delivery (as is the case in many parts of the country) but are “resident” and therefore registered at an Angan Wadi centre in their marital village. This is also applicable to migrant women working in brick kilns, construction sites and other informal sector employment across the country.

Grievance redressal system For the entitlements under the NFSA to reach people, there is a need for an effective grievance redressal system. The act provides for a District Grievance Redress Officer (DGRO) and a state commission. It also has some provisions for imposing penalties and awarding compensation. While it has been criticised that this is too weak a system, for even this to work the systems have to be put in place. Rules have to be formulated for the appointment of DGROs, appointments to state commissions and for prompt responses and action. Further, over time, it is necessary that a more decentralised grievance redress system that is independent and starts at the gram panchayat level, is put in place. One possible way of doing this would be to bring the NFSA entitlements under the legislation on grievance redressal that is pending in Parliament.

120

Chapter Seven

Conclusion Although the NFSA has been disappointing in its content, it also has a potential to address acute hunger and improve the PDS, particularly in states where it has not been doing well. But for this to happen it is important that the rules are worked on soon and systems are put in place to ensure that the identification of beneficiaries is done in a transparent and effective manner, that reforms in PDS are mandated, and that the good experiences in some states are replicated across the country. Similarly, the delivery mechanisms have to be thought about and put in place for the other entitlements under the act, such as the school midday meals, supplementary nutrition under ICDS and maternity entitlements. The provisions in the act must be used to set up an effective, decentralised and transparent grievance redressal system.

References Drèze, J. & R. Khera. 2010a. “The BPL Census and a Possible Alternative.” Economic and Political Weekly 45: 54–63. Drèze. 2010b. “The Task of Making the PDS Work.” The Hindu, July 8. http://www.hindu.com/2010/07/08/stories/2010070854731000.htm. Government of India. 2009. “Report of the Expert Group to Advise the Ministry of Rural Development on the Methodology for Conducting the Below Poverty Line BPL Census for 11th Five-Year Plan.” New Delhi: Ministry of Rural Development. Himanshu. 2010. “Food Entitlement Should be Universal,” The Mint, April 28. http://www.livemint.com/2010/04/28225842/Food-entitlement-shouldbe-uni.html. Himanshu & R. Murgai. 2011. “Identification of Poor: Preliminary Results from the Pilot Survey for Socio-Economic Caste Census.” Unpublished paper. Mehrotra, S. & H. Mander. 2009: “How to Identify the Poor? A Proposal.” Economic and Political Weekly 44: 27–44. Sahayog. 2012. “Monitoring the IGMSY from Equity and Accountability Perspective: A block-level study West Bengal, Odisha, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh, India 2011–2012.”

CHAPTER EIGHT FOOD SECURITY THROUGH GOOD GOVERNANCE FROM THE INDIAN PUBLIC POLICY CONTEXT SUNKARI SATYAM

Generally, policy making does not take place in a vacuum. Governments outline the policies when it has a desire to capture a new agenda or generate public attention on their ruling premises. It is not completely deniable that policies sometimes take shape in changing political circumstances, but such policy instruments fail to achieve their expected outcomes due to a lack of adequate institutional structures. Adopting or constructing appropriate structures along with policy objectives deliver better services. Undoubtedly, these changes try to bring about improvements. Sometimes, policy objectives are made to match with realistic situations. However, policy making bodies fail to take account of the needs of institutional reform, leading to confusing or incoherent arrangements both within the centre of government and in the relationship between the centre and states. Against this background, this paper presents policy relations between good governance and food security in India. A greater emphasis on policy framework helps to ensure that the planned actions represent a realistic and viable means of achieving the policy goals. In recent political phenomena, policies are made to reach the targeted sections of society. Moreover, the modern welfare system needs the government’s sincere attention on the implementation as it puts in a lot of effort in making the policy. In this framework, policy governance plays a significant role in implementation or distribution. Policy governance means it is unlikely that policies can be designed perfectly, so that nothing will go wrong or need to be revised. A policy-making body now expresses more concerns about current performance of ongoing or yet to be initiated policies and their readiness to meet future challenges (Hallsworth, Parker

122

Chapter Eight

& Rutter 2011). Therefore, implementing a policy needs the capacity and opportunity to adapt it to local or changing circumstances. Policies in the world in general, and in India specifically, are based on electoral politics and its varied socio-political dimensions. However, current policy-making processes underestimate the value of the policy framework. Active political players in the democratic set ups, especially in electoral competitive politics, add to the policy-making process. Naturally, they often focus on unrealistic and ambiguous arguments and most of the time confuse their arguments (Clarke 2008). On the other hand, organized political actors, in the sense of a ruling government, try to make policies hurriedly. In such rushed political situations, gambits are displaced and ambitious objectives are neglected. Poor policy has significant and widespread impacts, such as “poor quality public services, little or no benefit delivered or not sustainable in the long term, sections of society excluded from benefits, users’ expectations not met, adverse social or environmental consequences, and/or adverse effects on economic competitiveness” (National Audit Office of the British Government, 2001). Maintaining such misplaced objectives and politically muffled issues is central to making targeted policies. India, being a welfare state, has been focusing on welfare from its responsible and inherent political spheres since starting the Five Year Plans. Food security through good governance in a welfare state is, in fact, a harsh reality of administrative performance with political commitment, with regards to various issues of the production of food grain and arrangements for its fair distribution at a reasonable price. Recent policies have relied heavily on economic policies, but in changing competitive political settings good and accountable governance has occupied a predominant place in contemporary policy matters. In such a competitive political paradigm, governance has become indispensable for policy matters. Thus, the present paper tries to connect this administrative instrumental mechanism with food security as a welfare policy instrument as an essential issue in the social science research.

Food Security through Good Governance

123

The nexus between food security, good governance and policy making Food security as a policy matter needs more comprehensive knowledge. As a concept, it deals with issues like availability and accessibility, but as policy it has to focus on more issues related to the human body and society. From this point of view, food security must be a realistic subject in the sense that it has to encounter problems that have been ignored or unobserved. In a multicultural society with socio-economic inequalities like India, any policy needs appropriate governance instruments to reach the targeted part of society. Policy making and good governance are significant governmental tools that have to be given priority. Access to adequate food has become central to basic rights. It ensures food security to all human beings, and there are more than eight hundred million people suffering from chronic undernourishment (FAO 1992). The term “food security” has recently gained momentum though the adequate availability of food, has been a primary concern for human beings since time immemorial (Nawani 1995). In the present developmental settings, policy makers define food security as access to enough food for all people irrespective of social and economic differentiations. Food security has gained momentum in the context of the right to food as one of the basic human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). According to Article 25(1) of the UDHR: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, and housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowed, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948). Since then, the international community has given much attention to instrumentalising food security matters through the governmental policies. Significantly, the 1974 World Food Conference, organized by the FAO in Rome, drew the attention of world leaders to the need for devising ways and means to ensure food security to the millions of poor people in the world who cannot afford even one square meal a day (Nawani 1995, 5). The FAO Committee on World Food Security (1983) has formalized the definition of food security, incorporating the specific goals such as ensuring adequacy of food supplies, maximizing stability of supplies and securing access to available supplies to all who need them. In addition, the

124

Chapter Eight

FAO/WHO sponsored the 1992 International Conference on Nutrition (ICN) in Rome and succeeded in adopting policies to eliminate famine and related deaths and substantially reduce starvation and widespread chronic hunger by the member countries. Moreover, the 1992 International Conference on Nutrition (ICN) extended the concept of food security to one of nutritional security, without which an active and healthy life for all would not be possible (Nawani 1995, 6). According to FAO Hunger Statistics (2010), about 21% of the Indian population is undernourished and the country is home to 42% of the world’s underweight children. Besides this, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)’s Global Hunger Index 2010 states that India is among the twenty-nine countries of the world with the highest levels of hunger, stunted children and poorly fed women. Similarly, the 2011 United Nations Secretary General’s report points out that there are increasing incidences of widespread hunger and poverty, and: “of the 900 million who are predicted to be in extreme poverty in 2015, India is expected to be home to more than 300 million, one third of the total” (Ramadhar 2011). India, with its vast population and uncertain agriculture due to the dependence on monsoon rains, has always been vulnerable to famines. The Government of India has therefore initiated agriculturally supported strategies to cope with the uneven and fluctuating monsoons. India, being a welfare state, has incorporated the Right to Life under Article 21 of Fundamental Rights in part III and the Directive Principles of State Policies in Part IV of the constitution, in which right to food is among other basic issues of life (The Constitution of India 2008). The Government of India keeps these constitutional provisions in mind while framing laws and policies, especially welfare programmes. A recent policy outcome popularly known as the Food Security Bill is a result of the constitutional framework. The concept of food security has undergone significant changes in recent years. Food availability and stability were considered good measures of food security until the 1970s and the achievement of self-sufficiency was considered a high priority in the food policies of developing countries (Radhakrsihna & Reddy 2014). Indian food-related policies like stimulating agriculture, increasing food production and coping capacities in production were given importance. However, the problem of food security at the household level was not recognized until recently. In the case of the food insecurity of households, a conceptual understanding and its approach has drastically changed, and as a result food intake at the household level is now acknowledged in assessing food security (Radhakrishna & Reddy 2014).

Food Security through Good Governance

125

The changing methodological issues of food security from agriculture productivity and food production to household food security led to bringing different types of policies into the larger political domain. As a result, questions like nutritional aspects and status, availability, calorie intake, sustainability, supportive and protective agriculture, food prices, price stabilization, agricultural credit, crop insurance and the creation of employment have emerged (Radhakrishna & Reddy 2014). Moreover, apart from standard food items like rice and wheat, nutrient items such as milk, fruits, vegetables, pulses, fish and eggs emerged as part of a balanced diet in the recent context. As a result of these changing circumstances, governance and the policy-making process in securing food and availability appear to be indispensable governmental elements.

Food security and policy design The effort to make rationality the main value in public policy continued at the turn of the twentieth century. Progressive reformers sought to render public policy more scientific and less political by removing the policymaking authority from elected bodies and giving it to expert commissions and professional city managers (Stone 2012). The endeavour for aligning science and rationality to the government continued in the twentieth century with Herbert Simon’s call for a science of administration and development programs in public policy. Since then, the principle of reasoning and rationality bloomed in the area of public policy, and every policy analysis must look at the principles and perspectives in every public policy case (Yudo Anggoro 2012). Policy making is central in any form of government. The nature of policy reflects the government’s attitude and capability in handling affairs of power. Traditionally, policy making was considered as fragmented, risk averse and focused on the short term (Wyatt 2002). But, in contemporary democracies, it is termed: “the process by which governments translate their political vision into programmes and actions to deliver ‘outcomes’— desired changes in the real world” (Cabinet Office of the United Kingdom 1999). While making policies related to food security, ruling governments must take account of the state of affairs to prepare pragmatically sound programmes. Policy designs which are practically adoptable, essentially realisable and realistically reachable for target sections are crucial considerations which have to be reflected. Policy can be practically adoptable when it

126

Chapter Eight

understands its essential scope. How can a policy understand its space? The government has to galvanize and try to connect with its each interconnected aspect. For instance, food security has its link with agriculture productivity, diversified crops, and agricultural credit, cropinsurance and coping capacities with fluctuations on one side, and food intake at household level, nutritional availability, calorie intake, food prices, price stabilization, and the creation of employment on the other. Interconnected features require professional skills and capability reviews, and in policy process these help in setting directions, focusing on day-today outcomes and make use of evidence to inform choices to realize the goals. Poverty, chronic poverty, malnutrition, undernourished children (especially childhood poverty and malnutrition), the caste structure and sociological implications need to be seriously taken into account while designing strategies for food security. Although policy instruments like the public distribution system, guaranteed employment schemes and other programs to some extent tried to solve the food insecurity problems, nutritional value is still a contending issue. According to the report of the National Family Health Survey (2005–6), some of the Indian states like Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Bihar, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Meghalaya and Uttar Pradesh were worse at maintaining the nutritional balance of their children, and Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Tripura and Uttarakhand were slightly better in terms of the child nutritional aspect. Micronutrient malnutrition in terms of iron, iodine and vitamin A deficiency among children, especially rural children, is at more than 70% according to the National Nutritional Monitoring Bureau (2002). Iodine and vitamin A deficiency has adverse consequences for new-born infants and growing children. Studies on nutritional public health show that there is a severe gap between the needs and the requirements (Swaminathan 2011; Rao 2000; Radhakrishna 1991). Policy design and the policymaking process have crucial roles in identifying needs and requirements. As Swaminathan (2011, 8) states: “the minimum support price and procurement policies of the Government of India have enabled the Government to build over 60 million tons of wheat and rice stocks. Unfortunately, storage conditions are poor and the Supreme Court of India has been urging the Government to distribute the grains among the poor and undernourished, rather than allow them to rot.” A policy-making body has to strengthen policy making at regular intervals by setting standards for assessing performance, helping policy makers

Food Security through Good Governance

127

build knowledge and share best practice, and building a cross-government policy community (civilservice.gov.uk 2014). In India, there should be a relation between agricultural programmes and a practically reachable atmosphere. Various programs have been launched by the Government of India to stimulate Indian agriculture, but its outreach is weak. Some policy issues like creating infrastructure and appropriate human resources are severely neglected in agricultural policies. However, the Indian government has “experimented with a broad spectrum of programmes for improving food security. It has already made substantial progress in terms of overcoming transient food insecurity by giving priority to selfsufficiency in food grains and through the procurement and public distribution of food grains, employment opportunities” (Radhakrishna & Reddy 2014). The production and consumption pattern for food grains in India is itself very blurred. In other words, there is uncertainty in the availability of food grains and consumption expenditure. However, studies show that there is a declining tendency in the consumption of nutritional food grains like cereals, milk and vegetables, whereas the intake of carbohydrates has increased (Ravi 2000; Sahay 2014). Policy should focus on the unequal and unjust distribution of welfare and wealth in terms of land and natural resources, and the equal share in state institutions. The success of the East Asian countries in raising the living standards of the poor and their subsequent empowerment are setting the tone of the renewed discourse of land reform as an important strategy of empowerment and the development of people. By resorting to appropriate land reform policies, countries like China, Taiwan, Singapore and Korea have consolidated their socio-economic positions and recorded a remarkable growth in income-generation and poverty alleviation. (Dandekar & Narvade 2007, 95)

Looking at the Indian scenario, food security is not related to food production and availability of food grains alone, but is also connected with different aspects like direct and indirect interventions. Direct interventions include the capability of food purchase, sustainable employment, the promotion of diversified nutritional crops (especially cereals), while creating or encouraging agricultural environments such as subsidies and inputs, support prices, markets, linkages between the farmers and markets, insurance and so on are indirect interventions that are central to ensuring food security.

128

Chapter Eight

Food security and good governance Good governance is necessary for development and poverty reduction (World Bank 2000, 46). Key institutional and capacity elements of good governance are a comprehensive legal framework defined by an impartial and competent judicial system, being accountable, open and transparent executive decision making coupled with a capable, flexible, efficient bureaucracy and strong civil society participation (Kaufmann 2009). The most baffling problem of every country is planning and distribution. Administration in India is closely related to political motives, which are significantly election oriented in a democratic set up. Gaining positive electoral results is deeply influenced by political factors. Political factors, in brief, are a combination of socio-economic indicators. Politically oriented social settings with economic benefits are deeply rooted in the Indian government and politics. However, in the changing political environment, competitive politics has recently become central. There is a need to connect the changing political ideologies with pragmatic, transparent and accountable administration and governance. Good governance therefore becomes important for ensuring food security. The promotion of nutritional education and widespread awareness creates social mobilization, building institutional and community capacities to enable the policy outlines, planning strategic interventions and linking them with organizational tools to decrease the gap between needs and requirements as well as supply and demand. There is a need for the assessment of access to existing government schemes related to food, nutrition, health, drinking water and sanitation among the community and to facilitate access as per requirements and entitlement. Currently, the food security system and price policy basically consist of three instruments: procurement prices/minimum support prices, buffer stocks and the public distribution system (PDS) (Dev & Sharma 2010, 9). The price policy for agricultural commodities seeks to ensure remunerative prices to growers for their produce with a view to encouraging higher investment and production, and at the same time safeguarding the interest of consumers by making supplies available at reasonable prices. The importance of building up a buffer-stock of food grains, normally rice and wheat, is in providing food security to the country (Dev & Sharma 2010). Various committees have suggested an optimal size of the buffer-stock, which varies from 15 to 25 million tons

Food Security through Good Governance

129

depending on the season. There is a need for policies for improving the availability of cereals and non-cereal food. There are six basic factors according to Dev & Sharma (2010, 11): infrastructure, land and water management, research and extension, inputs including credit, marketing including price policy and diversification, and short-, medium- and long-term development of the rural non-farm sector. Governance reforms must be integrated with minimum support prices, buffer stocks, a public distribution system, and the consumption pattern of food grains (especially rice and wheat), and should properly institutionalize cereals and non-cereal food for proper availability. The policy should also integrate the rural and non-farm sectors, keeping purchasing and consumption power in view.

References Bhalla, G.S., P. Hazell & J. Kerr. 2001. “Prospects for India’s Cereal Supply and Demand to 2020, Food, Agriculture and the Environment.” Discussion paper 29, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC. Cabinet Office of the United Kingdom. 1999. Professional Policy Making for the Twenty First Century, http://www.nationalschool.gov.uk/policyhub/docs/profpolicymaking.pdf. Chopra, Surabhi. 2009. “Holding the State Accountable for Hunger.” Economic and Political Weekly 44 (33). Clarke, Kenneth. 2009. “Evidence to the Public Administration Select Committee in 2008.” http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmpuba dm/c983-iii/c98302.htm. Dandekar, Ajay & Shahaji Narvade. 2007. “Farmers’ Suicides and the Roots of the Agrarian Crisis.” In Farmers Suicide in India: Dynamics and Strategies of Prevention, edited by Gyanmudra. New Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications. Dercon, Stephan. 2008. “Children and the Food Price Crisis.” Young Lives Policy Brief 5. Department of International Development, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford. Dev, S. Mahendra. 2008. Inclusive Growth in India: Agriculture, Poverty and Human Development. Delhi: Oxford University Press. —. 2003. “Right to Food in India.” Working Paper No. 50. Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad.

