Opinion Acts and intentions

The MGNREGA experience demonstrates that a programme of this magnitude does not hit the ground running. While it is important to begin this process,the programme will take some time to establish firm roots,possibly even up to three years. The finance ministry estimate that the Food Security Act will cost less than Rs 15,000 crore this fiscal,in addition to the existent spending on the public distribution system,is correct. Unfortunately,this is not well known or publicised. If it were,perhaps the flight of $10 billion of investment in debt instruments from India could have been avoided. Since foreign equity investment did not leave India in nearly the same magnitude, to say that the outflow was speculative is correct. But,as the Koreans argued at the Seoul G-20 meetings,this is not helpful because shadow banking is not subject to central bank regulation. Rather than rubbishing domestic policies,we must recognise this as a weakness of the global financial system and address it.

As for the implementation of the Food Security Act,there are two main challenges that need to be addressed before the programme can fully come into effect: last mile delivery,and the production and procurement of adequate food. In a large,federal country like ours,the nitty gritty of distribution will vary with the local terrain,PDS traditions,schools,public health centres and the strength of people’s institutions such as NGOs,the press and panchayati raj agencies. In the past,where PDS coverage was low,the most deserving recipients were left out of its net. The new piece of legislation takes care of this problem.

What about the supply of food? The act will have a direct impact on the demand for foodgrains. It is true that cereals do not provide adequate nutrition as they are not good sources of protein or minerals. But textbook economics tells us that if one spends less on foodgrains,it frees up income,which could then be spent on other food items. So the demand for sugar,edible oil,fruit,vegetables,milk,eggs and meat will go up. Poor people could consider buying these with the money they will save on foodgrains.

What about food supply? The agriculture ministry has already reminded us of the increased importance of technology,good quality inputs and a strong supply chain. Land and water are scarce resources,and the land acquisition legislation,a much delayed reform,will result in higher costs of land. Introducing new technology in farming and animal husbandry,in the form of high-yielding seeds,animal feed and scientific methods of breeding,is critically important. The arguments against high yield and Bt technologies are serious roadblocks. We have to be able to grow more grain utilising less land,so that some acreage can be freed up to cultivate other crops.

In Gujarat’s tribal belt,the cultivation of Bt maize has resulted in a 12-fold rise in yields. Rajendra Paroda,a distinguished agricultural scientist,whose work on soya transformed agriculture in MP and Bundelkhand,was one of the few people who pushed integrated plans to raise the yield potential of different agro-climatic zones in India. This was when foodgrain production plateaued during the late 1980s. Without the efforts of stalwarts like him,we would not have been in any position to operationalise food security. There is a strong case for implementing regulations on Bt crops,drafted by the Central department of biotechnology in 1998. These regulations are even more stringent than those prevailing in the US or China. The demand for a new regulatory structure may have merit,considering the changes that have taken place in trade protocols. But to hold limited field trials of the new technologies,under the draft regulations,and then raise the spectre of unspecified potential threats is irrational in the extreme. Hopefully,sense will prevail and we will face the reality of having to ensure food supplies for high growth and lower malnutrition rates.

The writer is chancellor,Central University of Gujarat express@expressindia.com