Under the ‘Naya Kashmir’ manifesto, a socio-economic framework devised before partition, Jammu and Kashmir was envisaged to be a sovereign entity that aligned with the common perception held by all Indian states regarding their respective administrations under British suzerainty.

The promised land reforms aimed at abolishing absentee landlordism foisted on the peasantry from 1846 by the despotic rulers. The transfer of land in ownership rights to the tenants for its better utilization was concluded as the only alternative for attaining critical landmarks in the production of food grains and other cereals leading eventually the state towards self-sufficiency. These underlying thematic twin aspects of epoch-making land reforms could not have been achieved unless restrictions were laid down on the utilization of the land and its alienation also regulated.

Legal framework

Before the  de-operationalisation of Article 370 and the enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir Re-organisation Act 2019 the laws listed below dealt with the subject of the use of agricultural land & conversion in its use:-

• The J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976,
• The J&K Land Revenue Act Svt 1996,
• The J&K Big Landed Estates Act Svt 2007,
• The J&K Land Utilisation Act Svt 2010 &
• The J&K Prohibition on Conversion of Land & Alienation of Orchards Act 1975.

Laws numbered 3 to 5 have been entirely removed. The Government of India (Ministry of Home Affairs) and the Union Territory Government will determine if any aspects of these laws are still necessary. They will then selectively modify the other two laws to incorporate, amend or substitute any essential provisions from the repealed ones.

Before amendments were carried out vide SO 3808 Dated October 26, 2020, the Section 13 of the Agrarian Reforms Act provided that after July 13, 1978 (commencement of the Act) a person could hold land for personal cultivation only except wherever tenancy permitted, for residential purposes up to 2 canals per family or subject to the provisions of the repealed law (Serial No. 5) Ibid for horticulture purposes or with permission of Revenue Minister/his nominee for industrial and commercial purposes. After May 1973, tenancy created in respect of any land is invalid except in cases where permitted (religious institutions and places) and it is this latter part of the section (forbidding the creation of tenancy) that continues on the statute, and the rest of the provisions have been omitted.

The restrictions omitted have, however, been introduced holistically by substituting/ inserting  Sections 133-A, 133-B, 133-C &  133-D  in the Land Revenue Act. The salient features emerging from the aforementioned provisions of the law are as under:-

I) No Land used for agricultural purposes can be used for non-agricultural purposes except where permitted by the District Collector (DC). The permission in the case of saffron land is to be processed by the J&K Saffron Act 2007. The Board of Revenue in J&K is charged with the responsibility for notifying procedures etc. enabling DCs to grant permissions.

II) The owner of agricultural land has been enabled to raise construction thereon for residential purposes or agricultural improvement subject to a ceiling of 400 square meters (4305 square feet) in total,

III) Any attempt to convert agricultural land into non-agricultural use by contravening the provisions of Section 133-A is deemed a violation of the Land Revenue Act. However, the non-agricultural use in conformity with the Regional Plan, Development Plan, or Master Plan doesn’t attract evil consequences provided the prescribed conversion charges are paid. The redeeming feature is that the areas notified by the government as Eco-sensitive Zones (SEZs) are exempted from the jurisdiction of District Collectors and others and hence no permission can be granted for conversion in land use insofar SEZs are concerned,

IV) The District Collectors have been empowered to grant permissions subject to prescribed limits for change in the use of proprietary land falling under the categories of grazing, arak, kap, kadhi krishm, or which grows fuel and fodder and belongs to such class as is notified by the Government.

V) The land converted for purposes other than agricultural or grazing etc. in violation of Sections 133-A, 133-B & 133-BB vests in the State, subject to grant of opportunity to the person found to have violated the law, powers to remove the contraventions.

Alienation/transfer of Land

Sections 13 & 28-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act laid down a highly restrictive mechanism for alienation by vesting the powers at the highest level in the Revenue Minister and placed a total embargo on the transfer of land, the ownership rights whereof acquired under the Act of 1976, in favour of any person except the Government of J&K respectively.

The previous ban on transferring land after 15 years of it being under state control has been lifted for those who benefited from land reforms. However, this relaxation is subject to certain rules outlined in Sections 133-H to 133-L of the Land Revenue Act. In addition, grants of lease, contract farming, and transfer in the form of simple mortgages have been added. In the event of a transfer of land or rights therein not falling under the above, such a course of action is deemed null and void resulting in its vesting in the state after providing an opportunity to be heard. Under Section 133-H, no land or rights therein can be transferred to a non-agriculturalist.

“Agriculturist” is defined as one who has been cultivating land personally in J&K on November 1, 2021 as notified vide S. O.373 dated November 1, 2021 or such category of persons as may be notified from time to time. However, the government is empowered to allow an agriculturalist to alienate land to a non-agricultural entity through the medium of sale, gift, exchange, or mortgage.

Threatened Cultivable Lands

The liberalised legal framework, being implemented for the National/UT Industrial policies including Hospitality, Services & Housing sectors may diminish the cultivable land faster, unless:

1. a) Landowners adjacent to the seller agree to the sale, with prices set by the Collector based on market rates to avoid unfair sales practices like distress sales or cartelisation in the procedures.
2. b) Land obtained under land reforms should only be used for purposes other than agricultural and allied purposes like fruit-bearing trees, vegetables, and other cash crops.
3. c) Areas designated as Village Abadies will remain as such, potentially accommodating duplex or vertical housing clusters as needed. This expansion will follow prescribed intervals, drawing legal guidance from the repealed law, ‘The J&K Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1956’.

The existing provisions in Land Revenue Act permitting change in land use for residential purposes or agricultural improvements or both up to 400 square meters per family needs review. The disproportionate limit would not only pave the way for rampant change in land use under the camouflage of housing for residential purposes. It will also make agricultural land scarce given that 83.78% of the holdings in J&K fall in the marginal category for 47.17% of the area under cultivation (2015-16), with average holding size of 0.42 hectares in Valley, 0.77 in Jammu Division and 0.59 (ha) at the UT level.

Introducing rules to control how agricultural land is used and sold would comply with the goals outlined in the Preamble of Land Reforms Laws, which are protected by the Ninth schedule of the Constitution. Laws in this schedule can’t be questioned based solely on constitutionality. Owners who build structures against these rules won’t get basic facilities like electricity and water connections. They’ll also face legal action under consistent enforcement of relevant laws.

Challenges and Strategies

The population of Jammu and Kashmir was 1.23 Crores in 2011 and based on the decadal growth rate for 2001-11 at 23.64%, the projected population in 2023 should be 1.52  Crores. The rationed population during 2019-20 was 119 lakh persons which fell to 117 lakhs in 2020-21.

The import of food grains during 2019-20 and 2020-21 has been to the extent of 7.13 lakh MTs and 7.35 MTs, off-take to the extent of 7.13 & 7.09 Lakh MTs respectively. The total area in 2022-23 sown under paddy has been 274467 Hectares and wheat 284468 Hectares, yielding 90653.36 and 58671.22 MTs together with the import of 1.37 Lakh MTs wheat and paddy over 5 Lakh MTs (assumed based on imports during the preceding two years).