130

Chapter Eight

Dev, S. Mahendra & Alakh N. Sharma. 2010. “Food Security in India: Performance, Challenges and Policies.” Oxfam India working papers series (OIWPS VII), September 2010. http://www.oxfamindia.org/sites/default/files/VII.%20Food%20Securit y%20in%20IndiaPerformance,%20Challenges%20and%20Policies.pdf. Dev, S.Mahendra, K. P. Kannan & Nira Ramachandran. 2003. “Towards a Food Secure India.” New Delhi: Institute for Human Development, and Hyderabad: Centre for Economic and Social Studies. Dev, S. Mahendra, K. Subbarao, S. Galab & C. Ravi. 2006. “Safety Net Programs in India: Outreach and Effectiveness: Village Level Perspectives in Three States.” Background paper prepared for a study on social protection by the World Bank. Drèze, J. 2004. “Democracy and Right to Food.” Economic and Political Weekly 39. —. 2006. “Universalisation with Quality: ICDS in a Rights Perspective.” Economic and Political Weekly 41 (34). Drèze, Jean & A. Sen. 1989. Hunger and Public Action. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dyson, Tim & A. Hanchate. 2000. “India’s Demographic and Food Prospects: State Level Analysis.” Economic and Political Weekly 35. Gaiha, R. 2003. “Does Right to Food Matter?” Economic and Political Weekly 38 (40). Government of India. 2002. “Report of the High Level Committee on Long Term Grain Policy.” Department of Food and Public Distribution System, Government of India —. 2007. Economic Survey 2006–7. New Delhi: Ministry of Finance. —. 2007a. “Report of Steering Committee on Agriculture for the 9th Plan.” Planning Commission, Government of India. —. 2008. “Draft 11th Five Year Plan.” Planning Commission, Government of India. —. 2007. The Constitution of India [updated]. Ministry of Law and Justice. Gulati, Ashok. 2009. “Emerging Trends in Indian Agriculture: What can we Learn from These?” Second Prof. Dayanath Jha Memorial Lecture, National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi. Hallsworth, Michael, Simon Parker and Jill Rutter. 2011. “Evidence and Analysis.” Policy Making In The Real World—The Institute for Government. Institute for Government. www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications

Food Security through Good Governance

131

/Policy%20making%20in%20the%20real%20world.pdf Kaufmann, Daniel. 2009. “Aid Effectiveness and Governance.” World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/4571. Kaufmann, Daniel, Aart Kraay & Massimo Mastruzzi. 2004. “Governance Matters III: Governance Indicators for 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002.” Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/17136 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. Menon, Purnima, Anil Deolalikar & Anjor Bhaskar. 2008. “The India State Hunger Index: Comparisons of Hunger Across States.” IFPRI. October 14, New Delhi. National Audit Office of the British Government. 2001. Modern PolicyMaking: Ensuring Policies Deliver Value for Money. Nawani, N. P. 1995. Towards Food for All—Ideas for a New PDS. New Delhi: Publication Public Administration Select Committee (Government of United Kingdom). 2009. Good Government, HC 97-I, 21–25. Radhakrishna, R. & C. Ravi. 2004. “Malnutrition in India: Trends and Determinants.” Economic and Political Weekly, February 14. Radhakrishna, R. K. Hanumantha Rao, C. Ravi & B. Sambi Reddy. 2004. “Chronic Poverty and Malnutrition in 1990.” Economic and Political Weekly, July 10. Radhakrshnna, R. K. & Venkata Reddy. 2014. “Food Security and Nutrition: Vision 2020.” Key note address presented at the National Seminar on Inclusive Growth in Agriculture and Food Security, organized by the Department of Economics, Osmania University, Hyderabad, March 15–16. Ramadhar. 2011. “What Ails India Agriculture?” The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture. Rao, C. H. H. 2000. “Declining Demand for Foodgrains in Rural India: Census and Implications.” Economic and Political Weekly, January 22. Ravi. C. 2000. “Complete Demand Systems, Welfare and Nutrition: An Analysis of Index Consumption Data.” Hyderabad: Center for Economic and Social Studies. Sahay, B. K. 2014. “Dietary Carbohydrate Content in Indian Diabetic Patients.” http://www.apiindia.org/pdf/medicine_update_2012/diabetology_02.pd f, Hyderabad. Stone, D. 2012. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W. W. Norton.

132

Chapter Eight

Swaminathan M. S. 2011. “Grain Mountains and Hungry Millions—The Indian Enigma.” The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture. Wyatt, Andrew. 2002. “Evidence Based Policy Making: The View from a Centre.” Public Policy and Administration 17 (3): 12–28. Yudo Anggoro. 2012. “Policy Analysis and the Evaluation Criteria of Public Policy.” http://yudoanggoro.com/2012/09/03/policy-analysisand-the-evaluation-criteria-of-public-policy.

CHAPTER NINE THE INDIAN CONCEPT OF FOOD SECURITY: A SOCIAL POLICY INTERVENTION APPROACH IN POLICY MAKING AJITESH CHATTERJEE

Introduction The annual food production in the world today is enough to feed 7.1 billion people, yet one in every eight individuals suffered from chronic undernourishment in 2010–12. In all, 870 million people are undernourished, and 852 million live in developing countries. The principal cause of hunger is poverty resulting from the unequal access to resources and income within specific countries. The 1996 World Food Summit gave a clear definition of Food Security which was adopted by the United Nations: “Food Security exists, when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preference for an active and healthy life.” Four dimensions of food security have been defined: (1) Physical availability of food—food availability addresses the “supply side” of food security and is determined by the level of food production, stock levels and net trade. (2) Economic and Physical accessibility to food—an adequate supply of food at the national or international levels does not in itself guarantee household-level food security. Concerns about insufficient food access have resulted in a greater policy focus on incomes, expenditure, markets and prices in achieving food security objectives.

134

Chapter Nine

Fig. 9.1. Food insecurity, malnutrition and poverty are deeply interrelated phenomena

Source: FAO Practical Guide.

(3) Utilization of food—utilization is commonly understood as the way the body makes the most of various nutrients. Sufficient energy and nutrient intake by individuals is the result of good care and feeding practices, food preparation, diversity of diet and the intra-household distribution of food. Combined with the good biological utilization of food consumed, this determines the “nutritional status” of the individual. (4) Stability of the other three dimensions over time—the adequate intake of food by a person in the present may not guarantee food security, while inadequate access to food on a periodic basis may deteriorate a person’s

The Indian Concept of Food Security

135

nutritional status. Adverse weather conditions, political instability or economic factors (e.g. unemployment, rising food prices) may also have an impact on a person’s food security status. In India, food security has been a very important topic of discussion since independence. The population, its growth and its food requirement have always been matters of concern. Several innovative policies have been formulated by various agencies to tackle these issues, but it remains more or less the same due to multiple issues.

Food security in India India is a country with agriculture as its primary occupation, in which over 67% of the population is engaged in agricultural activities. Postindependence, the major goal of the country was to become self-sufficient in the production of food grains at the national level. After almost twenty years of food deficiency and continuous efforts, it became self-sufficient at the macro level. Food grain production in the country increased from about 50 million tons in 1950–1 to around 233.9 million in 2008–9. The Green Revolution1 was another breakthrough in strengthening India’s position as a country self-sufficiently producing grains and established it as one of the biggest agricultural producers of the world. From 1950 to 2008, the annual growth rate of the population was 2.1%, whereas in food production it was 2.5%. Still, one-third of the country’s population is undernourished and cannot afford a meal twice a day, while half of the country’s children are malnourished. This is a serious matter of concern on the national scale. There have been many attempts in India to tackle food insecurity through various acts and policies on the national and state levels, which have undoubtedly solved many issues related to food security but not to the extent of drastic changes in the statistics.

1

The Green Revolution was the name given to the period of drastic increase in production of food grains through the development of various innovative cultivation techniques headed by Dr M. S. Swaminathan from 1967–8 to 1977–8, introducing a new paradigm of agricultural production to the agrarian sector. The strategy entailed the continued expansion of farming areas, double-cropping existing farmland, and using seeds with improved genetics. The Green Revolution resulted in a record grain output of just over 130 million tons in 1978–9, establishing India as one of the world’s biggest agricultural producers.

136

Chapter Nine

Hunger Since 1991 the GDP of India has nearly doubled, and it even produces enough to cater to the food needs of its population, but nearly one-third of India’s population is hungry (UNFAO 2009), and it is home to 48% of the world’s undernourished children (WHO). Over 50% of women suffer from anaemia due to the lack of nutrition, and one-third of children are undernourished. In the 2009 global ranking of hunger-stricken countries, India ranked 65th, which is even higher than the African countries. Fig. 9.2 below shows the statuses of the hunger stricken states. Fig. 9.2. Indian State Hunger Index (ISHI)

The Indian Concept of Food Security

137

Public Distribution System (PDS) The Public Distribution System is the key instrument that ensures the security of food at the household level by ensuring that food grains reach the beneficiaries. The PDS ensures the availability of essential commodities like rice, wheat, edible oils and kerosene to consumers through a network of outlets or fair price shops. These commodities are supplied at below market prices to consumers. This system is said to have existed in India even before independence, and was intended to protect the consumers and the producers from price fluctuations (Tarozzi 2002). It was started in the 1980s as a joint venture of the central and state governments in which the supply is taken care of by the centre and the distribution by the state. Half a million “fair-price stores” were opened to serve a target population of 330 million people in different parts of the country so as to make food accessible to poverty-stricken individuals. In this particular system, the state was responsible for the identification of families below the poverty line (BPL), issuing ration cards and monitoring the system. However, many flaws in the PDS later came to light when the misuse and mismanagement of this system was studied. The government re-launched the Public Distribution System (PDS) as the Targeted Public Distribution System in 1997, in which 20 kg of grain were granted to each family below the poverty line, alongside a dual price system at 50% of the cost, the validity of which remained limited in terms of transparency and efficiency. The midday meal programme, again a joint venture of the central and state governments, is one of the biggest free meal distribution programmes in India for schoolchildren and is operative in many states.

Antyodaya Anna Yojana The Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) is an Indian Government sponsored scheme for ten million of its poorest families, launched by the NDA Government in December 2000. It is on the lookout for the “poorest of the poor” by providing them 35 kg of rice and wheat at Rs 3 and Rs 2 per kg, respectively. The National Food Security Act 2013 is a revised form of Antyodaya Anna Yojana, under which the distribution of grains at subsidised rates is taken care of for the individuals below the poverty line. The criteria of the poorest of the poor have been revised generously for all needy people.

138

Chapter Nine

Concept and approach Professionals from various sectors will have their own sets of concepts for food insecurity, and even the action needed to achieve food security will most likely differ. This is because while food security is a multidimensional concept, they usually specialize in addressing one aspect of the larger food security problem. Agricultural production, trade, income, food quality, clean water, sanitation, governance and political stability are all factors influencing one’s food security status. It is useful to step back from our own personal experience and examine the multi-dimensional nature of the food security concept. Food Security is not limited to making food available for every individual as it also deals with the idea of sustenance of human life through education and employment. These factors are pretty much interrelated as education will ensure employment, employment will lead to earning, and earning is the key factor for ensuring food security. This whole phenomenon of interdependency can be called social security. Indian policies with regards to social security are adequate in dealing with existing social turmoil. However, most of the Indian Policies, such as Indira Aawas Yojana, MGNREGS or midday meals, have seen success to a marginal extent. The execution and success of a policy cannot be seen on paper and must be seen on the faces of their beneficiaries where quality of life improves. Policies aren’t just law making on paper, they also constitute a large transaction of natural and financial resources. Every unsuccessful policy results in more debt from the national government, i.e. over the people. Conceptually, every policy is a social policy as the final beneficiary is the society, but in the Indian context the system is least bothered about the policy approach and henceforth our policies are hardly known to the common person. If the beneficiary is ignorant and unaware of their own benefits, no policy can have its desired outcomes. Social intervention in policy making is not only a concept but a system widely followed around the world in developed countries. Even in developing countries like India, the provision for social intervention exists but with a limited say from the people. It is majorly motivated by political factors rather than genuine concerns. Most of our policies are prepared on the basis of possibilities instead of facts, so well-researched and analysed facts hardly come to light. It is not the government that is responsible for such an approach, but the flawed government is a reflection of an ignorant society.

The Indian Concept of Food Security

139

Intervention in policy making The following are the areas in which intervention would not only support the government but also help to strengthen food security: (i) Food insecurity prevails more in flood-prone and dry areas. The development of these areas through technical innovation can be worked upon. (ii) Promoting organic farming among smallholder farmers would help to ensure better productivity and sustainability of the environment (iii) Increasing the use of homegrown food (iv) Better irrigation techniques (v) Helping rural areas to learn sustainable farming (vi) Developing strategies in farming that are resilient to climate change (vii) Creating markets for local farmers to save on time and transportation, ensuring incomes to small-scale farmers (vii) Making efforts for strengthening the Public Private Partnership (PPP) model in agriculture and the food distribution sector (ix) Improving the delivery system of food from place to place in schemes such as midday meals and the Public Distribution System. To guarantee food security in India we need to strengthen not only the food distribution system but also educate people, making them aware of their rights and duties and enabling them to understand the working systems of the programmes. Ensuring proper education will not only allow them to understand their rights but also make them capable of getting employment and earning a living. This would help them to ensure their own food security instead of being dependent on the government to feed them. India’s government programmes such as the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS), Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) and nutrition programmes like midday meals, aiming to improve food and nutrition security, are constantly strengthening food security. NREGS and selfemployment programmes are also helping to increase access to food and

140

Chapter Nine

nutrition. Social protection programmes in India have helped in improving incomes as well as providing protection to the population, especially to the poor, from shocks in the economy. However, there are lots of gaps and inefficiencies in the social protection programmes. India has many policies and programmes in various fields to serve the society at various levels. However, a problem remains with implementation and monitoring. The policy formation therefore has to be futuristic.

References Ahmad, T. 2010. “Dimension of Food and Livelihood Security of Agricultural Trade: The Case of Malaysia.” Paper presented at ICRIER-IDRC conference Emerging Economies in the New World Order: Promises, Pitfalls and Priorities, April 12–13. New Delhi, India. Behrman, J. & J. Hoddinott. 2005. “Program Observation with Unobserved Heterogeneity and Selective Implementation: The Mexican PROGRESA Impact on Child Nutrition.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 67: 547–69. Beintema, N. M. & G. Stads. 2010. “Public Agricultural R&D Investments and Capacities in Developing Countries: Recent Evidence for 2000 and Beyond.” Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators Background Note, March. Buainain, A. M. & J. Garcia. 2010. “Recent Development Patterns and Challenges of Brazilian Agriculture.” Paper presented at ICRIERIDRC conference Emerging Economies in the New World Order: Promises, Pitfalls and Priorities, April 12–13. New Delhi, India. Fan, S., M. Torero & D. Headey. 2011. “Urgent Actions Needed to Prevent Recurring Food Crises.” IFPRI Policy Brief 16. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Fay, M., D. Leipziger, Q. Wodon & T. Yepes. 2005. “Achieving ChildHealth Related Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Infrastructure.” World Development 338: 1267–48. Food and Agriculture Organization. 1996. “Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action.” http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/W3613E/W3613E00.HTML. —. 2009a. “The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2009: Economic crises—Impacts and Lessons Learned.” Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. —. 2009b. “Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security.” WSFS 2009/2. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

The Indian Concept of Food Security

141

—. 2010. “The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2010: Addressing Food Insecurity in Protracted Crises.” Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. —. 2011. “The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2011: How Does International Price Volatility Affect Domestic Economies and Food Insecurity?” Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. —. 2003. “Focus on Food Insecurity and Vulnerability—A Review of the UN System Common Country Assessments and World Bank Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers.” FIVIMS Secretariat and Wageningen University and Research Centre: www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y5095E/Y5095E00.htm. Sen, Amartya K. 1981. “Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation.” Oxford University Press, Oxford. Sen, Amartya & S. Sengupta. 1983. “Malnutrition of Rural Indian Children and theSex Bias.” Economic and Political Weekly 19 (24). Shetty, P. n.d. “Measures of Nutritional Status from Anthropometric Survey Data.” Nutritional Planning Assessment and Evaluation Service, Food and Nutrition Division, FAO, Rome, Italy. Subbarao, K. 2003. “Systematic Shocks and Social Protection: Role and Effectiveness of Public Workfare Programs.” Human Development Discussion Paper, World Bank, Processed. Sukhatme, P. V. 1982. “Poverty and Malnutrition.” In Newer Concepts in Nutrition and their Implications for Policy, edited by P. V. Sukhatme. Maharashtra Association for the Cultivation of Science, Pune. Swaminathan, M. 2000. Weakening Welfare: The Public Distribution of Food in India. New Delhi: Left Word Books. Srinivas, K. 2008. “A Study of Best Practices in the Implementation of Mid-Day Meal Programme in Karnataka.” National University of Educational Planning and Administration. http://www.educationforallinindia.com/a-study-of-mid-daymealscheme-in-karnataka-by-dr.ksrinivas-nuepa.pdf. Stamoulis, K. & A. Zezza. 2003. “A Conceptual Framework for National Agricultural, Rural Development and Food Security Strategies and Policies.” ESA Working Paper No. 03-17, November. Agricultural and Development Economics Division, FAO, Rome. www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/007/ae050e/a e050e00.htm Tarozzi Alessandro. 2002. “The Indian Public Distribution System as Provider of Food Security: Evidence from Child Anthropometry in Andhra Pradesh.”

142

Chapter Nine

http://www.princeton.edu/rpds/papers/pdfs/tarozzi_indian_public_distr ibution_system.pdf, Tritah Ahmed. 2003. “The Public Distribution System in India: Counting the poor from making the poor count.” GREMAQ, Universit´e des Sciences Sociales, Toulouse, France, July 7. Wiesmann, Doris. 2006. “A Global Hunger Index: Measurement Concept, Ranking of Countries, and Trends.” International Policy Research Institute, http://www.cepis.org.pe/texcom/nutricion/fcndp212.pdf. Wizarat, Kausar. 2008. “Study of Best Practices Adopted in Mid-DayMeal Scheme in Uttar Pradesh.” National University of Educational Planning and Administration, http://www.educationforallinindia.com/best-practices-mid-daymealuttar-pradesh-kausar-waizrat.pdf. Worldometer. 2010. World statistics updated in real time. www.worldometers.info.

CHAPTER TEN FOOD SECURITY AND FOOD PRODUCTION: PLANNING AND GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS POOJA SINGH AND VINAY LOHIA

For millions of poor and starving people political freedom alone had no real meaning. —M. K. Gandhi

Introduction India is one of the leading democracies in the world, but its ranking as per the Human Development Index (HDI) is not very encouraging (135th as per the new 2014 estimates for 2013). HDI is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living and quality of life for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. India can be proud of its political freedom and sovereignty but there are places like Kalahandi that authenticate the millions of starving people in India where every third or fourth child is malnourished. In all, 240 million people sleep hungry every night in India, while two of every three women are anaemic. India ranks 66th on the 2012 Global Food Security Index (GFSI). According to this report, India is a protein and vitamin A deficit nation.13 The high food availability (51.3) but low food access (38.4) clearly show that people cannot afford nutritious food. Although, as per the report, India has better results than Pakistan (75) and Bangladesh (81), this situation cannot stand. India has to address some of the critical key challenges (as per the report) like the high level of poverty, the low incomes, the low public spending on farm research, the poor infrastructure and the lack of supply of quality protein not only to attain food security but also to become one of the stable economies of the world. There are various issues pertaining to the success of food security, and in a democratic country like India the success of full democratic governance will result not only in the realization of basic human rights as enshrined in its constitution but will also promote the

144

Chapter Ten

participation of people in the governance of the country and the undertaking of welfare schemes aimed at the removal of poverty and ensuring food security. The present paper is an attempt to analyze the governance challenges and recommend solutions for the same.

