FOOD SECURITY ATLAS - World Food Programme · 2017-07-05 · FOOD SECURITY ATLAS OF RURAL INDIA AN OVERVIEW UN World Food Programme (WFP) 2, Poorvi Marg Vasant Vihar New Delhi - 110057

FOOD SECURITY ATLASOF RURAL INDIA

AN OVERVIEW

UN World Food Programme (WFP)2, Poorvi MargVasant ViharNew Delhi - 110057

Institute for Human DevelopmentNIDM Building, IIPA Campus, 3rd Floor

Mahatma Gandhi Marg New Delhi – 110002

Copyright © 2011

UN World Food Programme (WFP)2, Poorvi MargVasant ViharNew Delhi - 110057

Published by:Institute for Human DevelopmentNIDM Building, IIPA Campus, 3rd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110002Website: www.ihdindia.org; Email: [email protected]

Design and Layout by:Mrityunjay Chatterjeee-mail: [email protected]

Printing by:PRINT-WAYSG-19, IInd Floor, Vijay Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 110 092Tel.: 011-22514076, 9990563789, 9899094076e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Maps are not to scale

ISBN 978-81-883315-32-1

Dedicated to Late Prof. Ashok Mathur

RESEARCH TEAM

Institute for Human Development

Dev NathanPreet Rustagi

Sandip SarkarSunil Kumar Mishra

Abhay Kumar

UN World Food Programme

Pradnya PaithankarBal Paritosh Dash

TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP (TAG)*

ChairpersonProf. Abhijit Sen, Member, Planning Commission

MembersDr. Indu Agnihotri Centre for Womens’ Development Studies, New Delhi

Dr. V. Athreya M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai

Prof. Ramesh Chand National Professor, National Centre for Agricultural Policy, New Delhi

Ms. Anita Chaudhuri Joint Secretary, Department of Food and Public Distribution

Prof. R. S. Deshpande Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore

Prof. Mahendra Dev Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad

Dr. Amaresh Dubey National Council for Applied Economic Research

Mr. N. D. George Director, Planning Commission

Prof. S. R. Hashim Director, Institute for Studies in Industrial Development, New Delhi

Dr. P. K. Joshi Director, National Centre for Agricultural Policy, New Delhi

Prof. K. P. Kannan Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvanthapuram

Prof. Amitabh Kundu Jawaharlal Nehru University

Dr. Minnie Mathew World Food Programme

Mr. A. K. Mathur Director, National Sample Survey Organisation

Prof. Aasha Kapur Mehta Chronic Poverty Research Centre, Indian Institute for Public Administration, New Delhi

Prof. T. S. Papola Institute for Studies in Industrial Development, New Delhi

Prof. R. Radhakrishna Indira Gandhi Institute for Development Research, Mumbai

Dr. D. Narsimha Reddy Former Professor, University of Hyderabad

Dr. Rukmini M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai

Prof. Vidya Sagar Institute for Development Studies, Jaipur

Dr. Abusaleh Shariff National Council for Applied Economic Research

Prof. A. K. Singh Giri Institute for Development Studies, Lucknow

Prof. R. S. Srivastava Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Prof. Prem Vashishtha Sarda University, Noida

1. The affiliation of the members above is as they were at the time of formation of the TAG.

Preface

India is home to more than a quarter of the hungry people in the world. The effect of climate change on agriculture will adversely affect Indian agriculture, thereby making food availability still scarcer. The existing production levels barely manage to keep pace with the growing population, a problem that is aggravated by high disparities in resources and purchasing power.

The changing scenario of rising food prices has raised new concerns about food security. It has been estimated that globally 130 million more people have become food insecure due to high food prices, in addition to the already existing 850 million. Soaring prices would require providing top priority to ensuring access to food to the most vulnerable, which can be achieved through expanded safety net programmes such as the Public Distribution System (PDS), and those programmes which address the nutritional status of pregnant and lactating women, and children of less than five years of age.

The prevalence of underweight children in India is amongst the highest in the world. According to UNICEF, malnutrition is more common in India than in Sub-Saharan Africa. One in every three malnourished children in the world lives in India. There are multiple causes for this phenomenon. Looking at the problem spatially, a relatively small number of states, districts, and villages account for a large share of the problem – 5 states and 50 percent of the villages account for about

80 percent of the malnutrition cases. Therefore, the need of the hour is a comprehensive strategy to tackle the growing menace of food and nutritional insecurity. In a country of continental dimensions with vast disparities, it is pertinent that developmental efforts be directed in specific directions and in specific areas for optimum utilization of resources.

To map food insecurity in the country, the UN World Food Programme had come out with a series of food insecurity atlases in collaboration with the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation. The most significant contribution of these atlases was to mainstream the issue of food security, besides identifying its incidence among the major states.

As a corollary to these atlases, on behalf of the WFP, the Institute for Human Development has prepared state specific atlases with comprehensive analysis at district and regional levels. Looking through the child nutrition lens, in view of prevalence of underweight children and under-five mortality, these atlases help in identifying the districts at various levels of food security within the most food insecure states. This will help in convergence of complementary programmes of the government in addressing under-nutrition and child mortality in the country.

We are deeply indebted to all the members of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG), constituted to provide direction and technical inputs to the report. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the TAG chairperson Prof. Abhijit Sen, Member, Planning Commission for his encouragement and deep involvement in this project. Much of the credit for bringing out this publication goes to Dr. Dev Nathan, Professor, and Dr. Preet Rustagi, Senior Fellow, who

coordinated the study from IHD; Dr. Sandip Sarkar, who provided the technical advice, especially the construction of the indices; and Dr. Sunil Mishra and Dr. Abhay Kumar who executed the work of calculation of indices and finalizing the report. We would also like to express our gratitude to Dr. Minnie Mathew, Head of Programme Unit, WFP-India for providing her guidance to the study; Dr. Nisha Srivastava, who led the project in WFP; and Ms. Pradnya Paithankar and Mr. Bal Paritosh Dash for providing their critical inputs. We hope that the atlases will serve as a tool for the government and policymakers to target interventions more effectively and fine-tune assistance strategies to target the most vulnerable groups and areas. An important outcome of this exercise is a systematic and integrated food security information system located within the state governments. Finally, it will enhance advocacy at the state level so as to direct policy focus, resources and initiatives to the most food insecure.

Alakh N. SharmaDirectorInstitute for Human Development

MihokoTamamuraRepresentative & Country Director

World Food Programme–India

Acknowledgements

The preparation of food security atlases for eight states and this Overview Report would not have been possible without the joint efforts of various organizations, individuals and government officials. The primary input for construction of the indices as well as formulation of appropriate indicators is reliable disaggregated sub-state level data, which was collected, collated and mined from secondary sources as well as based on information made available by various state departments and ministries. We wish to thank all of them for their support and assistance. We are grateful to the Department for International Development (DFID) for funding the project through the Global Institutional Support Grant to WFP.

The Chairperson of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG), Prof. Abhijit Sen, Member, Planning Commission and other members of the TAG deserve a special mention for all the deliberations in the meetings held and their expert advice to the research team from time to time. Many of them were also available at short notice to help us resolve problems, provide solutions and show the way forward. We wish to thank them all for their cooperation and support. Many of the TAG members gave us comments on very short notice for this overview analysis, we would like to thank them for this.

We would like to thank Mr. Michael Sheinkman, WFP Senior Regional Programme Adviser for Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping in WFP’s Regional Bureau at Bangkok for his presentation and participation at some of the state consultations.

The smooth execution of this project would not have been feasible without constant support and inspiration from Prof. Alakh N. Sharma, Director, IHD. We wish to thank him for his cooperation, ideas and discussions held during the entire period of the project.

We would like to thank Ms. Mihoko Tamamura, the current Representative and Country Director of WFP – India, Mr. Gian Pietro Bordignon, former Representative and Country Director, WFP-India and Mr. Dominique Frankefort, Deputy Country Director, WFP-India, for their encouragement at every stage.

We also wish to acknowledge the research and data support received from many individuals in the course of the project period. These include Ms. Piyali Das, who undertook the literature review during the initial phase of the project; Mr. Pinaki Joddar and Mr. Balwant Singh Mehta, who very ably mined large data sets of the NSSO for extracting relevant information and provided additional research inputs; we wish to thank all of them.

The support received from IHD administration for the series of reports needs to be acknowledged, especially Mr. Prem Chandra, Ms. Jyoti Girish, Ms. Madhavi Chauhan, Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Phalguni Singh. Mr. S.P. Sharma undertook all the typing and pagesetting work and Ms. Shashikala Menon did the copyediting. We wish to thank all of them. We thank Mr. Mrityunjay Chatterjee for designing and formatting and S P Printech for printing support.

IHD and WFP Research Team

Contents

ForewordPrefaceAcknowledgementsList of Tables, Figures, Maps and BoxesList of Abbreviations

Executive Summary i

1. Introduction 1

1.1 What is Food Security? 3 1.2 Overview of Report 6

2. Food Security Status 7

2.1 The Nutrition Debate 7 2.2 Undernutrition 10 2.3 Social Dimensions of Poverty 11 and Hunger

3. Analyzing Food Security: Identifying 15 Priority Districts

3.1 Measuring Food Security 15 – Methodology 3.2 Explaining Food Security 18 3.3 Priority Districts as Identified in 23 State Atlases 3.4 The Geography of Food Security 36 – A Consolidated Analysis

3.5 Nature of Food Insecure Regions 46 3.6 Overcoming Geography 46

4. Addressing Food Insecurity 54

4.1 Enhancing Availability 54 4.2 Improving Access 60 4.3 Increasing Absorption 70 4.4 Improving Performance 72 4.5 Cash and Asset Transfers 75 4.6 Food Insecurity Information System 76

5. Conclusion: Towards a Food Secure 78 Rural India

5.1 Linking Food Programmes and 78 Development 5.2 State Specific Strategies 82

References 86Appendix 1: The Right to Food 91Appendix 2: Food Security Index (FSI) 95 - A Methodological NoteAppendix 3: Datasets used for Calculation 99 of Indices and Index Values Appendix 4: Priority Districts Identified from the 109 Consolidated Analysis

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Comparison of Rural APCE between 55th and 61st Rounds

Table 2.2: Total and cereal calorie consumption by decile and quartile of per capita expenditure, rural India, 1999-2000 to 2004-05

Table 2.3: Nutrition Status of Children by Social Category in India, 2005-06

Table 2.4: India: Poverty Gap between Social Groups (percentage points)

Table 3.1: Correlation between Micronutrient Intake and Under- nutrition and MortalityStatus

Table 3.2: Priority Districts of Bihar for Food Security Interventions

Table 3.3: Priority Districts of Chhattisgarh for Food Security Interventions

Table 3.4: Priority Districts of Jharkhand for Food Security Interventions

Table 3.5: Priority Districts of Madhya Pradesh for Food Security Interventions

Table 3.6: Priority Districts of Maharashtra for Food Security Interventions

Table 3.7: Priority Districts of Odisha for Food Security Interventions

Table 3.8: Priority Districts of Rajasthan for Food Security Interventions

Table 3.9: Priority Districts of Uttar Pradesh for Food Security Interventions

Table 3.10: Identified Number of Priority Districts across Eight States

Table 3.11: Level of Agricultural Development

Table 3.12: Environmental Limitations to Agricultural Development

Table 3.13: Percentage of Workers and GSDP in Jharkhand, 2004-05

Table 3.14: Head Count Ratio of Poverty in Rural Jharkhand

Table 3.15: Head Count Ratio of Poverty in Jharkhand and India Table 4.1: Percentage Share of Poor and Nearly Poor Households who have Ration Cards or Benefited from Various Schemes in Rural India and Various States (2004-05)

Table 4.2: Achievements of MGNREGS, India 2011-12

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: India: Poverty Ratio among Social Groups, 1993-94, 2004- 05 and projected to 2015-16

Figure 2.2: India: Percentage Distribution of Poor by Social Category, 2004-05

Figure 4.1: Allocation Proposed under NFSM

List of Maps

Map 3.1: Priority Districts for Food Security Interventions in Bihar

Map 3.2: Priority Districts for Food Security Interventions in Chhattisgarh

Map 3.3: Priority Districts for Food Security Interventions in Jharkhand

Map 3.4: Priority Districts for Food Security Interventions in Madhya Pradesh

Map 3.5: Priority Districts for Food Security Interventions in Maharashtra

Map 3.6: Priority Districts for Food Security Interventions in Odisha

Map 3.7: Priority Districts for Food Security Interventions in Rajasthan

List of Tables, Figures, Maps and Boxes

Map 3.8: Priority Districts for Food Security Interventions in Uttar Pradesh

Map 3.9: Food Availability

Map 3.10: Food Access

Map 3.11: Food Absorption

Map 3.12: Food Security

Map 3.13: Food Security Outcome Index

Map 3.14: Priority Districts Identified from Consolidated Analysis

List of Boxes

Box 3.1: Towards MDG – 4

Box 4.1: National Policy for Farmers, 2007

Box 4.2: Improved Targeting in the Public Distribution System

Box 4.3: Meeting the Nutritional Needs of Vulnerable Groups

Box 4.4: MGNREGA and Food Security

Box 4.5: Female Literacy: The Pivot for Reducing Food Insecurity and Child Mortality

Box 4.6: Innovative Food Security Initiatives: The Food for Work Programme in Tribal Development Projects

Box 5.1: Do Rights Make A Difference?

List of Abbreviations

ADAPT Area Development Approach for Poverty Termination

AIDIS All- India Debt and Investment Survey

APCE Average Per Capita Expenditure

APL Above Poverty Line

ARWSP Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme

ATR Associated Through Routes

BMI Body Mass Index

BPL Below Poverty Line

CMR Child Mortality Rate

CSO Central Statistical Organization

DLHS District Level Household Survey

DPAP Drought Prone Area Programme

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FCI Food Corporation of India

FFS Farmers’ Field School

FSI Food Security Index

FSO Food Security Outcome

FSOI Food Security Outcome Index

GoI Government of India

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GSDP Gross State Domestic Product

HYV High Yielding Variety

ICDS Integrated Child Development Services

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IHD Institute for Human Development

IIDS Indian Institute of Dalit Studies

IIPS International Institute for Population Sciences

IMR Infant Mortality Rate

KBK Koraput, Balangir, Kalahandi

LTAP Long Term Action Plan

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MDM Mid-Day Meal

MDMS Mid-Day Meal Scheme

MGNREGA Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

MGNREGS Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme

MPCE Monthly Per Capita Expenditure

MSSRF M S Swaminathan Research Foundation

NCEUS National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector

NCRL National Commission on Rural Labour

NFHS National Family Health Survey

NFSM National Food Security Mission

NREGA National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

NSDP Net State Domestic Product

NSS National Sample Survey

NTFP Non Timber Forest Product

OBC Other Backward Class

PDS Public Distribution System

PESA The Panchayats (Extension To Scheduled Areas) Act

PHC Primary Health Centre

PMGSY Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana

RLTAP Revised Long Term Action Plan

RTI Right to Information Act

SC Scheduled Caste

SCA Special Central Assistance

SCP Special Component Plan

SHG Self Help Group

ST Scheduled Tribe

TE Triennium Ending

TSP Tribal Sub Plan

UNICEF United Nations’ Children Fund

URP Uniform Recall Period

WFP World Food Programme

WFS World Food Summit

Executive Summary

Food security is not just a matter of the availability of food, but even more of the access of households and individuals to sufficient nutritious food. The absorption of food as nutrition in the body is further mediated by access to safe drinking water, and hygienic sanitation facilities. Consequently, food security is analyzed along the axes of availability, access and absorption. The importance of entitlements in food security is further underlined by the Supreme Court’s judgments validating the Right to Food. As a signatory to the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Government of India and all state governments have an obligation to reduce by half the proportion of people suffering from hunger by 2015.

To contribute to reaching the above goals, the Institute for Human Development (IHD) and the UN’s World Food Programme (WFP) have together undertaken an analysis of the dimensions of food security at the sub-state or district level for 8 states of rural India – Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra. This overview sums up the analyses at the state level.

The purpose of this exercise is to:

• Identify the regions and social groups affected by high food insecurity; and,

• Suggest policy interventions appropriate to improve food security for those regions and social groups.

