Tamil Nadu stands to lose at least six lakh tonnes of rice from the Central allotment annually if the National Food Security Bill, introduced in Lok Sabha on Thursday, is adopted in its present form.
On an average, the Central government provides the State around 35.6 lakh tonnes of rice annually under three categories – Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY), Below Poverty Line (BPL) and Above Poverty Line (APL). It fixes a quota for each category and fixes different prices for the three categories.
As part of the Bill, two categories of people – general households (GHH) and priority households (PHH) – will be covered. Seventy five per cent of rural population and 50 per cent of urban population will be eligible for entitlements. Of them, 48 per cent of the rural population and 28 per cent of the urban population will be designated as PHHs. Adopting these yardsticks, the total allocation will be around 29 lakh tonnes a year.
[Under the proposed law, the price of rice for PHHs is Rs.3 per kg and 50 per cent of derived minimum support price for rice for GHHs. However, the State government will continue its free rice scheme.]
To tide over the gap, the State government will have to address two major issues – availability and cost. In the country, major rice millers are available only in three other States – Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Chhattisgarh. A senior official says that the shortfall of six lakh tonnes cannot be bridged that easily. Even assuming that the price of rice is Rs.20 per kg, the additional cost will be Rs.1,200 crore.
But, the financial burden is going to be higher as the actual requirement of the State is 39.6 lakh tonnes. After the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam government, in June, launched the scheme of supplying 20 kg rice free, the monthly requirement has gone up. During 2010-2011, the monthly average supply of rice was 3.17 lakh tonnes. Now, it is around 3.4 lakh tonnes.
At present, the State government procures the remaining four lakh tonnes through measures such as rice purchase under the Open Market Sale Scheme of the Food Corporation of India. If the Bill becomes a law, it has to shell out additional money to procure this quantity. This will push up the cost. It is for this reason that Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, in her recent letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, pointed out that the State government would have to incur a total expenditure of Rs. 1,800 crore additionally a year, the official explains.
If one were to calculate the requirements on the basis of individual entitlement, as envisaged in the Bill, another five lakh tonnes of rice will be required. In total, the State would have to meet the gap of 15 lakh tonnes a year.
For arriving at the overall additional quantity figure, it has been assumed that apart from meeting the norms envisaged in the Bill [seven kg per person per month for PHHs and three kg per person per month for GHHs], those cardholders who will be excluded from the proposed categories of PHHs and GHHs will be given 20 kg rice per month and GHHs will get one more kg per person per month. As per the State government's policy, four kg rice is given to every adult a month.
In the Bill, there are other areas of concern to the State government. Given the fact that one half of the State's population lives in urban areas, the stipulation of the coverage of 50 per cent of urban population means that a quarter of the State's population - about 1.8 crore - will straightaway be ineligible to receive the Central subsidy.
Another issue is the identification of PHHs and GHHs. According to the Bill, the Central government will determine the State-wise number of the overall rural and urban population to be covered. It will also prescribe the guidelines for identification of the beneficiary groups as well as exclusion. Within the State-wise number fixed, the States will have to identify PHHs and GHHs.
In principle, the State government is against the Targeted Public Distribution System. So, it is following the Universal PDS and supplying rice free to 1.85 crore families. Moreover, a senior official who has been handling the subject of food wonders that in the absence of data on PHHs and GHHs, how the legislation can be implemented.
Another official says that as the State government gives edible oil and pulses at subsidised rates, the determination of entitlements of beneficiaries should also be made on the basis of calorific value of such condiments, not merely that of rice. This calls for a suitable correction in the quantity of rice to be supplied to the beneficiaries.