By no stretch of the imagination and in the face of limited availability of cultivable land, Jammu and Kashmir can aspire at least in the immediate future to attain food security by dint of self-sufficiency. The introduction of farm technology and the use of yielding and hybrid seedlings may marginally provide impetus to a growth spurt. Still, against the annual requirements of  7 to 8 Lakh MTs and local production of 1.5 Lakh MTs, the gnawing shortfalls would increase manifold owing to an increase in population, the disproportionate spread of military and security guards owing to disturbed conditions, manifold increase in tourist arrivals and pilgrims, especially Mata Vaishno Devi and Amarnath shrines.

It is also likely that the local peasantry may convert the remaining holdings into orchards and vegetable farms, given the higher returns and availability of untapped market potential in the mainland and beyond. The conversion of fertile lands into orchards in the plains of the Valley isn’t an appropriate response given the limited shelf life of fruits grown thereon and therefore strategy is needed for its optimum utilization for diversified cash crops. Many states are producing surplus food grains and areas day by day, leading to an increase in the production and creation of huge stocks. With liberalization, the free movement of food grains and compulsion for sale due to surpluses, shortfalls in Jammu and Kashmir can be met with.

*The author is IAS (Retd) & former Chairman J&K PSC.

Courtesy: The Kashmir Times

The post Unabated Conversion Of Agricultural Land In Kashmir Threatens Food Security appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At a meeting held under the banner of the civil rights group Delhi Rozi Roti Adhikar Abhiyan (DRRAA) hundreds of people from the slum settlements of the national capital as also other marginalised communities gathered to express their “deep anguish and dismay” at the reduction in food subsidy by 31% in the Union Budget 2023-24.

In a note* on the meeting, DRRAA said, several people testified at the hearing that despite being in a precarious economic situation and in need of rations, they have been unable to secure a ration card as the quota for Delhi has been exhausted.

Prashant Bhushan, senior lawyer of the Supreme Court, after hearing the testimonies alleged that the Government of India (GoI) was violating the directions of the Supreme Court. He said, the apex court had asked the GoI to re-determine the population coverage of the National Food Security Act (NFSA), which was stagnant since 2011, as the government had failed to undertake the decadal census of 2021.

According to him, more than 10 crore people were being excluded from the food security net as the coverage did not take into account the increase in population.

—————-

A public meeting was held in Delhi on the issues of food insecurity, budget cuts and hunger wherein more than 300 people from slum settlements and marginalised communities of Delhi participated. The meeting organised by Delhi Rozi Roti Adhikar Abhiyan (DRRAA) and was attended by leaders of political parties, lawyers and civil society groups.

It was highlighted that the food subsidy budget has been slashed by 31% in the Union Budget 2023-24 and the ration that ration cardholders were entitled to till December 2022 i.e. 10 kgs per person (5 kgs NFSA and 5 kgs under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana or PMGKAY) has been halved to only 5 kgs per person only, as the PMGKAY grains have been discontinued. Further, despite directions of the Supreme Court, the government has not made any provisions for increasing the number of ration cardholders by enhancing the population coverage under the National Food Security Act which has remained static since 2011.

Several people testified at the hearing that despite being in a precarious economic situation and in need of rations, they have been unable to secure a ration card as the quota for Delhi has been exhausted.
Geeta, a widow residing in Balmiki Slum Camp, Begumpur testified that she is struggling to make ends meet. She works as a domestic help and has four daughters. She shared that though she had applied for a ration card several years ago in 2019, it had still not been made.

Chameli Devi of jhuggi bastis in Yamuna Khadar testified that though she had applied for a ration card in 2016 and made several rounds of the department to follow up on her application, she had still not received a ration card. She shared about the hardships faced by her household on account of loss of livelihoods and economic hardship during the pandemic and the ensuing lockdowns. The status of the ration card application keeps showing as “pending” despite the passage of more than 7 years.

Prashant Bhushan, senior lawyer of the Supreme Court after hearing testimonies said that the government was violating the directions of the Supreme Court. He said that during the COVID lockdown in 2020, the SC took cognisance of the distress and miseries among people and directed the central government multiple time to re-determine the population coverage of NFSA which was stagnant since 2011. As the government had failed to undertake the decadal census of 2021, more than 10 crore people were being excluded from the food security net as the coverage did not take into account the increase in population. He said the government was only working for its crony capitalist friends while common people struggled to even meet their fundamental right to food.

People also highlighted that the announcement that the 5 kgs per person entitlement under NFSA has now been made free would in no way compensates for the increased expenditure on food as the entitlement has been cut from 10 to 5 kgs per person. The waiving off of the subsidized price of Rs. 2/kg for wheat & Rs. 3/ kg for rice would only result in a saving of Rs. 15 per person. However, upwards of Rs. 120 per person will have to be spent to procure 5 kgs extra ration per person which government has discontinued. The waiving off the subsidized prices is also referred to as PMGKAY leading to confusion in large sections that the additional grain still continues.

People also testified about the problems in accessing other entitlements under the NFSA especially maternity entitlements. Sashita of VP Singh camp testified that during her pregnancy in November 2021, she submitted all her documents for enrolling for the maternity entitlement scheme which entails Rs. 5,000 for pregnant and lactating women. Despite repeatedly following up, and submitting her documents and application again, she had not received any money. She said she was struggling to ensure adequate food for herself and her child and the money would have been extremely helpful.

B Kango, leader of the CPI, after hearing people said that the budget was a huge betrayal of people. He said his party is committed to raising peoples’ issues and will highlight the budget cuts and reduction in ration entitlements of people across the country.

John Birittas, MP from CPI(M) said he was shocked to note that lakhs of residents in low income settlements of the national capital did not have ration cards. He said he will raise the point in Parliament and seek enhancement of budget and entitlements to help people cope during these difficult times of inflation and unemployment. He said that government must bring in place a program for providing guaranteed employment in urban areas to address the distress.

Anjali Bhardwaj of DRRAA said that information accessed under the RTI Act showed that nearly 3 lakh applications for ration cards were pending just in Delhi which would imply about 12-15 lakh persons who had applied for rationcards were unable to get ration cards.

Amitabh Behar of Oxfam highlighted the problem of extreme inequality in the country and expressed dismay at the cut in the food budget at a time when unemployment and inflation is peaking.

Several people spoke of the lack of nutritious and diverse food items in mid day meals and through Anganwadis wherein mostly only daliya is served. Chirashree Ghosh of Neev Delhi FORCES highlighted the impact of the inadequate budget provisions in schemes meant for women and children and the adverse affect it has on the health and cognitive development.

People raised several demands related to food and social security including:

• Continuation of extra ration of 5 kgs per person under PMGKAY over and above the 5 Kgs per person under NFSA till distress continues
• Increasing and opening quota for making new ration cards as also directed repeatedly by the SC to the central government.
• Setting up effective system for Grievance Redress and Accountability. Delhi has no system for carrying out social audit and there is no functional state food commission.
• Expansion of food basket to include millets and other nutritious commodities such as pulses and oil, after procuring these at the Minimum Support Price (MSP).
• ICDS and midday meals programmes should make adequate provisions for inclusion of fruits, milk, eggs and nutrient dense diet in the meals. Hot cooked meals should extend to children under three years of age through crèches and to pregnant and lactating women through community kitchens.
• Maternity entitlements should be universalized and made unconditional. The amount of benefit should be increased to at least ₹6,000 per child, as per the provisions of NFSA.
• Provision for employment guarantee in urban areas along the lines of the NREGA in rural areas.

