TOWARDS A DECENTRALISED GRAIN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
MEDAK DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA
INTERIM REPORT
15 April 2002
A. J. James[1]
With contributions from
Barbara Adolph[2], K. Lalita[3],Thimma Reddy[4], Jagannath Rao4, Uma Shankari4, K.S.Gopal4, Ramam[(], Jayaraj5, and the villagers of Mirjapur (N)
CONTENTS
SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………………………….6
1. INTRODUCTION 15
1.1 Project Description 15
1.1.1 Project Summary, Purpose and Research Objective 15
1.1.2 Project Context 15
1.1.3 Project Contribution 16
1.1.4 Project Outputs 16
1.1.5 Project Activities 16
1.2 Current Status 17
1.3 Structure Of The Report 18
2. FOOD SECURITY ISSUES 19
2.1 Food Security And Insecurity 19
2.1.1 Hunger and Food 19
2.1.2 The Concept of Food Security 19
2.1.3 Food security for households and individuals 19
2.1.4 Food Insecurity and Poverty 20
2.1.5 Efforts to Combat Food Insecurity 20
2.2 Food Security Issues In India 20
2.2.1 Food Grain Production 20
2.2.2 The Public Distribution System and ‘Urban Bias’ 20
2.2.3 PDS and the Rural Poor 21
2.2.4 Rising Food Stocks and Household Food Insecurity 21
2.2.5 Seasonality of Household Food Insecurity 21
2.2.6 Employment Guarantee Schemes 22
2.2.7 Women and Food Security 22
2.2.8 Access to Food: Entitlements and Employment 23
2.2.9 Adverse Impacts of Cheap PDS Rice 23
2.2.10 Limits to Irrigated Agriculture 24
2.3 Problems In Grain Storage 24
2.3.1 Costs of Inadequate Storage 24
2.3.2 Types of Storage Losses 24
2.3.3 Traditional Storage in India 24
2.3.4 Improving Traditional Storage 25
2.3.5 Alternative Storage Methods 26
2.4 Grain Banks For Food Security 26
2.4.1 Grain Banks: The Janaseva Initiative 27
2.4.2 Grain Banks: the AP Participatory Tribal Development Projects 27
2.4.3 Food Entitlements: The Rice Credit Line Initiative 28
2.4.4 Stimulating Local Production: Fallow Land and Leased Land Programmes 28
3. BACKGROUND: CEC AND MIRZAPUR 31
3.1 Introduction 31
3.2 Background On Mirzapur 31
3.2.1 Location 31
3.2.2 Neighbouring Villages 31
3.2.3 Social Strata 31
3.2.4 Social and Economic Infrastructure 32
3.2.6 Cropping Pattern 32
3.3 History Of CEC Intervention In Mirzapur 32
3.3.1 The Mahila Sanghams (Women’s Self Help Groups) 32
3.3.2 Rice Loans 33
3.3.3 Fallow Land Redevelopment Programme 33
3.3.4 Leased Land Cultivation Programme 34
3.3.5 Sorghum Loans 34
3.3.6 Food Security Committee 34
3.3.7 Community Hall 34
3.3.8 Community Grain Bin 34
3.3.9 Milch Animal Distribution 35
3.3.10 Solar Light Distribution 35
3.3.11 Thresher Scheme 35
3.3.12 Sangham Activities 35
3.4 Learning From The Interaction 36
3.4.1 Problems with giving grain on credit 36
3.4.2 Discrimination within the sangham 36
4. THE COMMUNITY STORAGE BIN IN MIRZAPUR 37
4.1 Introduction 37
4.2 Economics Of Community Storage 37
4.2.1 Construction of the Bin 37
4.2.2 Operation of the Bin 37
4.3 Management Of The Bin 39
4.3.1 General Issues 39
4.3.2 Problems with Bin Construction 39
4.3.3 Purchase and Sale of Grain 41
4.4 Benefits Of The Community Bin To Stakeholders 41
4.4.1 Sorghum Purchasers 41
4.4.2 Sorghum Sellers 42
4.5 Sorghum Market Prices 42
4.6 Alternatives To The Community Storage Bin 44
4.6.1 Individual Storage Bins 44
4.6.2 Community Storage Structure 45
4.7 Link With Land Lease Programme 46
5. LEASED LAND CULTIVATION PROGRAMME 47
5.1 Introduction 47
5.2 Details Of Lease Land Prodution 47
5.2.1 The Leases 47
5.2.2 Crops Grown on Leased Land 47
5.3 Benefits From Leased Land Cultivation 48
5.3.1 Free Distribution of Grain 48
5.3.2 Wages from Leased Land Cultivation 49
5.3.3 Cash Income From Leased Land Production 49
5.4 Wider Benefits From The Leased Land Experience 50
5.4.1 Community Benefits 50
5.4.2 Sangham Benefits 50
5.4.3 Sangham Members’ Benefits 50
5.4.4 Sangham Workers’ Benefits 51
5.5 Issues Concerning Leased Land Production 51
5.5.1 Crop Failures 51
5.5.2 Crops for Sale versus Consumption 51
6. FALLOW LAND PRODUCTION 53
6.1 Introduction 53
6.2 Fallow Lands Development Programme 53
6.3 Perceived Benefits 53
6.4 Problems 54
7. ISSUES IN MIRZAPUR 55
7.1 Introduction 55
7.2 Lessons For CEC 55
7.2.1 Social Issues 55
7.2.3 Field level problems faced 56
7.3 Food Security In Mirzapur 56
7.4 Next Steps 58
REFERENCES 62