While there has been considerable debate in India on the connection between economic growth and improvement in nutritional status, there is general agreement that reduction of acute poverty is the key to reducing hunger, and that this needs to be supplemented by various other measures to improve nutritional practices and the absorption aspects of nutrition.

Our analysis began by choosing the likely variables that affect food security along the three axes of availability, access and absorption. The availability-related variables considered here are agricultural production in per capita value terms, proportion of forest area, extent of irrigation and rural connectivity in terms of villages with access to paved roads. The six variables considered for the access-to-food dimension include proportion of agricultural labourers, proportion of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, ratio of working age population, monthly per capita consumption expenditure, casual wage rate of rural persons and female literacy rate. Access to safe drinking water and primary health services are the two variables considered for the absorption index.

Within each state, the values of districts on each of these 12 variables were combined to develop a Food Security Index (FSI), on the basis of which each district was ranked. Districts were also ranked by their performance in terms of the food security outcome index (FSOI) based on two indicators of child mortality and malnutrition. While the FSI reflects the input dimensions, the FSOI captures the outcome status across districts. The priority districts and regions have been identified based on both these dimensions, while the

ii | Food Security Atlas of Rural India: An Overview

indicators used for food security analysis shed insights into areas for policy interventions in order to improve the situation.

Priority Districts and Regions

This exercise had set out to identify districts that are food insecure and that need priority intervention. But, as pointed out above, what we found is that the food insecure districts actually fall into distinct regions. From the eight state reports, we can identify the hill-forest and plateaus as being the most food insecure. This is so for all the states covered. There are also some other specific regions that come into the priority category – the Western desert region of Rajasthan, the semi-arid Deccan Plateau of Maharashtra and parts of the Gangetic plain in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Both the desert and the semi-arid Deccan Plateau are regions of generally depressed agrarian conditions. However, it must be noted that even though there is clustering of food insecurity in distinct regions, the food security status of the districts by FSI and FSO (apart from few districts of Madhya Pradesh) are quite distinct. Comparison of all 281 districts across the 8 states reveals the relatively food insecure areas. Prominently, for example, all districts of Jharkhand and most of Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, figure among the most food insecure districts. Although the overall analysis of 281 districts provides a slightly different picture in terms of relative situation across the 8 states, the characteristics emerging from the individual state reports for the food insecure regions remains the same.

The food insecure regions, in comparison to the better-off regions within the states turn out, not unsurprisingly, to have

• Low irrigation

• Poor connectivity

• A high proportion of ST population in the hill- forest and plateaus,

• High proportions of SCs and agricultural labourers and low agricultural wages in the other regions, and

• Overall lower levels of female literacy.

These differences between food insecure and food secure regions within states have important implications for the nature of interventions to improve food security in these districts. At the least, the atlases can help us identify actions that need to be taken to bring the food insecure regions at par with the food secure regions within the same state.

The point of identifying the geography of hunger is not to suggest that ‘geography is destiny’ but to draw attention to the constraints that have to be overcome in order to eliminate or even reduce hunger. A low productivity of rain-fed foodgrain production, which is the source of own entitlements for small and marginal farmers, can make the people even more vulnerable when there is a high variability of rainfall and consequently of production in rain-fed agriculture.

In general, however, the rural areas of districts of these eight states fare poorly on nutritional outcomes. It is only the more urbanized and industrialized districts and the irrigated districts that do better. Thus, ensuring food security and

Executive Summary | iii

improving the nutritional status is a challenge for the rest of these states as a whole. The identification of certain districts for priority action does not mean that either resources or efforts to bring up all districts can slacken, but only draws attention to the need for more inclusive growth efforts and to the special efforts needed to bridge the divide between different regions and districts of the state.

Interventions

In India the right to food is realized through two sets of measures: employment schemes to increase incomes and thus access to food, complemented by PDS provisioning of cheaper food; and direct provision of food, as through the Mid-Day Meal Scheme (MDM) and the supplementary feeding in the ICDS centres. While working for improvement in the functioning of these government schemes, it is important to link these schemes, and other interventions, with the development process in the country.

Access to roads and irrigation are two areas in which the hill-forest districts fall considerably behind the rest of the country. Rural connectivity and small-scale irrigation in a manner appropriate to hill regions, along with improvement in female literacy, should form the core of the efforts to reduce extreme poverty, and thus hunger, in the hill-forest districts of the country.

Along with this, special efforts are needed for development of livelihoods of forest-based populations. This itself comprises a number of measures, including:

• Implementation of the Forest Rights Protection Act so as to provide security of tenure;

• Investment to enable a shift to production of high value crops; and

• Shortening the chain of intermediaries and promoting value-added processing in non- timber forest products (NTFP)

The changes in production that would reduce food insecurity require not just improved access, but also enhanced capabilities, through extension and technological development, building on local capacities and knowledge.

Measures to increase household and individual incomes need to be supplemented by Community Forest Management (CFM), which can enable communities to balance production and local environmental concerns.

Complementary steps need to be taken for empowerment of women in the household and community, through

• Literacy and education, and

• Women’s land rights.

Enhancing women’s capabilities could, among other benefits, also lead to the adoption of improved nutritional practices, such as exclusive breast-feeding of infants till six months of age.

Micro-finance, through self-help groups (SHGs) supported by NGOs, could help

• Reduce the incidence of inter-linked transactions, which result in very low net income

iv | Food Security Atlas of Rural India: An Overview

• Improve the food security situation by enabling borrowing for critical needs, and

• Also increase the share of household income under the control of women.

Overall, there are three issues of land reform that need to be tackled in order to improve food security:

• Restoration of illegally-acquired tribal lands

• Distribution of land to landless, largely Scheduled Castes (SCs)

• Provision of security of tenure of Scheduled Tribes (STs) in forest areas

• Women’s land rights

The plain regions in some of the states have a large proportion of agricultural labourers in the rural workforce. Schemes of distribution of agricultural land to the landless, including women, would help in improving access of the rural poor to food and thus reduce food insecurity. Increasing productivity in common lands, often unmanaged pastoral or otherwise degraded lands, would also increase food security.

There is also a large semi-arid belt, e.g. in the Marathwada and Vidarbha regions of Maharashtra and the central plains of Madhya Pradesh. The agricultural production here is largely rain-fed. It is also the area which has seen large numbers of farmers’ suicides. Revitalizing this agriculture is a necessary step to reduce food insecurity, as that would increase both employment of labour and wage rates.

Employment programmes (e.g. MGNREGA schemes) can themselves be planned to improve infrastructure to

provide needed public goods (roads), or quasi-public goods (irrigation) for the area apart from providing alternative and supportive livelihood options.

Improvement in the implementation of these government schemes depends, at one level, on improvement in administration and governance systems. But more important is the role of the people who are to benefit from the schemes, whether organized through CBOs, NGOs or traditional tribal bodies – in both demanding and monitoring implementation of the numerous schemes. The innovative mithanin system of Chhattisgarh and similar such schemes in other states, can be extended to support better implementation of all government schemes.

Enhancing capabilities, through rights, access to resources and training, will clear the road for building the capacity to aspire – the aspirations for a better life exist, but the means or capacity to realize those aspirations are lacking.

India has an impressive recent record of relatively rapid growth. GDP growth over the last decade has averaged more than 7 per cent per annum. But despite this rapid growth, India is still home to more than a quarter of the hungry people in the world. Rapid growth has not translated into a commensurate reduction in poverty and hunger. The recent turmoil in world food markets, with sharp rises in food prices, and the current global economic downturn all threaten to make the food security situation in India even worse. A few years ago food stocks were piling up, even while millions continued to go hungry. Now government foods stocks are at all time lows. The recent good harvest has made it possible to replenish these stocks. But, the problems of high incidence of hunger and undernutrition continue to plague the country.

These vicissitudes bring home the stark truth that food security is a critical and enduring challenge and there is no place for complacency on this front. In 1996, the World Food Summit (WFS) and subsequently the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted by the UN recognized the importance of achieving food security or, putting it in a more traditional way, eliminating hunger as a goal of the international system. Not quite eliminating hunger, but at least reducing its proportion by half by the year 2015 is now accepted as one of the MDGs.

A 2002 assessment by the follow-up to the WFS, ‘World Food Summit – Five Years Later’ as it was called, pointed out that, using the incidence of malnutrition as the measure of incidence of hunger, there has been a decrease in hunger at the rate of 8 million people per year across the world. But in order to even achieve the goal of reducing world hunger by half by 2015, it is necessary to reduce the incidence of malnutrition by 15 million per year. What this shows is that continuing to implement the economic, political and social policies now in place will not enable to reach the goal by 2015. A mid-course correction in economic, political and social policies is needed in order to achieve the stated goals. Despite India’s recent record of high rates of economic growth, there is a major concern with the failure of that growth to translate into a somewhat proportionate reduction in poverty and malnutrition. The current global economic downturn makes it even more unlikely that the MDG goal on hunger will be met by 2015.

The problem of large-scale famine-related starvation deaths seems to have been largely resolved, due partly to a combination of a vigilant civil society and press. Nonetheless, there are periodic reports of malnutrition and starvation deaths from different parts of the country; particularly affected are the politically marginal social groups, the Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Scheduled Castes (SCs).

Chapter I Introduction

2 | Food Security Atlas of Rural India: An Overview

Besides this problem of hunger among the STs, there is the pervasive incidence of malnutrition, particularly of children and women. Even sustained increases in income have not resulted in commensurate improvements in nutritional status.

The persistence of malnutrition and the reported occurrence of starvation deaths together define the nature of the current problem of food insecurity within a situation of overall adequate availability of foodgrains. The fact that they occur within a situation of adequate foodgrain availability (domestic foodgrain production plus amounts released from government stocks plus imports made possible by India’s burgeoning foreign exchange reserves net of exports and post harvest losses), serves to underline the importance of framing adequate policies and interventions to secure food security, or access to food, for not just households, but also individuals. It also provides the rationale for these reports, prepared by the Institute for Human Development (IHD), in collaboration with the United Nations’ World Food Programme (WFP).

The UN World Food Programme and the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) earlier collaborated in analyzing the food insecurity situation in India at the state level. Using chosen indicators to map the relative status of states with regard to food security, MSSRF and WFP prepared the Food Insecurity Atlas of Rural India in 2001. This was followed by the Food Insecurity Atlas of Urban India in 2002. The third in the series, the Atlas of Sustainability of Food Security was launched in 2004. The atlases raised the bar in the analysis and understanding of food security across

states. At the same time, they posed fresh challenges, bringing into focus the need for analysis at the sub-state level. States in India are typically large and diverse. Intra-state disparities in socioeconomic development impact on the food security status of households. For effective policy and focused intervention, identifying and mapping the worst-off areas is important. Following the path-breaking national-level atlases, it was decided to extend the analysis to the district level, the level at which food security interventions are implemented.

The need for such disaggregated analysis is only matched by the dearth of data at such levels. To take only one example, we do not have estimates of an important indicator like poverty for a district1. Strengthening planning and performance requires that more data are available at the district level. In this regard, the District Level Household Surveys (DLHS) show welcome progress. These surveys provide valuable data and information relating to reproductive and child health.

The main objectives of this exercise are to analyze the nature and dynamics of the food security situation at the sub-state level and suggest disaggregated strategies. Food security must be brought to the forefront of the development and political agenda not only at the Centre, but in a vibrant federal structure like India’s, in the states as well. In this Overview, we summarize the findings from the various state reports and place them in the context of the overall objective of reducing hunger in rural India.

The BPL Census is a proxy for proportion of poor households which is available at the district level, albeit with its own set of problems and issues.

Chapter 1: Introduction | 3

1.1 What Is Food Security?

Food security can be analyzed at different levels – that of the country, the state or district and the household or individual. At the level of the country, the analysis of food security is somewhat different depending on the size of the economy. The reason why the size of the economy makes a difference is that the international market for food grains is far from being perfect. In a perfect market, the size of the economy entering the market with its demand would make no difference to the price at which grain can be bought. But in an imperfect market, even the mere suggestion that India may require to import a million or two tons of grain leads to an immediate increase in prices at which the grain can be bought. The market for rice is notoriously thin, compared to that for wheat. Given that in India a lot of rice is rain-fed, it is the rice crop that tends to be most affected by the vagaries of the monsoon. This in conjunction with the imperfections of the grain market means that a large economy, such as India’s, has to necessarily try to be somewhat self-reliant in producing grain for its own population.

It should be noted that the above situation does not change with the country’s level of foreign exchange reserves. The price effect in the market would be the same, irrespective of whether the country has sufficient foreign exchange reserves or not. Where the sufficiency or otherwise of foreign exchange reserves enters the picture is in enabling the country to withstand political pressures from would-be lenders. A country that needs to borrow in order to buy sufficient food grain would be subject to double pressure – that in the market due to a large purchase and that in the political arena due to borrowing.

Imperfect international grain markets and likely political pressures mean that for a country such as India, it is necessary to have a largely self-sufficient foodgrain policy. Along with current production, and in order to deal with vagaries in rain-fed production, the country needs to maintain a level of food reserves so that availability is not seriously disrupted.

At the level of the state or district (or, for that matter, the household or individual) food security does not depend on the availability of food alone. A state that produces little grain, such as Kerala or Himachal Pradesh, is not for that reason food insecure. There is an all-India market for grain. Restrictions on the movement of foodgrain have been removed and grain can move freely from one part of the country to another. Consequently, the states of Kerala or Himachal Pradesh do not have to be concerned with the extent of their own production of food that they consume. The same holds true at the district level too. At both these levels of analysis, availability of food grain is not in any way related to the state’s or district’s own production of foodgrain.

What about at the household or individual levels? There is clearly no connection between grain production and ability to acquire grain or other food. What does matter is the extent of the household’s productivity and the income that it can acquire and exchange for food. It is only in the case of subsistence economies, such as that of the Scheduled Tribes in some areas, that production and ability to acquire food may be directly correlated. Further, given that a subsistence economy will not have substantial reserves, any disruption of production is likely to result in acute food stress.


What constitutes food security at the household or individual level has gone through two phases of understanding or definition. In the 1970s, food security was understood as the ‘availability at all times of adequate world food supply of basic foodstuffs…’ (UN, 1975). But, the 1981 publication of Amartya Sen’s Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation brought forward a new understanding of the problem of hunger or food security. Rather than just the ‘availability’ of food, Sen emphasized ‘access’ to food through what he called ‘entitlements’ – a combination of what one can produce, exchange in the market plus state or other socially provided supplies.

What Sen posited is that availability or supply of food does not itself create entitlements for food. In a sense, Sen’s concept of entitlements is similar to Keynes’ notion of ‘effective demand’. Both entitlement and effective demand are quite different from need. Since Keynes was dealing with a fully capitalist market economy, with only two classes, employers and workers, all effective demand was related to monetary income. But Sen is dealing with a ‘mixed economy’ with at least three classes, employers, workers and peasants or other own-account producers. For those who produce food, part, if not all, of their entitlement is due to their own production. This portion of the consumption of food is not mediated by the market. Consequently, this is not captured by the market-based notion of effective demand.

Food, of course, is not an end in itself. Food is consumed for nutrition. Instead of focusing attention on the commodity, one can look at the objective for which food is consumed, that is providing nutrition for the body. The purpose of nutrition itself is not just to survive, but to lead a healthy and

meaningful life – to be in the state one wants to be (well-being) and to do the various things one wants to do.

At one level, some health questions, like the prevalence of intestinal parasites, affect the very ability of the human body to absorb nutrients. Thus, health concerns, focused on the availability of clean water and access to health facilities, are very much part of the very concept of food security itself. At another level, some health questions, like malaria or tuberculosis, affect the ability of the individual/household to engage in those livelihood activities that could ensure food security. Consequently, in order to deal with food security, it is not sufficient to pay attention to food alone, but also access to, at least, clean water and sanitation, which affect the ability to absorb food, or turn consumption of food into nutrition. It may thus be seen that all these factors affect food security in one way or the other. Hence, they can be seen as components of elementary well-being needed to lead a healthy and meaningful life.