—
Issued by: Anjali Bhardwaj, Amrita Johri, Annie Raja, Chirashree Ghosh, Shakeel, Deepti, Thaneshwar, Aakanksha Badkur, Koninika Ray, Rajender, Aysha, Raj Shekhar, Anita Kapoor, Vimla, Rushda, Dipa Sinha, Ashok Kumar on behalf of DRRAA

Courtesy: https://www.counterview.net

The post Govt of India ‘excludes’ 10 crore poor people from food security net despite SC directive appeared first on SabrangIndia.

India has ranked 71 among 113 countries in the Global Food Security Index with a score of 57.2. The GFS Index is released by Economist Impact and Corteva Agriscience. The Index is measured on four metrics, Affordability, Availability, Quality & safety and Natorual resources& resilience.

Compared to few of its neighbouring countries, India has a better overall score. Pakistan is ranked at 75^th position, Sri Lanka at 77^th, Nepal at 79^th and Bangladesh at 84^th position. However larger countries like China (34) and Russia (23) hold a much better position than India.

Ireland ranked highest with a score of 84 followed by Austria, UK, Finland, Switzerland, Netherlands, Canada, Japan, France and USA.

While India scored 65.7 in availability, the score in affordability is low, at 50.2. In terms of affordability, Pakistan (52.6) and Sri Lanka (62.9) had a better score than India. India’s overall score compared to its 2012 score, improved by 2.7 points.

GFSI shows that hunger (using undernourishment as a measure) and stunting in children are most tied to the quality and safety of food. Populations with diets that lack quality protein and micronutrients, and where access to drinking water is limited, score worse in food security.

The Index also noted that affordability has suffered since 2019 owing to the pandemic and 70 countries slipped in this year’s GFSI rankings because of rising costs. The index observes that over the years, countries like Tanzania, Oman and China have moved up in their rankings because they have been able to tackle affordability, instil safety nets and boost market access. They have also cut back on volatility in production and committed to food security strategies and adaptation policies.

The report states, “To boost food security, approaches such as sustainable intensification seek to look at where innovation and technology can boost yields without taking up more land or causing environmental harm. Key to this approach is recognising that food is about more than just the environment and climate; it also involves social and economic criteria, such as self-sufficiency, equity, profitability, trade, the livelihoods of smallholder farmers and infrastructure.”

The main sources used in the GFSI are The Economist Intelligence Unit, the World Bank Group, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the World Health Organisation (WHO), the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the OECD, Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (NDGAIN), the World Resources Institute (WRI), Yale Environmental Performance Index (EPI), the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and national agriculture and health ministries.

The report may be read here:

Related:

GOI rejects Global Health Index after India’s worst ranking ever

UN resolution calls right to clean, healthy and sustainable environment a Human Right

The post India ranks 71 on Global Food Security Index appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The three farm laws passed by the central government threaten the food procurement and distribution system of India, said Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Professors Prabhat Patnaik and Utsa Patnaik on January 9, 2021 during a virtual conference on Farm Laws, Food Security and PDS.

Prabhat talked about the importance of Minimum Support Price (MSP) procurement operations and Public Distribution System (PDS) in preventing severe famines and the introduction of such schemes in India.

He said that peasants are often left to the mercy of open markets due to huge price fluctuations in agriculture. This means that when prices of agriculture produce crash, the general effect passes on to farmers while when prices increase, farmers do not enjoy the corresponding profit.

He referred to the large masses of peasants who suffered serious debt during the Great Depression in the 1930s.

“Once you get into debt, peasants become unviable. They have to service the debt and in the process, they lose the land. Debt is a means of destitution,” he said.

To address this plight of the peasantry, the post-Independence Indian government resolved to always provide some kind price support even for cash crops. These remunerative prices helped launch the Green Revolution in the 1960s, explained Prabhat.

Accordingly, the Indian government continued to provide support prices despite imperialist pressure and kept the country in good stead by protecting farmers from price fluctuations and huge debts.

“The BJP government is deciding to give up this previous arrangement. It has a kind of inconsiderateness which is unmatched in terms of post-independence Indian history. It’s reminiscent of colonial times,” he said.

Talking specifically about MSP, he agreed that it has not been adequate in the past. During the time that MSP remained stagnant, peasants struggled to meet higher input costs because of subsidy withdrawal as well as privatisation of education and health that made life expensive further pushing them into debt.  Nonetheless, he insisted that MSP performance helped the country stand its ground over the years.

Regarding the on-going struggle, Prabhat said that farmers are playing an important role for the economy and food security of the country.

“From every point of view of food security, of ensuring farmers’ livelihood, dispersion of economic power, it is essential that we actually maintain the arrangement that has brought us so far and prevented famines,” he said.

He argued that a country of India’s size should remain completely independent in terms of food security and suggested change in agronomic practices to consider the ecological aspect of agriculture.

He also said that India must grow its own food to be food secure and as such the laws do not benefit any part of the food system.

Professor Utsa Patnaik voiced the same sentiment while talking about the international dimension of the three farm laws. She said that the three laws aim to free trade of agriculture products outside mandis welcoming not only domestic private companies but foreign businesses as well.

She reminded the audience that advanced countries such as the EU, Canada and other advanced industrial countries are limited to producing a small range of crops. They have a surplus production of these limited products and so have to find export markets. Meanwhile, their population demands a range of tropical and sub-tropical goods such as tea, coffee, cocoa and a whole range of vegetable foods.

Utsa said that the demand for perishable products has gone up due to better transport of produce in recent years and so the demand for Indian land has increased. Accordingly, foreign companies pressure India to give up the system of public procurement and distribution of food grains.

“They say that our comparative advantage lies in growing tropical and sub-tropical plants. Buy your food grain requirements from us. This argument about comparative advantage is complete nonsense. It necessarily assumes you can define cost of production. In the developed industrial world you cannot even define the cost of production of tropical products because the output there due to climatic reasons is zero,” she said.

Utsa argued that foreign countries are looking for the recreation of colonial division of labour. During the colonial period, more land was diverted accordingly resulting in lesser food supply in the domestic market. Accordingly, peasants would be heavily taxed to decrease their income while dealing with measures that changed cropping patterns away from locally-consumed food grains.

The professor also talked about the mid-1990s when the US, Canada and the EU launched a fresh drive to pressure developing countries to wind up food procurement and distribution systems such as PDS.

“Indian PDS is heavily dependent on Punjab, Haryana, western UP – the granary of our country. So, if we do not ensure viability of farmers in Punjab and other areas then we simply cannot maintain viability of PDS. It will collapse,” she said arguing in favour of the farmers’ struggle.

She said the new attack in the form of the three laws allows an entry point for agri-business corporations and absolutely undermines public procurement from farmers. She warned that once you let agri-activities take place outside regulated mandis then no check at all.