Governance and food security India's rankings in key governance indicators like voice and accountability, political stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law and control of corruption are lower than countries such as Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.1 There is no single accepted definition of governance, and governance in the public domain implies ensuring citizens their individual security by providing services in terms of health, livelihood and most importantly food security. An efficient, effective and democratic government is the best guarantor of social justice.2 A state, while governing its people, has to adopt such an approach where its administrative system is country and area specific. Parallel to this, it becomes obligatory for the state’s administrative system that it should consider the relevant interpretation of the institutions of governance, legal and regulatory mechanisms and also understand the market, civil society and cultural values of the people. It is the duty of the government to build a supportive environment where development programmes are implemented appropriately with the joint collaborations of society and other institutions. The principal responsibility of the state, therefore, would be to facilitate, to enable and to coordinate.3 Civil society or the market cannot perform such functions as effectively as the government and thus they cannot substitute the government in this aspect.

13

http://governancenow.com/views/think-tanks/ample-food-no-access-it-report. Ibid. 2 Balmiki Prasad Singh, “The Challenge of Good Governance in India: Need for Innovative Approaches,” Second International Conference of the Global Network of Global Innovators organized by the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation and John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, March 31–April 2, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 2008. 3 Ibid. 1

Food Security and Food Production: Planning and Governance Frameworks 145

In the context of food security, the FAO explained that food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for active and healthy lives.4 It is ironic that in India, the world’s largest democracy, the majority of the population does not have the basic fundamental needs for mere survival as assured by the Constitution. In all, 25% of world’s hungry lives in India. Therefore, guaranteeing food security ought to be a matter of major significance, especially for India where more than one-third of the population is assessed to be absolutely poor and one-half of all children are malnourished in one way or another. Ineffective policies and programs are the root challenges of food security in India. There are several factors that threaten India’s food security, such as inefficient warehousing and food preservation facilities, loopholes in the PDS system, the poor transportation of food grains, inadequate supply chains to offload the stored food grains, lack of processing units, research and technology deficits, huge environmental degradation, wide disparities in income, and water scarcity. Therefore, the problem is with both the design and implementation of the programmes. The root cause is the incomplete comprehension of aspects of food security and malnutrition.

Obstacles in the realization of food security The concept of food security is entangled in the many problematic aspects Identification of Beneficiaries The identification of true beneficiaries in remote and backward areas is the first and foremost hindrance to food security, giving the possibility for significant leakages and failure of food security without the proper definition and targeting of the beneficiaries. With no set definition to select the beneficiaries, it is difficult to eliminate the non-poor from the list.5 The government has failed to identify the BPL (below poverty line) category people on the basis of their daily income, although thirteen socioeconomic parameters are in place to do this. These are: size of operational landholding, type of house, availability of clothes, food security, sanitation, ownership of consumer durables, literacy status, status of 4 5

http://www.disabled-world.com/fitness/nutrition/foodsecurity. http://indiagovernance.gov.in/thinkpiece/?thinkpiece=5.

Chapter Ten

146

household labour force, means of livelihood, status of children (going to school), type of indebtedness, reason for migration from household and preference for assistance.6 In India, it is a miserable fact that 50% of the BPL population do not have ration cards and therefore are unable to take advantage of any scheme ensuring food security. The proper identification of poor people has to be by way of locality or regional identification. .

Lack of food processing units7 The lack of food processing units and food preservation facilities is creating a hindrance on the path of nutritional and food security. The food processing industry has a probable foundation for driving the rural economy, enabling cooperation, interaction and synergy between the consumer, industry and agriculture. It is always expected that a welldeveloped food processing industry tends to promote crop diversification, generate employment, lessen wastage and guarantee value addition as well as export earnings. The government has initiated a wide range of reforms to enable and explore the growth potential of the sector, like the amendment of the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee Act, rationalization of food laws, and the implementation of the National Horticulture mission. In order to solve the issue of the low-scale processing activity, the Government has planned to set up mega food parks with a combination of various facilities like procurement, processing, storage and transport. The efforts of the national government and international efforts have not proved fruitful to ensure food security to the poor and general masses. However, the growth of food processing companies has been sub-optimal because of high costs, low levels of productivity, high wastage and the lack of competitiveness of Indian food products in the global market.8 In order to explore the growth potential of the sector and benefit from it, all the challenges must be properly addressed and dealt with. Appropriate steps should be taken to eliminate the bottlenecks hampering the growth of the food processing sector.

6

AsianCentreforHumanRights.htm. FICCI Survey on Challenges in Food Processing Sector. FICCI Bottlenecks In Indian Food Processing Industry, Survey 2010. http://www.ficci.com/Sedocument/20073/Food-Processing-Bottlenecks-study.pdf. 8 Ibid. 7

Food Security and Food Production: Planning and Governance Frameworks 147

The federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), through internal research, identified some major factors hampering the growth of the food processing sector. This includes the absence of a comprehensive national level policy on the food processing sector, the availability of trained manpower, processing plants with cost effective technologies, cost effective food machinery & packaging technologies, inadequate infrastructural facilities, access to credit, inconsistency in central and state policies, lack of applied research, and a specific plan to attract private sector investment across the value chain Food Safety Laws. The establishment of a National Bank by the government is one of the solutions to solving this problem, as it will facilitate the purpose of lending credit to food processing industries. This will lead to the effective and efficient distribution of funds to the food processing sector. To achieve the objective, a state specific plan has to be created to draw foreign and domestic investment to this sector, causing a boom in the growth of food processing industries. It is also necessary to promote agri-food parks by involving industry participation. The government should also focus on increased farm productivity and upgrading quality, which will enable the industries to face competitions from all sides. Procurement, stocking and distribution matrix The next major hindrance in ensuring food security is the existing procurement, stocking and distribution matrix, which is an unsolved riddle. The current network of the public distribution system suffers from a number of leakages and lacunas in the supply chain. As per the rough estimates of the Planning Commission, there is a 45–55% leakage, i.e. the food grains do not reach the BPL families and are lost in the chain of supply.9 The Supreme Court of India, in a petition of October 18, 2010, expressed its displeasure after discovering that 67,539 tons of food grain had rotted in godowns in Punjab and Haryana during 2009–10, rather than 7,000 tons as claimed by the centre during the hearing of the petition filed by the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL).10 It is unfortunate that a large number of poor cannot access food, despite of mountains of food stocks. There are projections that soon after the wheat harvest the buffer stock would touch 90 million tons, against the buffer stock norms of about 30 9

http://indiagovernance.gov.in/thinkpiece/?thinkpiece=5. AsianCentreforHumanRights.htm.

10

148

Chapter Ten

million tons.11 The court was further informed by the PUCL that the government has 55 million tons of stock available. Out of this, only 22 million tons were for buffer stock, the remaining 33 million tons being additional food grains with the government. Despite this actuality, the centre allocated a meagre 2.5 million tons through PDS to BPL families. It is clear that the cost or availability of sufficient or required food grain is not a problem in India. Instead, it is the lack of a proper mechanism to identify the poor and other true beneficiaries, the lack of effective mechanisms for the procurement of food grains, the lack of safe storage, the lack of mechanisms of distribution under the PDS and lack of accountability of those responsible for the distribution of food under the PDS that are the problems or lacunas. Maintaining a buffer stock is not a problem; instead, the problem lies in maintaining a higher level of buffer stock. The reason is the risk of a high wastage of food and the high maintenance involved in maintaining a higher level of buffer stock. The surplus procurement would place an extra burden on the existing infrastructure, which in itself is ineffective and suffering from number of deficiencies. Apart from this, the current requirement of storage and preservation of quality is also insufficiently realised. Therefore, the projected benefits and welfares will not reach to the poor if we fail to target the true beneficiaries or improve our delivery mechanism, leading to the failure of the key objectives of the programme. Today, the effort calls for developing a more efficient, transparent and inclusive system that enables the poor and vulnerable to access food at subsidized prices.12 Inefficient warehousing Inefficient warehousing is a major problem in India. The condition of a food storage system is so bad that the Indian government was asked by the Supreme Court to distribute food grain to poor and hungry people instead of letting them rot in the warehouses of the Food Corporation of India (FCI). It has been revealed from a new study that every year 21 million tons of wheat go to waste. In fact, total production in 2012 left the government with 75 million tons of food grain on its hands, which were left out in the open exposed to rain and rodents, or stored in makeshift spaces with only waterproof sheets to protect them. The reason for this was that the state-run warehouses could only facilitate the storage of 63

11 12

http://indiagovernance.gov.in/thinkpiece/?thinkpiece=5. Ibid.

Food Security and Food Production: Planning and Governance Frameworks 149

million tons of food grains.13 The issue is that the new warehouses have not been established in an appropriate proportion to that of the increased food grain production. The FCI has also reported its insufficiency in warehouse capacity as well as manpower to manage the increase production of food grain to the Food Ministry. Currently, the state-run Food Corporation of India, with 1,500 godowns, and the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), with 487 warehouses, have the capacity to store 87 million tons of grain. The CWC warehouses have the capacity to store 10.6 million tons of food grains. The new measure, according to experts, will cost an additional sum of Rs 27,000 crore annually to the exchequer.14 Controlling the level of wastage is beyond the capability of individual farmers or even consumers. It mostly depends on market schemes, the availability of a power supply, the quality of roads and the presence or absence of good transport hubs.15 Agriculture advancement It may be noted, however, that governance has to be contextualized in relation to the socio-economic environment. It is important to ensure farmers’ access to modern inputs to boost food production and productivity and prepare them to adapt to climate change and mitigate the negative effects. Education at rural levels can also promote the agricultural research. Establishing agricultural colleges that teach sustainable farming and organic practices will not only lead the farming community to take pride in their local knowledge and heritage but will also promote new innovative and developed methods of agricultural practices. Apart from this, the governmental institutions should focus on more research not only on highly nutritious indigenous crops that resist drought but also on highyielding and stress-tolerant seeds. An appropriate network of extension service will have to be created to stimulate and encourage both top-down and bottom-up flows of information among farmers, extension workers and researchers. As policies and schemes are subject to experimentation, so the government can do the same by introducing a provision in the law that benefits of food security (through the Food Security Act) given to those families whose children are going to school. However, it should be kept in mind that this must be done only after the proper identification and 13

http://www.sustainuance.com/think-before-you-throw. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/213752/food-security-bill-good-politics. html. 15 http://www.sustainuance.com/think-before-you-throw/. 14

150

Chapter Ten

assessment of other relevant factors. Brazil has performed well in reducing malnutrition and hunger in the last few years by taking steps like the insurance of crops and family farms. Wide disparity in income The wide disparity in income is also a very complicated barrier in achieving the goal of food security. In all, 5% of public investment and 15% of GDP are invested in agriculture. Even if we ensure food security to the poor people, the availability of fuel for cooking such food remains a challenge. Therefore, to avoid such problems steps are needed to reduce disparities in income and also reduce the food prices. Unstable and increasing food prices will keep challenging the abilities of consumers, producers and governments to not only control the prices but also provide food security by ensuring sufficient food accessibility and affordability. In 2008, 110 million people became poor and 44 were undernourished due to the increase in food prices. Apart from this, 925 million people went hungry because they could not afford to pay for food. In developing countries, rising food prices form a major threat to food security, particularly because people spend 50–80% of their income on food.16 The problem can be solved by implementing the community agriculture in urban hubs. Economic burden The total required food grain for the National Food Security Act will be 61.23 million tons, which will cost Rs 1,54,724. It is also expected that India’s trade deficit will sharply widen to between $155–160 billion because the government might resort to importing food grain on a large scale. However, the situation will become more critical when the effect on the trade deficit lessens because every year the programme will require 70–80 million tons of additional food grain. To cope with this gap, the government will either import food grains or introduce high inflation. Besides skewing the food inflation, the move will also result in a rise in the prices of food grain for non-beneficiaries of the programme. There will be pressure on the prices of food for those outside this scheme.17

16 17

http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/food_security.shtml. Food Security Bill Good politics to deliver bad economics.htm.

Food Security and Food Production: Planning and Governance Frameworks 151

Environmental degradation Environmental degradation is also a major problem in achieving food security. The Government should therefore increase investment in sustainable agriculture. The global temperature will continue to rise over the next century, and the climate changes will result in extreme temperatures and rainfall. It is estimated that 80 million people will be affected all over the world. The major solution is to ensure afforestation and protect the environment. Therefore, policies must be made to preserve forest cover to lessen climatic disturbances and provide adequate fuel and fodder. Turning dry areas into green areas and preventing land degradation will serve as appropriate solutions. Apart from these, policies should be made to prevent the conversion of agricultural land into use in nonagricultural purposes. In a land-scarce country, the area under cultivation is reducing due to urbanization, and good agricultural land being used for non-agricultural purposes is resulting in a reduction in overall production as well as the per capita availability of food grain.18 Use of pesticides and fertilizers Another related sub issue is the excessive use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. The excessive and imprudent use of fertilizers has led to water logging, salinity and depletion of essential micronutrients in the soil, and the productivity of land has started showing a declining trend. Fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides, which once showed dramatic results, are now being held responsible for degrading the soils.19 In all, 51% of food items have pesticide residues and 20% have more than normal levels. Dr Raina20 mentioned that expensive fossil fuels are being imported for producing fertilizers. A subsidy is given on pesticides and not on oil, and some fertilizers which are banned in other countries are still in use in India.

18

FoodSecurityIssuesinIndiaChallengesAhead.htm. Food Specialist, National seminar on “Food Security and Food Production: Institutional Challenges in Government Domain,” October 31–November 1, IIPA, Delhi, 2013. 20 Scientist, National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies, National seminar on “Food Security and Food Production: Institutional Challenges in Government Domain,” October 31–November 1, IIPA, Delhi, 2013. 19

152

Chapter Ten

Economic conditions of farmers Another related sub issue is the lack of governance policies regarding the economic conditions of India’s farmers who have tremendously difficult jobs and low wages. Surprisingly, 14.5 million farmers have left the agricultural profession and if the same is not rectified, addressing food security is pointless. It has to be ensured that farmers have an equivalent growth in income as compared to the secondary and tertiary sectors. Value should be given to the traditional knowledge and skills of farmers. In addition to this, it is indispensable on the part of government to create such an environment where farming is perceived and taken up with the motive of profit making instead of just subsistence living. Alongside this, the Government should facilitate the insurance of livestock and the machines and tractors used by farmers. In the case of the requirement of such things to the farmer, arrangements should be made to provide them the same at subsidized rates. Other vocational trainings may also be given to farmers or other member of their families so that they can supplement the family income. There is a need to stimulate more private investment in the agricultural sector by providing incentives like tax concessions or other supplementary benefits. A strong public-private partnership is necessary for initiating new projects and supporting and maintaining the existing public structure for the purpose of funding, managing and technological innovations. The farmers should be honoured and rewarded for their work, innovations and skills, so as to not only give them social recognition and appreciation but also to encourage them and make them feel dignified. Preference can also be given to women or old-age farmers. Governing policies relating to easy credit, extension services and making new markets that connect farmers for better produce and prices will also help solve the problem to a great extent.21 Water crisis Water is the essential key to food security and cannot be ignored. Agriculture requires large quantities of good quality water for irrigation for various production processes. While feeding the world and producing a diverse range of non-food crops in an increasingly productive way, agriculture also confirmed its position as the biggest user of water in the 21

Archana Sinha, “Agriculture and Food Security—Crises and Challenges Today,” Social Action 59 (2009).

Food Security and Food Production: Planning and Governance Frameworks 153

world.22 In all, 70% of the total freshwater available and appropriated for human use is claimed by irrigation for agriculture. Approximately 30% of the total food produced around the world (about 1.3 billion tons) is lost or wasted every year. This data reveals that, along with this wastage of food, the water used in production is also wasted. For example, the data tells us that approximately 3,500 litres of water are required to produce 1 kg of rice, while a cup of coffee uses about 140 litres water. This dietary shift is the greatest impact on water consumption over the past thirty years.23 Free power to a section of farmers has encouraged them to pump groundwater to grow water-intensive crops in low-rainfall areas (e.g. rice in Punjab, sugarcane in Maharashtra). This unsustainable pumping has reduced water storage, and many wells and tube wells have run dry. This has pushed the marginal and small farmers out of cultivation. This problem can be overcome by rainwater harvesting. Government policies should be designed to promote rainwater harvesting and find innovative methodologies for using less water in the production of more nutritious food. New ways should also be discovered to improve crop yields to produce greener and more sustainable food production. Innovative irrigation strategies, reuse of drainage water and use of marginal quality water resources also need attention in governance. The production of millet can also be promoted in less rain-fed areas as it has the capacity to flourish under lower rainfall. Miscellaneous Challenges The governance policies should also focus on other issues which are equally important, such as proper sanitation, access to clean water and public health education, the lack of which are the root causes of malnutrition. Without satisfying these concerns, any attempt at food security will be a futile exercise. In food supply, there is an overemphasis on cereals (at 57%), wheat and rice, while vegetables cover only 1% of the total production. Unfortunately, pulses are outside the purchasing power of many poor or BPL category people. The government can introduce the policy of the family kitchen, like the Ammarasoi in Tamil Nadu, where people can buy foods at cheaper rates and the farmers can sell their food directly. This will satisfy the problem of food security from both ends as it will ensure the availability and 22 23

http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/food_security.shtml. Ibid.

154

Chapter Ten

accessibility of food at affordable prices in the market and improve the economic conditions of farmers. Proper care should be given to children in their first thousand days after birth as in this period they are highly vulnerable to malnutrition. The level of child malnutrition in Delhi is higher than that of Sub-Saharan African areas. Hunger is an intergenerational cycle. In India, 50% women are anaemic, especially pregnant women (70%). There are many genuine concerns calling for urgent attention and action, necessitating an integrated rather than piecemeal approach. The attempts by the Indian planners and policy makers should be channelled in the right direction to eradicate hunger and ensure food security with nutritional value.

CHAPTER ELEVEN CLIMATE CHANGE AND FOOD SECURITY: CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS SHYAMLI SINGH

The changing trends in the environment and the resultant climate change have perilous impacts upon food security. While the earth’s surface temperature has increased, precipitation has decreased significantly across much of the globe in recent years. As such, unprecedented droughts and heavy floods have become common phenomena. Climatic crises further destabilise food security by deepening poverty among poor communities around the world. The need for achieving food security is felt significantly in the recent years due to enormous pressure from the ever-increasing population. Owing to the change in preferences in crop production techniques, several new challenges draw attention to food security. This paper discusses the various challenges to food security, and a critical analysis is made on the biggest challenge, i.e. climate change.

Food security The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) defines food security 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 preference for an active and healthy life.” The above definition spells out the four pillars of food supplies: x x x x

availability stability access utilisation.