Finally, even when incomes and therefore the ability to consume required amounts of desired foodstuffs go up, it is not necessary that desired consumption actually increases, or that desired sanitary practices are adopted. The ideas of what are the constituents of ‘good consumption’ are very culturally determined. In India more fat is usually taken as the sign of good food, with a corresponding neglect of protein-rich foods. Women during pregnancy and lactation are often denied locally available green foods that could reduce the extent of anemia.

Food security at the household level then depends on a combination of three factors – the ability of the household to

Chapter 1: Introduction | 5

access required food; knowledge of nutritional content and the desired quantities of different foods and access to clean drinking water and sanitation.

What an individual within a household can consume or access depends on the individual’s entitlements in the total household food basket. Entitlements draw attention to the conditions under which people access food, whether from direct production (or exchange with nature), market exchange (income from either goods produced or wage labour) and social security measures. Entitlements also draw attention to the norms that govern intra-household allocation, as a result of which women and girls may face hunger or deprivation even though they are part of households whose general entitlements are sufficient for all members of the household.

Entitlements point to the fact that hunger is situated within poverty, or rather associated with extreme poverty, as a result of which households and individuals do not have adequate entitlements to food. Thus, the elimination of hunger is the first landmark in reducing poverty.

Capabilities are a combination of two factors – states of well-being (like being well nourished, being healthy, and so on) and activities (achieving self-respect, or being socially integrated). Self-respect and social integration are in themselves goals of a meaningful life. But they are also instrumentally important, in that those without self-respect or the socially marginalized may not be able to achieve food security. Consequently, achieving self-respect or playing a meaningful part in social life may both be necessary to achieve food security. This leads to the proposition that food security is not just a matter of some external organization,

whether the state or society, providing food, but of the enhancement of the agency of the hungry or poor. Thus, some level of complex capabilities, like agency, becomes necessary to reach adequate levels of primary well-being.

Given women’s general responsibility for food security in rural areas of developing countries, and given the pervasive gender bias in these societies, enhancement of the agency of the poor requires the empowerment of poor women. Consequently, food security approaches increasingly pay attention to the elimination of gender inequality and women’s empowerment as important preconditions for food security.

Agency of poor women, or of the poor as a whole, is not only a matter of individual agency (which itself might be dependent on collective mobilization) but also of the poor having an impact on economic policies. This is necessary in order to bring about the much-needed political will that is often referred to as missing, in order to secure adequate attention to food security policies. Without adequate political pressure for reform, proper food security policies are unlikely to be adopted. There can be no question that the political mobilization of the poor is required for such a food security policy to be implemented.

All of the above changes in understanding and context meant that 20 years after the 1975 World Food Summit, there was a substantial shift in understanding of the meaning of food security. From the 1975 emphasis on adequate food supply, the 1995 World Food Summit declared ‘… food security, at the individual, household, national, regional and global levels … exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food


to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.’ (FAO, 1996, 3, emphasis added). The declaration further recognizes that ‘poverty eradication is essential to improve access to food.’

The international discourse on food security has further developed along the lines of the right to food. This right to food (as discussed in greater detail in the Appendix on Right to Food) derives from the 1948 UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Through subsequent instruments, the meaning of the right to food has been spelt out. In particular, the 1999 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights clarified the obligations of States in the context of the realization of the right to food. As put forward in General Comment 12, the right to food identifies three kinds of obligations of States: to not adopt measures that would prevent access to food; to adopt measures to ensure that no individuals are deprived of access to adequate food; and to proactively engage in activities that strengthen people’s access to food, including means to ensure their livelihood and food security. There is also an obligation of States to fulfill that right directly, when people cannot obtain adequate food through the means at their disposal (or, normal entitlements) (Charlotte McClain Nhalpo, 2004.)

With the establishment of a right to food, entitlements become rights. Relevant agencies of the State have a duty or obligation to ensure that an individual’s right to food is realized.

In India, following the case filed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), the Supreme Court has passed a number of judgments and orders on realizing the right to food (see

Appendix on Right to Food for details). These include orders to implement the Mid-Day Meals Scheme (MDM) in primary schools in all states, the provision of work, etc. Consequently, it is in the context of the international and national obligations, following the acceptance of the right to food, that this Report looks at the ways to realize food security.

1.2 Overview of the Report

As the country moves towards greater devolution and decentralization, data at disaggregated levels remain a stumbling block. District level data is notoriously inadequate and this report urges that greater attention be paid to data collection and dissemination at sub-state levels. The first chapter explains the meaning, evolution and development of the concept of food security. Chapter 2 provides a discussion on the nutrition debate, under-nutrition and poverty. Chapter 3 presents a discussion on the priority districts/regions that emerge out of the eight states that were studied and reported. Chapter 4 discusses strategies for action that emerge from our analysis in the context of the broader state and national strategic interventions already in place. This is most significant from the perspective of policy. Chapter 5 wraps up the report with the conclusions.

In this chapter we briefly look at nutritional intake and poverty in the Indian context. With rapid economic growth, has there been an increase in rural incomes, particularly of the poorest? If so, why has this not translated into a proportionate increase in per capita intake of nutrients? These are some of the key issues in the debate on economic growth and under-nutrition in India. We also look at the differences between social groups in the incidence and distribution of under-nourishment and poverty. Is it necessary to focus attention on particular social groups?

2.1 The Nutrition Debate

There is little dispute about the fact that over the recent period of rapid economic growth and growing real per capita income, including during the last 10 years or so, there has been a decline in per capita consumption of calories and other key nutrients such as proteins nutrient for which there is an unambiguous increase in per capita consumption is fat (Dreze and Deaton, 2008).

There is, however, little agreement on the meaning of this reduction in per capita consumption of calories. One line of argument is that rapid growth has been accompanied by rural deflation, resulting in lowered rural incomes, particularly

at the bottom (Utsa Patnaik, 2007). But against this line of thinking, there is the argument (Deaton and Drèze, 2008) that the NSS data do not show any such fall in rural per capita incomes at the bottom. If anything, between 1993-94 and 2004-5, there was an increase of average real per capita consumption of the bottom two quintiles of more than 10 per cent each (Mazumdar and Sarkar, 2007). The argument of deflationary fall of rural incomes, particularly at the bottom, does not hold.

At the same time, Viswanathan and Meenakshi (2007) calculate from 1999-2000 data that there is a positive expenditure elasticity of energy intake “especially among the poor, and among poorer regions” (p. 123). If consumption increased, as argued by Mazumdar and Sarkar, between 1993-94 and 2004-05, then could one expect an increase in energy intake? How does this square with the finding (Deaton and Drèze - 2008) that the intake of calories is almost stagnant at the bottom?

Along with the stagnation in per capita consumption of calories, there is also the stagnation in the outcome indicator – the proportion of underweight children (0 to 3 years) has declined only modestly over the period of rapid economic growth – it was 43 per cent in 1998-99 (NFHS-II) and 40 per cent in 2005-06 (NFHS III).

Chapter II Food Security Status


As against the rural deflation thesis (Patnaik, 2007) it should be noted that there was an increase in average real per capita consumption for the rural population as a whole. According to the NSS, this increase for all rural population was 7.8 per cent over the 5-year period, 1999-2000 to 2004-05. As Table 2.1 shows, in fact, the increase for the lowest consumption quintiles was the highest across all classes – 13.2 per cent and 10.5 per cent respectively for the lowest two quintiles (Mazumdar and Sarkar, 2007, p. 328).

As against this clear increase in average per capita expenditure (APCE), there is a stagnation or slight decline in overall per capita calorie consumption. But this stagnation hides a change within the distribution among consumption classes. There is a slight increase, or at best stagnation, at the bottom, while there is a substantial decrease at the top (Deaton and Drèze, 2008). But there is also a clear decrease in calories from cereals, much more so at the top than at the bottom (see Table 2.2).

As stressed by Anil Deolalikar and Amaresh Dubey (2008), there is a definite change in the distribution of calorie consumption between expenditure classes – with the middle to top classes substantially reducing calorie consumption, while it has remained stagnant at the bottom.

At the same time, as both papers argue, there is a definite decrease in the calories from cereals – showing a diversification of the rural diet. The increase in intake of other nutrients, however, seems to be entirely due to an increase in fat consumption, not in proteins (Deolalikar and Dubey, 2008).

Thus, two major points have been made in explaining the behaviour of nutrient intake and nutrition outcome data in India. One, that there has been a substantial fall in calorie consumption at the top, leading to a change in the overall distribution of calories between consumption groups over time. Two, there has been a diversification of diets, with a declining reliance on cereals for calories. Further, and this is somewhat tentatively put forward (Deaton and Drèze), “calorie requirements have declined, due to better health as well as to lower activity levels” (2008, p. 69).

Table 2.1: Comparison of Rural APCE between 55th and 61st Rounds

Percentile group of population

APCE at constant(1993-94) prices

% change between 55th and 61st Rounds

55th Round 61st Round

0 – 5 121 137 13.25- 10 153 169 10.510 - 20 176 193 9.720 - 30 203 220 8.430 - 40 228 245 7.540 - 50 252 271 7.550 - 60 281 299 6.460 - 70 313 333 6.470 - 80 358 380 6.180 - 90 433 455 5.190 - 95 537 569 6.095 - 100 849 938 10.5All 307 331 7.8

Source: Mazumdar and Sarkar, 2007, p. 328, calculated from NSS Report No. 508, 2007.

Chapter 2: Food Security Status | 9

An alternative explanation (Mazumdar and Sarkar, 2007) of the stagnation or decline in calorie consumption is that other expenses, such as education, health and possibly transport, have become essential to households and take up the additional expenditure. To put it briefly, the food budget has been squeezed out by other expenses. More research is needed to identify the factors behind the Indian pattern of calorie and other nutrient intake.

India has one of the most privatized health systems in the world. Just about one-fourth of total medical expenses is met by the public health system; the rest, accounting for about 3 per cent of GDP, is out-of-pocket expenses (Sinha, 2010, p. 44). At the same time, since our main attempt is to inform policy on improving food security, it should be noted, as shown in Vishwanathan and Meenakshi (2007), that

there is a positive consumption elasticity of energy intake, which would mean that an increase in consumption should result in an increase in energy intake; this is especially so among the poor and in poorer regions. But, as pointed out in the earlier paragraph, this needs to be qualified by the increasing need for expenditures on education, health care and even transport.

The second point is that “Overcoming these massive deficiencies [in nutrition outcomes] would require a substantial shift from cereal-based diets to more diversified diets. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to meet these diverse requirements from a cereal-dominated diet” (Deaton and Drèze, 2008, p. 62). Further, in the same vein, “close attention needs to be paid to other [non-calorie] aspects of food deprivation, such as the intake of vitamins and minerals,

Table 2.2: Total and Cereal Calorie Consumption by Decile and Quartile of Per Capita Expenditure, Rural India, 1999-2000 to 2004-05

Bottom decile

Bottom quartile

Second quartile

Third quartile

Top quartile

Total calories1987-88 1488 1683 2056 2334 28631993-94 1490 1659 2000 2251 27021999-2000 1496 1658 1978 2250 27072004-05 1485 1624 1900 2143 2521

Cereal calories1987-88 1221 1359 1598 1715 18941993-94 1203 1316 1504 1591 16901999-2000 1197 1289 1591 1509 15662004-05 1189 1259 1690 1430 1471

Source: Angus Deaton and Jean Drèze, 2008, Nutrition in India: Facts and Interpretation, processed, Table 7, p.16


fat consumption, the diversity of the diet, and breast feeding practices” (ibid, p. 70).

2.2 Undernutrition

Undernutrition is a deficiency of calories or of one or more essential nutrients. When individuals are undernourished, they can no longer maintain natural bodily capacities,

such as growth, resisting infections and recovering from disease, learning and physical work, and pregnancy and lactation in women. Poor feeding of infants and young children, especially the lack of optimal breastfeeding and responsive complementary feeding, along with such illnesses as diarrhoea, pneumonia, malaria and HIV/AIDS, often exacerbated by helminthes, are major causes of undernutrition (UNICEF, 2006).

Table 2.3: Nutrition Status of Children by Social Category in India, 2005-06

Social Category

Height-for-age(Stunted)

Weight-for-height(Wasting)

Weight-for-age(Underweight)

Number of children sampled

Percentage severely stunted (below -3 SD)

Percentage stunted (below -2 SD*)

Percentage severely wasted (below -3 SD)

Percentage wasted (below -2 SD*)

Percentage severely malnourished (below -3 SD)

Percentage (malnourished) below -2 SD*

Scheduled Caste

27.6 53.9 6.6 21 18.5 47.9 9,531

Scheduled Tribe

29.1 53.9 9.3 27.6 24.9 54.5 4,448

Other backward class

24.5 48.8 6.6 20 15.7 43.2 18,969

Other 17.8 40.7 5.2 16.3 11.1 33.7 13,351Don’t know 22.3 45.8 3.1 14.1 16.3 35.1 193Total 23.7 48 6.4 19.8 15.8 42.5 46,655* Includes children who are below -3 standard deviations (SD) from the International Reference Population median.

Source: NFHS III, 2005-06.


Table 2.3 shows that the Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Scheduled Castes (SCs) both have much higher percentages of severely malnourished children than the other social groups. The difference is even more pronounced in the case of the STs. In the case of both wasting (temporary malnourishment) and underweight (long-term malnourishment), the STs have far higher proportions in the severe category than other social groups, including the SCs.

The distribution of poor below the poverty line and the proportion of severe malnourishment both point to the greater vulnerability of the STs and SCs. In the case of STs, there is pronounced severe malnourishment - almost 25 per cent of ST children are severely malnourished, more than double the incidence among ‘Others’.

2.3 Social Dimensions of Poverty and Hunger

Thus, besides identifying the geographic regions of greater food insecurity (which will be taken up in Chapter 3), we need to raise the question: are there also social factors in the incidence of hunger? To look at this question, we utilize poverty as a proxy for hunger. In particular, the ultra-poor (those more than 50 per cent below the poverty line) are taken as comprising the hungry. This question is looked at from the all-India perspective of different social groups, STs or adivasis, SCs or dalits, and the non-Scheduled or upper castes.

With All-India poverty at 37.5 per cent in 1993-94, the MDG target for 2015-16 is set at 18.75 per cent. The Government of India (2005) claimed that India would reach the MDG poverty

reduction target well before time, i.e. much before 2015. If current poverty reduction trends (i.e. the rate of reduction in poverty over the period 1993-94 and 2004-05) continue, which with the current global economic downturn is unlikely, the All-India target of 18.75 per cent below the poverty line is likely to be reached by 2015. But what the figure below shows is that the STs will not reach their target. They will still have a poverty incidence of 41.82 per cent in 2015-16, which is more than double the MDG target. Nor will the SCs reach the MDG target of an 18.75 per cent poverty incidence; they will be 8 percentage points above that.

Even if we take the more conservative target of 50 per cent reduction of their own incidence of poverty, which would make the MDG target for STs 25.56 per cent, and not the equality-based national target of 18.75 per cent, the STs will still not make it to the MDG poverty-reduction target by 2015; in fact, they will be a full 15 percentage points above that target.

Over the last decade (1993-94 to 2004-05), the poverty gap between the STs and the rest of the population has increased, while that between the SCs and the rest has decreased (see Figure 2.1). The STs not only started out at a higher poverty level than the rest of India, but they have also fallen further behind the rest. In summary, one may say that the STs have not benefited as much as the rest of the population either from state-interventions or from the market liberalization and globalization policies that the Indian economy witnessed in this period. On the other hand, the SCs have been able to utilize opportunities from market liberalization to reduce the gap between them and the rest of India. What the different results for STs and SCs shows is


that there are more serious, structural obstacles to reduction of poverty among the STs. While attention has to be paid to both of these social groups, more focus is required on STs (see Table 2.4).

In deciding on social groups that require focused attention, it is useful to look beyond the incidence of poverty to the distribution of those under the poverty line. i.e. one can calculate the proportion of the poor who form the first 25 per cent below the poverty line, whom we call ‘Just Poor’; those who are from 25 to 50 per cent below the poverty line, whom we call ‘Substantially Poor’; and those who are more than 50 per cent below the poverty line or the ‘Ultra Poor’. If we find that a large proportion of the poor are in the more than 50 per cent category for a particular social group, then that social group can definitely be identified as being hungry and more vulnerable. With such a low consumption level,

any disruption of food consumption is likely to lead to the phenomenon of ‘starvation deaths’.