ANNEXURE 1: Itinerary of Review Mission 65
ANNEXURE 2: Details of Different Types of Storage Structures 66
ANNEXURE 3: A Profile of Kollur Village 68
ANNEXURE 4: A Profile of Thogapur Village 73
ANNEXURE 5: Detailed Costs of the Community Storage Bin in Mirzapur 81
ANNEXURE 7: Details of the Leased Land Programme in Mirzapur (N), 1999 – 2001 83
ANNEXURE 8: Beneficiaries of the Fallow Land Programme in Mirzapur, 1999 - 2001 84
ANNEXURE 9: Profits from Cultivation of Main Crops in Mirzapur 86
ANNEXURE 10: Details of Sangha Members in Mirzapur (N) 92
ANNEXURE 11: Case Studies from Mirzapur 92
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 : Improvements Suggested for Traditional Storage Structures 25
Table 4.1: Total Construction Costs and Annual O&M Costs of the Mirzapur Bin 37
Table 4.2: Purchases of Grain for the Mirzapur (N) Grain Bin, 1999 - 2001 38
Table 4.3: Withdrawals of Grain from the Mirzapur (N) Grain Bin, 1999 - 2001 38
Table 4.4: Revenue and Costs from Mirzapur Grain Bin, 1999 - 2001 39
Table 4.5: Estimated Costs of Repairing the Mirzapur Bin 40
Table 4.6: Sorghum Prices in Zaheerabad Market, October 1998 - January 2002 43
Table 4.6: Potential Savings from Community Storage Structure 45
Table 5.1: Details of the Leased Land Cultivation in Mirzapur, 1999 - 2001 47
Table 5.2: Area leased in Kharif and Rabi, 1999 – 2001, in Mirzapur 47
Table 5.3: Acreage Under Different Crops on Leased Land in Mirzapur, 1999 – 2001 48
Table 5.4: Leased Land Output Distributed to Sangham Members, Mirzapur, 1999 – 2001 48
Table 5.5: Wages in Kind Paid to Sangham Workers on Leased Land, Mirzapur, 1999 - 2001 49
Table 5.6: Cash Income from Leased Land Cultivation, Mirzapur, 1999 - 2001 49
Table 5.7: Costs, Revenues and Profits of Crops Cultivated in Mirzapur 52
Table 6.1: Area cultivated and output of fallow land, Mirzapur, 1999 - 2001 53
Table 7.1: Rice and Sorghum Consumption from Different Sources, Mirzapur, 2002 57
Table 7.2: Sorghum Consumption in Seven Case Study Households in Mirzapur 57
SUMMARY
· Project Background
The project titled ‘Decentralisation of Grain Storage’, funded by the Department of International Development (DFID), Government of the United Kingdom (UK), has three partner organisations: the Indian Grain Storage Management and Research Institute (IGMRI), Hyderabad, India, the Centre for Environmental Concerns (CEC), Hyderabad, India, and the Natural Resources Institute (NRI), Chatham, UK. The project began in July 2000 and is scheduled to end in April 2003.
· Project Objectives
The project aims to develop strategies that improve food security of poor households through increased availability and improved quality of cereals and pulse foods and better access to markets. Specifically, it seeks to examine the institutional arrangements associated with community-managed storage and distribution systems, as well as to resolve the technical requirements dictated by these systems for the storage of dry-land crops, and to draw wider lessons concerning decentralised, village-based approaches to the provision of food security.
· Project Activities
The project is focused on providing technical support to an NGO-managed UNDP village-level food security project. The UNDP project seeks to enhance the food security of vulnerable women and their households through group-based activities that enable women to access productive resources through the cultivation of fallow lands. This group formation will then be used as an institutional basis for storage, distribution and sale of commodities, as well as other activities that can contribute to livelihoods of these households. A menu of appropriate storage arrangements are to be selected and tested, that provide effective protection against serious grain deterioration.
· Project Outputs
Three distinct project outputs are expected.
· A set of validated recommendations for the establishment and administration of village-level institutions for food security and food distribution in the project target area.
· Validated storage technologies for sorghum appropriate to the needs of a decentralised approach to village-level food security and food distribution.
· Policy guidelines concerning decentralised, community-based approaches to the provision of village-level food security prepared.