156

Chapter Eleven

Fig. 11.1. The three components of the food system with the three main elements shown in italics

Source: Ingram et al. (2005)

The first pillar indicates the availability of sufficient food, and the overall ability to meet food demand through production, distribution and exchange with agroclimatic zones in its fold. The second pillar relates to the vulnerable individual who is at high risk of temporary or permanent loss to access in terms of affordability, allocation and preference to consume adequate food because of a lack of insurance against “income shock” or lack of enough reserves to smooth consumption, or both. This pillar is, by and large, related to climatic variability, e.g. marginal or landless labourers who depend on agricultural wages in regions of erratic rainfall with little savings are at the greatest risk of losing access to food. The third pillar points out the entitlement to acquire appropriate food for a nutritious diet. Entitlement generally refers to all sets of command, be it legal, political, economic or social elements of the community of which individual is a member. This pillar does not give rise to the purchasing power of consumers and the evolution of income and food prices. The final pillar of utilization encompasses all food safety and all quality aspects of nutrition.

Climate Change and Food Security: Challenges and Prospects

157

Food security in the current climate regime Population growth and food production The important consideration for food security is whether the food production will remain higher than the population growth rate. Between 1970 and 1982, the world population grew at a rate of 1.8% per annum, but cereal production, which constitutes 94% of the total grain production, grew at a rate of 2.3% per annum. Thus, food production outstripped population growth by 0.5% on a global scale. In 1986, 1,942 million tons of food grain were produced for a population of 4,915 million. Globally, this corresponds to about 395 kg of food grain per capita. However, there were regional disparities to the extent that near-famine conditions occurred in many parts of the world. Thus, hunger existed for many people and food production did not provide food security to everyone. A United Nations study has projected the population size and growth rates for the periods 1985–2000 and 2000–25. The growth rate is likely to decline to 1.6% and 1.2% between 1985–2000 and 2000–25, respectively. The projected world population is 6.1 billion in 2000 and 8.2 billion in 2025 (see Table 10.1 below) (Sinha, Rao & Swaminathan 1988). Sanderson (1984) estimated per capita grain consumption in 2000 based on the expected per capita consumption in the recent past. Assuming that no significant changes in per capita grain consumption occur, the food grain requirements in various regions of the world were estimated. The global requirement of food grains in 2025 is about 3050 million tons, including food, feed and industrial use. Assuming no significant change in food consumption patterns, the projected additional demand of food grains in 2025 over that in 1986 would be 330 Mt in Africa, 130 Mt in South America, 582 Mt in Asia, 73 Mt in Europe and 16 MT in the USSR. If individual regions are to be self-sufficient in food grains, the above projections lead to questions as to the kind of changes in productivity and cultivated areas that are needed to grow the additional food grains and the capability of the regions requiring additional food grains to produce them.

Chapter Eleven

158

Table 11.1. Food requirement of different regions of world in 2025 Region

Population

Average Per capita Consumption (Kg)

Food Grains Requirement (MT)

( Billions) Africa

1.62

257

416

South America

0.78

296

231

Asia

4.54

300

1362

North America

0.35

885

310

Europe

0.52

700

364

USSR

0.37

983

364

Oceania

0.04

578

23

World

8.22

373

3070

Changed climate and food security Food production in any given year is affected most directly by the values of the critical climate elements (temperature, radiation, precipitation, etc.) during the year. The stability of available food supplies is governed by the inter-annual variability of these elements. Access to food supplies in different regions of the world is determined by their share of the food production, the role of cereals in the diet of the people and the various political and market forces that act upon the global food security system. The climate anomalies that occurred during the 1970s caused fairly small fluctuations in the world cereal supply. However, they occurred at a time of an increasing use of cereal as livestock feed. The food shortages were particularly severe in the Soviet Union and its large grain purchases led to dramatic fluctuations in world cereal prices. The disastrous effects these had on the world food security system are now well documented (Garcia 1981). Climate fluctuations of the kind witnessed in the 1970s lie within the variability of the present climate. They could have been anticipated by

Climate Change and Food Security: Challenges and Prospects

159

prudent societies if one eye had been kept on the climatic record. In addition to the normal variability of the climate, there is increasing evidence for a change in atmospheric optical properties as a result of the build-up of CO2 and other "greenhouse gases." It is also clear that this build up will continue. It is expected that in the long term this will result in "climate change." Mathematical models of the potential climatic impact of such a change have been developed by various groups. Such models attempt to predict the changes in critical climate elements for the doubling of the CO2 concentration. Although there is little agreement between various models about the specific magnitudes of the regional changes during the next fifty to one hundred years, and details needed for regional planning, there is considerable agreement on the global changes, which may be summarized as follows: x The lower atmosphere will warm and the stratosphere will cool. x The annual average global warming will be 1.5 ºC to 4ºC. This is much greater than any natural climate change. The rise in temperature is, in general, greater in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere and increases (by a factor of 2 to 3) pole wards. x The temperature rise will be greater (by about 50%) in winter than in summer. Consequently, we may expect the production of winter season crops to be more affected than that of summer crops. x Freeze-free periods will lengthen in higher latitudes so that larger areas may be brought under cultivation if soil conditions are suitable. The increase in the freeze-free period will depend on the current length of this period, e.g. a 1ºC rise in temperature will lengthen an 80-day freeze-free period by about 20 days, but a 120to 130-day period by only 6 days. x General warming will be accompanied by a weakening of temperature differences between the equator and the poles, which will affect the atmosphere's general circulation. This could lead to longer dry periods. x The global average annual precipitation will increase by about 7– 11%, but its regional and temporal variations are uncertain. x The relationship between precipitation and evaporation is not likely to change in the lower latitudes. Evaporation will increase more than precipitation in the mid- to higher latitudes.

160

Chapter Eleven

x Soil moisture conditions will be "wetter" in some regions of the world (35ºN–35ºS) but "drier" in others, compared with the present conditions. x A sea-level rise is foreseen, but its magnitude and time-scale are uncertain. The effects on agriculture in coastal regions could be disastrous. x Agroclimatic zones will shift pole ward (about 100 km per degree of warming). x The variability of temperature and precipitation may decrease because of the weaker circulation. The regional variations are uncertain. x Only changes in mean climate conditions are specified by the models. Sizeable uncertainties remain about the timing, intensity and direction of specific effects.

Challenges with respect to climate change Food security is severely influenced by climate change. The changing climate will influence the food grain production in different ways. For example, the temporal and spatial variations in precipitation, including rainfall, may result in deficit moisture stress, i.e. drought, or excess moisture stress conditions, i.e. flooding. Similarly, extreme high or low temperatures result in variations in the length of the crop-growing season. These factors would also affect the crop productivity and farm net incomes, and hence climate resilient agricultural practices have to be promoted. This is applicable to all nations, including India. Understanding the impact of climate change on Indian agriculture is quite complex as several factors are involved in this phenomenon. For example, the negative effect of global warming on crop productivity in India may be compensated by carbon fertilization to some extent. Several researchers conducted studies on the interrelationship between climate change and food security in relation to the impacts of climate change on crop productivity, food production and socio-economic aspects. Gregory et al. (2005), based on their experiments conducted on wheat and rice, reported that global warming would result in a decreased crop duration. It is already established that some factors of climate, such as an increased carbon dioxide level, would play a positive role in enhancing crop productivity. However, the crop productivity would be negatively influenced by changes caused by extreme variations in temperature and nutrient interactions and higher rates of natural disasters such as floods and droughts (Frenck et al. 2011). The fourth assessment report (AR4) of The

Climate Change and Food Security: Challenges and Prospects

161

International Panel on Climate Change predicted an increase in global temperature by 2ºC –6ºC by the year 2100, which is alarming (IPCC 2007). The changing climate affects food security at the global level as it brings remarkable changes in land utilization patterns and water resource availability (Nema et al. 2012). At the same time, increased human interference may quicken the changes. It was reported that an everincreasing human population coupled with changing dietary preferences significantly increases the global demand for food and thereby generates tremendous pressure on native vegetation and ecosystems (Tilman et al. 2001). India also faces a similar grim situation in tackling the issues related to food security and policies related to globalization further affecting the environmental health, and stressing the need for regulation of the same. Though climate change-related agricultural research has been focused on assessing the response of various growth parameters of crops due to specific changes in climate, an accurate analysis of food security indicators that reflects the vulnerability of food systems to global climate change could not be achieved (see Fig. 11.2 below). This is due to the fact that the individual assessments in general study climate variability without any integrated focus on the bio-physical aspects of production only. As a result, the food accessibility and food consumption elements of food security get little attention. There is an urgent need to address the food security concerns that are central to economic and sustainable development issues in both India and the other nations, which is possible by integrating the bio-physical and socio-economic aspects of food systems. Climate change in recent years has resulted in a higher frequency of floods and droughts, making the objective of attaining food security very complex. Hence, the future research efforts related to the management aspects of tackling vulnerability caused by natural hazards must consider the social, economic and geo-political constraints. Enhancing the resilience of human systems to cope with extreme climatic stresses should become the main objective. There is a strong need to address changes in institutions and resource accessibility to tackle the climate-induced natural hazards. Overall, the agricultural practices have to be reoriented, which would provide better climate resilience and an enhanced net farm income. The capacity of people to cope with climate change and its related edaphic changes varies from one region to another in India. Moreover, Ingram, Gregory & Brklacich (2005) suggest that an integrated approach is essential to address the food insecurity concerns.

162

Chapter Eleven

Fig. 11.2. Factors determining the vulnerability of food systems to global environmental change

Source: Ingram, Gregory & Brklacich (2005).

Policy measures The transition to a global food system that satisfies human needs, reduces its carbon footprint, adapts to climate change and is in balance with planetary resources requires concrete and coordinated actions, implemented at scale, simultaneously and with urgency (Beddington et al. 2012). The following evidence-based actions to achieve food security in the face of climate change must be taken. Integration of food security and sustainable agriculture into national policies The Integration of food security and sustainable agriculture into national policies must establish a work programme on mitigation and adaptation in agriculture in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to include climate change in agricultural policy. Climate friendly agriculture with green growth as the central idea must be developed. There must be a proposition of “early action” to drive change in agricultural production systems towards increasing resilience to weather variability and shocks, while contributing significantly to mitigating climate change.

Climate Change and Food Security: Challenges and Prospects

163

Increased level of investment in the sustainable agriculture and food system The national research and development budgets must be designed to accommodate the build-up of integrated scientific capacity. The reflections of sustainable agriculture in changed climatic scenarios must be seen through the indicators such as poverty reduction, food security and environmental sustainability. The knowledge base of the best practices and access to innovations must be revitalised by extension services, technology transfer and communities of practice, with an emphasis on low- to highincome countries and women farmers. Sustainably intensify agricultural production while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other negative environmental impacts of agriculture The idea is to develop, facilitate and reward multi-benefit farming systems that enable more productive and resilient livelihoods and ecosystems, with an emphasis on closing yield gaps and improving nutrition. The strategies that minimize ecosystem degradation and rehabilitate degraded environments, with an emphasis on community-designed programmes, must be introduced. Special empowerment must be facilitated to the marginalized food producers (particularly women) to increase productivity of a range of appropriate crops by strengthening land and water rights, increasing access to markets, finance and insurance, and enhancing local capacity (for example through farmer and community-based organizations).The subsidies (such as for water and electricity) that provide incentives for farmers to continue agricultural practices that deplete water supplies or destroy native ecosystems must be identified and modified accordingly Development of Policy-Specific Programmes for the most vulnerable The funds responding to the climate shocks, such as “index-linked funds,” provide rapid relief when extreme weather events affect communities. The country information on production forecast and stocks must be used to moderate excessive price fluctuation. Special allowances such as tax-free exports and imports for humanitarian assistance must be made available. There must be a creation of and support for safety nets and other programmes to help vulnerable populations in all countries become food secure (for example, cash and kind transfers, employment guarantee schemes, programmes to build resilience, health and nutrition, and delivery of education and seeds of quick growing foods in times of famine). Support platforms must be developed and nurtured to harmonise

164

Chapter Eleven

and coordinate global donor programmes, policies and activities, paying particular attention to systematically integrating climate change risk management, adaptation and mitigation co-benefits, and improved local nutritional outcomes. Remodel food access and consumption pattern for sustainable eating pattern Chronic undernutrition and hunger must be addressed by developing a sound policy that coordinates regional programmes, strengthens livelihoods and establishes access among food-insecure rural and urban communities. An innovative education campaign targeting young consumers must be organised to promote positive changes in the variation and quantity of diets, keeping the public health and environmental goals in mind. Sustainability metrics and standards must be promoted to monitor and evaluate food security, nutrition and health, practices and technologies across supply chains, agricultural productivity and efficiency, resource use, environmental impacts and food system costs and benefits Creation of comprehensive information systems embedding human and ecological dimensions Comprehensive, shared and integrated information encompassing human and ecological systems must be developed, regularly monitored on the ground and by public domain remote sensing networks, to track changes in land use, food production, climate, the environment, human health and well-being worldwide. Furthermore, spatially explicit data and decisionsupport systems that integrate biophysical and socioeconomic information and that enable policy makers to navigate trade-offs among agricultural intensification, nutritional security and environmental consequences need to be developed, validated and implemented.

The Way Forward The interventions could come about in the following areas: x Poverty and food insecurity are greater in rain-fed and dry-land areas. Increasing productivity in small farms can be helped by access to extension services and better water management. Sustainable agriculture should be the focus of interventions.

Climate Change and Food Security: Challenges and Prospects

165

x Local knowledge and local seeds can be used for biodiversity. Organic farming can also be encouraged to protect the environment and generate higher incomes for small-scale farmers. x Urban agriculture can improve food security in urban areas. Homegrown food can also be encouraged as it would contribute to food security and nutrition as well as freeing incomes for non-food expenses such as health and education. x New and innovative solutions for water management and improving soil fertility. x Tribal areas for sustainable agriculture can be focused on. x Areas likely to be affected by climate change can be focused on. x Information technology should be used for agricultural production and marketing. For example, providing mobile phones to the poor and marginal farmers can help in marketing. x Purchasing locally grown food from low income and smallholder farmers to benefit their families and communities. x In order to improve delivery systems in food based programmes, there is a need to strengthen programmes like Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) with the convergence of several departments. International agencies can help in this convergence as a pilot project to improve the delivery systems. Climate change and global warming will have multiple effects on the four pillars of food security, i.e. availability, stability, access and utilisation, as defined by the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO). Dealing with climate change would require strengthening the resilience of farmers and rural people and helping them adapt to the impact of climate change. Adaptation can go hand in hand with mitigation. The adoption and integration of requisite measures and policies into the overall development could pave the way towards a food-secure world in a changed climatic scenario.

References Adger, N. 1999. “Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and extremes in Coastal Vietnam.” World Dev. 2: 249–69. Aggarwal, P. K., P. K. Joshi, J. S. I. Ingram & R. K. Gupta. 2004. “Adapting Food Systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plains to Global Environmental Change: Key Information Needs to Improve Policy Formulation.” Environ. Sci. Policy 7: 487–98.

166

Chapter Eleven

Chhotray, V. & R. Few. 2012. “Post-disaster Recovery and Ongoing Vulnerability: Ten Years After the Super-Cyclone of 1999 in Orissa, India.” Global Environ. Change 22: 695–702. Fageria, N. K. & A. Moreira. 2011. “Chapter Four—The Role of Mineral Nutrition on Root Growth of Crop Plants.” Adv. Agron. 110: 252–331. Frenck, G., L. van der Linden, T. N. Mikkelsen, H. Brix & R. B. Jorgensen. 2011. “Increased (CO2) Does Not Compensate for Negative Effects on Yield Caused by Higher Temperature and (O3) in Brassica napus L.” Eur. J. Agron. 35: 127–34. Garcia, R. 1981. Drought and Man: The 1972 Case History. Vol. 1, Nature Pleads Not Guilty. New York: Pergamon. Green, T. R., M. Taniguchi, H. Kooi, J. J. Gurdak, D. M. Allen, K. M. Hiscock, H. Treidel, A. Aureli. 2011. “Beneath the Surface of Global Change: Impacts of Climate Change on Groundwater.” J. Hydrol. 405: 532–60. Ingram, J. S. I., P. J. Gregory & M. Brklacich (eds). 2005. “GECAFS Science Plan and Implementation Strategy.” ESSp report, Wallingford, vol. 2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. “Climate Change, The fourth IPCC assessment report.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nema, P., S. Nema & P. Roy. 2012. “An Overview of Global Climate Changing in Current Scenario and Mitigation Action.” Renewable Sustain. Energy Rev. 16: 2329–36. Sanderson, F. H. 1984. “World Food Prospects to the Year 2000.” Food Policy 9: 363–73. Sylla, L., D. Xiong, H. Y. Zhang & S. T. Bagoura. 2012. “A GIS Technology and Method to Assess Environmental Problems from Land Use/Cover Changes: Conakry, Coyah and Dubreka Region Case Study.” Egyptian J. Remote Sensing Space Sci. 15: 31–8. Tilman, D., J. Fargione, B. Wolff, C. D'Antonio, A. Dobson, R. Howarth, D. Schindler, W. H. Schlesinger, D. Simberloff & D. Swackhamer. 2001. “Forecasting Agriculturally Driven Global Environmental Change.” Science 292: 281–4 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. 2011. “Desertification: A visual synthesis.” Bonn, Germany: UNCCD Secretariat. www.unccd.int/knowledge/docs/Desertification-EN.pdf.

CHAPTER TWELVE SOCIAL DYNAMICS AND DETERMINANTS OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: EMPIRICAL RESEARCH EVIDENCES IN UTTAR PRADESH ARCHANA SINHA

Ensuring food security continues to be an issue of vital importance. The Millennium Development Goals (MDG) provide us with the starting point to assess the level of food security and prioritise our efforts to achieve it. The first development goal seeks to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. In the post-economic reform period in India, the Relative Price of Food (RPF) has become one of the important factors in explaining variations in poverty. How does an increase in the RPF affect rural poverty in India? This question necessitates an analytical and empirical understanding. Sen (1996) claims that agricultural productivity and public development expenditure result in a much better explanation of pre-reform and postreform poverty. Ravallion (1998) uses 24 observations of the National Sample Survey (NSS) rounds from 1958 to 1993–4, and obtains a correlation of 0.76 between poverty (the Headcount ratio, HCR) and RPF. Although this confirms the claim made by critics of the economic reforms of a strong positive correlation between measured poverty and RPF, Ravallion rejects the explanation that this correlation is driven by the adverse distributional effect of changes in RFP, and maintains that the correlation is due to the mean effect via depressed mean per capita consumption. It may be mentioned here that many of the poor are unambiguously hurt by the inflation. Higher food prices hurt all households who are net purchasers of food. Apart from the whole of the urban population who are net purchasers, even among the rural households more than 50% are net purchasers of food. Despite the fact that NSS tabulations do not reveal which rural households are net consumers or producers of food, there is sufficient proxy evidence. In the 1990s, more

168

Chapter Twelve

than 50% of households were agricultural households with some land or landless households, alongside marginal farmers with very small holdings. Thus, by a very conservative estimate at least 50% of the total rural population is adversely affected by an increase in the RPF. Some of the small producers who have a marketable surplus could become worse off with higher prices. This is typically because a small producer immediately sells the surplus in the post-harvest season when prices are low, and buys food during the lean season (when their own stock is depleted) when prices are high. Against this background, this paper looks at the incidence of food insecurity and malnutrition of vulnerable social groups and emphasises the need to optimally develop policies that improve the quality of life of these groups and their families. It is an attempt to explain the social, cultural and environmental factors affecting health and household food security needs and the way these issues affect each other. The study intends to focus on the dynamics and social dimensions of food security conditions of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women in the selected area. The concept of food security is multi-dimensional and goes beyond the adequate availability of food. It also includes access to adequate food. The availability of food is not as much of a problem as access and absorption. The study analyses and explores such constraints specific to the three regions under study, and contributes towards designing the state interventions in achieving food security. It also proposes an assessment of the past efforts, policies and programmes pursued by the state to facilitate the fine tuning of such interventions.

