1

The Right to Food in India

Presentation for CSEApril 2007

Office of the Commissioners to the Supreme Court (Writ 196/ 2001)

2

India’s Annual Growth Rate

Year GDP Per capita income

1951-79 3.6 1.3

1980-91 5.6 3.5

1992-06 6.5 4.7

3

Growth of GDP in India

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

annual increase 5.1 6.2 7.0 7.3 7.5 5.1 6.5 6.1 4.4 5.6 4.4 8.5 7.5 8.4

1992-93

1993-94

1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

4

Worrying issues• News of starvation deaths & farmers’ suicides from many

states• Stagnant agricultural production, and falling food

availability• Unemployment has increased from 4 to 8% in ten years• Regional disparities are increasing • IMR stagnating around 60 per 1000, it is 46 in Bangladesh• Immunisation coverage fell from 60 to 40% in 5 yrs• 50% women are anemic• 47% children are malnourished • Declining child sex ratio during 1991-2001

There is no will to improve administration in poor states

5

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

Index number of Agr Production

Series1 100 148.4 175.7 165.3 177.9 176.9 165.7 178.3 150.5 179

1981-82

1990-91

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

6

Index number of Agricultural Production

Index annual rate of growth

1981-82 100

4.4%

1990-91 148

2.8%

1996-97 176

0.2%

2004-05 179

7

69.7

64.8

59.8

66.5

69.5

59

62

65

68

71

1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

% of Work Force dependent on Agriculture

8

Percentage below poverty line

1973 56

4 39

1994 35

1999 26?

2004 28

Poverty

9

number of poor people in millions

247 239 234201

236

53 65 70

67

78

0

350

1971 1981 1991 2001 2006

Urban

Rural

1028.9100.034.2100.0All households

23.269.128.368.1Others

38.420.445.721.1Scheduled castes

48.010.548.810.8Scheduled tribes

BPLTotal Rural Population

BPLTotal Rural Population

Percentage Share inPercentage Share in

1999-20001993-94Social groups

11

12

There should be no food insecurity in India

Both GDP and foodgrain production have risen faster than the growth in population over the last 50 years

And yet significant number of people hungry every day. A recent survey by PAC showed that 10 to 14% people are without meals for many days at a stretch in Jharkhand.

13

Decennial Growth of Population, GDP and Foodgrain Production

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Population

GDP

Foodgrain Production

14

15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Foodgrain exports in million tonnes

Total exports 4.685 12.385 10.308 0.753 28.131

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Total

16

Offtake of foodgrains (in mT)

110.3112.464.70Subsidised

exports

0.259.665.665.60.06Open market

sale

7.410.613.511.388.862.08Other welfare schemes

31.429.424.220.0913.8416.98TPDS & AAY

23,50029,0002700024000176127900Food Subsidy

in crore Rs

2005-06

2004-05

2003-04

2002-03

2001-02

1997-98

17

Planning Commission’s evaluation of TPDS

• 58 per cent of subsidized food grains does not reach the BPL families, 22% reaches APL and 36% sold in black

• High cost of handling, for one rupee transfer to the poor, the Gol spends Rs.3.65

• Targeting errors, ghost cards and non-BPL households• Only 57% of the BPL households have ration cards• FPSs are not viable, they remain in business through

leakages • Homeless often do not have ration cards

18

Lifting of foodgrains as % of BPL allocation 2004-05

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Bihar Jharkhand

Punjab West

Orissa Gujrat

Uttranchal U.P.

Haryana Maharash

HP Rajasthan

M.P. Chhatisga

Delhi Assam

J&K Kamataka

Kerala AP

Tamilnadu TOTAL

19

Regular Availability of foodgrains

0112

69101011

2338

4145

4751

73

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

PunjabBihar

Uttar PradeshHaryana

RajasthanWest Bengal

AssamOrissa

Himachal PradeshMadhya Pradesh

MaharashtraGujaratKerala

KarnatakaAndhra Pradesh

TamilNadu

% of households

20Source: Report of Committee on Long Term Grain Policy, 2002

21

Brimming Granaries and Rotting Grain…

15.812.6

20.5

26.8

22.1

16.418.1

21.8

28.9

44.6

50.9

1.3

-3.4

6

12.3

7.6

1.93.6

6

13.1

28.8

35.1

11.114.5 14.514.514.514.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8

-1.8

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 (P)

Total stocks of rice and wheat Buffer norms Excess stocks

22

ICDS – Supreme Court Orders

• Have a disbursement centre in every settlement.• We direct the State Govts./ UTs to implement the

ICDS in full and to ensure that every ICDS disbursing centre in the country shall provide as under - Each child up to 6 years of age to get 300 calories and 8-10 grams of protein; Each adolescent girl to get 500 calories and 20-25 grams of protein; Each pregnant woman and each nursing mother to get 500 calories & 20-25 grams of protein; Each malnourished child to get 600 calories and 16-20 grams of protein.

23

Reality• At present for around 14 lakh habitations, there are

only 7lakh reporting Anganwadi centers. • Against a population of over 15 crore children in

the age group 6 months to 6 years (of which roughly 7 crores are malnourished), only 3.4 crore children are registered for supplementary nutrition.

• The number actually getting the benefit of feeding may be far less.