From the figure 2.2 it can be seen that adivasis (STs) and the former untouchable or dalit castes (SCs) are somewhat distinct in the population of the poor under the poverty line. They have more than twice the proportion of ultra poor than the ‘other’ group, i.e. not ST/SC/OBC. Further, as against 38.2 per cent as ‘just poor’ among ‘Others’, the STs have only 13.8 per cent as ‘just poor’. 65.45 per cent of the ST poor fall within the ‘ultra poor’ category, while for the SCs this figure is 51.2 per cent. Clearly, poverty among the STs is more intense than that among the non-Scheduled groups. This high incidence of 65.45 per cent as ‘ultra poor’ would also mean that community links, which are usually strong among the STs, would not be of much help in combating hunger. There is little scope for redistribution within the STs,

Figure 2.1: India: Poverty Ratio among Social Groups,1993-94, 2004-05 and projected to 2015-16

Source: NSS, 50th and 61st Rounds for 1993-94 and 2004-05 respectively, and projections for 2015-16 based on rates of decrease calculated for 1993-94 to 2004-05; calculated by IHD


with such a large proportion of ultra poor. Additionally, given the co-variant nature of climate-related crop failures, the ultra poor would be pushed into extreme starvation situations.

Some aspects of the nature of the poverty of STs are brought out in an analysis of NSS data for India by Gaiha, et al., (2008). They find a striking difference between ST and non-Scheduled households in terms of both characteristic (endowment) and structural (returns to endowments) components. The main characteristic component is

location, followed by education, and then occupation. Again, a very large proportion of the structural component is due to location, with returns to occupation, demographic characteristics and education accounting for relatively small shares. “… much of the deprivation of the scheduled tribes is linked to lower returns, especially given their location in remote, inaccessible areas with weak infrastructure support” (Gaiha et al., 2008, p. 5). Consequently, along with focusing on increasing the endowments of STs (in terms of education, types of occupations, etc.), it is also necessary to pay attention to removing the disadvantages of location. What this means is that increasing accessibility and improving infrastructure could play a crucial role in reducing poverty and hunger among Scheduled Tribes.

There is another significant consideration about the nature of poverty among STs, one of relevance for poverty reduction strategies. The STs are both less urbanized and far less represented in non-farm employment even in rural areas. At the same time, in China, where the gap between minority (the Chinese equivalent of STs) and majority (Han) income in the minority-dominated province of Yunnan has narrowed over the years1 it can be seen that the growth in the minority population incomes has been mainly in non-crop sectors. There is not much difference between crop yields of minority and non-minority populations in Yunnan, and the gap between the respective farmers’ incomes is more than the gap between incomes as a whole. This means that increases in crop yields played no role in increasing the income of

Table 2.4: India: Poverty Gap between Social Groups (percentage points)

Social Categories

1993-94 2004-05 2015-16

ST/Other 20.60 24.4 27.01SC/Other 18.23 15.3 11.27

Source: Same as Figure 2.1.NB: Other is “Non-SC/ST”.

Figure 2.2: India: Percentage Distribution of Poor by Social Category, 2004-05

N.B. Those whose social group is not specified have been removed from the table.Source: IHD from NSS 61st Round, Unit-level data. 1. For details see Nathan et al. (2012)


the minority population. This could point in the direction of a push towards non-farm and urban development for minority people, in minority areas that have limited agricultural potential. What, however, is crucial is that non-farm and urban development take place in a manner that includes the minority peoples or adivasis, and does not displace them, as has been the case with mining and mineral-based industrialization in many adivasi areas in India.

Reducing poverty and hunger among STs thus requires overcoming the present disadvantage of location, which reduces the return to endowments. Increasing connectivity and infrastructure is part of what is needed, but a more vibrant rural economy is also needed to increase returns to endowments in these remote areas. The importance of shifting to non-agricultural occupations is further reiterated by this analysis.

Food security is the condition of sufficient nutrition, which is due to a combination of food access of the household and the individual, and of the ability of the body to absorb nutrients. To elaborate, food security of an individual is the result of:

1. Food availability, which refers to the quantity of food available, whether through production or from the market and releases from government stocks. In India, food availability is usually measured with respect to food grains, which are a cheap source of energy, particularly for the poor.

2. The food access by the household through own production, market purchase and government entitlements and distributed among household members on the basis of various social norms and/or bargaining positions, such as the gender relations among the household members.

3. The food consumed by an individual translated into nutrition on the basis of access to safe water, the absence of parasitic diseases, and his/her overall health status, all of which would affect the body’s capacity to absorb consumed food.

This chapter presents an overview of the methods and indicators used to measure food security in the first two sections. The priority districts identified in the eight individual

state reports are presented and discussed in section 3.3. A composite analysis of all the eight states together comprising of 281 districts has been presented in section 3.4. Finally, the chapter discusses the nature of the food insecure regions.

3.1 Measuring Food Security Status - Methodology

Given this definition of food security, how can its attainment be measured? As discussed, food security is a combination of availability of food, access to food and its absorption by the body, which depends on a number of non-food factors such as sanitation, access to clean drinking water, access to health facilities, and so on. The outcome of food security can be taken to be the nutritional status of the individual, with the understanding that food intake is the basic, though not the only, factor that affects nutritional status.

In developing countries, the rural population, particularly of children, is vulnerable to malnutrition because of low dietary intake, lack of appropriate care and inequitable distribution of food within the household. The measurement of the nutritional status of children is done through anthropometric methods; these include weight-for-age (underweight), height-for-age (stunting) and weight-for-height (wasting). Each of these indices provides somewhat different

Chapter III Analyzing Food Security: Identifying Priority Districts


information about the nutritional status of children. The height-for-age index measures linear growth retardation. Children who are more than two standard deviations below the median of the reference population in terms of height-for-age are considered short for their age or ‘stunted’. The proportion in this category indicates the prevalence of ‘chronic under-nutrition’, which often results from a failure to receive adequate nutrition over a long period of time or from chronic or recurrent diarrhoea (NFHS, 2007).

The weight-for-height index examines body mass in relation to body length. Children who are more than two standard deviations below the median of the reference population for the same index are considered too thin or ‘wasted’ and this indicates prevalence of acute under-nutrition. Wasting is associated with the failure to receive adequate nutrition in the period immediately before the survey and may be the result of seasonal variations in food supply or recent episodes of illness (NFHS, op cit).

Children who are more than two standard deviations below the reference median on the index of weight-for-age are considered to be ‘underweight’. We have opted for the proportion of underweight children as the indicator for capturing malnutrition among children; the primary reason being that weight-for-age (underweight) is a composite measure that takes into account both chronic and acute under-nutrition. Secondly, while information on stunting and wasting are available at the state-level from the NFHS, the same is not available at the district-level. The Reproductive and Child Health Survey through its District Level Household Survey (DLHS) does give information at the district level but only for the index on weight-for-age. Therefore, we

have selected this index as one of the two indicators for measuring food insecurity status.

Malnutrition in children weakens their immune system, making them more susceptible to disease and less able to fight off infection. It has been estimated that a child is almost ten times more likely to die from key diseases if he/she is severely underweight, and two and a half times more likely to die if he/she is moderately underweight, as compared to an average weight child (Black et al., 2008). Given the fact that more than 3.5 million children die globally on account of under-nutrition, it emerges as a major factor leading to child deaths.

Therefore, under-five mortality has been taken as the second indicator for measuring food insecurity. The under-five mortality rate indicates the probability of dying between birth and five years of age, expressed per thousand live births. There are a number of advantages of using the under-five mortality ratio as an indicator of food insecurity. Under-five mortality is the ‘outcome’ of the development process rather than an ‘input’, such as per capita calorie or protein consumption or access to medical facilities which are means to an end. Under-five mortality is known to be the outcome of a wide variety of factors, for instance, the nutritional status of the child and its mother, food availability in the family, level of immunization, availability of maternal and child health services, economic status, availability of safe drinking water, basic sanitation, and so on (UNICEF, 2005). Thus, under-five mortality encompasses a number of facets, most of which have been used as explanatory indicators, as already enumerated and as discussed later.

Chapter 3: Analyzing Food Security | 17

The significance of under-five mortality as an indicator lies in the fact that it is less susceptible to the fallacy of averages than, for instance, per capita income. This is because the natural scale does not allow children of the rich to be 1000 times as likely to survive, even if the human-made scale does permit them to have 1000 times as much income. To put it simply, it is much more difficult for a wealthy minority to affect a region’s under-five mortality ratio, and therefore it puts forward a more accurate picture of the health and nutritional status of the children of that region (UNICEF, 2007a).

The UN explicitly mentions reduction of child mortality (children under five) by two-thirds by 2015 as one of its primary MDGs (MDG–4). The interrelation between nutritional status and under-five mortality can be gauged from the fact that under-nutrition contributes up to 50 per cent of all child deaths (WHO and UNICEF, 2006). Improving nutrition and achieving MDG–1 (eradicate extreme poverty and hunger) would substantially help avert child deaths from diarrhoea, pneumonia, malaria, HIV, or measles. Thus, improving nutritional status is a prerequisite for achieving MDG–4 (UNICEF, 2006).

Box 3.1: Towards MDG - 4India accounts for 2.1 million (21 per cent) of a total of 9.7 million children dying globally before they reach the age of five. This is despite the fact that child mortality has declined by 34 per cent between 1990 and 2006. A study conducted by Save the Children, which com-pares child mortality in a country to its per capita income, shows that India lags far behind its poorer neighbours like Bangladesh and Nepal, when it comes to reducing child deaths. A new Wealth and Survival Index, which is part of the study, has ranked 41 countries on the criterion of how well they use their resources to boost child survival rates. While Bangladesh and Nepal are listed in the top ten performers, India stands at a low 16th in the index.

This can be elucidated by comparing India and Bangladesh. While India’s per capita income (GNI) increased by 82 per cent from 2000 to 2006, its child mortality rate declined from 94 to 76 per 1000 live births. As against that, over the same period, Bangladesh saw a much smaller increase in per capita income – only 23 per cent – but its child mortality dropped from 92 to 69.

As per the estimates of the Inter-Agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation, only seven of the 60 priority countries with high child mor-tality can be considered to be on track to achieve the MDG-4 (Bangladesh, Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia, Mexico, Nepal and the Philippines). Thus, the global progress made so far has been found to be insufficient to achieve the goal. To actually achieve the goal, most of the remaining countries have to progress at an average annual rate of reduction of at least 10 per cent till 2015. Given the fact that the global rate so far (1990-2006) has just been a little over 1.5 per cent, the achievement of this goal seems to be unrealistic.

The State of the World’s Children-2008 suggests early and exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months, appropriate complementary feeding from six months to two years, skilled care at birth and special care for low-birth weight babies as key preventive measures to reduce child mortality. Thus, adequate food security of the child is necessary for its survival beyond the age of five.

Ref: UNICEF (2007b), Save the Children (2008).


As many as 60 countries across the globe have been prioritized for urgent action, based on two criteria: countries with more than 50,000 deaths of children under five and countries with an annual under-five mortality of at least 90 per 1000 live births. In 2005, these 60 countries accounted for 93 per cent of all deaths of children under five. India figures prominently among these countries along with four other South Asian countries. Regrettably, India does not appear to be on track to achieve the MDG–4 (UNICEF, 2006) (See Box 3.1).A statistical analysis of the NFHS–3 data across states reveals a significant negative correlation between micro-nutrient intake and proportion of underweight children and under-five mortality, implying thereby that an increased intake of micronutrients, i.e. high food security, significantly reduces the risk of under-nutrition, which in turn, as discussed, contributes to reduction in under-five mortality (Table 3.1).

It follows from the preceding discussions, that child under-nutrition status and mortality appear to be overall outcomes of nutritional and food insecurity. It, therefore, makes sense to form a combined index of these two indicators to compute an overall index of food security outcome.

3.2 Explaining Food Security

Taking the child mortality and child malnutrition rates as the outcomes of food security, one could rank districts on the basis of this index. If the objective of the exercise were merely to decide on the districts in which to concentrate food security interventions, then such a ranking would be sufficient. But this would say nothing about the types of interventions that should be undertaken in order to improve food security, which is one of the key objectives of the study.

However, food security indicators can draw attention to the factors that distinguish the food secure from the food

Table 3.1: Correlation between Micronutrient Intake and Under-nutrition and Mortality Status

Under 5 Mortality

Underweight Children

Vitamin Intake

Iron Intake

Under 5 Mortality 1.00 0.714** - 0.501** - 0.523**Underweight Children 1.00 - 0.227 - 0.450*Vitamin Intake 1.00 0.555**Iron Intake 1.00

** Correlation significant at 0.01 level* Correlation significant at 0.05 level


insecure districts. These indicators can point out the specific areas in which the food insecure districts differ the most from food secure districts. Of course, such association between indicators in an index cannot tell us what the causal relation between them and food security is. For instance, if we find that adult female literacy is consistently higher in food secure districts and consistently lower in food insecure districts, that only shows a correlation between adult female literacy and food security. Why such a relation holds is something that is a matter for analysis, to determine, for example whether it is due to an enhanced women’s agency contributing to a better utilization of household income, or through literate women having a better knowledge of improved nutritional practices, or some other relation. But the indicators can draw attention to the issues for which significant differences exist. It would even be possible to rank these variables, pointing to the extent to which these variables are different between districts. Such an analysis could also point to variations between food insecure districts – the same variables may not contribute the most to the low index in all districts, or some of them may even move in opposite directions.

Food security is the ability of a household to command food (its food entitlements), generally acquired through the net result of its livelihood activities (plus any other non-livelihood-based entitlements), that are crucial in determining food security of the household. These livelihood activities, from the point of view of food security, are valued not only for the food they might directly produce, if at all they produce food, but also for the command over food that they give to the household. It is at this level of effective demand for food (both consumed out of self-production and purchased) that

market failures take place, requiring public intervention of different kinds. Food production, or agricultural production more broadly, then enters as a part, even the main part, of rural livelihood activities that provide command over food.

Within a household, it is known that there are gender differences in entitlements. Consequently, it is necessary to deal with not just factors influencing household entitlements, but also those influencing individual entitlements within the household. Factors of gender differentiation and discrimination come into the picture in influencing individual entitlements of women and men, girls and boys. Further, there could be a substantial imbalance between the use of energy and its replacement through food. Given that women generally work longer hours than men this imbalance in work could be a factor in nutritional shortfalls for women.

Entitlements are not only based on an individual’s or household’s own economic attainments. There are also government – or community-based – entitlements. Government-organized entitlements have been gaining importance, while community-based entitlements have been declining, even among adivasis. The operation of various schemes, such as the Mid-Day Meal Scheme in schools, does have some, even substantial, impact on the access of children to food. The performance of these schemes depends very substantially on demand from below for the provision of these services, and also on the involvement of women in local governance. But, the entitlements that come through special interventions have been separated in our analysis from those that provide the ‘normal’ entitlements to food. Of course, we also try to see whether there is a


connection, as there ought to be, between the food security status of a district and the public interventions in that district.

It therefore emerges that there are a number of indicators that influence food insecurity in one way or the other. We have combined these indicators into a set of three broad food security indices:

1. Production factors (at the district level) influencing but not equal to availability;

2. Household and individual access to food; and

3. Ability to absorb food.

3.2.1 Food Availability

The concern for food production stems from foodgrains being considered to be of paramount significance for household food and nutritional security, the reason being that cereals and pulses are staple foods and there are no perfect substitutes for them (Chand, 2007). Foodgrains are also the cheapest source of energy compared to other foods and are indispensable for the food security of low income classes (Chand and Kumar, 2006).

In our analysis, the following indicators have been chosen to determine a broad picture of food production:

1. Per Capita Value of Agricultural Production: Agricultural output is an indicator reflecting availability of food. Since agriculture is influenced by climatic conditions, it is advisable to take an average of three to five years’ data of agricultural production to take into account the variability of production. Food and non-food production both would be included since

non-food production would contribute to the income of households and therefore have an impact on food security. To account for variations in population across districts, the per capita value of agricultural production has been used.

2. Irrigation Extent: Irrigation has a key role in both stabilizing agricultural production and, through an increase in cropping intensity and an associated increase in productivity, improving a district’s food security position. It would also provide a better prospect in terms of rural employment.