Profile of the study area Uttar Pradesh belongs to the category of high-poverty states. Apart from low growth and per capita income rates, social inequality remains a fundamental reason for the persistence of mass poverty. The percentage of the population below the poverty line in Uttar Pradesh was as high as 52.8% in 1972–3. It declined gradually to 49.7% in 1977–8, 47.07% in 1983, 41.46% in 1987–8 and 40.85% in 1993–4. The decline of the poverty ratio was faster after this period. According to Planning Commission estimates, the poverty ratio declined to 31.2% by 1999–2000. However, these figures are not comparable with earlier estimates due to methodological changes (Uttar Pradesh, Human Development Report, HDR 2003). Traditional social inequalities inevitably affect the distribution of economic assets. Deep inequalities across gender and social

Social Dynamics and Determinants of Food and Nutrition Security

169

groups thus have a crucial bearing on human development. The human development status of Uttar Pradesh (UP) is a cause of serious concern, as it is close to the bottom among India’s major states. Although there are large variations among districts, human poverty is high in UP. Another important conclusion is that among UP’s districts, while differences in income may be large, the levels of human development do not vary as significantly. For instance, several districts in the western part of the state have relatively better income levels than the rest, but they are among the worst performers in human development or the statuses of women. In recent years, Uttar Pradesh showed significant improvement in literacy and recorded a distinctly higher rate of improvement for girls. The primary education system of the state is still fraught with problems such as poor access, low enrolment, poor retention, high dropout and discontinuation, and low completion. This is a major factor in contributing to UPs low HDI, placing it among the lowest states of India. However, during 1991– 2001, educationally poor districts recorded a relatively rapid rate of improvement as far as male literacy improvement was concerned, but this was not the case with female literacy. Much greater attention is needed to develop the educational capability of deprived groups, and there has been considerable dynamism in the elementary education sector in UP in recent years. Alongside the raising of resources, the state policy must ensure that equity in education is maintained to the greatest extent possible. UP’s progress in improving the health status of its citizens has been slow and the burden of ill health falls disproportionately on the poor, the socially deprived, women and children. The total population of Uttar Pradesh formed 16.50% of India in 2011, while in 2001 the figure was 16.16%. According to the 2001 census, the literacy rate in Uttar Pradesh stood at 56.27%, of which the male and female rates were 67.30% and 43.00%, respectively; however, the literacy rate has seen an upward trend and was 67.68% as per the 2011 population census, of which female literacy was at 51.36%. On the positive side, in the last decade Uttar Pradesh recorded a healthy growth in female literacy and an encouraging trend in the female to male population ratio. The sex ratio in Uttar Pradesh is 912 per 1,000 males, which is below the national average of 940, as per the 2011 census. However, in 2001 the sex ratio for females was 898 per 1,000 males.

170

Chapter Twelve

Profile of sample population

Each district in the population sample has been categorised on the basis of sub-districts as panchayat-wise data was not available in the census data at the time of the study. For the purpose of the study, in each district, under each sub-district, villages were selected on the basis of development, food security situation, proximity and connectivity to the main road. In this study, three districts were selected: Jhansi, Muzaffarnagar and Sultanpur. In all, six hundred households were selected from each of the three selected districts, making a total of 1,800 households for the study sample. The responses were recorded from each of the households. In Jhansi female respondents accounted for 32.8% and male respondents for 67.2%; in Muzaffarnagar, females were 3.8% and males 96.2%; in Sultanpur, females were 57.3% and malesd were 42.7%. In all, 31.3% responses (564 households) were from females and 68.7% (1,236 households) were from males from the three districts of the 1,800 sample households

In Sultanpur, 344 out of 600 households reported a higher number of female respondents. A higher percentage of women respondents in Sultanpur does not necessarily mean a high level of awareness and empowerment of women—it so happened that the men have migrated to other areas in search of work, a common phenomenon in all the social groups of the study sample.

A lower sex ratio attributes greater mortality among women than men, and this fact is unfortunately linked to the relatively greater deprivation suffered by women than by men. The sample data from Uttar Pradesh confirms the declining trend of the female-male ratio. Among the selected sample data, both state-wise and district-wise, the sex ratio was found to be lower than the national as well as the state level, as obtained from the current estimates of the state as well as India.

There are some startling differences between the female-male ratios of the three sample districts. The lower sex ratio, being more pronounced in the Muzaffarnagar district, indicates that the female child mortality in Muzaffarnagar is much higher than in Jhansi and Sultanpur. This also indicates that the reason may be related to the long hours of work, improper nutrition and the effects of childbearing due to high fertility.

A district-wise and sub-district-wise analysis of dependency ratio revealed the highest degree of dependency ratio in Sultanpur (79.8%), followed by Jhansi (74%) and Muzaffarnagar (63.9%). At the state

Social Dynamics and Determinants of Food and Nutrition Security







171

level, the sample population demonstrated a dependency ratio as high as 72.4%. A social group analysis of the dependency ratio in the selected districts revealed, in Sultanpur, that the highest degree of dependency ratio was observed for SCs (87.7%) and the lowest for UCs (66%). Among the non-agricultural wage labourer category, the maximum numbers of individuals were from Muzaffarnagar (201) and the minimum were from Sultanpur (129). In Sultanpur (the eastern region), out of 1,230 the highest percentage points (31.9%) were involved in cultivation/farming. At state level, of the total 1,345 SCs engaged in occupation activities, 540 (40.1%) are involved in non-agricultural wage labour, and 107 (8%) in self-employment. Out of 530 Muslim workers, 133 (25% ) are involved in non-agricultural wage labour. Overall, out of 1,800 households, 56.5% (1,017 households) belong to the landless category, and the proportion of landlessness in Sultanpur was 344, or 33.8%. Of the total 1,800 selected sample households, 783 (43.5%) reported as owning land. With regard to the land status of 728 (40.4%) SC households, of the 1,800 selected sample households Sultanpur (193, 26.5%) recorded the highest figures. Of the total 1,800 sample households, nearly 48.72% (877) were estimated to be below the poverty line of Rs 365.84 (for rural Uttar Pradesh), while 51.3% (923) were above it. Of these 877 BPL households, the highest proportion of 398 (45.4%) were in Sultanpur.

Evidence of food intake and nutrition More than three quarters of the population in India today live in households with daily per capita calorie consumptions below 2,100 in urban areas and 2,400 in rural areas, the numbers often cited as the “minimum requirements” in India. A related concern is that anthropometric indicators of nutrition in India, for both adults and children, are among the worst in the world. Undernutrition levels in India remain higher than for most countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, even though those countries are currently much poorer than India, have grown much more slowly and have much higher levels of infant and child mortality. As far as the decline in per capita calorie consumption is concerned, one plausible hypothesis, on which much work remains to be done, is that while real incomes and real wages have increased (leading to some nutritional improvement), there has been an offsetting reduction in calorie

172

Chapter Twelve

requirements due to declining levels of physical activity and possibly also due to various improvements in the health environment. The net effect has been a slow reduction in per capita calorie consumption (Deaton & Drèze 2009). Whatever the explanation, there is historical evidence of related episodes in other countries, for example in Britain from 1775 to 1850, where in spite of rising real wages there was no apparent increase in the real consumption of food (Clark et al. 1995). Per capita calorie consumption also appears to have declined in contemporary China in the 1980s and 1990s (a period of rapid improvement in nutrition indicators such as height and weight) (Du et al. 2002; Meng et al. 2009). It is observed that just as there is no tight link between incomes and calorie consumption, there is no tight link between the number of calories consumed and nutritional or health status. Although the number of calories is important so are other factors, such as a balanced diet containing a reasonable proportion of fruit, vegetables and fats (not just calories from cereals) and various determinants of the need for and retention of calories, including activity levels, clean water, sanitation, hygiene practices and vaccinations. Because of changes in these other factors, the fact that people are increasingly moving away from a diet that is heavy in cereals does not imply that the nutritional status will automatically get worse. Nor should a reduction in calories associated with lower activity levels be taken to mean that Indians are currently adequately nourished; in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth (Deaton & Drèze 2009).

Food consumption status

Analysis of the food consumption situation revealed that gender difference was observed in terms of milk consumption. A greater number of boys aged 6–14 (120) were provided with milk than girls of the same age (116).

In Sultanpur, a greater number of SC than Muslim households consumed pulses. No gender difference was observed in Sultanpur in terms of pulse consumption.

In Sultanpur, a greater number of SC than Muslim households consumed cereals. In all three regions, gender discrimination was observed among young boys and girls but not among adults.

Those households whose frequency of food consumption per day is of the first two types (that is, less than once and normally once) belong to the food insecure group, while those whose frequency of food consumption per day is of the next two types (that is, normally two, and three and more) belong to the food secure group.

Social Dynamics and Determinants of Food and Nutrition Security

173

Overall, the highest number of adult women from 37 households consume food less than once per day, followed by adult men (36), children below 6 (8), girls aged 6–14 (6), and boys aged 6–14 (4). These are the hungry households. Considering the adult women who are most food insecure and hungry, most are from Sultanpur (16 households). Hence, the highest proportion of adult women suffering from hunger belonged to Sultanpur.

Effort was made to analyse the frequency of additional food to children on the basis of social groups. As far as milk is concerned, it is encouraging to observe that it was most frequently provided to children by UC (284 households), followed by Muslim (303 households), and BC (264 households). It is discouraging to observe that the frequency was less among SCs (597 households) and even rarely provided by ST (72 households).

Further, analysing the same data, on the basis of selected regions, Sultanpur demonstrated a discouraging trend with less frequency (487 households).

Food security status

Livestock status among SCs, STs and Muslims in the total sample population revealed that, on an overall basis, SCs are less vulnerable to food insecurity (or are more food secure), followed by Muslims and then STs, at the level of state sample. However, the food security situation of SCs is better in Muzaffarnagar than in Sultanpur and Jhansi. Muslims’ food security status seems to be better in Muzaffarnagar and Sultanpur.

With regard to the type of agricultural crops grown by the study sample in UP, the highest percentage points are for cereals (35.4%), followed by pulses/legumes (20.2%); coarse cereals/millet (12%); cash crops (11.4%); root crops (9.5%); oilseed crops (8.3%); fodder crops (2.1%); vegetables (1.1%); and fruit (0.1%) out of 2,094 of total responses received for crop production.

For the production of cereal crops, pulse crops, coarse cereals/millets and root crops, as well as vegetables by households, the highest proportion was reported in Sultanpur.

Overall, out of 1,800 sample households, 683 (37.9%) are reported as experiencing indebtedness. The highest proportion of indebtedness was found among SCs in Sultanpur (141, 46.8%). Out of these 683 indebted households, the highest proportion of indebtedness was

174

Chapter Twelve

observed in Sultanpur (59.3%). The highest proportion of SC households was indebted in all three districts.

The proportion of expenditure (%) on food per month across all the social groups revealed that, overall, monthly expenditure was 55.2%, and was 35.7% in Muzaffarnagar. The poorer the household, the higher the proportion of household expenditure on food. However, Muzaffarnagar (the western region), being agriculturally rich, spends a lower share of their household expenditure on food, as the agricultural produce of the land-owning class may not be included in “food expenditure.” Hence, it is not found that the less the food expenditure the more the food insecurity. In fact, it could be the other way round in this case, as the more the food expenditure the greater the vulnerability for those concerned, as when they do not have the money to buy food they can be highly food insecure.

The social group analysis at the state sample level reveals that the food security status of UC is better among all other social groups. In other words, the comparative analysis reveals that the food security status of Muslims is better than SC and the least is for ST communities. Further, the region-wise analysis reveals that the respondents’ perceptions are that the food security situation status is better in Muzaffarnagar (4.79), followed by Jhansi (4.42) and then Sultanpur (4.36).

Performance of the public distribution system and government programmes Overall, of 1,800 sample households, nearly 30% receives rice and wheat, an estimated 26.5% sugar, and 1% pulses through the Public Distribution System. Table 12.1 below provides the social group-wise reasons for those not getting their full ration quota from PDS shops. Among the social groups, the main reasons reported by SC households were: lack of money (134), no ration stock available (109), lack of information about ration availability (74), under-weighing (11), poor quality ration items (5), items sold at higher prices (6), and ration items not issued on card (7). The main reasons reported by ST households are: lack of money (38), lack of information about ration availability (3), no stock available at PDS shop (1), and ration items not issued on ration card. The main reasons reported by Muslim households are: lack of information about ration availability (147), no stock available (88), lack of money (22), ration not issued on ration card (7), items sold at higher rates (6) and under-weighing (3).

Social Dynamics and Determinants of Food and Nutrition Security

175

Table 12.1. Social group-wise reasons for not getting full ration quotas from PDS shops S. No.

Reasons for Not Getting Full Ration Quotas from PDS Shops

Social Group

Total

UC

SC

ST

BC

MUSLIM

Responses

1

Purchase full quota of ration

2

7

-

2

2

13

2

Nothing is ever available

3

2

-

16

-

21

3

No stock available

13

109

1

8

88

219

4

Sells off ration before stock arrives at shop

-

8

-

-

2

10

5

Lack of information about ration availability

19

74

3

20

147

263

6

Lack of money

24

134

38

37

22

255

7

Irregular supply

-

1

-

1

1

3

8

Inadequate supply

-

-

-

-

1

1

9

Quality goods not available (poor quality)

-

5

-

3

1

9

10

Under-weighing

2

11

-

5

3

21

11

Items sold expensively

1

6

-

4

6

17

12

Rations not issued on card

1

7

1

2

7

18

Cash relief was provided in all three study regions and sub-districts during the crisis period. Of the total 1,800 sample households, 527 (29.3%) received benefits from government schemes. The highest proportion belonged to the SC community (40.6%; 214), followed by BC (24.7%; 130); then UC (15.7%; 83); and the least were from ST and Muslim

176

Chapter Twelve

communities (9.5%; 50 each). A region-wise analysis of the above reflected the highest proportion from Sultanpur (58.6%; 309), followed by Jhansi (41.2%; 217) and the least from Muzaffarnagar (0.2%; 1).

Social dynamics and determinants

The region-wise impact of women’s income on the basis of two sectors—involvement as an agricultural labour, and in non-farm employment—through four parameters—impact on children’s education, food for the family, womens’ statuses in their own families, and living standard of households—revealed that in Sultanpur there was only a slight improvement in the situation of food for the family and in terms of status within the family, whereas there was little difference in terms of children’s education and the overall living conditions of the family. The assessment of the impact of women’s income through involvement in non-farm employment revealed that food for the family and status in the family had somewhat improved in Sultanpur due to involvement in non-farm employment.

The status of women in terms of freedom to spend their income was observed to be better in the Muslim community overall, where women frequently spend their income. The status is worst among STs where only sometimes or rarely are they free to spend their income. In Muzaffarnagar, the women mostly enjoy the freedom to spend their income, as reported by 378 households, while in Sultanpur they enjoy such freedom only sometimes or rarely. Among the SC community, a similar pattern is observed. In Muzaffarnagar women enjoy the freedom to spend their income, while the situation is not good in Sultanpur where the women only sometimes enjoy such freedom.

Social group-wise information at the household level on extreme food insecurity in the three study regions revealed that out of the total 1,800 sample households, 9.4% (169) reported that they had to sell all or part of their food commodities in order to buy other types of commodities through the public distribution system of fair price shops. Meanwhile, only 29.2% (525) of households faced such a situation of vulnerability towards food insecurity where they had to sell all or part of their food commodities for the various reasons as mentioned above. By moving beyond the immediate indicators of food insecurity, this paper analyses the stronger evidence on the basis of gender that is conditional on current household-level food insecurity status, where a lower health status can lead to an increased probability of future household food insecurity.

Social Dynamics and Determinants of Food and Nutrition Security

177

The consequences of food insecurity at the household level have repercussions at the social level. Important social implications have been identified for each of the aspects like decision-making, impact of women’s income, and the vulnerability of villages and households towards a situation of food insecurity, and physical, psychological and socio-familial manifestations of an extreme food insecurity situation at the village level. The present paper suggests that the key aspects of human development depend on food security. It also in general indicates the need for further reflection on what are socially acceptable practices for a household to ensure its food security. On the basis of these findings, some preliminary courses of action can be proposed to help assess the social dynamics of such practices. The results draw attention to the relevance of working towards achieving food security for all and recognizing the right to food. Fig. 12.1 below provides information on social group-wise householdlevel extreme food insecurity in the three study regions of UP. The data provided deals with the main factors making the households sell all or part of their food commodities, which further indicate the crucial determinants for the extreme food insecurity situation in the study regions. Of the total 1,800 sample households, 9.4% (169) reported that they had to sell all or part of their food commodities in order to buy other types of PDS commodities; 9% (162) stated they had to do this to buy other non-PDS commodities; 6.6% (119) reported that they had to repay debts; 6.3% had to pay the prices of other commodities and buy medicines (113 households each); 1.6% (29) had to sell their food commodities to get cash; 0.3% reported that they had to sell their food commodities due to poverty and because they were not satisfied with the quality of the food items at home (6 households each); lastly, 0.05% (1) said that it was due to their being alone. The remaining 70.8% (1,275) reported that such a situation had never happened, while 29.2% (525) only faced such a situation of vulnerability towards food insecurity when they had to sell all or part of their food commodities for the various reasons as mentioned above. Poverty alleviation has been on the national policy agenda for more than fifty years. The importance of a reduction in poverty and the provision of other basic needs has been emphasized in all Five Year Plans since independence, particularly since the Fifth Five Year Plan. The government has a two-pronged approach, namely (1) promoting economic growth, and (2) direct action towards poverty alleviation. The estimates on poverty based on National Sample Survey (NSS) data show that poverty in India in 2004–5 was around 28%. In other words, more than three-hundred million people at that point in time were still below the poverty line in India.

178

Chapter Twelve

Fig. 12.1. Household level extreme food insecurity in the total sample population

Social Dynamics and Determinants of Food and Nutrition Security

179

These numbers indicate that the social objective declared by the National Planning Committee headed by Jawaharlal Nehru in 1938 is largely unaccomplished even after more than sixty years of independence (Dev et al. 2004).

