The last word on the UPA government?s showpiece food security law is yet to be said, with the Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC) deciding to formally give a thumbs down to the PMEAC committee report which had termed the council?s version of the scheme as unfeasible and proposed significant dilutions. NAC has prepared a note, rebutting the views expressed by the committee appointed by the Prime Minister and would hand it over to Gandhi on February 25.
The C Rangarajan panel had contended that Above Poverty Line (APL) beneficiaries of subsidised grains needed to be kept out of the ambit of the bill because of low procurement of grain. The NAC has contested the figures on which the panel?s contention is based.
Speaking to FE, NC Saxena, a member of the NAC, the Rangarajan Committee?s estimate on procurement levels was based on just one set of data which the government’s own economic survey does not quite corroborate. ?They went through the figures for the last five years and concluded that there was a shortage of nearly 7 million tonnes of grain and therefore the NAC draft was not feasible in terms of coverage. We went through the economic survey and discovered that there has been an export of nearly 7-14 million tonnes of cereal last year, so what shortage are we talking about?? he asked.
?The government appears as though it does not want to feed its own people,? Saxena added. ?Instead of restricting entitlements, why cant it ask biscuit manufacturers to import a part of their grain requirements, say 10%?,? he added.
Saxena says that the Public Distribution system (PDS) appears to be a good source of supply for the flour mills. ?For example if we look at the offtake of wheat and rice in Bihar, which is primarily a rice eating area, there is more offtake of wheat, which demonstrates and clear case of diversion to the mills,? he said.
?The main issue is not of entitlements but of these entitlements reaching the people. The ministry does not appear keen on PDS reforms and hence there is talk of APL and Below Poverty Line entitlements,? he said.
The Rangarajan panel highlighted constraints of food grain availability and procurement mechanism to contend that the largesse as conceived by NAC might not be feasible. Under the NAC proposal, 75% of the country?s population will get legal entitlement to subsidised food grain by 2013-14 ? 7 kg per person for ?priority households? and 4 kg per person for general households. The Rangarajan panel, however, argued that NAC had underestimated the food grain requirement for such an ambitious programme and ignored the fact that if procurement is stepped up beyond a limit, it could lead to distortions in the open market. The panel recommended limiting the programme to assured delivery of food grain at Rs 2/kg for wheat and Rs 3/kg for rice to the ?really needy households.?
With the divergence of opinion on the extent and scope of the food security scheme between the two most powerful centres of the UPA establishment, it is uncertain how the programme would eventually pan out.
In fact, Saxena recently told FE that the bill will take another year before being finalised as the contentious issues are related to entitlement, procurement, enforcement and identification of the poor. The Rangarajan committee, on the other hand, had kept millets out of the framework besides suggesting a reduction in the quantity of the foodgrains and the number of APL families who would be entitled to these.