3. Rural Connectivity: Access to paved roads has a big role in development. It reduces transport costs and can reduce transaction costs, with possible positive results on the prices realized by farmers. By improving communications, roads can increase the options available to rural producers, connecting them with larger national, regional and even international markets. Studies of rural roads have shown that they raise the productivity and value of land for poor farmers (Jacoby, 2000). It has been found that government spending on rural infrastructure, besides agricultural research and development, irrigation and rural development programmes targeted to the rural poor, have all contributed to reductions in rural poverty and increases in agricultural productivity. Marginal government expenditure on roads, in particular, has been found to have the largest positive impact on productivity growth (Fan et al., 1999).

4. Proportion of Forests: Forests are a form of common property resource. Availability of forest area can affect


food security as access to forest products provides income and supports nutrition, depending on the type and magnitude of the produce. But there are both legal and geographical restrictions on developing production in forest areas. Thus, it can be assumed that forest area is negatively associated with food security, since it limits the extension of agricultural production. However, since all the states do not have large forest cover, the combined exercise for all states has excluded this variable.

3.2.2 Food Access

Access to food or food distribution has been regarded to be the most important factor determining food security. A household’s access to food depends on its own production of food and the food it can acquire through sale of labour power or commodities produced by it. These are linked to what Amartya Sen calls endowment and exchange entitlements.

The following indicators have been considered in order to take into account the aspect of food accessibility.

1. Proportion of Agricultural Labourers: The total number of agricultural workers in the country has been estimated at 259 million as of 2004–05. Of these, more than one-third are wage workers and almost all of these are casual labourers. Agricultural labourers are characterized by extremely poor physical and human capital and also the highest poverty levels (NCEUS, 2007). Thus, it is expected that the proportion of

agricultural labourers will be negatively related to food security, i.e., the more the agricultural labourers in a district, the worse will be the food security situation.

2. Proportion of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes: The ST and SC households are known to be generally more food insecure, largely on account of their economic and social deprivation – the former on account of geographical marginalization and the latter due to historical deprivation and exclusion from the mainstream – all resulting in political marginalization. The proportion of ST and SC population in a district has been taken as an indicator of this marginalization. The assumption is that the greater the ST and SC population in a district the less it will be associated with food security.

3. Proportion of Working Age Population: The ratio between the productive section of the population to the economically dependent one is a valid demographic indicator at the household level. A ratio higher than unity represents a positive scenario, with more productive population compared to the dependent population1. This ‘demographic dividend’, if effectively harnessed, leads to prosperity and hence food security (Chandrasekhar et al., 2006).

4. Per Capita Consumption Expenditure: The NSS estimates of per capita consumption expenditure, adjusted for inequality, are a proxy for per capita income, reflecting a significant dimension of access to food. This variable accounts for all sources of income, including

1. One of the traits of any developed economy is a lower fertility rate, which leads to a ‘bulge’ in the working age group, thus improving the dependency ratio (reverse of working age group ratio), making it less than unity.


those which are depicted through availability of food as measured in terms of value of agricultural output. For instance, a district with low value of agricultural output along with a high value of consumption would mean that non-agricultural income, including remittances from migrants, plays a role in enabling consumption to be higher than agricultural production. This is the only way in which we can indirectly bring migration, which is such a crucial component of households’ food security strategies, into the picture.

5. Wage Rate of Rural Persons: Casual wage workers constitute about one-fifth of the workers in the unorganized non-agricultural sector while almost all agricultural labourers are casual workers (NCEUS, 2007). Casual workers tend to be the least protected and have the lowest level of earnings. The understanding is that agricultural labour, without the backing of self-produced food, is particularly vulnerable to food insecurity. There is, therefore, a particular concern with the earnings of agricultural labour.

6. Rural Female Literacy: It is well-known that there are gender-based inequalities in food consumption within a household. Consequently, mere household consumption data or per capita household consumption data would not tell us the story of intra-household distribution of food and related facilities, such as access to medical services, which would affect the nutritional status of women and girls. That such gender-based inequalities in household consumption exist is attested to by numerous case studies (see those reviewed in Bina Agarwal, 1994). Further, the very

high incidence of anaemia among women and girls shows that females are nutritionally deficient even in households that are not otherwise poor or nutritionally deficient. We have used the rural female literacy rate as the variable to represent gender-based inequality in household consumption. The argument is that a higher literacy rate for women is more likely to enable women to enhance their roles in family decision-making and increase their share of household consumption. At the same time, higher women’s literacy is also likely to lead to better knowledge of nutritional systems and improved health practices in the household.

3.2.3 Food Absorption

The ability of the body to translate food intake into nutritional status is mediated by a number of factors, some genetic and others related to hygiene and morbidity.

The following indicators have been chosen to determine a broad picture of food absorption:

1. Access to Safe Drinking Water: Reduction of the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water by half has been mentioned as part of the seventh Millennium Development Goal. Polluted and contaminated water undermines the safety and the nutritional well-being of individuals. Studies have shown that water and sanitation accounts for a substantial portion of the difference in infant and child mortality rates experienced by the rich and the poor (Leipziger et al., 2003). Clean and safe water supply is an essential element for achieving food security and good nutrition.


Though India has taken huge strides in terms of provision of safe drinking water since Independence, the fact remains that more people in India lack this basic minimum necessity now than 50 years ago. This is besides the fact that more people are vulnerable to water-borne diseases (Gujja and Shaik, 2005). Empirical studies have shown that water quality is a big problem in rural areas (Krishnan et al., 2003), and the availability and quality of potable water is a big factor that affects food insecurity. Almost two million children die each year because of lack of clean water and sanitation (UNICEF, 2007c). As there is no direct method for calculating access to safe drinking water, we have considered access to a tubewells, taps and hand pumps as three ways of acquiring safe drinking water.

2. Access to Primary Health Services: Public health services, which reduce a population’s exposure to disease through such measures as sanitation and vector control, are an essential part of a country’s development infrastructure. The health infrastructure protects the local population from exposure to diseases, for instance, through assuring food safety, vector control and health education to improve personal health behaviour (Gupta, 2005).

In rural areas, all health services are pivoted around the Public Health Centres (PHCs), hence we have taken access to them as an indicator determining food absorption.

After calculating the index of each variable, we have averaged them to give each of the three dimensions of food security

– Availability, Access and Absorption. The composite Food Security Index is again derived by averaging all the selected indicators.

The detailed methodology used for calculating the Food Security Outcome Index (FSOI) and Food Security Index (FSI) based on the indicators discussed above has been given in Appendix II.

3.3 Priority Districts as Identified in State Atlases

As discussed above, the FSI is a composite index covering three dimensions, i.e., availability, access, and absorption factors. The list of districts falling in the two lowest groups of both FSO and FSI i.e. severely insecure and extremely insecure were combined to make a list of food insecure districts for priority interventions within each state and were called priority districts. The list of priority districts for the eight states is discussed in the following sections.

Although one of the objectives of the Atlases was to identify the districts requiring priority intervention, what emerged from the analysis is that they were not just individual districts randomly distributed across a state, but were groups of districts falling in a similar geographical region within a state or even crossing the state boundaries, that had similar food security rankings. The regions that were relatively more secure could be distinguished from those that were insecure by a number of regional characteristics. This is not a surprising result, as one would expect that agro-ecological regions would tend to share characteristics with regard to food security status. For instance, the coastal region of


Odisha or the plains of Chhattisgarh, both with relatively high levels of irrigation, stand out as regions of relative food security within their states. Similarly, the hill-forest regions of the Eastern Ghats of Odisha and the Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh are both clearly worse off than the rest of the state.

We now give below a brief description of the priority intervention districts within the eight states under study which have been identified in the respective state atlases. These pertain to the prioritisation within the state only.

3.3.1 Bihar

Bihar is geographically plain and agriculturally productive. However, 12 districts have been identified as the priority districts which are food insecure, and fall within three kinds of regions – one is of the northern flood-prone plain where Sitamarhi and Sheohar have been identified as the priority districts requiring food security interventions. Northeastern parts of Bihar comprising the districts of Araria, Kishanganj, Madhepura, Purnia and Katihar also require priority attention for their food security. The third region of priority districts fall in the southern part of Bihar. These include the districts of Kaimur, Aurangabad, Lakhisarai, Jamui and Banka (see map 3.1 and table 3.2).

In terms of the relationship of the input Food Security Index (FSI) to individual indicators, seven variables emerge to be of prime importance, viz: (i) irrigation (ii) agricultural output per capita, and (iii) approach to paved roads, all of which are availability indicators; (iv) female literacy and (v) proportion of non-agricultural workforce, which are access indicators; and (vi) availability of safe drinking water and (viii) easy accessibility to public health centres (PHCs), which are absorption (utilisation) indicators.

From the point of view of policy interventions, the relationship of Food Security to individual indicators is much more relevant than the relationship of FSI to overall availability, access or absorption indices, since policy can address individual variables, not their composite.

3.3.2 Chhattisgarh

Twelve out of the total 16 districts have been identified as the food insecure districts and have been listed in the priority intervention districts in this study. Our analysis gives two contiguous areas of extreme food insecurity – Bastar and Dantewada in the South, and Surguja, Koria and Korba in the north; with the rest of north Chhattisgarh (Jashpur, Raigarh, Kwardha, Mahasamand and Bilaspur) following. In the central region, Rajnandgaon, Durg, Kwardha and Bilaspur have been identified for priority interventions for the food security (see map 3.2 and table 3.3).

The region that is clearly out of the food insecure category is that of the Central Plains. Not only irrigation and the adoption of high yield variety (HYV) cultivation in this region are quite high, but it also is the centre of industry in the state, with all its benefits of higher migration possibilities and remittances.

The districts of Chhattisgarh fare poorly on nutritional outcomes, with only the more urbanized and industrialized districts doing better. Thus, ensuring food security and improving the nutritional status is a challenge for the state of Chhattisgarh as a whole. At the same time, it is also necessary to pay special attention to the food security needs of the so-called primitive tribes, such as Pahari Korwa, Kamar, Baiga and Birhor.


Map 3.1: Priority Districts for Food Security Interventions in Bihar

Table 3.2: Priority Districts of Bihar for Food Security Interventions

Northern Bihar Northeastern Bihar Southern Bihar

Sheohar and Sitamarhi Kishanganj, Araria, Katihar, Madhepura and Purnia

Jamui, Aurangbad, Kaimur, Lakhisarai and Banka


Map 3.2: Priority Districts for Food Security Interventions in Chhattisgarh

Table 3.3: Priority Districts of Chhattisgarh for Food Security Interventions

Southern (Bastar) Plateau

Northern Region

Central Plains

Dantewada Korba RajnandgaonBastar Jashpur Kwardha

Rajgarh MahasamundSurguja BilaspurKoriya Durg


Access to roads and irrigation are two areas in which the state lags considerably behind the the rest of the country, while the Southern Plateau, in addition, has very low rates of adult female literacy. Low per capita agricultural productivity is the feature of the state’s rain-fed agriculture. Rural connectivity and small scale irrigation in a manner appropriate to hill and plateau regions, along with improving female literacy, should form the core of efforts to reduce extreme poverty, and thus hunger, in Chhattisgarh.

Along with this, special efforts are needed for development of livelihoods of forest-based populations.

This itself comprises a number of measures, including:

1. Implementation of the Forest Rights Protection Act so as to provide security of tenure

2. Investment to enable a shift to production of high value crops

3.3.3 Jharkhand

Ranking of the districts of Jharkhand on the basis of all the 12 indicators (FSI) reveals that Dhanbad is the only food secure district of the state. None of the districts was found to be moderately secure. Most of the districts of the state (9 out of 18 districts) are severely insecure and three are extremely insecure - Chatra, Giridih and Purbi Singhbhum.

The food security atlas of Jharkhand recommends 12 districts out of 18 as requiring urgent attention for food security interventions. Among the priority districts 4 lie in the Western Plateau (Garhwa, Gumla, Palamu and Lohardaga), Paschim Singhbhum and Purbi Singhbhum in

the Southeastern Plateau and Chatra, Sahebganj, Bokaro, Deoghar, Giridih, Pakur and Sahibganj in the Central and Northeastern Plateau (see map 3.3 and table 3.4).

Giridih and Chatra suffer from all types of food insecurity but Purbi Singhbhum has a different story. Purbi Singhbhum, which is a highly urbanized district, is secure in outcome and moderately secure in food absorption indices but is severely insecure in food availability and extremely insecure in access to food indices. Bokaro is another highly urbanized district and like Purbi Singhbhum is food secure in terms of outcome but is insecure in all other indicators of food insecurity (moderately insecure in availability and access and severely insecure in absorption indices) and severely insecure in food security index (FSI). These results raise one question about the methodology adopted here. Is a stress on agricultural production not out of place in highly urbanised districts?

In general, the districts of Jharkhand fare poorly on similar terms to those of Chhattisgarh discussed earlier. The state lags behind the country in access to roads and irrigation, together with rain-fed agriculture, and low per capita agricultural productivity. Similar measures for increasing rural connectivity and small-scale irrigation (e.g. check dams) and watershed management for hill and plateau regions need to be adopted.

Special efforts for development of livelihoods of forest-based populations particularly tribes as discussed in the case of Chhattisgarh are also needed. Production changes to reduce food insecurity require improved access, as well as extension and technological development for enhanced capabilities, building on local capacities and knowledge.


Map 3.3: Priority Districts for Food Security Interventions in Jharkhand

Table 3.4: Priority Districts of Jharkhand for Food Security Interventions

Central North East

South Eastern

Western Plateau

Chatra Paschimi Singhbhum

Garhwa

Bokaro Purbi Singhbhum

Gumla

Deoghar PalamuGiridih LohardagaPakurSahibganj


The three issues of land reform discussed earlier need to be tackled in Jharkhand, in order to improve food security:

• Restoration of illegally-acquired tribal lands

• Distribution of land to the landless, largely Scheduled Castes

• Security of tenure of Scheduled Tribes in forest areas

Jharkhand has a specific requirement – to design policies for industrialization that do not increase the number of the displaced refugees, but enable them to secure improved livelihoods in the course of industrialization. This is a matter of intense debate, even confrontation. One way of achieving this, could be by combining mineral-based industries with labour-intensive industrialization (e.g. textiles and garments) that can absorb the poorly educated labour that is likely to be displaced by mineral based industrialization.

One of the problems in Jharkhand is the poor reach of the educational and health services, and PDS, MGNREGS and all other food access schemes. In recent years, there have been some improvements, but Jharkhand still lags behind most other states in the reach of its programmes. Whether or not the goal of improved food security in Jharkhand is met depends to a great extent on improving the functioning and implementation of various schemes and interventions. As discussed earlier, improvement in the implementation of schemes depends on improvement in administration and governance systems, but also on the people who are to benefit from the schemes – organized through community-based organisations (CBOs), NGOs or traditional tribal bodies – in demanding and monitoring implementation of these schemes.

3.3.4 Madhya Pradesh

Four clear clusters of underdevelopment in terms of food security can be identified in the state:

1. The western tribal districts of Jhabua, Barwani and Ratlam in the Jhabua hills and Malwa plateau;

2. The eastern parts of the state comprising the region adjoining Northern Chhattisgarh which comprises the districts of Sidhi, Shahdol, Dindori and Mandla and a large parts of Keymore Plateau with districts of Panna, Katni, Umaria, Seoni and Rewa;

3. The contiguous region comprising districts of Bundelkhand and the Vindhyan Plateau region. These include districts of Chhattarpur, Datia,Tikamgarh, Damoh, Sagar, Vidisha, Guna, Shivpuri, Sheopur and Rajgarh; and

4. The group of districts in the south western region which comprises East Nimar, Harda and Betul (see map 3.4 and table 3.5).

Among the eight states of this study, Madhya Pradesh has the lowest per capita calorie intake and the worst performance in terms of child mortality and undernutrition indicators. Thus, in terms of food security outcomes, the state is one of the worst performers in the country, with 60 per cent of the children underweight and almost 30 per cent of them severely underweight. In terms of wasting as well, the state has the highest figure (35 per cent). Half of the children are stunted, an indicator of chronic undernutrition. In general, the districts of Madhya Pradesh fare poorly on nutritional outcomes, with the Northern Chhattisgarh Region, Bundelkhand and Jhabua Hills forming the most insecure regions.


