FOOD Security Bill 2013

INTRODUCTION

The Indian National Food Security Act, 2013 (also Right to Food Act),

retroactive to July 5, 2013.

passed in the Lok Sabha on 26 August 2013

was signed into law September 12, 2013,

22% of Indian population is still undernourished

40.4% children under the age of 3 years are underweight;

78.9% children in the age group of 6 months to 35 months are anemic

33% women in the age group of 15-49 have BMI less than normal limit.

FACTS

Features of National food security bill

Subsidized food grains, legally entitled to be distributed among country’s population will be increased up to 75%

Priority households will be entitled to get 35 KG grains every month

General households are entitled to 25 KG (5 KG per person basis)grains per month

Features of National food security bill

The minimum price, entitlement and coverage should remain unchangeduntil the end of five year program.

The categorization of general and priority household are to be decidedby the government of India.

Reformation of Public Distribution System.

Legal food entitlements for maternal nutrition, child nutrition, destitute and other groups vulnerable to poverty and malnourishment.

Beneficiaries are to be able to purchase 5 kilograms pereligible person per month of cereals atthe following prices:

•3 (4.8¢ US) per kgRICE

•2 (3.2¢ US) per kgWHEAT

•1 (1.6¢ US) per kg.COARSE GRAINS (MILL

ET)

DETAILS

1. Preliminaries – 5th july 2013

1. Entitlements ( Via Public distribution system : PDS )

priority house holds – 5KGS

antyodaya house holds -35 KGS

Below six years exclusive breast feeding shall be promoted

6mths – 6yrs yrs mid day meal every day

6-14 yrs one free mid day meal every day

Children suffering from malnutrition – free meal by local anganwadi

i. Children’s Entitlements -

ii. Entitlements of Pregnant and Lactating Women

3. Identification of Eligible Households

State wise coverage of

the PDS

No.ofeligible persons

No.ofeligible

households ; state govt

Identification in 365 days

List of eligible households to be placed in

public domain

4. Food Commissions

-Implementation of act

-Violation of entitlements

-Prepare annual reports

5.Transparency and Grievance Redressal

-Two tier involving DGRO

- Placing PDS

- Periodic audit

- Transparent recording of transactions & vigilance committee

6. Other Provisions

-Various PDS reforms

-7. Schedules

I- issue prices

II – nutritional standards

III – advancing food security

IV – minimum food grain allocation for each state

PDS reforms

Management of fair

price shops

Door step delivery

End to end computeris

ation

Leveraging UID

Transparency of

records

Implementation of food bill

Distribution of grains through Public Distribution System (PDS).

Identification of beneficiaries.

Suggested way out is use of Aadhaar network.

HURDLES

Grain disbursement is currently facing leakage and theft issues.

Bill does not specify a clear implementation framework.

Overlooks the nutritional aspect.

Grain consumption choices vary across the country.

Impacts : Pros

Provide food grains to 67% of the population (approx. 800 million) at highly subsidized rates.

Grains amount to 5 Kg / per person / per month has to be allotted.

Women will be made head of the family according to this scheme. This is very positive step.

Special maternity benefits : Free Meal for every pregnant and lactating mothers (during pregnancy and 6 months after child birth).Also, allowance of Rs.6000 will be given in instalments as maternity benefits.

Special privileges for children under different age groups like free meals etc.

Will be useful for people Below poverty line & avoid Malnutrition.

Impacts : Cons

There will be fixed quota per state of grains allotted. Onus is on the respective states to decide the beneficiaries . This can lead to wide regional disparities as a person not eligible for such great benefits in one state may be eligible in other state.

Cost of this bill as projected by Govt (UPA) : 1.25 lakh crores which will greatly impact current fiscal deficit.

This system is prone to much corruption as number of beneficiaries is to be decided at state level. Corrupt ministers can illegally hoard the grains and make shortage of grains as an excuse.

With such high procurement of grains by Govt , little will be left in open market which will lead to demand-supply imbalance and can lead to rise in prices and hence inflation.

Impacts : Cons

As our major exports are of grains, FSB will hamper our exports, leading to more Current account deficit. More CAD means more rupee fall, means more expensive imports (oil used in transportation) , means more inflation.

Government will need to borrow high amounts from Banks to finance such huge project. So, banks will be lending more to government, leaving less for general public which will hamper private sector growth.

Less growth means loss of jobs, less production and that implies more to be imported from outside India which puts pressure on our foreign exchange.

Hidden Facts

Strangely, number of beneficiaries has been fixed in the ordinance without specifying eligibility criteria and fix individual entitlements. Between different States, there could be wide regional disparities.

Ordinance proposes to reduce the entitlement of BPL families from 35 kg per family to only 25 kg per average family of 5 persons , the BPL family will now have to incur Rs. 85 more per month to avail 35 Kg food grain.

The proposed entitlement of 5 kg per month per person implies the supply of only 165 gm per person per day. Persons involved in labour intensive activities require about 2,500 calories per day. As 100 gm of food grain gives about 350 calorie, 165 gm would provide only 500 calories per day which is hardly 20% of one’s daily calorie requirements.

Even in the Mid-day Meal scheme, school going children are entitled to about 150 gm of food grain, and 30 gm of dal for one meal i.e. about 180 gm of grain. As against this, an ‘adult food insecure person’ is proposed to be given only 165 gm for 2 meals per day.

Conclusion : Better way to handle this

Government should have let the economy stabilize first. It could have been after elections.

Could have been more specific about the beneficiaries at central level.

More stringent laws and proper implementation to check corruption specially when poor is involved.

Helping poor to earn money rather than directly feeding him by removing stupid labour laws that hinder our manufacturing.

Enforcing the GST (Goods and Services Tax.)

Thank youPrajakta Joseph 136

Prathamesh Gawane 137

Sneha Dubey 138

Prashansa Mishra 139

Rutuja Mulveparab 140