Recommendations at the policy level Agriculture growth declined in the post-reform period, particularly from the mid-1990s. There are certain implications that have to be addressed for national and nutritional security. India’s population is expected to be 1.4 billion by 2020, and this, coupled with growing income, will generate an increased demand for food grains and nonfood grain crops. Therefore, Indian agriculture has to achieve a higher growth rate targeted at 4% per annum on a sustainable basis. The acceleration of the growth of this sector will not only push the overall GDP growth upwards, it would also make the growth more inclusive. The supply and demand constraints have to be removed to raise the overall growth in agriculture. It may be noted that more than 80% of India's farmers belong to the categories of small and marginal farmers, with an area share of more than 40%. The support systems and policy changes have to be tuned in such a way that they improve the productivity and incomes of the small and marginal farmers.

The problem in India today, in the face of huge food grain stocks, is largely one of access both due to poor infrastructure, poor implementation of the government delivery system and the lack of purchasing power among the large majority. The food is there but it is not reaching the people. India is facing a paradoxical situation where it is sitting on mountains of grain while millions are going hungry due to lack of access or purchasing power. To ensure that the food reaches all, the basic issue is addressing the questions of access and affordability.

There are numerous institutional structures already available to the Government, like the National Food Security Mission (NFSM) and the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). Instead of starting many new schemes, the revitalisation and restructuring of existing schemes and institutional structures are needed. Also, convergence and synergy among the numerous ongoing vertically structured programmes can help to improve the efficiency of delivery. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, together with an expanded Food for Work Programme, provides a unique opportunity for launching a multipronged attack on poverty and rural unemployment. Engendered work under this programme can become a catalyst of a long-term

180

Chapter Twelve

sustainable livelihood security movement in the different ecological, hydrological and farming distress hotspot regions of the country. To succeed, these programmes will have to be implemented in a decentralised manner, with authority and accountability being linked at the field level.

The central and state governments have initiated a large number of nutrition safety net programmes. An accelerated advance in achieving the goal of nutrition security at the level of every child, woman and man will be possible when local level nutrition security is best designed and managed by Self Help Groups (SHGs) operating under the oversight of the Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha. Also, a food guarantee act or law should be launched by integrating the principles of employment guarantee and food for work programmes.

Rural artisans are working in the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy. Their skills will have to be mobilized to enhance the competitiveness of agriculture through value addition to primary products and the diversification of livelihood opportunities. The strategy for the technological upgrading of rural workers should be based on the principle of social inclusion.

A household is said to be food secure when it has the necessary purchasing power to buy food grains and access to the required amount of food grains. The causes of food insecurity are generally recognized as poverty, either transient or chronic, and inadequate food grain production, either seasonal, annual or secular. It is important to note that even in the absence of these two causes, food insecurity can exist due to market imperfections. Even if the people have the “ability to acquire” food grains, and food grains are “available,” food security cannot be guaranteed. There is a need for an effective delivery system of the food grains. As an immediate measure for strengthening food security on the production front, systematic efforts have to be initiated to identify and remove the constraints responsible for the prevailing yield gaps. Food security and ecological security are closely linked. There is a need to link conservation, cultivation and consumption in a mutually reinforcing manner. Future agricultural production programmes have to be based on a strategy that defends the gains already made, extends the gains with the use of yield enhancement technologies in rain-fed, semi-arid and hill areas, makes new gains through farming system intensification, diversification and value addition, and creates institutional support by way of infrastructure and market linkages. Land and water care, water harvesting

Social Dynamics and Determinants of Food and Nutrition Security

181

and the restoration of degraded and wasted lands all need focussed attention. Agriculture extension services need to be reorganised to bring about a viable mix of traditional and frontier technologies to the farmers. There is a need for gender-sensitive approaches where both men and women are partners for household food and nutrition security and their own health and development.

Conclusion

This research helps to determine the indicators of food insecurity among a sample of poor rural communities in Uttar Pradesh. In general, the food insecure households were characterized as living below the poverty line and having larger household sizes, with more young and school-going children and non-working mothers. Major expenditures were on foods, utilities, child education, loans and transportation, with food-insecure households spending higher proportions of their incomes compared to food-secure households. Poverty may contribute to the inability of some households or certain members within the households to access enough food to meet their basic requirements. The occurrence of food insecurity affects the wellbeing of individuals and households.

Food insecurity may occur in many households and communities that are not poor, because people do not always know which food or feeding practices are best for the household members, and because micronutrient deficiencies are not usually visible to the untrained eye. The need to correct these informational asymmetries suggests intervention on the part of the government.

The ultimate analysis reveals that a sustainable end to food insecurity and hunger can be achieved only by providing opportunities for every woman and man to earn their daily necessities. A detailed strategy for creating additional skilled jobs through horticulture, animal husbandry, bio-fuels and biomass utilisation has to be developed. India is rich in livestock resources with nearly 20% of the world’s farm animal population. Crop-livestock integrated production systems can help to enhance both household nutrition security and cash incomes. The overriding priority should be fighting the famine of sustainable livelihood opportunities through the creation of economically rewarding and intellectually stimulating work opportunities in villages. This is the only way to attract and retain educated youth in villages. There is also a need to launch a major non-farm livelihood initiative. In a predominantly rural and agricultural society, farming is the principal

182

Chapter Twelve

source of work and income security. Food security with homegrown food is important for strengthening rural livelihood security.

Thus, the overall performance of food and nutrition security at the macro and micro levels needs interventions to be demand-driven. In this regard, simply scaling up the coverage of the programmes without specific initiatives would not be the best way to reduce food insecurity, malnutrition and poverty.

References Clark, G., M. Huberman & P. Lindert. 1995. “A British Food Puzzle, 1770–1850.” The Economic History Review 482: 215–37. Deaton, A. & J. Drèze. 2009. “Food and Nutrition in India: Facts and Interpretations.” Economic and Political Weekly, February 14, 42–65. Dev, S. M., C. Ravi, B. Viswanathan & A. Gulati. 2004. “Economic Liberalization, Targeted Programmes and Household Food Security: A Case Study of India.” MTID Discussion Paper No. 68. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Du, S, B. Lu, F. Zhai & B. M. Popkin. 2002. “A New Stage of the Nutrition Transition in China.” Public Health Nutrition 51A: 169–74. Meng, X., X. Gong & Y. Wang. 2009. “Impact of Income Growth and Economic Reform on Nutrition Availability in Urban China: 1986– 2000.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 572: 261–95. Human Development Report. 2003. Government of Uttar Pradesh. Ravallion, M. 1998. Do Price Increases for Staple Foods help or hurt the Rural Poor? Washington DC: The World Bank. Sen. A. 1996. “Economic Reforms, Employment and Poverty: Trends and Options.” Economic and Political Weekly 31 (35–7). Sinha A. & T. A. John. 2009. “Social Dynamics and Determinants of Food Security in Uttar Pradesh.” Lodhi Road, New Delhi: Indian Social Institute.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN AGROECOLOGY: AN ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO FOOD PRODUCTION JAYAKUMAR C.

Introduction Discussions on food security are mostly focused on increasing access to food for millions of hungry people all over the world. As such, attention is riveted more and more to quantities and related statistics. In a completely different realm, food production trends are also being discussed. In a world where environmental destruction is the norm, despite struggles to change such a direction, production environment is also a factor of food security. The kind of food that is available today and the way it is being produced are also aspects linked to the objectives of food security. Gaining access to secure quality food is as important as increasing access to it. Both are inalienable objectives of the concept of food security. India has been affected by drought and associated famines more than any other country in the world. Floods in the heavily populated northern, eastern and coastal zones often make world-news headlines. Over 80% of the subcontinent is chronically drought-prone. It has suffered at least a dozen great famines in which a million or more people have died in the past thousand years, and there have been four major famines in the past hundred years. Faced with the twin problems of population pressure and land scarcity, the policy thrust has been to increase agricultural production by intensifying cultivation on a more or less fixed land resource base. Whether this has been successful in keeping the growth rates of agricultural production ahead of population growth rates or not, the question now being asked is whether this growth can be maintained in an environmentally sustainable

184

Chapter Thirteen

manner. For this, it is important to understand the existing production and consumption linkages and their impact on the nutritional well-being of people. However, at the outset it can be said that changes in the farming system and the application of specific technology have impacts on food consumption and nutrition, if not production. Earlier, the economic situation in many developing countries propelled the household to a great variety of income sources just to survive. With technology and the Green Revolution, the situation is not the same. People now have limited access to dwindling resources, thus affecting their chances of survival and subsistence existence. One is reminded of the late 1960s when high yielding and hybrid varieties of crops and the intense promotion of chemical fertilizers and pesticides were part of the Government propaganda in the name of food security.

Hunger and Obesity According to the statistics of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 810 million people still live in hunger. Peak oil and environmental degradation threaten the food security of billions more, particularly with half the world’s population living in urban environments where they are dependent on industrially produced and imported food. In the words of Wendell Berry: “People are fed by the food industry, which pays no attention to health, and are treated by the health industry, which pays no attention to food” (ISSUU 2014), and this captures the crisis we face today. There is diminishing interest in agriculture compared to a rising one in food, leading to a situation where there is a disconnect between food and agriculture. Often, we hear parents saying “my child says milk comes from the mother dairy,” and the same leads to a macro situation where we talk about more investment and support for corporate efforts and less for the farmer. The general notion that farmers are a disappearing tribe is to be looked at again in the light of the policy shifts, as there are several questions without clear answers. The question of food security is also one of the most complicated, as any discussion on this or the change in agricultural practices is cautioned by a mainstream saying that there will be famine and deaths. Today, the world food production is twice its need, but 810 million people are still hungry, 250 million of them in India. Conversely, obesity is also a major problem for 1,500 million people globally, and 170 million in India.

Agroecology: An Ecological Approach to Food Production

185

The data on grain production is shocking. Indian grain production since independence is given in Table 13.1 below. A simple arithmetic of allotting 7 kg through universal PDS per person per month shows that 43% of India’s production is enough to feed everyone, and can cover the projected population of India for 2051 by maintaining the current production level. Ideally, this could give confidence to agriculture and food planners to work on more sustainable options like agroecology, as the current paradigm is not sustainable. There is also a need to look at the centralized food storage and procurement processes, which are wasting agricultural produce and creating hunger. Table 13.1. India’s population vs total grain production and actual needs, UPDS-100*

Year

Total population (millions)

Total food crop production (mMT)

Total actual needed (mMT)

Total needed as % of total production

1951

361.1

69.8 (1953-54)

30.3

43%

1961

439.2

82.02

36.9

45%

1971

548.2

108.42

46.04

42.5%

1981

683.3

129.59

53.4

41.2%

1991

843.4

176.39

70.8

40.1%

2001

1027

196.81

86.3

43.8%

2011

1210

244.78

101.6

41.5%

2051

1706 (Estimate)

143.3

* UPDS-100 assumed at 7 kg/person/month for total population (in actuality it will be less than this estimate)

Solutions to hunger and food supply need to take into account the distribution of food and access to income, land, seeds and other resources. Industrial agriculture has accelerated land and resource concentration in

186

Chapter Thirteen

the hands of a few, undermining the possibility of addressing the root causes of hunger (Lappe et al. 1998). There is no doubt that humanity needs an alternative agricultural development paradigm that encourages more ecological, biodiverse, resilient, sustainable and socially just forms of agriculture. The basis for such new systems is comprised of the myriad ecologically based agricultural styles developed by at least 75% of the 1.5 billion smallholders, family farmers and indigenous people on 350 million small farms that account for no less than 50% of the global agricultural output for domestic consumption (ETC 2009). Two recent major international reports (IAASTD 2009; de Schutter 2010) state that in order to feed nine billion people in 2050 it is necessary to adopt the most efficient farming systems and recommend a fundamental shift towards agroecology to boost food production and improve the situation of the poorest. Both reports, based on broad consultations with scientists and extensive literature reviews, contend that small-scale farmers can double food production within ten years in critical regions by using the agroecological methods already available. The future food challenge should be met using environmentally friendly and socially equitable technologies and methods, in a world with a shrinking arable land base (which is also being diverted to produce biofuels), with less and increasingly expensive petroleum, increasingly limited supplies of water and nitrogen, and within a scenario of a rapidly changing climate, social unrest and economic uncertainty (Godfray et al. 2010). The decline in agriculture, the marginalization of farmers, competition for resources and land, and a policy push for moving people away from rural settings to urban settings are discouraging trends. The challenges to agriculture include technical, social, cultural, economic and particularly environmental concerns. Besides the failure of governance to protect farmers, they also face challenges like changes in the environment and climate change. Agricultural production issues cannot be considered separately from environmental issues. In light of this, a new technological and development approach is needed to provide for the agricultural needs of present and future generations without depleting our natural resource base. The agroecological approach accounts for this because it is more sensitive to the complexities of local agriculture, and has broad performance criteria that include the properties of ecological sustainability, food security, economic viability, resource conservation and social equity, as well as increased production.

Agroecology: An Ecological Approach to Food Production

187

Toxic food The challenge for agriculture and food production is moving away from the conventional chemical intensive farming to the more scientific and progressive agroecology. In a way similar to Stockholm Syndrome, we are scared of making any change that will depart from the state mainstreamed system, but the best reason for moving to safer production is that modern agriculture has contaminated food. “The production process of the conventional agricultural system is implicated in a host of well-researched and well-documented environmental problems” (McLaughlin & Mineau 1995). “Ecological problems created by chemical insect control methods and their relevance to human health are receiving serious attention everywhere” (Moazami 2008). Human and wildlife health depends on the ability to reproduce and develop normally,1 and this is not possible without a healthy endocrine system. The strands of evidence that fuel concerns over endocrine disruptors are: ¾ the high incidence and the increasing trends of many endocrinerelated disorders in humans, and ¾ observations of endocrine-related effects in wildlife populations. Close to eight-hundred chemicals are known or are suspected to interfere with hormone receptors, hormone synthesis or hormone conversion. However, only a small fraction of these chemicals have been investigated in tests capable of identifying overt endocrine effects in intact organisms. The spectrum of the environmental factors that may influence prostate cancer risks is, however, difficult to define; undoubtedly, however, dietary factors play an important role. In terms of chemical exposure, epidemiological studies have identified pesticide application in agriculture (Alavanja et al. 2003; Koutros et al. 2010), and pesticide manufacture (van Maele-Fabry et al. 2006) as issues of concern (UNEP 2012). Dietary risks in developing countries are at an all-time high. Eating is a risky activity today as grains, vegetables, fruit and preservatives in processed/packaged food are said to be contaminated: “51% of food commodities (in India) are contaminated with pesticide residues and out of these, 20% have pesticide residues 1

State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, 2012 is an update of the scientific knowledge, including main conclusions and key concerns, on endocrine disruptors as part of the ongoing collaboration between the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

188

Chapter Thirteen

above the maximum residue level values on a worldwide basis” (Gupta 2004). This will gain more significance when the World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes that the health burden is shifting from conventional diseases to diseases of an environment origin. The usage of chemical fertilizers, promoted by the Green Revolution, resulted in the decline of soil fertility. Normally, soil sustains itself by naturally breeding earthworms and other living organisms, which in turn help to cultivate good crops. These worms and insects feed on natural manure, not chemical fertilizers, which in fact kill them. Unlike fertilizers, manure is supposed to improve the fertility of the soil. These living organisms that sustain the agricultural cycle are destroyed, and in this way the chemical fertilizers inhibit the natural process. Also, the short hybrid strains of the Green Revolution are more prone to attack from pests. Pesticides are very potent. They are basically poisons and do not have any healing properties, yet they are no match for the new generation of pests. For this reason, the scientists who initially favoured pesticides are now campaigning for alternative approaches. As a result, farmers have been forced to abandon the cultivation of certain crops that cannot survive attacks from the new generation of virulent pests. In Coimbatore, cotton cultivation has been sabotaged by white flies, which attack the pods in spite of the most toxic of pesticides. Unfortunately, in the battle launched by scientists against nature, farmers have turned out to be the losers. Dichloro Diphenyl Trichloroethane (DDT) was considered a cheap, effective and moderate chemical pesticide. Though it was developed in 1874, its pesticidal properties were only known in 1932. By 1942, DDT was thought to be god's gift to mankind, used the world over to control malaria. It was so effective that it was hoped to wipe out entire species of pest. Gradually, several negative factors came to light, such as its ability to penetrate and remain in vegetables and animals, its retention in fat, the fact that it remains in the environment for a long time, poisoning it, and that insects and pests have developed a resistance. Its use was eventually banned. Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring details the effects of DDT on the environment and people (wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring). The ill effects of the prolonged use of pesticides are many. The three most important are: the large-scale killing of other useful insects and predators; the rapid resistance developed by the pests; and the uncontrolled growth of pests due to the elimination of their predators. Furthermore, the bird population has drastically reduced due to the consumption of pesticideaffected insects and pests. These effects have caused scientists to change

Agroecology: An Ecological Approach to Food Production

189

their views and move towards protecting the natural enemies of these pests, enhancing their population and using them for pest control. Thus was born "biological control" or “bio-pesticides,” aimed at combining chemical and biological pest control. The current trend is a mix of these two methods with other methods. There has been a renewed awareness of the pollution of land, water and air by poisonous pesticides. It is therefore essential to redirect research towards reducing the use of poisonous chemical pesticides to the bare minimum and adopting biological pest control methods that are harmless and support the environment. The recent report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (Global Chemicals Outlook—Towards the Sound Management of Chemicals, UNEP 2013) warns of the need for sound chemical management. The report points out that “increasing chemicals production, consumption and improper disposal in countries that are major agricultural and fisheries food producers has implications for the health and well-being of local populations, food security and loss of export value.” Food production ecosystem services are underpinned by the factors discussed previously, i.e. biodiversity, water, UV-B regulation as well as climate regulation services not in the scope of this discussion. Food security is currently one of the most pressing global issues. Decreases in agricultural productivity, potentially due to increased Ultraviolet (UV) radiation, acid rain, water contamination and soil pollution attributable to chemical mismanagement, are alarming in this context. Pretty & Waibel (2005) documented that in China, for every US $1 worth of pesticide applied, the costs to society in the form of health and environmental damage averaged US $1.86. The 2005 Pimentel study (Global Chemicals Outlook 2013) suggests that the major economic and environmental losses due to the application of pesticides in the US amounted to US $1.5 billion in pesticide resistance, US $1.4 billion in crop losses and US $2.2 billion in bird losses, among other costs. A total of US $10 billion in environmental and societal damages estimated in this study are an increase over the US $8 billion reported in an earlier (1992) study by the same researchers. In the African context, Ajayi et al. (2002) estimate that the costs to agriculture from ineffective pest management resulting from pesticide resistance and the destruction of natural pest regulators were at over US $8.5 million annually for cotton crops alone. Public debate arose after Carson’s Silent Spring was released in 1962. The book describes how DDT entered the food chain, remained toxic in the environment even after it was diluted by rainwater, and caused cancer and genetic damage after accumulating in the fatty tissues of animals. Carson’s

190

Chapter Thirteen

conclusion that DDT and other pesticides had contaminated the entire world’s food supply sparked concern about pesticides, and shortly after, in 1970, US President Nixon formed the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). The method of food production is the most pressing issue. Without bees, we will lose one-third of our food supply. Worldwide, bees pollinate our fruit and vegetables and provide us with luxury foods such as coffee, chocolate, tea, nuts, wine and cheese (bees pollinate the alfalfa that the dairy cattle eat), as well as herbs, spices and seeds. There is a strong body of scientific, peer-reviewed papers linking the honeybee demise to a widely used class of neurotoxic pesticides called neonicotinoids ("neonics"). Since 2005, agri-business received patents to coat crops with neonics to protect emerging seedlings from pests. The surge in seed treatments coincided with the crash in honeybee populations. Bee populations showed dramatic recoveries in countries where neonic bans were enacted. Honeybees are a major pollinator, but the ongoing use of neonics is threatening the stability of the food supply. Pesticides are directly responsible for a massive decline in the bee population in North America and Europe, a study by Harvard University says.2 The report concludes that corn, potato and soybean pesticides containing neonicotinoid chemicals are directly to blame for a phenomenon called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Erika Schuit, coowner of Saugeen Country Honey in Elmwood, Ont., said she has no doubt that neonicotinoids are responsible for the deaths of over sixty-five million bees at her apiary, and based on this year’s slow spawning patterns she expects to lose even more. The Harvard report says that neonicotinoids are responsible for the Colony Collapse Disorder that has swept across Canada, the United States and Europe, wiping out hives like those at Schuit’s apiary. Colonies affected by CCD stop producing new bees, while existing worker bees forget how to get back to the colony and die of starvation. Beekeepers typically discover CCD when they inspect their colonies in the spring, only to find a large number of the bee population missing. Eventually, the entire hive dies.