Table 3.5: Priority Districts of Madhya Pradesh for Food Security Interventions

Central Malwa Northern South South Western

Vindhya

Damoh Jhabua Datia Dindori Barwani ChhattarpurSagar Rajgarh Guna Katni Betul PannaVidisha Ratlam Sheopur Mandla East Nimar Rewa

Shivpuri Seoni Harda ShahdolSidhiTikamgarhUmaria

Map 3.4: Priority Districts for Food Security Interventions in Madhya Pradesh


Looking at average rainfall (which is medium to high in most parts of the state) and the variability over time and space, it becomes clear that the main issue here is not the adequacy of rainfall per se. Rather the issue is more of effective conservation and utilization of water resources in these regions. The watershed programmes have a significant role to play in this regard (Sen et al., 2007).

Rural connectivity is very poor in most of the districts of Madhya Pradesh, reflected in the fact that the state has only 52 kms of road per 100 sq kms while the national average is 75 kms. The vast size of the state with neglected interiors and difficult, hilly terrain, pose tremendous challenge for maintenance and upkeep of roads. The tribal populated districts are among the most neglected.

Investments in higher-value tree crops (e.g., coffee and pepper, or cashew, pineapple, turmeric, etc.) have been seen to provide substantially higher incomes, in combination with traditional swidden cultivation. But such investment, unlike seasonal swidden crops, is a medium-term investment. Households require security of tenure in order to undertake such investments. The recently-passed Forest Rights Act could provide some security of tenure for these lands.

3.3.5 Maharashtra

The analysis of this report has yielded the following districts as requiring special attention for food security interventions in Maharashtra:

The more food insecure districts of Maharashtra fall into two groups. One is of the hill-forest districts, such as Nandurbar and Gadchiroli. The other and larger group of districts is in the semi-arid plains of the Deccan Plateau, i.e. the districts of the regions of Vidarbha and Marathwada.

The district of Thane does fall within the category of those performing the worst, but it has two clear regions. One is the urban and industrial area of Thane and the adjoining areas, and the other is the hill-forest region of the Western Ghats lying within the district. One can be sure that is in the latter region that performs poorly. NSS region-wise one district, namely Thane, falls in Coastal region, and two districts fall in the Inland Northern region which is adjoining Thane. Nanded from the Inland Central region, Gadchiroli, Bhandara, Chandrapur and Gondiya from the Eastern region and three districts namely Yavatmal, Nagpur and Wardha from the Inland Eastern region have been identified as priority districts (see map 3.5 and table 3.6).

Agricultural production (food plus non-food crops) is not only extremely low in the forest-dominated districts but also along the coast. Even the highly irrigated districts are in the very low production category. Even intra-state, there is a large district-wide variation. The western and eastern region of the state has relatively low productivity level in comparison to the central part of the state.

As discussed earlier, Maharashtra, has a large semi-arid belt in the Marathwada and Vidarbha regions, with mainly rain-fed agricultural production, which has witnessed a large numbers of farmers’ suicides. This agriculture needs to be revitalized for reducing food insecurity, as that would increase labour employment as well as wage rates. Employment-based programmes (e.g. MGNREGA schemes) can also be directed to improve infrastructure to provide needed public goods (roads), or quasi-public goods (irrigation) for the area.


Map 3.5: Priority Districts for Food Security Interventions in Maharashtra

Coastal Inland Northern

Inland Central

Eastern Inland Eastern

Thane Nandurbar Nanded Gadchiroli YavatmalNashik Bhandara Nagpur

Chandrapur WardhaGondiya

Table 3.6: Priority Districts of Maharashtra for Food Security Interventions


3.3.6 Odisha

In the state of Odisha, we found a contiguous zone of acute food insecurity. Twenty one districts out of a total of 30 districts of the state require food security interventions and have been identified as priority districts. Further, there is a group of four districts within this zone that require urgent and sustained attention – the districts of Kandhamal, Malkangiri, Gajapati and Rayagada. They are ranked as ‘High Priority’ Districts that need the urgent attention of government and policy makers. This is the ‘geography of hunger’ in the state of Odisha.

Along with the above, there is also a broader group of districts that requires priority attention for enhancing food security, listed in Table 3.7 and presented in map 3.6.

Our analysis of Odisha reveals that areas with a high proportion of Scheduled Tribes are more prone to food insecurity. They are forest areas and point to the importance of a development policy for forest-related populations. With a high proportion of agricultural labourers and Scheduled Castes in Odisha, it is necessary to pay attention to increasing employment and wages, including through non-agricultural development. At the same time, provision of even a small plot of land can substantially increase the food access of the landless.

The analysis of the FSI and the related Principal Component Analysis (PCA) points to the following areas/sectors that require priority intervention:

1. Women’s literacy, which can be taken as a proxy for women’s empowerment;

2. Irrigation; and

3. Infrastructure

Interventions in the above areas are issues for development policy and it is necessary to explore how food-based schemes can be linked with development.

3.3.7 Rajasthan

The most food insecure districts in Rajasthan are located in the sub-humid southern plains and western arid plain.

The areas requiring priority attention are:

• The whole southern region, including Banswara, Dungarpur, Rajsamand and Udaipur;

• 8 out of 11 districts in the western arid region, including Barmer, Jaisalmer, Pali, Sirohi, Bikaner, Jalor, Nagaur and Jodhpur;

• 6 districts namely Ajmer, Bhilwara, Karauli, Sawai Madhopur, Tonk and Dholpur, out of the total 12 districts in the notheastern region; and

• 4 of the 5 districts of southeastern region, including Baran, Chittaurgarh, Jhalawar and Bundi. (see map 3.7 and table 3.8)

The irrigated northwestern districts, parts of the humid southeastern plain and certain districts in the inland drainage region and the semi-arid eastern plain are relatively secure regions.

Many of these priority districts are inhabited by a high proportion of ST population, while in some of these districts, there is also a high proportion of SCs. These areas also have a high proportion of agricultural labourers and low


Map 3.6: Priority Districts for Food Security Interventions in Odisha

Table 3.7: Priority Districts of Odisha for Food Security InterventionsEastern Ghats

Northern Plateau

Coastal Plains

Central Table Land

Kandhamal Kendujhar Gajapati SonepurMalkangiri Sundargarh Ganjam BargarhRayagada Mayurbhanj Bhadrak SambalpurNuapada Jajpur BalangirKoraput AngulKalahandi DeogarhBoudhNabarangapur


Map 3.7: Priority Districts for Food Security Interventions in Rajasthan

Table 3.8: Priority Districts of Rajasthan for Food Security InterventionsNorth Eastern South

EasternSouthern Western

Ajmer Baran Banswara BarmerBhilwara Chittaurgarh Dungarpur JaisalmerKarauli Jhalawar Rajsamand PaliSawai Madhopur Bundi Udaipur SirohiTonk BikanerDhaulpur Jalor

NagaurJodhpur


wage rates. Women’s literacy rate which is taken as a proxy for women’s status, is also dismal in these districts. Rural connectivity too is poor in most of these food insecure districts.

3.3.8 Uttar Pradesh

Our analysis shows that in the state of Uttar Pradesh, there is a contiguous zone of acute food insecurity – many districts of the Southern Region adjoining Bundelkhand and the Central Region, which extends from Lalitpur to Pilibhit and further extends in the Eastern Gangetic Region up to Maharajganj. Besides, the districts of Sonbhadra and Mirzapur in the southern part of the Eastern Region and Bulandshahar, Aligarh and Hathras (Mahamaya Nagar) in the Western Region are two stand alone zones of food insecurity. Together they form the ‘geography of hunger’ in Uttar Pradesh. There are altogether 28 districts out of the total 70 districts which require priority attention from the Government to ensure food security in the state (see map 3.8 and table 3.9)

There is a high proportion of Scheduled Caste (SC) population in most of these districts. These are also areas with a high proportion of agricultural labourers, low wage rates, and low female literacy rates. Rural connectivity is poor in most of the food insecure districts.

3.4 Geography of Food Insecurity – A Consolidated Analysis

This study had set out to identify districts that were more food insecure. What we found, however, was that these

districts added up to distinct geographical regions. Further, these regions are not confined to those within states. In some ways, state boundaries are arbitrary, in that they often cut across regions. The Satpura hill region, for instance, goes across the Madhya Pradesh-Maharashtra border and falls in both states. Do these adjoining state regions merge into large regions that cut across states?

To understand this, a consolidated analysis of all 281 districts across the eight states has been undertaken. The calculated indices of food availability, food access, food absorption, and food security have been plotted on the district map of the eight states under study together. Districts having a higher index value are considered relatively more food secure compared to districts with lower index values. The districts were divided into five groups namely secure, moderately secure, moderately insecure, severely insecure and extremely insecure. Of the 281 districts, the maps exhibit that there is a contiguous region beyond the district and state boundaries which shares common geographical characteristics.

The geographical distribution of the food availability index is presented in map 3.9. As can be seen, the plateau, forested, desert and tribal-dominated area of the eight states are extremely insecure. The northeastern part of Madhya Pradesh, northern Chhattisgarh, Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and northwestern part of Odisha which share these characteristics form a contiguous region of the extremely insecure in terms of food availability. The Gangetic river valley of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and Narmada valley regions in Madhya Pradesh are relatively secure in terms of food availability.


Map 3.8: Priority Districts for Food Security Interventions in Uttar Pradesh

Table 3.9: Priority Districts of Uttar Pradesh for Food Security InterventionsCentral Eastern Southern Western

Fatehpur Balrampur Chitrakoot AuraiyaSitapur Kaushambi Lalitpur PilibhitRae Bareli Siddharthnagar Mahoba FarrukhabadUnnao Sonbhadra Banda MainpuriHardoi Shrawasti Hamirpur Aligarh Kheri Mirzapur Jhansi HathrasKanpur Dehat Bahraich Bulandshahr

Maharajganj


Similarly, one can observe the geographical distribution of the food access index which emerged from the six different indicators. Even from this perspective, one can observe that the extremely insecure regions are the forested and tribal regions of Chhattisgarh, Odisha and some parts of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Some regions of Maharashtra, Rajasthan and a district of Raigarh in Chhattisgarh have been found to be secure. One can also observe a contiguous belt of severely insecure districts spread across Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha and Bihar (See Map 3.10).

The geographical distribution of the food absorption index can also be seen in specific groups (regions). Here, the area of Bundelkhand, the plateau region of Jharkhand and Chattisgarh and desert region of Rajasthan are extremely insecure in terms of food absorption. Severely insecure districts are in most of the cases adjacent to the extremely insecure districts. At the other extreme, Bihar, western Uttar Pradesh and parts of Maharashtra are relatively secure in terms of the food absorption index (See Map 3.11).

The combination of the three different aspects provides us a food security index is represented in Map 3.12. One can vividly discern the pattern of food secure and food insecure regions in the map. Three extremely food insecure regions can easily be identified. The first region, which is a relatively largest contiguous region, extends from the eastern part of Madhya Pradesh to Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Jharkhand. While a substantial share of these states are food insecure – with the entire Jharkhand (all 18 districts), 13 districts of Chhattisgarh, 29 districts of Madhya Pradesh, 19 districts of Odisha and 11 districts of Bihar. The second region is in

the southern part of Chhattisgarh and south western part of Odisha largely consisting of Bastar, Dantewada and the Kalahandi – Balangir – Koraput (KBK) regions of Odisha. The third region, which is a relatively smaller food insecure region, is in the south western part of Madhya Pradesh particularly constituted by the Jhabua and Barwani districts. Nearly all these regions are tribal-dominated. At the other extreme, southern Maharashtra, north western Uttar Pradesh and north eastern Rajasthan are found to be food secure regions (see Map 3.12).

We have also calculated a food security outcome index with the help of two indicators namely under five mortality and underweight children. The geographical distribution of the food outcome index is presented in map 3.13. Though we do not observe a large region of extremely insecure districts, we do observe a wide region of severely insecure districts. Bulandshahar, Sidhi, Panna, Mainpuri, Katni and Farrukhabad are extremely insecure districts.

In map 3.14 and Appendix IV we have put together the most food insecure districts emerging from the composite analysis of all the eight states. These are the priority districts for food security interventions. These districts have been identified from the two insecure categories namely ‘extremely insecure’ and ‘severly insecure’ from both FSI and FSO. It can easily be noticed that often adjoining regions across state boundaries together fall into the most food insecure positions. This map only reinforces the geography of hunger – hunger is most prevalent in the central India hill-forest belt, along with semi-arid plateaus (in Madhya Pradesh and the Deccan plateau in Maharashtra) and the arid desert of Rajasthan. One can say that the composite map does


Map 3.9: Food Availability


Map 3.10: Food Access


Map 3.11: Food Absorption


Map 3.12: Food Security


Map 3.13: Food Security Outcome


Map 3.14: Priority Districts Identified from Consolidated Analysis

Bihar

RajasthanUttar Pradesh

JharkhandMadhya Pradesh

ChhattisgarhOdisha

Maharashtra

Table 3.10: Identified Number of Priority Districts across Eight StatesStates Total Number of

Priority Districts Total Number of Districts

Bihar 11 37Chhattisgarh 14 16Jharkhand 18 18Madhya Pradesh

39 45

Maharashtra 2 33Odisha 19 30Rajasthan 16 32Uttar Pradesh 33 70TOTAL 152 281


Table 3.10: Identified Number of Priority Districts across Eight States

not invalidate the analysis that hunger in India depends on geography. Of course, within the geography, there is also the social dimension of adivasis and dalits being more prone to hunger.

3.5 Nature of Food Insecure Regions

This exercise had set out to identify districts that are food insecure and the need for priority intervention. But, as pointed out above, what we found is that the food insecure districts actually fall into distinct regions. From the analysis, the hill-forest and plateaus have been identified as being the most food insecure. There are also some other specific regions that come into the priority category – the Western desert region of Rajasthan, the semi-arid Deccan Plateau of Maharashtra and parts of the Gangetic plain in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Both the desert and the semi-arid Deccan Plateau are regions of generally depressed agrarian conditions.

As mentioned earlier, the food insecure regions, in comparison to the better-off regions within the same states, have relatively

• low irrigation

• poor connectivity

• higher proportion of ST population in the hill-forest and plateaus,

• high proportions of SCs and agricultural labourers and low agricultural wages, and

• lower levels of female literacy.

These regional differences in food insecurity within states have important implications for the nature of interventions

to improve food security in these districts. At the least, they can help us identify actions that need to be taken to bring about parity in the food security amongst all the regions within the same state.

3.6 Overcoming Geography

As mentioned earlier, the point of identifying the geography of hunger is to draw attention to the constraints that have to be overcome in order to eliminate or even reduce hunger, rather than implying that ‘geography is destiny’. A low productivity of rain-fed foodgrain production, the source of own entitlements for small and marginal farmers, can make the people even more vulnerable when there is a high variability production in rain-fed agriculture due to variability in rainfall.

Table 3.11 shows the level of instability in food grain production in various states. States such as Rajasthan and Jharkhand show the highest levels of instability.

The states of Rajasthan and Jharkhand rank at the bottom in instability of food grain production. The Standard Deviations of growth rates of total food grain production over the 15-year period, 1991-2005, are 229.6 and 122.4 respectively. The next highest Standard Deviation is that of Chhattisgarh which is much lower at 66.2. Of course, within these states too there are regions where the food grain production is subject to much less variation – such as the Ganganagar canal area in Rajasthan and the well-irrigated Central Plains of Chhattisgarh.


