2008 was a rotten year for food prices. Prices climbed so high that very few could eat as well as they might have. The worst hit were families that came to cities and towns looking for jobs. From growing their own food, even if it was on one-acre plots, they had shifted to the market economy where food could only be bought from shops. With prices being what they were, depending on shops meant misery and malnutrition all round.
But the financial crisis of 2009 may not hit these urban poor as much. And things would only get better from now on, says the US government. But will it?
A new report by the US Department of Agriculture says:
"The Asian food-security outlook over the next 10 years indicates that just over 20 percent of this region’s population will remain food insecure. After averaging 2 percent per year throughout the 1990s, Asia’s population growth is projected to slow to about 1.4 percent per year through the next decade, thereby reducing pressure on resources. The expected improvement in the food-security situation in India will be the dominant factor in this projection. In 2000, an estimated 20 percent of India’s population fell short of nutritional requirements. By 2018, however, this share is projected to be only 10 percent, or 135 million people.
The country’s population growth, which averaged about 1.7 percent per year during the 1990s, is projected to average under 1.4 percent during the next decade. The Government of India places a high priority on reducing poverty and improving food security by raising agricultural productivity. The country’s economic and trade reforms in the 1990s helped to improve agricultural production incentives, but overregulation of domestic markets has increased costs, limiting incentives in the agricultural sector. The potential to increase food production is large, however. Currently, India’s yields for rice, a staple food, are at a level about one-third of China’s and one-half of those in Vietnam and Indonesia."
The report basically makes the point that with slower population growth and better farm productivity, India can manage alright. In short, grow more food and reduce the number of mouths. And voila, you have a solution.
My point is what about shop-bought food in cities. Shops could be overflowing with grains, milk, fruits, vegetables, but if a family doesn't have enough money to buy, what's changed? And this will be the story of more and more families who migrate to cities, where costs of living are significantly higher compared to villages. Until these families are able to earn more, they will continue to remain food insecure. That means they will each eat less than 2100 calories a day, the minimum needed to stay alive and do your normal work.
And millions more will join their ranks in the coming years. We all know the reasons why. Poverty is getting worse in our cities. India and China together have 37% of the world's slums, by the way.
To make matters worse, income disparities are increasing. When a large number of people can afford to buy ordinary parmal rice at Rs 50/kg while an equally large number finds even Rs 2/kg a burden because they earn less than Rs 50 a day, you know the gap will soon widen to breaking point. Even ration shops are now harder to find in cities while slums are rapidly bloating.
The financial slowdown in 2009, in fact, seems like a weapn of destruction specifically targeted at the urban poor.When factories, shops, small businesses and services cut costs, their least paid and least skilled employees are the first to get axed. Contractors at building sites lay off entire families with alacrity. All this means that people who were able to make do last year, are now on the streets, desperate and hopeless. The rise in urban thefts, crime and alcoholism are symptoms of this fresh trauma in 2009.
Unless we do something to help the urban poor directly, I don't think we can reduce India's food insecurity in any significant way. Last time I checked, no one was paying too much attention to the urban poor. All the schemes and subsidies - credit, healthcare, insurance, housing, education, employment, self-help groups, and income transfers - were all directed at rural India.
We seem to assume that by simply moving out of its village, a family automatically reaches Emerald City, that beautiful capital of the Land of Oz, and is therefore, in no further need of our attention. But poverty is a far more dogged companion. And equally ugly everywhere. It's time charity began closer home.
POSTED BY: PALLAVI SINGH
PGDM 3 SEM, 'B'
No comments:
Post a Comment