• Adolescent girls are nowhere in the picture

Jharkhand surrendered 30 crores in March 2004

24

ICDS Enrolment & SNP distribution in WB 2004-05

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000 A

PR '0

4

MA

Y'04

JUNE

'04

JUL'0

4

AUG

'04

SEP

'04

OCT

'04

NOV

'04

DEC

'04

JAN'

05

FEB'

05

MAR

'05

3-6 population

enrolment

received SNP for 15 days ormore

25

Number of SNP beneficiaries for each month 2004-05 in lakhs

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

April

May

June

July

Augu

st

Sept

embe

r

Oct

ober

Nove

mbe

r

Dece

mbe

r

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

EIigibleEnrolledReceived > 15 days

26

Other issues

• Two-thirds of all centres are running in rented buildings, which are invariably in upper caste locality, thus favouring their children, to the neglect of lower caste children

• 40% vacancies at the supervisor level, though budget is from GOI

• Little attention to 6 months to 3 years, which is the most crucial period

27

Increasing the number of ICDS centres

• Supreme Court Order for increase in numbers is dated 29/4/2004

• Part of Common Minimum Programme June 2004• GOI Cabinet decided to increase the AWCs by 1.88 lakh

on 29/12/04• Supreme Court gave a judgement on ICDS on Dec 13th,

2007 ordering 14 lakh centres to be operational by December 2008.

Two years have passed, and yet very few centres have come up!

28

% of children receiving SNP

29

National Social Assistance Programmes• NOAPS and NFBS transferred to the states• Funds cut down to less than 50% of requirement• State finance deptts do not release funds to districts• Little monitoring by the states or GOI• Payment is adhoc, uncertain, and subject to bribes• NMBS fund utilisation is not even 1/3rd of requirement• Scale of pension (Rs 75 pm) revised to Rs 200, but no

releases so far• Numerical ceiling not revised sine 1996• Annapurna has been wound up in some states

Schemes have suffered as there are no contractors!

30

Annapurna (lakh tonnes)

1.39 1.672005-06

1.321.672004-05

1.091.232003-04

1.150.782002-03

0.931.622001-02

OfftakeAllocationYear

31

Mid day meal scheme

• Fully Implemented – Gujarat, AP, Kerala, Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Lakhshdeep, Rajasthan, Chattisgarh

• Partially Implemented –, Delhi, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Goa, MP, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, UP, Haryana

• Not Implemented – Assam, ManipurOnly 3 out of 51 schools surveyed in Bihar were

running the scheme

32

33

34

A donor study of a poor state showed that sharing of bribe

money is through a well defined percentage structure

35

Leakages – SGRY Orissa

22.05%14.90%

9.83%

53.22% Leakage in Wage Component

Wage Component reaching Beneficiaries

Material Costs Estimated to be Used in Construction

Material Costs Estimated to Not Have Been Used in Construction

Approximate Aggregate Leakage = 32 % of Aggregate Expenditure in Sub-project Register

36

The Right to Food Case

• PUCL petition on hunger in Rajasthan in the Supreme Court in 2001

• Emergence of the Right to Food Campaign• Key Issues:

– Making the Right to Food a Fundamental Right– Converting all existing schemes into entitlements– Tackling large scale malnutrition and chronic hunger– Securing employment as a fundamental right linked to the Right to

Food

• Longest mandamus on the Right to Food in the World– 47 Interim Orders so far; more than 300 affidavits; nearly 50

Interim Applications

37

Office of the Commissioners to the Supreme Court (Writ 196/ 2001)

• Appointed by the Supreme Court to monitor all food schemes in the Country

• Mandate extends to:– Feeding Entitlement Programmes

• MDMS, ICDS

– Employment Programmes• NREGS, SGRY I & II, NFFWP, RSVY

– Food Subsidy Programme• TPDS, Antodaya Anna Yojana (AAY), Annapurna Yojana

– Social Security Programmes• Pensions (NOAPS, NMBS, NFBS)

38

How does the Office of the Commissioners function?

• Honorary positions; work supported by funds mandated by the Supreme Court

• Works through a secretariat (Delhi) and a network of Advisers across India

• Make policy recommendations through:– Rigorous participatory research– Articulating alternative demands of State policy– Participating in policy bodies such as Planning

Commission Steering Groups

39

How does the Office of the Commissioners function? (cont’d.)

• Monitors programmes– Through analysis of macro-data– Addressing complaints at the micro-level

• Holds the State accountable by:– Regular engagement with the GoI and State

Governments– Joint Commission of Enquiries– Regular reports on non-compliance to the

Supreme Court

40

Impact so far

• Universalisation of MDMS (12 crore children get school meals) and ICDS (GoI to increase at least 7 lakh ICDS Centres)

• Managed to restrict the lowering of BPL quotas by GoI from 36% to 26%

• Increase in off-take of food-grains through TPDS for BPL and Antodaya families

• Increased budgetary allocation for ICDS, NOAPS• Sector Reforms in some States (PDS –

Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra)

41

Impact so far (cont’d.)

• Provided Civil Society an anchor to engage/ confront the State and created spaces for civil society to engage in food/ employment programmes

• Brought the discourse on food rights to the centre-stage of governance in the States and GoI

• Has been largely effective in provision of gratuitous relief (WB tea gardens, Assam SGRY misappropriation of funds, Chhattisgarh - MDMS)

• Created the environment for the passage of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act