Current Status
In January 2002, the project is roughly at its halfway stage, having completed a year and a half of work and with another a year and a half to go. Fieldwork has been initiated in 3 villages in Andhra Pradesh: (1) Mirzapur (N) in Nyalkal mandal of Medak district (2) Kollur in Jharasangam mandal of Medak district, and (3) Thogapur in Kosgi mandal of Mahboobnagar district. Following discussions between CEC staff, IGMRI staff and villagers, a food storage bin has been constructed in Mirzapur, and two are under construction in Kollur and Thogapur.
This Report
This report presents the findings of a joint review undertaken of project activities by consultants of NRI (UK), CEC and IGMRI staff in January / February 2002, consisting of (1) a review of the literature produced by CEC to date and (2) a brief field visit to Mirzapur to assess the socio-economic details of the operation of the (only) constructed grain storage bin (to date).
MAJOR POINTS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW
· Food Security
Food security is defined as “access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life…[whose] essential elements are the availability of food and the ability to acquire it”(World Bank, 1986). A wider definition of food security incorporates quality of life indicators and holds that food security implies livelihood security at the level of each household and all members within, and involves ensuring both physical and economic access to balanced diet, safe drinking water, environmental sanitation, primary education and basic health care. (UN, 1987)
Although food security is defined at various levels, global, national, regional, state, household and individual, food security at the national or regional level does not necessarily indicate food security among regions, communities, households and individuals. Household food security is the capacity of a household to access a stable and sustainable basket of food when it needs it. This requires putting in place necessary policies and actions to make adequate food available as well as accessible at the household level across seasons and transitory shortages (IFAD, 1996, pp. 3-4).
· Poverty and Food Security
Poverty is a major determinant of food insecurity, since physical availability alone does not ensure economic access to food. The poor do not always have adequate income to secure their access to food, even when food is available in local markets.
· Food Security Issues in India
Unlike the 1960s 1970s and 1980s, the 1990s saw a slow down in the growth of area under food grain as well as productivity per acre, causing per capita production level to stagnate. While per capita supply of food grains is often taken to be an indicator of household food security, such aggregation can mask inequitable access to food for the poor. The Public Distribution System (PDS) is an important part of Indian government efforts to address the food insecurity of its poor. However, its benefits go primarily to the urban areas and, by and large, it is extremely ineffective in tackling the food insecurity of the rural poor. Paradoxically, there is mounting hunger and recurring starvation deaths even when food grain stocks held by the government are increasing: despite the PDS about 80% of the rural poor are forced to buy food at high prices from the open market. While India may have achieved food security at the national level, it has not yet achieved it at the household level.
· Household Food Insecurity in India
‘Lean’ seasons, which do not offer income generation or employment opportunities, tend to affect the rural poor more than the rest of the year, especially in drought-prone semi-arid tracts. Though the stressful, lean season may span from a few days in a month to a few months, food scarcity increases prices, which put food out of the reach of the unemployed poor. The poor cope with such seasonal fluctuations in different ways: by giving priority to food crops like sorghum, by building up stores of assets, grain and livestock during good seasons, by falling back on familial and cultural relationships (or ‘social security nets’), by migration to urban areas, pawning or selling of assets, and, in dire circumstances, sale of farm land, wives or children. A succession of lean seasons can lead to extreme adverse effects like starvation deaths. Food insecurity, thus, continues in spite of government initiatives like the PDS and Employment Guarantee Schemes.
· Impacts of PDS on Cropping Patterns
The remunerative procurement prices offered by the government for wheat and rice has seen a shift in favour of fine cereal crops like rice and wheat and a consequent neglect of rain-fed dry land agriculture, which produces food crops like sorghum, pearl millet, and finger millet. Rain-fed agriculture in such resource-deficient semi-arid areas has historically been characterised by poor quality of land, variability of weather, high economic risks and uncertainty, scarcity of water for even life-saving irrigation, proneness to drought and other weather-related damage, low capacity for investment, low land and labour productivity, all of which result in low and uncertain production and consequently, small and varying profit margins. The further deterioration in the economic viability of rain-fed agriculture has drastically affected the livelihoods and hence food security of the people in these areas. Despite this, rain-fed agriculture is crucial to Indian food security as it currently sustains 40 percent of the human population and 60 percent of the cattle, and it also contributes 44 percent of total food production in the country. On the other hand, the area under irrigated agriculture is growing by less than one percent, limited by environmental constraints like spreading salinity and alkalinity of irrigated lands, and the vast financial resources needed to take up irrigation projects.
· Storage Losses
Even if sufficient food is produced, however, storage losses eat into food availability and can undercut efforts to bring about food security. In India, food grain wastage costs are estimated to be Rs. 230 billion (US$ 5.75 billion) per year. Inadequate storage facilities at the farm level are particularly problematic in India because (1) Farmers tend to retain a substantial proportion of their food crop output for self consumption, seed, feed or to pay wages in kind; and (2) farmers with inadequate storage facilities are usually compelled to sell their grain soon after harvest. Storage losses can be quantitative loss (a reduction in weight or volume) or qualitative, nutritional, hygienic or economic (since less money will be received for grain of poor quality).