Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The Mirage of Food Security by Tejinder Narang

The Mirage of Food Security by Tejinder Narang

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Mar 16, 2011   modified Modified on Mar 16, 2011

It is time for the National Advisory Council (NAC) to introspect whether its pious thoughts on food security square up to an economic reality check. There are three likely scenarios: (1) universal coverage at 35 kg/per month per family; (2) universal coverage with 25 kg per family per month; and (3) partial coverage (say, to 11 crore families) with 35 kg per family per month. In each case, the implications are discussed below and some suggestions made on how to do it better. The government/FCI currently procures around 54 million tonnes (mt) — (30 mt rice and 24 mt wheat) annually at a cost of nearly . 98,160 crore and delivers it with a subsidy of . 55,000 crore. The economic cost of procurement is . 20,400/mt for rice and 15,400/mt for wheat, while BPL rates are . 5,650/mt for rice and . 4,150/mt for wheat. To deliver 35 kg at an average rate of . 2.50/kg to all households, the annual grain procurement will have to be 100 mt on a recurring basis, at a current cost of . 1,79,000 crore and a subsidy of an additional . 98,800 crore. These amounts assume India has 24 crore families, five persons per family and an overall population of 120 crore.

The present set-up is incapable of translating NAC’s dream into reality. Our PDS is more a ‘pilferage distribution system’ rather than a ‘public distribution system’. The need for its reform has been discussed for the last 20 years, but in vain.

In the second scenario of providing 25 kg/month per family, the annual grain procurement will have to be raised to 72 mt at a cost of . 1,27,608 crore and the subsidy would be an added . 55,800 crore.

The third alternative may envisage the supply of 35 kg grain to 11 crore families, and this may limit the total wheat and rice procurement to 46 mt. But the cost of procurement would be . 83,000 crore, realisation around. 11,550 crore and the net outgo . 71,450 crore. That would leave the additional subsidy at . 16,450 crore. Indeed, the sums are staggering in all cases while the chances of achieving the intended relief are rare and remote.

The additional amount is recurring per annum expenditure after accounting for the existing subsidy of . 55,000 crore and realisation at 2.50/ kg by disposal to families. This quantum will increase every year if MSP is hiked and carrying cost mounts. As a result, a black hole will be created in the Indian economy. Why not invest these lakhs of crores of rupees in agricultural production, health, education, sanitation, power, etc? This could propel the farm growth beyond 4% per annum from a meagre 2% per annum now. To procure 100 mt, the government would have to drive the private sector out to the Indian Ocean! Will it not take us back into the socialist era? It seems we have forgotten what had happened to the erstwhile Soviet Union.

Even if the government mobilises all resources to procure 100 mt foodgrain on the 35 kg basis, can it undertake its distribution when more than 60% of all PDS grain gets diverted to the market? With only 27.5 mt as covered storage available for grains, how will the balance 63.5 mt will be handled? Will the government invest large amounts of money so fast? Or will it end up with another scam in godown construction? Or will the grains be stocked in atmospheric warehouses — where the “moisture tonnage of monsoon and sprinkled water”, “mouse tonnage” and the “missing plus manipulated tonnage” would be accounted for stock taking? Will nutrition not take the hit? Why formulate schemes that have a propensity to perpetuate a scam and then dedicate our energies to catching scamsters?

If the common man gets used to doles like this, what will induce farm and industrial labour to work for the national GDP?

Should imports be required, international grain prices would skyrocket — perhaps beyond the economic cost — compelling higher subsidisation. And whether India’s port and rail infrastructure can handle highpriced grain imports and when these are timed with fertiliser and coal landings is a moot question.

If such schemes of NAC get extended to pulses/edible oil whose rates of consumption are bound to increase, will the government print more money, pushing up the rupeedollar exchange rate and fanning the inflation fire?

The state machinery is an invisible, heartless entity with hardly any sense of accountability. State agencies and rationing outlets have already messed up foodgrain distribution. Why create a another CAG report that might be adjured in courts or Parliament? Let us not create a mirage of hope for the poor. There is a need to come out with more realistic policies relating to viable investment in agriculture and rural infrastructure, rather than to repeat the failed experiments of subsidisation. Recent proposals on food coupons and direct cash transfer are more relevant than extensive procurement programmes and supplying to target population through leaking systems.

(The author is a former director of PEC Ltd)


The Economic Times, 11 March, 2011, http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=ETNEW&BaseHref=ETD/2011/03/11&PageLabel=16&EntityId=Ar01601&ViewMode=H


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close