2

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/pesticides-likely-main-culprit-in-bee-deathsharvard-study-1.1815859#ixzz31gs3fMo1..

Agroecology: An Ecological Approach to Food Production

191

Agroecology In the search to reinstate a more ecological rationale into agricultural production, scientists and developers have disregarded a key point in the development of a more self-sufficient and sustaining agriculture—a deep understanding of the nature of agroecosystems and the principles by which they function. Given this limitation, agroecology has emerged as the discipline that provides the basic ecological principles for how to study, design and manage agroecosystems that are both productive and natural resource conserving, and that are also culturally sensitive, socially just and economically viable (Altieri 1995). Agroecological research considers interactions of all-important biophysical, technical and socioeconomic components of farming systems and regards these systems as the fundamental units of study, where mineral cycles, energy transformations, biological processes and socioeconomic relationships are analyzed as a whole in an interdisciplinary fashion. The report on agroecology by UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food notes that as a way to improve the resilience and sustainability of food systems, agroecology is now supported by an increasingly wide range of experts within the scientific community, and by international agencies and organizations, such as the United Nations FAO, UNEP and Biodiversity International. It is also gaining ground in countries as diverse as the United States, Brazil, Germany and France. A wide panoply of techniques based on the agroecological perspective has been developed and successfully tested in a range of regions. These approaches involve the maintenance or introduction of agricultural biodiversity (diversity of crops, livestock, agro forestry, fish, pollinators, insects, soil biota and other components that occur in and around production systems) to achieve the desired results in production and sustainability. Integrated nutrient management reconciles the need to fix nitrogen within farm systems with the import of inorganic and organic sources of nutrients and the reduction of nutrient losses through erosion control. Agroecological approaches can be labour-intensive during their launching period due to the complexity of the tasks of managing different plants and animals on the farm, and recycling the waste produced. However, research shows that the higher labour-intensity of agroecology is a reality, particularly in the short term. In addition, while labour-saving policies have generally been prioritized by governments, the creation of employment in

Chapter Thirteen

192

rural areas in developing countries, where underemployment is currently massive and demographic growth remains high, may constitute an advantage rather than a liability and may slow down rural-urban migration. Moreover, the cost of creating jobs in agriculture is often significantly lower than in other sectors. In Brazil, data from The National Institute of Colonisation and Agrarian Reform (INCRA),the agency responsible for land reform, showed that each job generated in a settlement costs the government US $3.640, while the cost would be 128% more expensive in industry, 190% more in trade, and 240% more in services. According to peasant organizations, agroecology is also more attractive to farmers because it procures pleasant features for those working on the land for long hours, such as shade from trees or the absence of smells and toxicity from chemicals. The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food recommended that states, as part of their obligation to devote the maximum of their available resources to the progressive realization of the right to food, should implement public policies supporting the adoption of agroecological practices by: •

•

•

•

making reference to agroecology and sustainable agriculture in national strategies for the realisation of the right to food and by including measures adopted in the agricultural sector in National Adaptation Plans of Action (NAPAs) and in the list of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) adopted by countries in their efforts to mitigate climate change reorienting public spending in agriculture by prioritizing the provision of public goods, such as extension services, rural infrastructures and agricultural research, and by building on the complementary strengths of seeds-and-breeds and agroecological methods, allocating resources to both and exploring the synergies, such as linking fertilizer subsidies directly to agroecological investments on the farm (“subsidy to sustainability”) supporting decentralized participatory research and the dissemination of knowledge about the best sustainable agricultural practices by relying on existing farmers’ organisations and networks, and including schemes designed specifically for women improving the ability of producers practicing sustainable agriculture to access markets, using instruments such as public procurement, credit, farmers’ markets and creating a supportive trade and macroeconomic framework.

Agroecology: An Ecological Approach to Food Production

193

Conclusion Modern developmental processes have enabled humans to exploit natural resources indiscriminately. Forests, minerals, water, air and land have met the needs of humans since time immemorial. While depending on these resources, somewhere in history humans crossed the capacity of natural regeneration. Increasing rates of consumption led to the faster depletion of resources. There is even human interference in natural recycling processes affecting the continuous availability of resources. It can be seen that while a high productivity was achieved in the past, simultaneously the health of the soil is being sacrificed to achieve only a marginal and short-term increase in productivity through mono-cropping, chemical fertilization and the use of chemical pesticides. Chemical-based agriculture has now reached its limits. Farmers in many parts of the world are giving up chemical farming and returning to farming that does not harm people and the planet. An Indian food security mechanism should start looking at how secure the food production system is and the safety of the food produced, in addition to the task of universalizing access to food.

References Altieri, M. A. 1995. Agroecology: the Science of Sustainable Agriculture. Boulder: Westview Press. Andreotti, G, S. Koutros, SI Berndt, Barry K. Hughes, L. Hou, J. A. Hoppin, D. P. Sandler, J. H. Lubin, L. A. Burdette, J. Yuenger, M. Yeager, L. E. Beane Freeman & M. C. Alavanja. 2012. “The Interaction between Pesticide Use and Genetic Variants Involved in Lipid Metabolism on Prostate Cancer Risk.” J Cancer Epidemiol 2012 (358076). de Schutter, O. 2010. “Report Submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.” UN General Assembly. Human Rights Council Sixteenth Session, Agenda item 3 A/HRC/ 16/49. Godfray C, J. R. Beddington, I. R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence, J. F. Muir, J. Pretty, L. Robinson & S. M. Toulmin. 2010. “Food Security: the Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People.” Science 327: 812–818. ETC Group. 2009. “Who Will Feed Us? Questions for the Food and Climate Crisis.” ETC. Group Comunique #102 Global Chemicals Outlook—Towards Sound Management of Chemicals. 2013. United Nations Environment Programme. Holt-Gimenez, E. & R. Patel. 2009. Food Rebellions: the Real Story of the

194

Chapter Thirteen

World Food Crisis and What We Can Do About It. Oxford: Fahumu Books and Grassroots International. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. 2009. “Agriculture at a Crossroads.” In International assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development. Global report. Washington DC: Island Press. Lappe, F. M., J. Collins & P. Rosset. 1998. World Hunger: Twelve Myths. New York: Frances Moore Lappé, A Grove Press Book. McLaughlin, A. & P. Mineau. 1995. “The Impact of Agricultural Practiceson Biodiversity.” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 55: 201–12. Nasrine M. 2008. “Biotechnology—Biopesticide Production.” Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems EOLSS. UNESCO, 1–3, 47–8. The Interaction between Pesticide Use and Genetic Variants Involved in Lipid Metabolism on Prostate Cancer Risk.J Cancer Epidemiol. Pretty, J. & H. Waibel. 2005. “Paying the Price: the Full Cost of Pesticides.” In The Pesticide Detox, edited by J. Pretty, 39–54. London: Earthscan. van Maele-Fabry, G., V. Libotte, J Willems & D Lison‫ ٰ ٯ ٮ‬. 2006. “Review and Meta-analysis of Risk Estimates for Prostate Cancer in Pesticide Manufacturing Workers.” Cancer Causes Control 17: (353– 73). World Health Organization.2013. “State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, 2012.” Edited by United Nations Environment Programme and the World Health Organization.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN THE FOOD SECURITY BILL: GIVING PRIORITY TO FARMERS AND FARMING D. NARASIMHA REDDY

The Food Security Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha in 2011. It was referred to the Standing Committee on Food and Public Distribution and on July 5, 2013 an Ordinance was promulgated. There was an all-round expectation that the National Food Security Act (NFSA) 2013 would be complete, comprehensive and guarantee real food security to the majority of people and make India hunger-free.

Salient Features—NFSA The National Food Security Act seeks to address the issue of food security in a life-cycle approach, envisaging separate entitlements for men, women and children aged from 6 months to 14 years besides entitlements for a much larger population to receive subsidized food grains under a Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS). It includes coverage of 75% and 50% of the rural and urban populations respectively under TPDS as a single category, with a uniform entitlement of 5 kg per person per month. The categorization of the covered household in the priority and general category, as in the original bill, has been done away with, as recommended by the Standing Committee. This was done to avoid problems associated with the categorization of beneficiaries as AAY, general and children. However, the entitlement of the existing households will be protected at 35 kg per household per month as they constitute poorest of the poor. Subsidised prices have been announced for Rs 3, Rs 2 and Rs 1 per kg for rice, wheat and coarse grain for a period of three years from the date of the commencement of the act, and will be fully reviewed later. Corresponding with the all-India coverage, state-wise coverage is to be determined by the Central Government. Coverage under TPDS for each state has been

196

Chapter Fourteen

received from the Planning Commission and also shared with the state governments. The number of persons covered will be on the basis of the population according to the 2011 census. Within the coverage determined for each state, state governments are required to identify households. In the original National Food Security Bill, a guideline for identification was to be provided by the Central Government. However, as the state governments wanted to have a greater say in the matter and the standing committee also recommended that the matter regarding evolving criteria for identification should be decided in consultation with the states, actual identification has been left for the state governments to decide. Pregnant women and lactating mothers will be entitled to meals and maternity benefits of not less than Rs 6,000. The earlier provision of maternity benefits of Rs 1,000 per month for six months has been amended to allow flexibility in implementation as well as future revision in the amount payable. The recommendation of the standing committee to restrict it to two children has not been accepted by the Government. Children aged 6 months to 14 years will be entitled to meals under the ICDS and Midday Meal schemes, for which nutritional norms have already been prescribed. The eldest women of the households aged 18 years or above will be heads of the households for the purpose of issuing ration cards. This means that the mother becomes the head of the family. The Central Government will provide assistance to states in meeting the expenditure incurred for the transportation of food grain within the state. Until now, the state government or the consumers have met the transportation charge and commission of distribution. The Government of India has taken a decision to share the transportation and the commission after discussion with the state governments. Handling charges and margins are to be devised as per the norms. These provisions have been included in lieu of the demand from the states to reduce the financial burden on them. This bill, the Government declared in Parliament, encourages more accountability and transparency in the entire PDS system. One of the loopholes of the present TPDS is that there is a leakage to the tune of 20– 35%. The Government promised to keep PDS-related records in the public domain, and there will be a social audit and vigilance committees for the provision of a food security allowance to entitled beneficiaries in case of the non-supply of entitled food grain or meals. A penalty on a public servant or authority will be imposed by the State Food Commission in failures to comply with the relief recommended by the District Grievance Redressal Officer.

The Food Security Bill: Giving Priority to Farmers and Farming

197

The total food grain requirement for the implementation of the National Food Security Act is estimated to be around 620 lakh tons. Under the existing TPDS, the allocation of 504.7 lakh tons of food grain was made during 2012–13. Adding to this, the allocation of other welfare schemes, at present, comes to about sixty million tons. The procurement of food grains—wheat and rice—both in absolute quantity and in terms of percentage of production, has improved considerably in recent years. The average annual procurement, which was 382.2 lakh tons, that is 24.3% of the average annual production during 2000–1 to 2006–7, has gone up to 602.4 lakh tons during 2008 to 2011–12, that is 33.2% of the annual production which we are now procuring. If the recent trend continues, it will be possible to meet the estimated food grain requirement of sixty-two million tons mentioned above. The estimated food subsidy for the implementation of the National Food Security Bill 2013–14 is Rs 1,24,827 crore. A major suggestion came from states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala where they are getting less than under the present TPDS system. Of the 35 States/UTs, 17 get more than what they are getting now and 18 are getting less. However, the average off-take of a state like Uttar Pradesh is 65.90 lakh tons, whereas with the Food Security Act their allocation will become 96.15 lakh tons. In the cases of some states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, it would be less than what they are getting now. The Central Government announced that it will protect whatever may have been the off-take of these 18 States during the last three years under the normal TPDS system. At present, under APL, rice is being given to these states at Rs 8.30 per kg, and wheat at Rs 6.10. In the present TPDS system, only AAY and BPL were guaranteed. For them, this depended on the production of grains in the country. Presently, it is not guaranteed to the APL families under the TPDS system. Existing Antyodaya Anna Yojana households, which constitute the poorest of the poor, will continue to receive an additional 35 kg of food grains per household per month. As a windfall, the highly subsidized prices of food grain are likely to result in an additional disposable income in the hands of the poor for expanding other facilities, including better nutrition, health and education. The State Governments also stand to gain much as their current burden on buying TDPS food grains will reduce significantly.

198

Chapter Fourteen

Flaws in the FSA There are a number of schemes that respond to hunger eradication during the different stages of the lives of Indian citizens. Since 2007, the NFSM has been at the basis of food policies, whose purpose is to ensure that the food produced by the country is enough for its whole population. In spite of the number and scope of governmental interventions, a substantial number of Indians still suffer from some type of hunger. It appears that many more years of implementation, monitoring, correction and innovation of such programmes are required. Article 21 of the constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, includes the right to food. In Article 47, it is said that it is the primary duty of the state to raise the standard of living of its people and to improve the public health. Also, Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the right of every one to adequate food. Article 11 of the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the General Comment 12 of the Human Rights Committee elaborate the responsibility of the state to recognise the right of everyone to be free from hunger. India is the signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Against this background, the Food Security Act is proposing to give the security of adequate food. What does “adequate food” mean? The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) recommends that a minimum requirement of food grain is 14 kg per month, per adult, and for a minor 8 kg per month. With the Food security Act proposing only 5 kg per person per month, an adult has to purchase another 9 kg of grains from the market. The different dimensions of food and nutritional security—availability, access and use— are examined to show how policies can be more effective in supporting advances in each. All hunger programmes have inefficiencies, leakages and corruption, undermining their effectiveness. Further, some parts of the population needing food assistance are cut out of the governmental policies. For example, boys aged 11–18 are not included. Many people across the country sent recommendations on the proposed food security legislation. The Standing Committee scrutinized those recommendations and the bill was taken up for discussion in the second half of the budget session on May 6–8, 2013. In the debate in Parliament on the food security bill, questions were asked. What is the market price? Who is controlling the market? What is the situation of the price rise of essential commodities—not only of onions, but also vegetables, and mostly all food stocks and materials? With the prices of food materials

The Food Security Bill: Giving Priority to Farmers and Farming

199

going up, how can the Government claim that this is food security? Thus, access to food is dynamic and can include or exclude people, based on prices alone. Food does not mean only the food grains such as rice, wheat and maize. It includes nutritious food, including pulses and edible oils. Nothing has been said about these in the bill and ordinance. There is an opinion that food prices are high because of the minimum support price guaranteed by the government. As per the Food Security Act, the Government is going to fix the minimum support price for three years. Presently, the Government has formulated the criteria for exclusion. It was also announced that the Antyodaya Anna Yojana programme would be for the poorest of the poor. What is the definition of “poor”? Obviously, there are difficulties in identifying the Above Poverty Line (APL) and Below Poverty Line (BPL) populations. The report of the Arjun Sengupta Committee mentions that 77% of the people in India live on Rs 22 per day. Members of Parliament in the debate felt that the definition given by the Planning Commission was unbelievable. How can poor people live on Rs 28 per day? How can the poor people in urban areas live on only Rs 33 per day? This criterion would deprive a huge number of people from entitlements and put them on the exclusion list. They asked—if this is the criterion being used for identifying poor people, then what are the criteria for identifying the “poorest of the poor?” No food security has been ensured at times of war, national disasters and natural calamities. The President of India said to Parliament: My Government proposes to enact a new law—the “National Food Security Act”—that will provide a statutory basis for a framework which assures food security for all. Thus food security is needed for all, and not only for those who are officially below the poverty line. This issue is particularly relevant for combating food related hunger, because … the number of food deficit people is, at least, double the number of officially declared poor in India.

The national poverty line at 2004–5 prices was taken as Rs 356 per capita per month in the rural areas and Rs 539 per capita in the urban areas. These levels of income would have permitted both the rural and urban people to consume about 1,820 kcalories. However, to consume the desired norm of 2,400/2,100 kcalories, the cut-off line for determining BPL status should have been around Rs 700 in the rural areas and Rs 1,000 in the urban areas.

200

Chapter Fourteen

Dr Pronab Sen, Chief Statistician and Secretary, Department of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India has concluded that: it is indubitably true that the per capita calorie intake of the poverty line classes practically all over the country has declined significantly between 1972-73 and 1999-2000 … And, in 1999-2000, the current value of the poverty line does not permit the poverty line class to consume the calories than the norm and the periodic price corrections that have been carried out to update the poverty lines are inadequate and indeed may be even inappropriate. Consequently, the poverty estimates made in the year after 1973-74 understate the true incidence of poverty in the country.