“Foreign firms will begin contracting with farmers. Powerful agri-businesses will come in who won’t follow the contract if it suits them. They might not procure from farmers or give lesser prices. Our farmers have made it clear that they do not want contract farming,” she said.

January 20 marks Day 57 of the nationwide farmers’ struggle against the three farm laws – the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance & Farm Services Act, the Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act – forcibly passed by the central government.

Related:

Regulated markets and MSP ensure not just farmers’ security but food security: Experts

Do farmers’ demands benefit India’s hungry population?

Farmers organisations begin maintaining record of the fallen

Jan 15 talks inconclusive: Centre and farmers remain at loggerheads

Maharashtra organisations declare protests marches from Jan 23-25

BKU President Bhupinder Singh Mann quits SC-nominated Committee for farm laws

The post To be food secure, India must grow its own food grains: JNU professors appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Poor urban migrants are more undernourished than the rest of the population, but are unable to access subsidised food benefits when they migrate for work. The forthcoming programme aims at making food rations available to them everywhere through the public distribution system. 

Indian interstate and intrastate migrants make for about 37% of the country’s total population, according to the 2011 Census. But the government does not have accurate state-wise numbers for migrants. More than a quarter of fair price shops (28%) do not have PoS machines, showed data submitted in the Lok Sabha (lower house of the parliament). 

Presently, the central government supplies subsidised food grains under the National Food Security Act, 2013, at Rs 1-3/kg, to more than 800 million people through 500,000 ‘ration’ shops. The allocation to each family depends on the number of members, and is marked in the ration card issued by the state government to the head of the family. This card is digitally linked to Aadhaar, a 12-digit unique identification number used to verify the identity of Indian citizens.

Under the existing system, once a beneficiary of the food ration scheme migrates, he or she has to apply for a fresh ration card at the new place. But the ‘One Nation, One Ration Card’ system — also linked to Aadhaar — would eliminate the need for a new card. This way, it aims to deliver the promise of Aadhaar–portability of government benefits without the need for any other proof of identity.

After the government made it mandatory for welfare beneficiaries to link their Aadhaar with their ration cards, several people were reportedly denied food grains due to malfunctioning of the biometric authentication system, IndiaSpend reported on August 11, 2018. Experts said the same could happen with the new scheme. 

“All the problems that are faced by beneficiaries in Aadhaar authentication will be faced in the ‘One Nation, One Ration Card’ scheme as well,” said Sameet Panda, state convener, Odisha, Right to Food Campaign, (RTF), an advocacy group. “If one’s Aadhaar is not seeded or the biometric authentication fails due to any of several possible reasons, one will not receive ration no matter where [they are].”

Pilot schemes show up challenges

The Odisha government began implementing a pilot of the ‘One Nation One Ration’ system on September 1, 2019, for its intrastate migrants. Out of 32 million beneficiaries, 1.8 million (6%) could not get their Aadhaar linked with their ration card before September 15, 2019, the deadline mandated by the Odisha government, The New Indian Express reported on September 17, 2019.

Up to 35% of households did not have Aadhaar-seeded ration cards, an October 2019 study of 348 households in Nabarangpur, Nuapada and Malkangiri districts of Odisha had found. Of these, 31% had children under 10 years of age. Upto 12.42% individuals did not have an Aadhaar number while 19% submitted it but could not not get it linked to their ration card, the study by the Khadya Adhikar Abhiyan (Odisha chapter of the RTF) had found.

Earlier, in August 2019, the central government had trialled interstate portability of ration cards as a pilot project in two state groups: Andhra Pradesh-Telangana and Gujarat-Maharashtra. This would have enabled migrants in each cluster to avail of ration from the partner state.

“Gujarat has both intrastate migrants from the eastern tribal belt and interstate migrants from Maharashtra working in the diamond cutting industry,” said Sejal Dand, state convener, Annasuraksha Adhikar Abhiyan, an advocacy group working on food security in Gujarat. “We have not seen a single  beneficiary who has migrated to Gujarat and been able to procure ration in the state.”

Tribal communities in Gujarat have reported not being able to get ration due to poor internet connectivity even in their own villages, Dand said. “The government should make the data public as to how many people availed the ration,” she added.

Seasonal migrant workers not tracked

The exact number of mig­rant workers within India is not easy to establish, especially at the state level, as we mentioned earlier. The latest publically available data comes from the 2011 Census.

“Migration patterns across the country will have to be studied as the fair price shops–both in the home state as well as in the state he/she has migrated to–will need information on the inflow and outflow of migrants,” said Panda of the Right to Food Campaign. “Allocation of ration to each state will have to be made much more dynamically depending on the migration patterns.”

The central government allots food grains to the state, according to the district-wise requirement based on the number of ration card holders and previous year’s allocation.

“As per our understanding, [the cost of] providing subsidised ration to seasonal migrants will be borne by the states. We are yet to get any clarity about how a particular state subsidy will be implemented in another state,” said A S S Ramarao, the south zone (Chennai) general manager of sales and procurement at the Food Corporation of India.

Electronic PoS machines

For the ‘One Nation, One Ration Card’ programme, all fair price shops offering subsidised grains would have to install electronic PoS machines and all ration cards would have to be linked with the beneficiary’s Aadhaar number, as we said earlier.

Source: Lok Sabha

By February 2019, 72% of fair price shops (388,012 of 533,165) across the country had installed electronic PoS machines, data from the Lok Sabha showed.

Bihar, which had the least number of devices installed, had the second highest number of immigrants in the country after Uttar Pradesh, according to the 2011 Census.

“The transactions based on electronic PoS machines are beneficial as the dealers at the fair price shops do not have to manually keep the records of every beneficiary anymore. The device also checks for duplication of ration card holders,” adds Ramarao.

(Ali is a reporting fellow with IndiaSpend.)

Courtesy: India Spend

The post Key Scheme For Migrants’ Food Security Could Stumble For Lack Of Data appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The idea suddenly struck them one day. Both had returned to India in the vague hope that they could be of use to their country. But they knew the people of this land so little. Tushar suggested one evening — “Let us try to understand an ‘average Indian’, by living on an ‘average income’.” His friend Matt was immediately captured by the idea. They began a journey which would change them forever.

To begin with, what was the average income of an Indian? They calculated that India’s Mean National Income was Rs. 4,500 a month, or Rs. 150 a day. Globally people spend about a third of their incomes on rent. Excluding rent, they decided to spend Rs. 100 each a day. They realised that this did not make them poor, only average. Seventy-five per cent Indians live on less than this average.

The young men moved into the tiny apartment of their domestic help, much to her bemusement. What changed for them was that they spent a large part of their day planning and organising their food. Eating out was out of the question; even dhabas were too expensive. Milk and yoghurt were expensive and therefore used sparingly, meat was out of bounds, as were processed food like bread. No ghee or butter, only a little refined oil. Both are passionate cooks with healthy appetites. They found soy nuggets a wonder food — affordable and high on proteins, and worked on many recipes. Parle G biscuits again were cheap: 25 paise for 27 calories! They innovated a dessert of fried banana on biscuits. It was their treat each day.

