The draft Food Security Act, which was to be introduced in the Parliament?s winter session this year, is reportedly delayed. Against the backdrop of a drought, interestingly, the problem is not so much whether there are sufficient food stocks to distribute, but the dissent lies in divergence in estimates of intended beneficiaries. In principle, the right to food has been accepted by all, the question is who gets this statutory right, an issue with significant fiscal and social implications.

So what is the Food Security Act all about? FAO defines food security such that ?all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life?, a comprehensive objective for the state. The concept note circulated by the Centre in June states that ?While the proposed National Food Security Act would seek to ensure food security for all citizens in the country, its provisions will focus primarily on the weaker sections of the society, i.e. the Below Poverty Line (BPL) families which otherwise may at times face food insecurity?. The government therefore has sought to whittle down the scope of the Act: only the most vulnerable sections of society will ?have a legally enforceable right to food that guarantees sufficient food for them?. It is proposed by the Centre that every family living below the poverty line in rural and urban areas will be entitled, by law, to 25 kg of rice or wheat per month at Rs 3 per kg.

The major point of dispute lies in the estimates of eligible households. The Centre aims to give the right to food to 6.52 crore families constituting the BPL category according to the Planning Commission?s estimates, i.e. 36% of India?s households. The states have, however, issued ration cards to 10.68 crore households. The concept note points out how some states in the south have almost 100% coverage of population under the BPL category. Under this Act, the Centre seeks to set the limit of eligible households by its own standards for a period of five years.

The problem is that there are huge variations in poverty estimates, depending on the methodology used to define poverty level. So while the Tendulkar committee set up by the Planning Commission recently set poverty at 38% of the population, the 2007 Arjun Sengupta Committee fixed the level at 77%. The NC Saxena Expert Group for the 2009 Census of BPL households in rural areas puts the estimate at 50%, but says that 80% of rural households would be more appropriate if the calorie consumption is to be 2,400 calories in rural areas (see table).

One point is clear: the bulk of India?s population is poor and suffers from food insecurity. According to the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), India is home to the world?s largest food insecure population; we rank 66th among 88 developing countries on the Global Hunger Index. Not one state in India has low or even moderate levels of hunger; 12 states fall into the ?alarming? category and Madhya Pradesh has an ?extremely alarming? level of hunger. Bihar and Jharkhand have hunger index levels lower than Zimbabwe and Haiti, while Madhya Pradesh falls between Ethiopia and Chad. These are the states where household access to the current PDS is so low that the system hardly makes any impact on mitigating nutritional deficiencies. States like Tamil Nadu and Kerala which have almost universal coverage of population under PDS have efficiently organised systems, and this is reflected in their better health indicators as well.

The reason behind limiting coverage of the Act has to be fiscal, and the Centre should admit that outrightly. Under the present PDS, the higher estimates of BPL population can raise the food subsidy bill by 25% to 140%, depending on which estimate is used. However these estimates assume that the PDS continues in its present form. Instead of looking at the high subsidy costs as a deterrent, the Centre should keep the spirit behind a Food Security Act foremost in mind?systems set up should be decentralised and allow greater flexibility to the states with the idea for organisational cost savings. A simple example is to distribute coarse cereals, pulses, fruits and vegetables suited to the local conditions through a revamped, new PDS, rather than use rice or wheat transported long distances from other states.

In fact, if the primary responsibility of providing food security is to lie with the state governments, as the Act proposes, why not minimise the role of the Centre to being a facilitator, rather than a controller of the whole food stock trade and distribution? There is much to be said for making the right to food a universal right and there is ample evidence to show that targeted systems increase the scope of corruption. Clearly, the Food Security Act is an important step forward, but it should not narrow its focus and result in two steps back in the battle against hunger in this country.

?The author is chief economist, Indicus Analytics and can be contacted at sumita@indicus.net