Thus, there is a compelling case for re-estimating the poverty lines. The proportion of poor people living below the official poverty line declined from 56% in 1973–4 to 35% in 1993–4, and further to 28% in 2004–5, whereas there has been no decline in the number of people consuming less calories than the norm. The set of food insecure in India is larger than the set of officially declared poor in India. As per the National Food Security Bill 2013, 75% of the rural population and 50% of the urban population are targeted by this scheme. However, clause 7 says that the state governments will implement the scheme under sections 4, 5 and 6 in accordance with guidelines including cost sharing between the Central Government and state governments to be paid to each person within such time as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Since the successful implementation of the scheme lies on state governments while prescribing the cost-sharing principle between the state governments and Central Government, the Central Government should consult the view of the state governments regarding their capabilities. Subsidized food grains are distributed through the state-run Food Corporation of India. However, these distributing channels are not functioning effectively and there is a lot of corruption and irregularities in these FCIs. These distributing channels need to be streamlined and computerized. Much of the subsidized food ends up being sold illegally in markets rather than in Fair Price Shops. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Government of India to take immediate steps to complete the modernization of the Public Distribution System in a time-bound manner and the computerization of the supply chain for the tracking of food grain up to the Fair Price Shop level. In 1997, the public distribution system evolved into the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS). The TPDS primarily sells rice and wheat,

The Food Security Bill: Giving Priority to Farmers and Farming

201

and to a smaller extent sugar, all over the country, and other commodities such as edible oils and coarse grains in some states, at subsidized prices. Based on estimates of state-poverty levels, the Department of Public Distribution commits to supplying rice and wheat to state governments at the rate of 20 kg per family per month for all BPL households. Leakages and the diversion of food grain, inclusion/exclusion errors, and lack of transparency regarding allocation and off-take and availability of food grain at FPS are not uncommon. There needs to be total transparency in PDS for the proper implementation of food security legislation. The operational responsibilities for the allocation and distribution of food grain within the states, including the supervision and monitoring of the functioning of the FPS, rest with the state governments. The FPSs are functioning across the country in diverse operating environments. One of the challenges faced by the TPDS is the viability of Fair Price Shops. The Government of India supplies an additional allocation of rice and wheat for the APL households, and introduced a new special program under the TPDS for the poorest of the poor in December 2000, targeting about ten million of the poorest (15%) BPL households. It provides each family with 25 kg of food grain per month at prices even lower than the BPL rates. The TPDS food grain allocations are collected by the state government from the Food Corporation of India for sale through a network of about 450,000 Fair Price Shops, which are essentially private retail outlets that operate on a commission basis. The sizes of the food grain rations that households can purchase are determined by the state. The price subsidy in this scheme was fully financed by the Central Government, leaving the state governments to cover intra-state distribution costs and the price subsidy on quantities exceeding the central allocation. Current nutritional, social, economic and fiscal challenges, against the background of current food programmes, emphasize the need for a more comprehensive response based on a continuing re-evaluation and readjustment of the Government of India's food and nutrition security strategy. This involves questions such as how can food-based transfer programs more effectively serve as lifejackets for the food and nutritionally insecure without becoming straightjackets for the overall development? The Food Security Act requires: (i) allowing states greater flexibility in adopting or reorienting programs to better suit their specific needs, while placing the highest priority on ensuring better targeting and improving

202

Chapter Fourteen

efficiency and cost effectiveness in reaching their intended beneficiaries; (ii) reducing sizeable physical losses and distribution costs. Increased decentralization of implementation, including greater community and local government (Panchayat Raj Institution) involvement, could play a critical role in ensuring more effective village-level implementation. Stronger coordination among the food-based transfer programs, and between them and other poverty alleviation programs, would also bring about significant synergies in their impacts. The physical losses due to poorly performing food grain markets have been estimated as reaching 12–16 million tons per year and are an unnecessary yet highly surmountable loss from the national food security perspective. There are arguments that high transaction costs in marketing have a depressing impact on farm output prices and an upward impact on consumer prices. In turn, these adversely affect farm incomes and the purchasing power of all consumers. Sustained food grain output growth has facilitated the Government’s buffer stock operations, but the program is now faced with problems of plenty. It was found that cash constraints among the poor and problems of the unreliability of supplies in the Fair Price Shops contribute to lower off-take levels. With the BPL allocations being raised to 20 kg per month per household, liquidity problems could exacerbate access difficulties by poorer households unless they are allowed to obtain smaller quantities per purchase. The FCI, established in 1965, implements the Government’s food grain policy. It procures, stores and distributes food grains intended for the TPDS and other food-based transfer programs. In addition, the FCI maintains the food grain buffer stocks to stabilize prices, through procurement at harvest time, accumulation of stocks and off-loading of these stocks into the market during supply shortfalls to dampen any drastic price upswings. The FCI relies on its procurement and price support operations of paddy and wheat, and forced procurement of rice from mills, to accumulate supplies to meet its grain requirements. Reviews of implementation of all food policy programs show the underachievement of intended objectives, despite an increasing fiscal burden. To effectively address medium- to long-term needs, a rigorous and in-depth evaluation is critical as this would serve as the benchmark for charting the required program adjustments and help determine the necessary corrections.

The Food Security Bill: Giving Priority to Farmers and Farming

203

Food production There are certain apprehensions about the legislation: x It will distort the agricultural pattern x Small farmers who produce grain for self-consumption may stop cultivating cereals and shift to other crops x India would become massively dependent on imports x Overall inflation will rise. Sri. P. Viswanathan, a Member of Parliament from Kancheepuram, said: the food security Bill pertaining to the distribution of foods should also consider increased food production, clean water and sanitation. Increasing food production must be a part of the Bill. To achieve this object, the Government should give top priority to land use policy and water policy, as it will decide on the land for food production and the quantum of water to be provided for irrigation, industries and drinking water. To achieve this landmark objective, the Government should seriously consider the following: x A complete ban on acquiring fertile agricultural land for industrialization, infrastructure projects, mining and other allied activities. x The NSSO survey indicates that the food production is decreasing since 50% of farmers quit agriculture for better livelihood options. x Encourage the farmers to produce more by giving due price to their agricultural produce. A mechanism of fixing minimum support prices for food grains to farmers under a procurement policy that is open-ended and without any cap is required.

In order to meet the enhanced requirement of food grain under the food security bill, increasing the production and procurement of food grain is essential. To ensure the sustainable availability of the required quantity of food grain, it is the responsibility of the Government to progressively realize the revitalization of agriculture in a holistic manner in coordination with all the ministries through assured funding and policies supporting farmers. A minimum allocation of 50% of the total food subsidy must be given to the Ministry of Agriculture for a proper increase in agricultural production. This alone is not sufficient, for a minimum 30% growth in the MSP of all agriculture products must happen every year. The Government has the responsibility to ensure remunerative prices, credit facilitation on minimum interest, irrigation facilities, power supplies on subsidized rates, and crop insurance for the whole crop period. There should be a

204

Chapter Fourteen

prohibition on the diversion of cultivable land from agriculture to nonagriculture. These practices will help to ensure the better production of agriculture. Better infrastructure facilities are required for the procurement of food grains. It is a reality that food grains of nearly Rs 50,000 crore are destroyed due to the unavailability of proper road connectivity of farms from markets to villages for the smooth transportation of food grains. All the procuring states need to strengthen their procurement machinery by creating a suitable institutional mechanism and adopting proper procurement system. The availability of adequate and proper storage facilities for food grains in all parts of the country is essential. The total storage capacity available with the FCI is 373.43 lakh MT. Necessary steps must be taken to augment the storage capacity so as to reduce dependence on CAP storage. A huge amount of money is wasted on the transport of food grain in the country. Food grains are transported merely to stores in one state, and transported back for distribution. The capacity of inter-state transport should be enhanced so as to make food grain available in all states in all the linked depots for every district and principal distribution centre in hilly states across the country. The intra-state transport of food grains is also undertaken through rail and road as per local requirements, considering the viability and cost effectiveness. There is a need to establish a dedicated transport facility for food grain by railway. Animal feed is required to sustain the large populations of cattle, poultry and fish. It is in short supply, and is expensive. India’s three-hundred million cattle produce more milk than anywhere else in the world. However, the individual yield, at two thousand litres per lactation, is way below global levels—in Israel, the average yield is 11,000 litres. The reason behind the low yields is malnutrition of the livestock, which also has to change. Unless feed supplements become more available and cheaper, there is another danger to the system. Once the food security system becomes widely prevalent, people who rear livestock will feed cattle with subsidized rice and wheat at Rs 2 or Rs 3 per kg, rather than buy feed that can cost up to Rs 11 per kg. Most Indian cattle normally graze free, unlike the stall-fed variety in developed countries. To augment their diet, they need feed obtained from farm residues like oil cakes and de-Oiled Rice

The Food Security Bill: Giving Priority to Farmers and Farming

205

Bran (DORB). Despite a 60% shortage in these feed supplements, India exports around two-hundred thousand tons of DORB every year. The Government must seriously consider all such practices and create sufficient funding related to the sustainability of the availability of food grain in the fields of production, transport, storing and transparency in distribution.

The Food Security Act—questions and concerns After a long debate, Food Security was ultimately passed in Parliament. However, in this debate many of the following important questions were not raised at all. What happens if it is not implemented? The existence of hunger is widely agreed upon, even though there is debate as to who, where and how. The number of hungry people may increase or decrease according to the perspective, knowledge and information. Food security has thus become a political issue. Importantly, after all this realization and responsiveness, what are the consequences of the non-implementation of this act? If one goes by the plethora of problems unearthed and experienced in the food schemes of the Government, which are continuing despite a political, executive and judicial consensus, any of the hurdles can lead to the under or nonimplementation of the act. In India, there are many laws on paper, for example the abolition of scavengers who lift night soil. No government has taken responsibility for the complete ignorance of many laws, which are meant to solve particular problems of the people. Non-implementation can be a distinct possibility. The hungry need food, and food can be supplied only if the Food Security Act is implemented. If it is not implemented, the hungry would continue to be hungry. The economic consequences of a section of the population have already been documented. If a government changes, or a budget deficit appears, priorities change and the Food Security Act does not get implemented, and no assessment has been made for this eventuality. Why an act? Why not a scheme? For years, the Government has been implementing food schemes that respond to hunger among the poor and disadvantaged sections of the

206

Chapter Fourteen

society. Delivery has been discussed widely. Instead of adding another scheme, or reformulating the existing schemes, the Government has now brought out an act imposing responsibility on the Government machinery. The big question is why an act, and why not a scheme? There is an explanation that a scheme can be scrapped at will, but an act requires long procedures. However, as mentioned above, acts are also not implemented, even if scrapping them is not as easy as doing the same to a scheme. While the Food Security Act enjoins the right to food entitlement, there are other rights that inherently provide the same. Under the Directive Principles of State Policy, right to life, dignity and safe environment, and various other rights, separately and together, recognize such an entitlement. Even if there is no such right, humanism demands that hungry people are entitled to food. In this context, what are those factors that necessitate a food security legislation? It appears to be more a political response than any real sustainable mechanism to increase access to food. Too much flexibility? Rules become important Various provisions in the act, and assurances in Parliament, indicate flexibility in implementation. However, rules made under the act are equally important. Rules can undermine the importance of a particular provision. Who has the liability? However, no liability has been built into the act if, for any reason, political, economic or administrative, it is not implemented and the hungry do not get food. Further, a liability on leakages, non-planning and nondelivery has not been mentioned. There is also no institutional responsibility towards various provisions of the act. The achievement of the objectives of the act requires the coordination and full responsiveness of multiple agencies at central and state levels. Efficiency and delivery are dependent on coordination and proper communication. However, the act does not help in fixing liability of any failure in such a coordination. Financial management—releases and approvals It is a huge programme, by any standards, estimated to cost nearly Rs 60,000 crores. This involves financial management to prevent corruption, leakages, non-targeted spending and wastage of precious resources. However, the act does not touch upon this important and critical element.

The Food Security Bill: Giving Priority to Farmers and Farming

207

The transparent and efficient financial release and monitoring mechanisms have been crucial in food delivery policies. In PDS channels, problems in approvals and releases have been pointed out many times. The FSA should have specified financial principles and mechanisms in order to avoid problems in future. Maintenance of records Statistics, records and information at various levels have significance in terms of decision-making, policy setting and programme delivery. The FSA should have provisions in place to protect the sanctity of such information and records. Price determination—by whom? What is the process of price determination? The FSA mentions per-unit prices for the food deliveries under the food supply programmes. However, these prices are likely to change, and the writers of the FSA do not appear to have had such a realization. No mechanism has been specified in the act about price determination and who decides, and when and how. The process of price determination has to be transparent and participatory. Dynamism in eligibility—not institutionalised Eligibility criteria have huge political implications. Most debates on food security revolve around this aspect. Can food security provisions be universal or targeted? With poverty levels questioned, the implications of such a determination would define the quantum of financial allocations and administrative burden, while eligibility criteria have not been set in the FSA. States do have flexibility in determination, within a certain percentage. Eligibility criteria have to be institutionalized to prevent politicization and exclusion. Why not decentralise food security systems? Many studies on food programmes have pointed out the problems in plenty (procurement and storage) and centralization. The FCI, as the principal agency for central procurement and distribution, involves huge costs of procurement from every mandi, transportation to distant storage godowns and distribution to each individual family. Huge quantities of food grain are procured, transported, stored and distributed, involving

208

Chapter Fourteen

people, trains and trucks, godowns and finance. Often, there are grain losses in all these operations, while food stocks have been left to rot in the godowns. Storage capacity and storage methods have therefore come under question. In such a context of experience, the FSA should have promoted decentralized food security systems. Widespread implementation problems, exacerbated by poor monitoring and evaluation of the operations, lead to unreliable delivery, leakages of food and the overall poor quality of services. The implementation problems identified in previous studies of the PDS are unresolved under the TPDS, undermining the effectiveness of the program. These include: reports of diversions of food grains to other uses at various levels of the supply chain; prices charged at Fair Price Shops exceeding the official price, on average by as much as 10–14%; low quality of food grains, some below the established standards for human consumption; and weak monitoring, lack of transparency and inadequate accountability of officials implementing the program. Rough estimates show (unaccounted for) leakages of grain of up to 40%. Decentralised food security systems would lead to an increase in local production, in tune with local consumption habits, avoiding investments in transport, fossil fuels and large storage capacities. What about the lack of clauses and provisions on quality? Food availability is important. However, types and quality of food are equally important. In addition to hunger, undernutrition has been a corollary of poverty in India. Women and children who do not get nutritious food are rated on an equal footing as the hungry. With proper nutritious food, child growth would be balanced and sustainable. Women require nutrition to be fit and able to respond to the demands on their bodies for work and child rearing. However, the FSA does not have any provisions with regard to quality of food. It is merely orientated toward the provision of certain quantities. This is rather surprising when considering that the objective of the act is to respond to nourishment. No provision on food diversity Public distribution systems have always limited the range of food made available, especially wheat and rice. Other food supplies are supplementary. Nutrition also comes from food items that are suited to local environmental conditions and food habits. Food diversity is an important factor in food intake, and has links with food production and

The Food Security Bill: Giving Priority to Farmers and Farming

209

cultures of eating. The promotion of a single food would be detrimental for the environment, agriculture and social and administrative systems. However, a centralized food procurement and distribution system would collapse if the range of food was expanded. The FSA should have committed itself to the promotion of food diversity as part of the food security programmes through decentralized systems. Provisions for protecting biodiversity? Biodiversity conservation is an important area that needs to be focused on when there is discussion on food security, just as revenue becomes important for budgets and allocations. Food production is dependent on biodiversity and food security is dependent on food production. Biodiversity conservation programmes have a crucial role in increasing food availability and reducing the “burden” on food supply programmes. In the long term, biodiversity conservation and promotion would reduce the need for food security programmes as food availability increases at the local level. Biodiversity is one step in realising food security, and is integral to the objective of achieving food security. It cannot be alienated and seen as a distinct, separate programme.

Threats to FSA FSA was welcomed by many sections of the society. However, there are threats to this act in myriad forms, including corruption, liberal theories and bureaucratic procedures. High flexibility in the Act The FSA has been built with enormous flexibility. With the current food supply programmes, flexibility has been a scourge. Given this huge task, the Government provided for flexibilities to avoid delays. However, such flexibilities can be sources of corruption and are indecisive under optimal decisions. High levels of flexibility are likely to threaten the implementation of the act. A decentralized system, with high flexibility, is likely to beget better results than a centralized system with an inflexible environment. WTO Doha Round Food subsidies have been questioned before. The FSA is likely to be the focus of World Trade Organisation (WTO) discussions. Objections would

210

Chapter Fourteen

be raised, with tacit support from domestic “market” lobbies, by international lobbies and countries who eye India as a destination for their profit generation. Huge global food supply chains would use this platform to put spokes in the FSA-led programmes. National Foreign Trade Policy The National Foreign Trade Policy has the potential to impact negatively on FSA results, especially if the imports and exports are allowed without reference to the needs of FSA programmes for food grain. Unregulated imports can stress local food production, increase dependence and in general create an atmosphere of monopolies. Exports, with incentives, would also equally impact on the availability of food for local consumption. Climate change and disasters Food production is always threatened by climate change and natural disasters. It is therefore important to link the FSA with climate change policies. With extreme temperatures, rains, droughts and floods impacting food production and food availability, food security policies need to be linked with climate change adaptation methods and policies. Political will Political will has always been important in implementing food supply policies. FSA implementation is predicated on political will, which would be tempered by the anticipation of gains, losses and burdens arising from it. Institutional lethargy There is some institutional lethargy associated with food supply programmes encompassing red tapism, bureaucratic attitudes, corruption, management issues and employee attitudes. Mismatch between Five Year Plans and NFSA The FSA involves allocations and planning, not just as a scheme but concomitant and parallel efforts in food production, infrastructure development and institutional development. There has to be congruence between the objectives of the Five Year Plans and the FSA. To more effectively contribute to eliminating food and nutrition insecurity in India,

The Food Security Bill: Giving Priority to Farmers and Farming

211

a reorientation and adjustment of the Government's food and nutrition security strategy, particularly the food-based transfer programs in the Five Year Plans, are urgently needed.

Scope for Improvement Framing rules Most threats and weaknesses in the FSA can be overcome while framing the rules. These rules can respond to liability, responsibility, planning and targets. They can also specify roles and responsibilities of the states and various institutions. Food security policy The three pillars of the Government's food security system are: (i) productivity-enhancing investments in agriculture; (ii) price support for key agricultural commodities; and (iii) the operation of buffer stocks and a public food distribution system to ensure availability of selected essential foods at reasonable costs at all times. A food security policy would complete the cycle of administration, intent and content. Such a policy would supplement the objectives and mechanisms of food security programmes envisaged in the FSA. Involvement of gram panchayats Primacy has to be given to gram panchayats, hitherto not recognised, as the institution for “last mile connectivity.” Increasing the role of Panchayats in institutional mechanisms through rules, policies and allocations would lead to enormous achievements. Even in urban areas, area sabhas can also play an important role in increasing food availability.

Conclusion The best food-secure situation, where the costs are low and benefits are high, is possible when there is local food production and distribution in tune with local agro-climatic conditions and the food-eating habits of the local population. Farmers should produce local varieties of food and consumers should increase variety in their food consumption and not depend on rice or grains alone, but also include fruit, vegetables and other enervating natural products. The Government should enable more empowerment of panchayats in food security legislation and implementation

212

Chapter Fourteen

mechanisms. Sustainable land-use patterns would definitely enhance the scope for universal food security, and provide opportunities for children and mothers to access nutritious food and lead healthy lives. The Government should encourage farming technologies that reduce the dependence of farmers on outside supplies of seeds, fertilisers and pesticides, enhancing the health of consumers of food and also sustaining its production.