Living on Rs 100 made the circle of their life much smaller. They found that they could not afford to travel by bus more than five km in a day. If they needed to go further, they could only walk. They could afford electricity only five or six hours a day, therefore sparingly used lights and fans. They needed also to charge their mobiles and computers. One Lifebuoy soap cut into two. They passed by shops, gazing at things they could not buy. They could not afford the movies, and hoped they would not fall ill.

However, the bigger challenge remained. Could they live on Rs. 32, the official poverty line, which had become controversial after India’s Planning Commission informed the Supreme Court that this was the poverty line for cities (for villages it was even lower, at Rs. 26 per person per day)?

Harrowing experience

For this, they decided to go to Matt’s ancestral village Karucachal in Kerala, and live on Rs. 26. They ate parboiled rice, a tuber and banana and drank black tea: a balanced diet was impossible on the Rs. 18 a day which their briefly adopted ‘poverty’ permitted. They found themselves thinking of food the whole day. They walked long distances, and saved money even on soap to wash their clothes. They could not afford communication, by mobile and internet. It would have been a disaster if they fell ill. For the two 26-year-olds, the experience of ‘official poverty’ was harrowing.

Yet, when their experiment ended with Deepavali, they wrote to their friends:

“Wish we could tell you that we are happy to have our ‘normal’ lives back. Wish we could say that our sumptuous celebratory feast two nights ago was as satisfying as we had been hoping for throughout our experiment. It probably was one of the best meals we’ve ever had, packed with massive amounts of love from our hosts. However, each bite was a sad reminder of the harsh reality that there are 400 million people in our country for whom such a meal will remain a dream for quite some time. That we can move on to our comfortable life, but they remain in the battlefield of survival — a life of tough choices and tall constraints. A life where freedom means little and hunger is plenty…

It disturbs us to spend money on most of the things that we now consider excesses. Do we really need that hair product or that branded cologne? Is dining out at expensive restaurants necessary for a happy weekend? At a larger level, do we deserve all the riches we have around us? Is it just plain luck that we were born into circumstances that allowed us to build a life of comfort? What makes the other half any less deserving of many of these material possessions, (which many of us consider essential) or, more importantly, tools for self-development (education) or self-preservation (healthcare)?

We don’t know the answers to these questions. But we do know the feeling of guilt that is with us now. Guilt that is compounded by the love and generosity we got from people who live on the other side, despite their tough lives. We may have treated them as strangers all our lives, but they surely didn’t treat us as that way…”

So what did these two friends learn from their brief encounter with poverty? That hunger can make you angry. That a food law which guarantees adequate nutrition to all is essential. That poverty does not allow you to realise even modest dreams. And above all — in Matt’s words — that empathy is essential for democracy.

Courtesy: Counter View
 

The post Two friends’ brief encounter with poverty taught them why food security is so essential for all appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A comparison of how the governments of these two countries manage food insecurity suggests that the key to resolving the South Asian enigma lies in the nourishment and sanitation of children in their first 1,000 days of life – from conception to their second birthday.
 

Support for pregnant women

The malnutrition of Indian children often starts in the womb. Just over half of adult Indian women are iron deficient, compared with 23% of Ethiopian women. Iron deficiency in pregnancy can lead to the child having a low weight and health problems.

One reason for the difference is the lack of support for poor pregnant women in India. India’s National Food Security Act, passed in 2013, ruled that all pregnant Indian women should receive a stipend of 6,000 rupees. But the money usually manages to cover only the costs of delivery. It is also given only in a woman’s first pregnancy, excluding more than half of India’s annual births.

Many poor Indian women bear heavy workloads throughout their pregnancies, which compromises both their own and their unborn children’s nourishment. In contrast, poor Ethiopian women receive support from the government-run Productive Safety Net Programme from the fourth month of pregnancy until their child’s first birthday.
 

Infant nutrition

As a result of the nutritional deficiencies in pregnancy, proportionally more children in India than in Ethiopia are born “very small”. This difference in average weight widens with age. While 36% of Indian children under five years old are underweight, only 24% of Ethiopian children are.

Different trends in child weaning in these countries contribute to the growing gap. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends supplementing infants with solid or semi-solid food after six months of age when breastmilk alone no longer meets their nutritional needs. But almost a third of Indian one-year-old children still consume only liquids.

Ivica Petrikova, Author provided

The Ethiopian government made nutrition education for parents an important part of the latest version of their Productive Safety Net Programme. Government-funded childcare centres, called Anganwadi centres, have traditionally provided nutrition education in India but their workers, mostly women, are severely underpaid and their service consequently poor.
 

Clean India

As well as unbalanced diets, children’s undernourishment across the world has been increasingly linked to sanitation. Both India and Ethiopia have suffered from high rates of open defecation, associated with frequent diarrhoea and slower growth among young children. 

Indian governments have tried to fight the practice by building toilets. As part of the latest Swachh Bharat (Clean India) campaign, millions of new latrines have been constructed.

But many Indian families refuse to use the toilets, often for reasons to do with caste. Sanitation work in India has traditionally been reserved for the lowest (“untouchable”) caste, as a result, many people from other castes are unwilling to clean or empty their own toilets and would rather defecate outside.

Narendra Modi launching Swachh Bharat. M Asokan/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Unlike the Indian government, the Ethiopian government approached open defecation as a public health problem and focused on providing sanitation and hygiene education. The approach was widely praised by the WHO as Ethiopia reduced open defecation rates from 92% in 1990 to 29% in 2015.

India’s reduction in that time frame was much smaller, from 70% to 46%. But even in the most recent sanitation campaign, India’s government devoted only 1% of the campaign’s budget to providing sanitation education to communities.

India sees itself as an emerging world power, but doubts about the direction of its development remain. The country’s global image would undoubtedly improve if it finally managed to overcome the South Asian enigma and substantially improved its food security. Ethiopia’s recent success in this respect indicates that focusing on the nutrition and sanitation of pregnant women and young children may be the most effective way forward.
 

Ivica Petrikova, Lecturer in International Relations and Development, Royal Holloway

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post What India could learn from Ethiopia about food security appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Smallholder agriculture in southern Ethiopia. Smallholder farmers are particularly vulnerable to food insecurity. Leah Samberg

Between 1990 and 2015, due largely to a set of sweeping initiatives by the global community, the proportion of undernourished people in the world was cut in half. In 2015, U.N. member countries adopted the Sustainable Development Goals, which doubled down on this success by setting out to end hunger entirely by 2030. But a recent U.N. report shows that, after years of decline, hunger is on the rise again.

As evidenced by nonstop news coverage of floods, fires, refugees and violence, our planet has become a more unstable and less predictable place over the past few years. As these disasters compete for our attention, they make it harder for people in poor,
marginalized and war-torn regions to access adequate food.

FAO

I study decisions that smallholder farmers and pastoralists, or livestock herders, make about their crops, animals and land. These choices are limited by lack of access to services, markets or credit; by poor governance or inappropriate policies; and by ethnic, gender and educational barriers. As a result, there is often little they can do to maintain secure or sustainable food production in the face of crises.

The new U.N. report shows that to reduce and ultimately eliminate hunger, simply making agriculture more productive will not be enough. It also is essential to increase the options available to rural populations in an uncertain world.
 