Table 3.11: Level of Agricultural Development

State % of National Foodgrain Production

Foodgrain Yield (TE 2005-06)

Instability in Foodgrain Production1

Cropping Intensity2

Irrigation Extent3

(TE 2005-06) Rank kg / ha Rank (1991-2005) Rank (%) Rank (%) RankIndia 100 1714 9.4 134.4 39.6Andhra Pradesh

7.1 4 2155 4 18.9 7 121.7 11 38.1 7

Assam 1.8 15 1437 9 6.2 2 143.1 6 6.2 16Bihar 4.5 9 1498 8 17.1 6 138.8 7 60.6 4Chhattisgarh 2.8 14 1107 14 66.6 14 116.9 13 23.1 12

Gujarat 2.9 12 1554 7 43.6 13 113.8 16 31.6 10Haryana 6.3 7 3087 2 6.5 3 177.5 2 84.0 2Jharkhand 1.8 16 1265 12 122.4 15 120.3 12 9.3 15Karnataka 3.6 10 1275 11 28.7 11 116.6 14 24.9 11Madhya Pradesh

7.1 5 1184 13 23.9 9 128.4 8 33.5 8

Maharashtra 5.4 8 909 16 25 10 127.2 9 16.9 14Odisha 3.4 11 1334 10 38.5 12 146 5 22.9 13Punjab 12.2 2 3996 1 5.8 1 185.9 1 95.4 1

Rajasthan 6.6 6 1053 15 229.6 16 123.8 10 95.4 9Tamil Nadu 2.9 13 1806 6 20.8 8 115.8 15 50.2 6 Uttar Pradesh

19.7 1 2119 5 9 5 153.4 4 73.7 3

West Bengal 7.8 3 2464 3 6.6 4 176.5 3 54.5 5

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India (Various Years).1 Instability in production = standard deviation of growth rates of total food grain production (1991-2005)2 Cropping Intensity = Gross Area Sown / Net Area Sown (expressed as percentage)3 Irrigation Extent = Net Area Irrigated / Net Area Sown (expressed as percentage)


This indicates that the extreme variations in food grain production can be overcome by various types of irrigation and drought-proofing methods. To state the obvious, Punjab and Haryana receive less and possibly more variable rainfall than Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh. But the development of irrigation overcomes these natural constraints of the agro-ecological system. Another way in which agro-ecological constraints have been overcome, or rather turned from a disadvantage into an advantage, is that of Himachal Pradesh which has reduced hunger by developing production of high-value fruits.

There are also socio-political characteristics of the hunger prone areas. They tend to have high concentrations of STs and SCs. There is a need to overcome the political marginalization of these communities in order to formulate and implement appropriate policies – ranging from improvements in connectivity and development of irrigation and water-retention appropriate to hill-forest areas, development of high value crops, to distribution of land to the landless and measures to raise the agricultural wage income.

Finally, and most importantly, there is a clear identification of hunger-prone areas having the highest levels of adult female illiteracy. All development literature points to the importance of enhancing women’s agency in the eradication of poverty and hunger. Our analysis only reiterates this position that improving female literacy is a key to reducing hunger.

We now move to a detailed analysis of measures that can be taken to eliminate or even reduce hunger in the most food insecure districts of the country.

Before we proceed to a discussion of interventions in agriculture and rural development, it is necessary to place the needed structural changes in the overall context of these state economies, indeed of the Indian economy as a whole.

3.6.1 Transformation of Economic Structure

The states that have been analyzed have high proportions of population dependant on agriculture, while agriculture contributes a small and decreasing proportion of states’ GDP (see Table 3.12).

At the same time, the regions that are food insecure generally have a low agricultural potential. They are hill-forest and semi-arid or arid regions, with high proportions of forest and wastelands. With low irrigation, the agriculture is largely rain-fed (see Table 3.13).

Why do these areas of rain-fed agriculture have a tendency to be food insecure? The first reason is that agricultural productivity, output per capita or per acre, is low, as a result of which the entitlement to food depending on own production is insufficient to meet food needs. The access to food among farmers is limited by low productivity of agriculture.

The second reason is that with rain-fed agriculture, which is basically single cropped, there are limited employment opportunities for agricultural labour. Wage rates remain low and the numbers of days of employment in agriculture are limited. This leads to the phenomenon of substantial seasonal migration for employment.


Table 3.12: Percentage Share of Agriculture to Total GSDP/GDP and Percentage Share of Workers in Agriculture to Total Workers

State Year GSDP/GDP Worker% Share of agriculture and allied to GSDP

% Share of workers in agriculture and allied to total workers

Bihar 2004-05 31.5 73.42009-10 21.4 61.9

Chhattisgarh 2004-05 21.2 77.72009-10 17.8 74.1

Jharkhand 2004-05 14.9 62.4

2009-10 17.7 46.3Madhya Pradesh 2004-05 27.7 69.4

2009-10 24.2 68.8Maharashtra 2004-05 10.6 55.7

2009-10 8.4 52.4Odisha 2004-05 23.5 63.3

2009-10 18.7 60.8Rajasthan 2004-05 25.6 61.7

2009-10 22.7 52.8Uttar Pradesh 2004-05 29.7 61.5

2009-10 23.9 56.1All-India 2004-05 19.0 58.5

2009-10 14.6 53.2Source: GSDP and GDP calculated from MOSPI (http://mospi.nic.in) and worker is calculated from 61st and 66th NSS employment and unemployment survey.


Table 3.13: Environmental Limitations to Agricultural Development

State % ofWastelandsto total area

Rainfall Deviation from Norm

Forest Area (%)

Agricultural Extent* (%)

2003 Rank TE 2004-05

Rank 2003 Rank TE 2001-04

Rank

Andhra Pradesh

16.46 14 -8.3 11 16.2 9 36.62 13

Assam 17.89 15 6.7 1 35.5 15 35.34 13Bihar 5.78 5 3.0 3 5.9 5 60.90 5Chhattisgarh 5.61 4 -1.0 4 41.4 17 34.69 15

Gujarat 10.4 9 -4.3 7 7.6 6 50.83 9Haryana 7.39 8 -6.0 9 3.4 2 80.48 2Jharkhand 14.01 12 -5.7 8 28.5 13 22.20 17Karnataka 7.06 7 -16.0 14 19.0 11 52.00 8Kerala 4.6 2 -18.0 15 40.1 16 56.37 7Madhya Pradesh

18.53 16 -8.3 11 24.8 12 33.31 16

Maharashtra 16.01 13 -13.7 13 15.3 8 57.04 6Odisha 12.17 10 -3.0 6 31.1 14 37.08 11Punjab 2.33 1 -24.3 16 3.1 1 84.38 1

Rajasthan 29.64 17 -27.0 17 4.6 3 43.74 10Tamil Nadu 13.3 11 -2.0 5 17.4 10 37.05 12Uttar Pradesh

7.05 6 -8.0 10 5.9 4 68.97 3

West Bengal 4.95 3 6.0 2 13.9 7 62.50 4Total 17.45 -7.7 20.6 45.30

Source: Wastelands – Wasteland Atlas, 2003; Forests – State of Forest Report, 2003; Rainfall and NAS – Ministry of Agriculture* Agricultural Extent = Net area sown / Total Reporting Area x 100


2. Surplus in the sense that easing workers from agriculture would not reduce marginal productivity.

Within this economic structure of low productive agriculture on which a large proportion of the rural population depend for income, what can be done to improve food security?

Some measures can be taken for increasing productivity in agriculture, through increasing moisture retention, small and medium irrigation schemes, increase in production of higher value horticultural crops, etc. But there is a limit to how much agricultural productivity can be increased in hill-forest, semi-arid and arid regions. With currently existing technology there is not much potential for a substantial increase in productivity in these regions. If bio-technology were to develop varieties that could be high yielding while also being drought resistant, then the picture could change. But, at present, even state-sponsored research, leave alone private sector research, is not geared towards increasing productivity in rain-fed crops, due to which these crops are often called ‘orphan crops’ (see IAASTD, 2008, for an analysis of the limitations of existing research on crops of rain-fed agriculture.) Even the National Food Security Mission focuses on increasing production of the major cereals, wheat and rice, and not of coarse cereals and other orphan crops.

There has been an overall neglect of investment in agriculture and rural development in the past decade or so. Reversing this trend is necessary, but will it be sufficient to overcome the problem of rural food insecurity?

With this scenario, the strategy for improving food security in the food insecure regions cannot be based entirely, or even substantially, on an increase in agricultural productivity.

The development of rural non-farm enterprises too tends to depend on the level of income of an area. Agriculturally depressed regions are not likely to be home to rural non-farm enterprises with much growth potential. What then is the way to substantially changing the face of rural deprivation manifested in poor food security?

If agricultural productivity is not likely to change very much, then there is no getting away from the need to ease populations from agriculture into non-agriculture. Shifting surplus workers from agriculture is necessary to increase per capita productivity of populations dependent on agriculture.

This Lewisian transfer of workers from agriculture to non-agriculture is not given much attention in discussions of food security. But it is, in fact, crucial to enhancing rural food security in a country such as India, with a large surplus2 agricultural population. Thus, enhancing rural food security is not only a matter of increasing agricultural productivity; it is also one of easing workers out of agriculture.

The shift of workers from agriculture can take a number of forms. There can be a seasonal migration into, for instance, urban construction or manufacturing. There can also be a more permanent migration of largely male workers. This male migration has led to the phenomenon of growing feminization of agricultural work in countries such as India, China and Vietnam. It can be centralized migration to large urban conglomerates, such as has been the feature of Latin America or South-east Asia. Or, there can be migration into decentralized urban centres, spread around the countryside,


as is often the case in China and parts of India (especially South India). But, in one way or the other, a shift of workers from agriculture to non-agriculture, thus reducing claims on a limited agricultural output, is essential to improving the state of rural food security.

At the same time, it should be noted that there can well be a development of non-agricultural sectors without a corresponding reduction of rural poverty and thus, of rural food insecurity. This can be illustrated by the case of Jharkhand.

Most of the workers in Jharkhand, as is the case in most other states in the country, are engaged in the agricultural sector. Around 60 per cent of workers are engaged in the agricultural sector but they contribute only around 21 per cent

to the gross domestic product of the state (see Table 3.14). As in rest of India, in Jharkhand too the productivity of labour is the least in the agriculture sector. On the other hand, only around two per cent of the workers are engaged in mining and quarrying but contribute 14 per cent to the GSDP and ten per cent of the workers are engaged in manufacturing but contribute 27 per cent to the GSDP. Thus, 12 per cent of workers who are in mining and manufacturing, account for 41 per cent of GSDP.

The skewed nature of the economic structure of Jharkhand means that, despite a per capita income above the all-India average, the incidence of rural poverty is second only to that of Odisha. While at the all-India level, about 28 per cent of the rural and 27 per cent of the urban people live below poverty line, around 46 per cent of the rural and 20 per cent

Table 3.14: Percentage of Workers and GSDP in Jharkhand, 2004-05

Sector Workers GSDPAgriculture, etc. 59.35 21.57Mining & Quarrying 2.17 14.29Primary 61.52 35.86Manufacturing 9.80 27.23Construction 10.94 7.18Secondary 20.96 36.13Finance, Business, Real Estate, etc

1.05 7.40

Public Admn., Health, education, etc.

5.19 7.11

Tertiary 17.52 28.00Total 100.00 100.00


of the urban people of Jharkhand are poor (see Table 3.15).

Thus, there is a wide rural urban disparity in the incidence of poverty in Jharkhand. The urban poverty in Jharkhand is much less than that of India on the whole.

What the above sets of data show is that there is almost no connection between the development of mining and manufacturing and the incidence of rural poverty in Jharkhand. There are few beneficial urban-rural linkages. This then leads to a situation such as in East Singhbhum, where the rural areas show some of the worst malnutrition status, though the district also includes the industrial centre of Tatanagar. Here, the development of manufacturing has not resulted in a shift of rural workers into urban manufacturing. Rather, the urban and rural workers seem to be in different circuits altogether.

In contrast to the above, what is needed is manufacturing growth providing jobs to the rural workers from the area.

Such a growth of manufacturing and other urban centred occupations has beneficial effects in reducing food insecurity in the rural areas through reducing the pressure on rural incomes, promoting remittances and increasing tightness in the rural labour market.

Having stressed the importance of easing out over dependence on agriculture and increasing workers participation in non-agricultural avenues in order to improve rural food security, we now turn to an analysis of rural-based interventions that can increase agricultural productivity and thus promote rural food security.

Table 3.15: Head Count Ratio of Poverty in Rural Jharkhand

Year 1993-94 2004-05Jharkhand

Rural 62.3 46.2Urban 26.5 20.3Total 55.4 42.0

IndiaRural 37.2 28.3Urban 32.6 25.6

Total 36.1 27.6

Calculated by IHD from NSSO data for 193-94 and 2004-05.

The districts and regions most beset by hunger and food insecurity have been identified in the previous chapter. The analyses in the state reports suggest the measures and strategies that are needed for enhancing food security. Broadly, measures to improve availability must include improving irrigation and agricultural productivity. Farm incomes can be improved through better rural connectivity. Access should be improved by policies for enhancing rural wages and thereby spending on food, improving the lot of agricultural labour, land re-distribution, and enhancing the status of women. There can be no two opinions on the need to expand the reach of public interventions.

The central and state governments have launched a number of schemes and programmes that are aimed at enhancing food security in the states. Some of them are recent and it is too early to see their impact, while others have been under implementation for some time. This section discusses various food security interventions, both those being implemented and those proposed for implementation. At the end of the chapter we summarize the main priorities in linking food security interventions with development.

4.1 Enhancing Availability

Both low investment in agriculture and neglect of agricultural research and infrastructure have together resulted in a

relative stagnation in growth of food output. With present problems of rising food prices, there is now a renewed emphasis on increasing food production.

Increasing Food Production: The NFSMThe dismal rate of growth in the agricultural sector has been a cause for concern – the sector grew at a meagre rate of 1.8 per cent per annum during the nineties though this improved to 5.5 per cent between 2007-08 to 2010-11. This has been coupled with rising international prices bringing into question the food security of the country. With a view to increasing the rate of agricultural growth to 4 per cent, in 2007 the government launched the National Food Security Mission (NFSM) as a centrally sponsored scheme, entirely funded by the central government, with a total estimated outlay of over Rs. 50 billion. The programme specifically aims at increasing the production and productivity of three crops: rice, wheat and pulses. Related ongoing schemes like the Integrated Cereal Development Programme (ICDP Rice/Wheat) and the Integrated Scheme on Pulses, Oilseeds and Maize (ISOPOM Pulse) would cease to operate in the identified districts once the relevant component of the NFSM comes into execution in the district.

The objective of the mission is to increase the production of rice by 10 million tonnes, wheat by 8 million tonnes and pulses by 2 million tonnes, by the end of the 11th Plan. The

Chapter IV Addressing Food Insecurity


targets are to be achieved by restoring soil fertility and hence productivity, which would be complemented by increasing employment opportunities.

The mission operates at multiple levels from the national level, to state and district levels. At the grassroot level, the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) have an active role and were involved in the selection of beneficiaries and identification of priority areas and local initiatives.

The mission is being implemented in 133 districts for the rice component, 138 districts for wheat and 168 districts for the pulse component – all in identified districts of different states. In terms of target beneficiaries, 16 per cent of the total allocation are earmarked for SCs under the Special Component Plan (SCP) and 8 per cent are earmarked for the STs under the Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP). At least 33 per cent of the fund are to would be utilized for small, marginal and women farmers. Further, the allocations to the SC/ST

farmers are made in proportion to their population in the district.

The modality of implementation of the mission is in the form of demonstration of an improved package at farmers’ fields, assistance for production of hybrid rice, nutrient management for all the three crops, mechanization for sowing and weeding, and assistance for purchase of pump sets and sprinkler sets. Several capacity-building initiatives are be undertaken in the form of farmers’ training in Farmers’ Field Schools (FFS) and exposure visits to international organizations. For efficient information dissemination, help from print and e-media and other methods taken as required. All these are followed by rewarding the best performing districts on a set of indicators.

The NFSM concentrates on irrigated foodgrains, wheat and rice, and pulses. Other than for pulses, non-irrigated crops have been ignored. The NFSM is aimed at revitalizing fertility in lands which have deteriorated. But rain-fed crops, such as the various millets that are grown on hills and other drylands, do not come under its purview. In the context of the plateauing (and even decline) of yields in irrigated crops, it becomes even more important to pay attention to these rain-fed crops and to increase productivity in currently rain-fed areas. These are also areas of higher food insecurity. An increase in agricultural productivity in rain-fed areas will substantially reduce the incidence of hunger in these areas.

Watershed Development Programmes

One of the responses to address the prevailing issues in the rain-fed and arid areas came in the early nineties in the form of watershed development programmes (WDPs). WDPs seek

Figure 4.1: Allocation Proposed under NFSM

Source: Economic Survey, 2007--08.