Conflict and climate change threaten rural livelihoods

Around the world, social and political instability are on the rise. Since 2010, state-based conflict has increased by 60 percent and armed conflict within countries has increased by 125 percent. More than half of the food-insecure people identified in the U.N. report (489 million out of 815 million) live in countries with ongoing violence. More than three-quarters of the world’s chronically malnourished children (122 million of 155 million) live in conflict-affected regions.

At the same time, these regions are experiencing increasingly powerful storms, more frequent and persistent drought and more variable rainfall associated with global climate change. These trends are not unrelated. Conflict-torn communities are more vulnerable to climate-related disasters, and crop or livestock failure due to climate can contribute to social unrest.

War hits farmers especially hard. Conflict can evict them from their land, destroy crops and livestock, prevent them from acquiring seed and fertilizer or selling their produce, restrict their access to water and forage, and disrupt planting or harvest cycles. Many conflicts play out in rural areas characterized by smallholder agriculture or pastoralism. These small-scale farmers are some of the most vulnerable people on the planet. Supporting them is one of the U.N.‘s key strategies for reaching its food security targets.

In September 2016 Viola Tabo fled her home in Lanya village, South Sudan, after government troops executed three of her brothers. She now cultivates vegetables to supplement refugees’ diet of maize and beans at Bidi Bidi camp. Trocaire, CC BY
 

Disrupted and displaced

Without other options to feed themselves, farmers and pastoralists in crisis may be forced to leave their land and communities. Migration is one of the most visible coping mechanisms for rural populations who face conflict or climate-related disasters.

Globally, the number of refugees and internally displaced persons doubled between 2007 and 2016. Of the estimated 64 million people who are currently displaced, more than 15 million are linked to one of the world’s most severe conflict-related food crises in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, South Sudan, Nigeria and Somalia.

While migrating is uncertain and difficult, those with the fewest resources may not even have that option. New research by my colleagues at the University of Minnesota shows that the most vulnerable populations may be “trapped” in place, without the resources to migrate.

Displacement due to climate disasters also feeds conflict. Drought-induced migration in Syria, for example, has been linked to the conflict there, and many militants in Nigeria have been identified as farmers displaced by drought.

Displaced persons in Azaz, Syria, Sept. 3, 2012. Research has linked climate-induced drought and internal migration to the Syrian civil war. VOA
 

Supporting rural communities

To reduce world hunger in the long term, rural populations need sustainable ways to support themselves in the face of crisis. This means investing in strategies to support rural livelihoods that are resilient, diverse and interconnected.

Many large-scale food security initiatives supply farmers with improved crop and livestock varieties, plus fertilizer and other necessary inputs. This approach is crucial, but can lead farmers to focus most or all of their resources on growing more productive maize, wheat or rice. Specializing in this way increases risk. If farmers cannot plant seed on time or obtain fertilizers, or if rains fail, they have little to fall back on.

Increasingly, agricultural research and development agencies, NGOs and aid programs are working to help farmers maintain traditionally diverse farms by providing financial, agronomic and policy support for production and marketing of native crop and livestock species. Growing many different locally adapted crops provides for a range of nutritional needs and reduces farmers’ risk from variability in weather, inputs or timing.

While investing in agriculture is viewed as the way forward in many developing regions, equally important is the ability of farmers to diversify their livelihood strategies beyond the farm. Income from off-farm employment can buffer farmers against crop failure or livestock loss, and is a key component of food security for many agricultural households.

Training, education, and literacy programs allow rural people to access a greater range of income and information sources. This is especially true for women, who are often more vulnerable to food insecurity than men.

Pakistani farmer reads a text alert on best farming practices. USAID Pakistan

Conflict also tears apart rural communities, breaking down traditional social structures. These networks and relationships facilitate exchanges of information, goods and services, help protect natural resources, and provide insurance and buffering mechanisms.
In many places, one of the best ways to bolster food security is by helping farmers connect to both traditional and innovative social networks, through which they can pool resources, store food, seed and inputs and make investments. Mobile phones enable farmers to get information on weather and market prices, work cooperatively with other producers and buyers and obtain aid, agricultural extension or veterinary services. Leveraging multiple forms of connectivity is a central strategy for supporting resilient livelihoods.

In the past two decades the world has come together to fight hunger. This effort has produced innovations in agriculture, technology and knowledge transfer. Now, however, the compounding crises of violent conflict and a changing climate show that this approach is not enough. In the planet’s most vulnerable places, food security depends not just on making agriculture more productive, but also on making rural livelihoods diverse, interconnected and adaptable.

World hunger is increasing thanks to wars and climate change

Smallholder agriculture in southern Ethiopia. Smallholder farmers are particularly vulnerable to food insecurity. Leah Samberg

Leah Samberg, University of Minnesota

Around the globe, about 815 million people – 11 percent of the world’s population – went hungry in 2016, according to the latest data from the United Nations. This was the first increase in more than 15 years.

Between 1990 and 2015, due largely to a set of sweeping initiatives by the global community, the proportion of undernourished people in the world was cut in half. In 2015, U.N. member countries adopted the Sustainable Development Goals, which doubled down on this success by setting out to end hunger entirely by 2030. But a recent U.N. report shows that, after years of decline, hunger is on the rise again.

As evidenced by nonstop news coverage of floods, fires, refugees and violence, our planet has become a more unstable and less predictable place over the past few years. As these disasters compete for our attention, they make it harder for people in poor, marginalized and war-torn regions to access adequate food.

FAO

I study decisions that smallholder farmers and pastoralists, or livestock herders, make about their crops, animals and land. These choices are limited by lack of access to services, markets or credit; by poor governance or inappropriate policies; and by ethnic, gender and educational barriers. As a result, there is often little they can do to maintain secure or sustainable food production in the face of crises.

The new U.N. report shows that to reduce and ultimately eliminate hunger, simply making agriculture more productive will not be enough. It also is essential to increase the options available to rural populations in an uncertain world.

Conflict and climate change threaten rural livelihoods

Around the world, social and political instability are on the rise. Since 2010, state-based conflict has increased by 60 percent and armed conflict within countries has increased by 125 percent. More than half of the food-insecure people identified in the U.N. report (489 million out of 815 million) live in countries with ongoing violence. More than three-quarters of the world’s chronically malnourished children (122 million of 155 million) live in conflict-affected regions.

At the same time, these regions are experiencing increasingly powerful storms, more frequent and persistent drought and more variable rainfall associated with global climate change. These trends are not unrelated. Conflict-torn communities are more vulnerable to climate-related disasters, and crop or livestock failure due to climate can contribute to social unrest.

War hits farmers especially hard. Conflict can evict them from their land, destroy crops and livestock, prevent them from acquiring seed and fertilizer or selling their produce, restrict their access to water and forage, and disrupt planting or harvest cycles. Many conflicts play out in rural areas characterized by smallholder agriculture or pastoralism. These small-scale farmers are some of the most vulnerable people on the planet. Supporting them is one of the U.N.‘s key strategies for reaching its food security targets.

In September 2016 Viola Tabo fled her home in Lanya village, South Sudan, after government troops executed three of her brothers. She now cultivates vegetables to supplement refugees’ diet of maize and beans at Bidi Bidi camp. Trocaire, CC BY

Disrupted and displaced

Without other options to feed themselves, farmers and pastoralists in crisis may be forced to leave their land and communities. Migration is one of the most visible coping mechanisms for rural populations who face conflict or climate-related disasters.

Globally, the number of refugees and internally displaced persons doubled between 2007 and 2016. Of the estimated 64 million people who are currently displaced, more than 15 million are linked to one of the world’s most severe conflict-related food crises in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, South Sudan, Nigeria and Somalia.

While migrating is uncertain and difficult, those with the fewest resources may not even have that option. New research by my colleagues at the University of Minnesota shows that the most vulnerable populations may be “trapped” in place, without the resources to migrate.

Displacement due to climate disasters also feeds conflict. Drought-induced migration in Syria, for example, has been linked to the conflict there, and many militants in Nigeria have been identified as farmers displaced by drought.

Displaced persons in Azaz, Syria, Sept. 3, 2012. Research has linked climate-induced drought and internal migration to the Syrian civil war. VOA

Supporting rural communities

To reduce world hunger in the long term, rural populations need sustainable ways to support themselves in the face of crisis. This means investing in strategies to support rural livelihoods that are resilient, diverse and interconnected.

Many large-scale food security initiatives supply farmers with improved crop and livestock varieties, plus fertilizer and other necessary inputs. This approach is crucial, but can lead farmers to focus most or all of their resources on growing more productive maize, wheat or rice. Specializing in this way increases risk. If farmers cannot plant seed on time or obtain fertilizers, or if rains fail, they have little to fall back on.

Increasingly, agricultural research and development agencies, NGOs and aid programs are working to help farmers maintain traditionally diverse farms by providing financial, agronomic and policy support for production and marketing of native crop and livestock species. Growing many different locally adapted crops provides for a range of nutritional needs and reduces farmers’ risk from variability in weather, inputs or timing.

While investing in agriculture is viewed as the way forward in many developing regions, equally important is the ability of farmers to diversify their livelihood strategies beyond the farm. Income from off-farm employment can buffer farmers against crop failure or livestock loss, and is a key component of food security for many agricultural households.

Training, education, and literacy programs allow rural people to access a greater range of income and information sources. This is especially true for women, who are often more vulnerable to food insecurity than men.

Pakistani farmer reads a text alert on best farming practices. USAID Pakistan

Conflict also tears apart rural communities, breaking down traditional social structures. These networks and relationships facilitate exchanges of information, goods and services, help protect natural resources, and provide insurance and buffering mechanisms.

In many places, one of the best ways to bolster food security is by helping farmers connect to both traditional and innovative social networks, through which they can pool resources, store food, seed and inputs and make investments. Mobile phones enable farmers to get information on weather and market prices, work cooperatively with other producers and buyers and obtain aid, agricultural extension or veterinary services. Leveraging multiple forms of connectivity is a central strategy for supporting resilient livelihoods.

In the past two decades the world has come together to fight hunger. This effort has produced innovations in agriculture, technology and knowledge transfer. Now, however, the compounding crises of violent conflict and a changing climate show that this approach is not enough. In the planet’s most vulnerable places, food security depends not just on making agriculture more productive, but also on making rural livelihoods diverse, interconnected and adaptable.
 

Leah Samberg, Research Associate, Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post World hunger is increasing thanks to wars and climate change appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
This is the last in a long line of historic orders by the Supreme Court on relief to drought affected persons/districts. Beginning from May last year, there have been five significant orders where the Honorable Court has pointed out the failures of the state and central governments in implementing existing legal provisions which could mitigate the impact of the drought on people as well as has issued directions for additional relief for affected areas. The latest order passed on July 21, 2017, is a strong indictment of the failure of the central and state governments towards fulfilling their obligations in implementing the National Food Security Act. 
 
The Judgement has pointed out that there is an urgent need for the state governments to take this legislation seriously and put in place all the mechanisms required for its implementation in true letter and spirit. On the other hand, the Central government also cannot abdicate all responsibility by placing the blame on the states. “Record  indicates  that  a combined effort, both by Center and States, needs to be taken for  effective  implementation  of  the  Act  especially  in  the draught affected areas so as to save people from abject poverty and poor quality of life.” 

Quotes from SC Order, July 21, 2017
 
“What use is a law passed by Parliament if State Governments and Union Territories do not implement it at all, let alone implement it in letter and spirit.” 
 
“If the State Governments and Union Territories decide that they do not wish to abide by a law enacted by Parliament for the benefit of the people, perhaps some other solution may have to be found but we hope that no State Government or Union Territory disregards the will of Parliament.”
 
“A law enacted by Parliament as a part of its social justice obligation  must  be  given  its  due  respect  and  must  be  implemented faithfully and sincerely and positively before the end of this year”
 
In the previous hearing held in March 2017, the Supreme Court had asked Chief Justices of nine states to appear personally before the Court and explain the delays in implementation of the NFSA, especially the provisions related to Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM).The current judgement has been passed after the bench heard all the states and the central government in this regard. The Supreme Court has specifically ordered that the Secretary, Ministry of Food, Government of India must ensure that state governments, by the end of this year: 

• Notify rules for GRM under NFSA, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Act 
• Appoint State Food Commissions, with independent charge not additional charge being given to existing commissions (unless unavoidable), 
• Appoint independent District Grievance Redress officers, who have nothing to do with the implementation of the schemes under the NFSA
• Appoint vigilance committees, and 
• Set up a mechanism for conducting social audits

 
The SC Judges have expressed deep dissatisfaction that the provisions in the NFSA in spite of being mandatory have not been fully implemented by some States even almost four years since the Act has been passed. The intention of the governments to implement the provisions of a law enacted by Parliament has been questioned by the Court. Further, the Court has pointed out that setting up independent and transparent grievance redress machinery is at the core of ensuring that the entitlements reach people.
 
The states that were asked to be present in Court in March 2017 were Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Bihar, Haryana and Chhattisgarh. The Judgement expressed deep anguish with the state of Haryana whose affidavit argued that there is hardly any work for the State Food Commission. “One can only feel sorry for the people in Haryana”is what they had to say in this regard.
 
The directives in the Swaraj Abhiyan case underscore the depressing reality that several State governments have not met key requirements in the legislation which empower the common person in securing subsidised food. Sections 14, 15 and 16, which require the setting up of a grievance redress mechanism and a State Food Commission with responsibility to monitor the implementation of the law, have been heeded only in name, as in Haryana, or not at all. Union Food Minister Ram Vilas Paswan’s claim last November that the Act covers the entire country is, therefore, not consistent with the facts.

As the court has pointed out, Article 256, which casts a responsibility on the States and the Union to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament, also provides the remedy, as it can be invoked by the Centre to set things right. Unfortunately, the NFSA, which is vital for social security through the Public Distribution System and child welfare schemes, has suffered due to a lack of political will.
 
As a law with egalitarian goals, the NFSA should have set the floor for food security through the principle of universal access, though not every citizen would need it. There is great merit in providing highly subsidised foodgrains to targeted households chosen by the State governments, with a ceiling of 75% of the population in rural areas and 50% in urban areas. But the system should have in-built mechanisms to allow for the entry of new households that suddenly find themselves in financial distress, while others can exit it based on changed circumstances.

Such arrangements can be made only when there is a full-fledged, independent machinery in the form of a Food Commission, and district-level grievance redress, besides social audits. All these are provided for under the Act, but have been ignored.

Modernisation of the PDS, with the use of information technology, could incorporate such dynamic features to the supply of subsidised food to those who need it, and eliminate deficiencies and fraud. Now that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution has been given specific directives by the court to complete the unfinished tasks this year, it should make up for lost time. Food Ministry data presented to Parliament show that the present system does not reflect the true scale of public grievances, with a mere 1,106 complaints received from beneficiaries nationwide in 2016, including those reported in the media.

The post Food for Thought: SC Raps Central & State Govts on Indifference to Food Security appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Famine killed nearly 75 million people in the 20th century, but had virtually disappeared in recent decades. Now, suddenly, it is back. In late February a famine was declared in South Sudan, and warnings of famine have also recently been issued for Somalia, Nigeria and Yemen.

Moreover, in January the Famine Early Warning System (FEWSNET) – a U.S. government-funded organization created in 1985 specifically to predict famines and humanitarian emergencies – estimated that 70 million people affected by conflicts or disasters worldwide will need food assistance in 2017. This number has increased by nearly 50 percent in just the past two years.

What explains this rapid rise in the number of people who need emergency food assistance? And why, in an era of declining poverty and hunger worldwide, are we suddenly facing four potential famines in unconnected countries?

What are famines?

Famines are extreme events in which large populations lack adequate access to food, leading to widespread malnutrition and deaths. More of these deaths are caused by infectious disease than starvation because severe malnutrition compromises human immune systems. This makes people much more susceptible to killer diseases such as measles, or even common conditions such as diarrhea. Young children are especially vulnerable.

Experts now agree on three characteristics that define a famine:

• At least 20 percent of households in a given group face extreme food deficits, with no ability to cope;

• At least 30 percent of children in a given group are acutely malnourished, meaning that their weight is dangerously low compared to their height; and

• Mortality rates exceed two people per 10,000 population per day. For comparison, a noncrisis rate in contemporary sub-Saharan Africa would be about 0.3.
   

People affected by famine may also experience other impacts, including widespread hunger, loss of assets, the breakdown of social support networks, distress migration and destitution.

The last large-scale famines affected the Horn of Africa in 1984-85 and 1992, and North Korea in the mid-1990s. Since that time, only one large-scale famine has occurred: a devastating crisis in southern Somalia in 2011 that killed a quarter of a million people.

Click to zoom. Famine Early Warning Systems Network
 

Human-made emergencies

For many years experts believed that famines were caused by a shortfall in food availability. Then in 1981 economist/philosopher Amartya Sen published “Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation,” which showed that famines actually resulted when food was available but  some groups could not access it. Although many people believe today that famines occur mostly in Africa, the deadliest famines of the 20th century were in Europe (Ukraine) and Asia (China).

Today we recognize famines happen only with some degree of human complicity. Some analysts assert that famines are crimes of either commission or omission, because human decisions and actions determine whether a crisis deteriorates into a full-blown famine. They also contend that we cannot eradicate famine without holding people who cause it accountable. 

Famines typically have multiple causes. They can include climatic factors such as drought, economic shocks such as rapid inflation, and violent conflict or other political causes. Their impacts are more severe when underlying factors make some groups more vulnerable.

Mortality during famines may be exacerbated by conflict and displacement. Deliberately cutting off access to food is often a means of war. It is not a coincidence that the threat of famine in South Sudan, northeastern Nigeria, Yemen and Somalia is occurring in the midst of protracted, violent conflicts.
 

For example, the 2011 famine in Somalia was caused by a severe drought, a dramatic spike in the cost of food and devastating loss of purchasing power, and conflict. These occurred on top of long-term environmental degradation, deteriorating opportunities in agricultural and pastoral livelihoods, and the absence of a central state authority.

One party to the conflict, Al Shabaab, was an armed group that the United States and other countries labeled as a foreign terrorist organization. Al Shabaab controlled people’s movements and access to markets, and excluded or directly threatened many humanitarian agencies.

External donor governments prioritized containing the terrorist threat, and warned that any stolen or diverted aid that ended up in the hands of Al Shabaab would be treated as a criminal offense. These policies made it extremely difficult for humanitarian agencies to assist groups affected by the famine.

This combination of human-made factors thwarted adequate prevention or response measures until the famine declaration provoked a more vigorous response. By then, the number of people being killed by the famine had already peaked. Not surprisingly, the most marginalized groups within Somali society were the worst affected.

Famines are recurring today because once again, conflicts and natural disasters such as drought are converging in vulnerable areas. Shortened recovery cycles between recurrent crises – due partly to climate change – leave ever-larger groups more vulnerable.
 

Better warning systems

Famines result from cumulative processes we can observe and predict. That means we can prevent them through timely public action.

Early warning systems such as FEWSNET monitor agricultural production and rainfall trends, commodity markets and price trends, and conflicts. They also track trends in food access, malnutrition or mortality, and labor migration among at-risk populations.

Governments and humanitarian agencies can use this information to prevent or limit famines. Since the 1950s, food aid has been the main tool for responding to famines. Producer countries ship food to countries in crisis, and humanitarian organizations like the World Food Programme deliver it to affected populations.

Now we are paying more attention to protecting people’s livelihoods to help them cope with crisis and recover afterwards. Cash transfers have become the primary form of aid, although the U.S. government also provides food aid.

Ready-to-use therapeutic foods – high-energy pastes typically made from peanuts, oils, sugar and milk powder – have significantly improved treatment of acutely malnourished children. Actions in other sectors, including water and health, are helping the humanitarian community prevent and respond to famines.
 

Acting in time

Nonetheless, even when famines and food access crises are predicted, governments, donors and humanitarian agencies often fail to head them off – a pattern known as the “early warning/late response” problem. Sometimes it is due to negligence or bureaucratic inertia. More frequently there are political reasons, or armed conflict blocks access to affected populations. And donor nation policies may limit where assistance can go for political and security reasons.

Today the situation is urgent. Humanitarian aid budgets have not kept up with needs in recent years.

Some governments in affected countries and donor nations are gearing up responsibly to meet this problem. Others are not, or are sending unclear signals. While the U.S. is responding to the current crisis, foreign aid is one of many areas in which the Trump administration has proposed major cuts.

Even when enough resources are available, more must be done to deliver it to people who need it. This means working out measures to ensure access before crises deteriorate into famine. National governments and even rebel groups should renew their commitment to International Humanitarian Law, which guarantees civilians caught in conflict the right to assistance, expressly forbids the use of food as a weapon of warfare and provides support for efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts. Timely action based on early warning can avert major crises and save resources and lives – but it requires political commitment and constant vigilance.

Peter Hailey, founding director of the Centre for Humanitarian Change in Nairobi and former Chief of Nutrition for UNICEF Somalia, contributed to this article.

Daniel Maxwell, Henry J. Leir Professor in Food Security, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post Famines in the 21st century? It’s not for lack of food appeared first on SabrangIndia.