Chapter 4: Addressing Food Insecurity | 55

to integrate various constituents of agro-ecological systems - cultivation, pastures and forests – in a holistic manner, at the same time, supporting the livelihoods and effecting institutional development in the process. Madhya Pradesh is perhaps the only state to have set up a special mission – the Rajiv Gandhi Mission for Watershed Management

(RGMWM) - for implementing watershed development projects in the state. The RGMWM has been funded through the Ministry of Rural Development by integrating schemes like Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS), Drought Prone Areas Programme (DPAP) and Integrated Wasteland Development Programme (IWDP).

Box 4.1: National Policy for Farmers, 2007The National Policy for Farmers is intended to help in rejuvenating the farm sector and bringing about lasting improvement in the economic condition of farmers. The government had constituted the National Commission on Farmers in 2004 under the chairmanship of Dr. M.S. Swaminathan. Based on the recommendations made by the Commission in its Revised Draft National Policy for Farmers and the comments/suggestions received from various central ministries and departments and state governments, the ‘National Policy for Farmers, 2007’ was formulated and approved by the Government of India. The policy, among other things, aims to improve the economic viability of farming by substantially improving the net income of farmers in addition to improving productivity, profitability, land, water and support services and providing appropriate price policy and risk management measures.

The recommendations include:

a) Human dimension: In addition to production and productivity, the economic well-being of the farmers to be given prime importance.b) Asset reforms: To ensure that every man and woman, particularly the poor, in villages either possesses or has access to a

productive asset.c) Water use efficiency: The concept of maximising yield and income per unit of water to be adopted in all crop production

programmes, with stress on awareness and efficiency of water use.d) Use of technology: New technologies which can help enhance productivity per unit of land and water are needed. Biotechnology,

information and communication technology (ICT), renewable energy technology, space applications and nanotechnology to provide opportunities for launching an ‘Evergreen Revolution’ capable of improving productivity in perpetuity without harming the ecology to be developed.

e) Inputs and services: Good quality seeds, disease-free planting material, including in-vitro cultured propagules and soil health enhancement hold the key to raising small farm productivity. Every farm family to be issued with a Soil Health Passbook. Food security basket to be enlarged to include nutritious millets mostly grown in dryland farming areas.

f) Credit and insurance: The financial services to be galvanized for timely, adequate and easy reach to the farmers at reasonable interest rates.

g) Single national market: A single national market to be developed by relaxing internal restrictions and controls.

Source: Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India


The Ministry of Agriculture has also been implementing the National Watershed Development Project for Rain-fed Areas (NWDPRA), besides River Valley Projects (RVPs) and other projects funded by donor agencies and Department of Forests. These projects have been implemented in a manner as to avoid duplication of efforts and have together covered more than 15 per cent of the total geographical area of the state, one-third of which has been implemented by RGMWM alone (Sen et al., 2007).

Evaluation of these programmes, particularly RGMWM, has revealed increases in cropped area, yield and short-term employment opportunities (TARU, 2001). Significantly, water availability, particularly for drinking and irrigation has experienced both a horizontal increase, i.e., in numbers and catchments of water sources, as well as vertical increase, i.e., the rise of water table in existing ground water sources (CARD, 2002; CSWCRTI, 2004).

The government has accorded high significance to the WDPs. As per the new guidelines issued by the Ministry of Rural Development, Desert Development Programme (DDP), DPAP and IWDP have been replaced by the Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP) as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme under Department of Land Resources (DoLR website). The Planning Commission has also developed a 25-year perspective plan to develop 88.5 million hectares of land under WDPs in the country up to the XIII Plan (11th Plan Approach Paper, Planning Commission).

Wastelands as Common Property Regimes (CPRs)

A large part of land in the states of Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Rajasthan is classified as “wasteland”. These are actually various forms of common and government lands that have turned into “open access” lands. There is little or no community or government regulation of use and no investment in regeneration of the production potential of these lands. As per the pioneering work of N. S. Jodha, the poor rely substantially on these degraded common lands for a large part of their fodder and fuel, and even some food (vegetable) needs.

These degraded commons could be brought under forms of Common Property Regimes (CPRs). CPRs, however, can be of the whole village or of a defined section of it. In the highly unequal and caste-structured Indian village, village CPRs are likely to be dominated by the upper caste and class persons. On the other hand, there could be a clear policy of allotting the CPRs to the poor, in the form of user rights, since it is the poor who disproportionately use these commons. Such CPRs of the poor would serve both goals of regenerating these resources and improving the food security of the poor. There has been frequent discussion of the possibility of giving out these wastelands for corporations to develop. A better policy, one that would not only increase productivity of these resources but also improve the food security position of the poor, would be to lease these lands to the landless and other food-insecure to be developed as their common properties.

The productivity of these wastelands as they now stand is quite low. They are, for instance, suitable as grass and fodder


lands for raising livestock. These dry lands are likely to have a comparative advantage in livestock and horticulture (C.H. Hanumantha Rao, 1994). Livestock itself is a sector that can both provide higher employment per unit of income, and with milk and meat being superior goods, their markets are not likely to face the constraints that grain markets faces. R. K. Sharma and Babu Jacob estimate that the employment elasticities of output for crops and livestock were 0.41 and 0.91, respectively, during the period 1972-73 to 1987-88 (Sharma and Jacob, 1997). But by themselves these degraded open access lands cannot provide much income or support many animals. “… the observations from micro-level studies suggest that CPL (Common Pasture Land) can provide about 75 per cent of the fodder requirements during the four months in monsoon season and about 50 per cent during the subsequent two months and that too if the rainfall is reasonably good. For the remaining period, fodder requirements have to be met through crop-residue or market-purchase.” (Amita Shah,1997). It is no wonder that animals distributed to the poor through the IRDP did not survive in their hands.

What is needed is to transform what are effectively “open access” lands into CPRs of the poor users. Investment support can be provided through food-based schemes to support employment of the poor in improving infrastructure and productivity. In defining access of the poor to CPRs, once again consideration needs to be paid to the separate rights of women from poor families.

Part of the wastelands has also been taken over by individuals or families of the poor. But in this case too there

is a question of the low productivity of these lands. In the rain-fed conditions of the semi-arid drought prone districts of the state, they need substantial investment even for one reasonable crop. Water harvesting structures, bunding and other land improvements are needed. This is another area for investment support, which can be tied up with MGNREGA. The difference from conventional rural works programmes is that the asset creation would not be public and would be concentrated on those lands and assets that have been transferred to or otherwise belong to the poor.

Improving Connectivity: Rural Roads

The rate of growth of rural incomes and reduction in rural poverty are strongly influenced by the provision of rural and district road connectivity. There is a close link between rural connectivity and growth, be it in the area of trade, employment, education or healthcare. States with poor connectivity are also states that report poor socio-economic indices. Improved connectivity between the growth production centres and the collection centres is vital for livelihood enhancements and that is possible only through the development of roads in remote areas.

While over the last five decades the length of rural roads has been increasing, there are still more than 250,000 villages (40 per cent) which remain unconnected. Other forms of rural infrastructure are also important as they help in widening the opportunities and choice of alternatives. Research into rural road investments suggests that the construction of a new road in a village raised the per capita income of households by 30 per cent over a half-decade, after controlling for factors like household size and education (Deolalikar, 2001).


Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY)

In an impact evaluation, the following effects of the PMGSY have been observed (Ministry of Rural Development, GoI):

a) Use of chemical fertilisers and HYV seeds has increased considerably on account of their decreased transportation cost that formed a fair portion of their total cost.

b) There has been an increase in the ownership and use of farm implements by the people.

c) The farmers get a higher price for their products due to better access to the wholesale market.

d) There has been substantial increase in dairy and poultry production in the villages which are located in close proximity to the newly constructed roads.

e) There has been substantial increase in employment opportunities both in agricultural and non-agricultural sectors in villages located close to the roads constructed under PMGSY.

f) Substantial achievements have also been made on the health front. The frequency of health workers visiting the village has increased, as have institutional deliveries, and villagers have better access to health facilities.

g) The enrolment rate has increased due to better accessibility to educational institutions.

h) There has been an increase in land prices and many petty shops have come up on the road side.

Bharat Nirman

A plan for action in rural infrastructure started through Bharat Nirman which began in 2005 and was to end in 2009. However, the programme has been now extended till 2012. The scheme covered action in the areas of irrigation, roads, rural housing, rural water supply, rural electrification and rural telecommunication connectivity, in partnership with the state governments and the PRIs.

As part of the programme, every village of over 1000 population, or over 500 in hilly and tribal areas was expected to have an all-weather road by end of financial year 2008-09. The targets of Bharat Nirman included 146,185 km of road length by 2009, to benefit 66,802 unconnected eligible habitations in the country, and upgradation of 194,132 km of the existing Associated Through Routes (ATRs), to ensure full farm to market connectivity.

Revitalizing the Rural Economy

In a depressed agrarian economy both the extent of employment and wage rates will be low, thus affecting the access of agricultural labourers (and others, such as those supplying craft production or other services to farmers) to food. Revitalizing the agrarian, and thus the rural economy of the districts with low productivity is necessary for improving their food security situation. This could take the form of diversification of crops, or even activities, in the rural economy. Such revitalization is likely to increase employment and wages of labourers and increase the demand for locally produced products and services.

Agricultural diversification is essential to improve the returns from the sector and thereby the food security of the large


mass of agricultural labourers and cultivators dependent on the sector for their livelihood. The Soya bean promotion supported by the Government of Madhya Pradesh is an apt example of the improvements in returns and benefits to the rural economy as a whole. Focus on research and development for evolving appropriate alternatives to agricultural diversification and efforts for developing the agro-processing sector are recommended.

4.2 Improving Access

Access measures in India have been along the following lines:

a) The provision of low-priced food grains through the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS).

b) Food for Work schemes now carried out under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

c) The mother and infant supplementary feeding programme through the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS).

d) The Mid-Day Meal Scheme (MDMS) for children in government-run schools.

The 61st NSS Round (2004-05) gives information on the extent to which these schemes reach the poor in the states, and thus contribute to food security, though it does not show us how much they add to food entitlements.

Almost four-fifth of the poor and nearly poor households have ration cards in rural India (see Table 4.1). The nearly poor households (that is those with per capita consumption levels within 10 per cent above the poverty line) cover of ration cards is relatively higher. This is also the case for Annapoorna scheme in Bihar, although the proportion of households covered under this scheme is very small all across the country. A relatively large proportion of the poor and nearly poor households of Rajasthan and Odisha were benefited from the Food for Work programme.

A Comparison of five states with similar levels of economic development in terms of performance of these programmes has been presented.

In Rajasthan, the Right-to-Food movement has used the Right to Information Act (RTI) for bringing into the open information about government programmes. In what are called Jan Sunvais (public hearings) with the slogan ‘Hamara Paisa, Hamara Hisaab’ (Our Money, Our Account), details of the schemes have been brought into the open. This can be useful in building public opinion and mobilizing the community against corruption in government schemes.

The midday meal scheme is accessed by one-third of all households, with Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan performing relatively better compared to Bihar. Given the low levels of literacy and schooling in Bihar, especially among the poor households, MDM scheme coverage is among the lowest.

There is an important role for political mobilization of the poor in improving implementation of the ICDS, MDMs,


MGNREGS and other such schemes. Implementation of these schemes has generally been decentralized down to the panchayat level. But the governance capacity of the panchayats is low. A pilot social audit held in Bolangir in Odisha in November 2001 showed substantial and relatively open corruption at the panchayat level (de Haan and Dubey, 2005). Studies in other states have shown that

when women are in panchayats, or lead panchayats, the panchayats perform better in administering food-related interventions. In IFAD projects in Andhra Pradesh too, it was observed that women’s self help groups (SHGs) performed better in undertaking small infrastructure projects than those managed by men, and saved more money for the community than the latter.

Table 4.1: Percentage Share of Poor and Nearly Poor* Households who have Ration Cards or Benefited from Various Schemes in Rural India (2004-05)

Region Ration card

Food for work

Annapoorna ICDS Mid-day meal

Poor HouseholdsRural India 80.0 4.2 1.2 8.8 33.2Madhya Pradesh

71.6 3.0 0.7 3.9 45.6

Rajasthan 96.4 18.2 1.7 2.4 35.5Odisha 71.3 14.5 1.3 18.4 31.4

Bihar 74.6 0.4 1.4 0.8 13.1Maharashtra 79.5 2.5 0.4 22.5 42.6

Nearly Poor HouseholdsRural India 82.9 2.8 1.1 6.7 29.5Madhya Pradesh

73.1 0.0 0.6 1.9 29.1

Rajasthan 99 15.8 1.9 3.0 29.8

Odisha 68.3 5.7 1.7 12.4 24.7

Bihar 76.7 0.0 3.7 0.8 10.6Maharashtra 81.1 4.0 0.2 16.1 34.8

Source: Calculated from NSS, 61st Round, 2004--05.Note:* Those households whose per capita consumption is within 10 per cent above the poverty line.


The contribution of the PDS in promoting food security is well covered in the extensive literature on the subject. But a study by Jos Mooij points out that the supply of cheap grain for BPL households has made running a PDS highly profitable, as cheap grain can easily be diverted into the open market or sold to APL (above poverty-line) households. More recently, the Central government is reported to have pointed out to the West Bengal government that there has been diversion of cheap PDS grain to the Bangladesh market. Many newspaper reports point out that even in the midst of starvation, the Food Corporation of India’s godowns remain full of grains. If there is insufficient purchasing power with the poor in a district, even the supply of grain at subsidized prices is unlikely to be accessed by the poor, and there will inevitably be a tendency for this grain to flow to markets, whether within the locality or outside, where prices are higher (Jos Mooij, 2001).

The problem of diversion of foodgrains increases when there is a partial subsidy, such as with the PDS. Grain is supplied at a lower than market price, but the buyer has to have the money to buy the lower-priced grain. If the person just does not have the required money, or does not have it at the time the grain is made available, the person cannot benefit from the subsidy and the grain is diverted into the open market.

There are two critical issues that emerge from the discussion regarding the functioning of the PDS. First, the dual price system that it brings about, encouraging diversion of foodgrain from the lower BPL price to the higher open market price. Second, many poor households are unable to utilize their quotas because of inadequate purchasing power.

The abolition of dual pricing would reduce the usual diversion problems, but there would still be the problem

Box 4.2: Improved Targeting in the Public Distribution SystemThe Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) is perhaps the largest food safety net in the world. Yet, as surveys have revealed, its success is tarnished by several shortcomings. A pilot project launched by the WFP in collaboration with the state government seeks to address these through the use of new technologies. The project aims to strengthen the identification and verification process and comprehensively plug the loopholes in the TPDS. The project is being implemented in Rayagada district of Odisha. The project involves the following: a) Biometric ration cards (iris and finger prints): To ensure that all ghost and duplicate cards are removed from the system.b) Distribution of new smartcards against biometric validation (urban areas): To remove the problem of shadow ownership at the

ration card distribution stage.c) Bar-coded coupons (rural areas): To prevent recording of off-take without the beneficiary’s agreement and also check shadow

ownership of coupons.d) Smartcards installed with a point of sale device (PoS): To prevent incorrect off-take recording and shadow ownership of ration

cards.e) Strong management information system: To improve governance and enhance effectiveness of monitoring by providing more

relevant and real-time information.f) Web-based interface: To track and monitor progress.


that now exists of the poor not being able to utilize the subsidy. A direct transfer would make sure that the person/household actually benefited and used the subsidy since it is not conditional on the beneficiary having to provide some collateral amount.

Another way of enabling the poor to acquire their public entitlement of grain would be to provide work, such as through the MGNREGS, which allows the poor to acquire the money needed for purchase of food. A combination of a coupon system with the MGNREGS could improve the functioning of the PDS system. Such a system would have the added benefit of increasing the monetization of the rural

economy and improving the functioning of the bank and/or post office systems.

The above-mentioned food-based schemes are meant to meet the needs of shorter-term or even transient (seasonal) food insecurity. By increasing the quantities of public entitlements to food they can deal, to an extent, with immediate problems of hunger. If these foods are fortified, or supplements given as in the ICDS schemes, protein and fat deficiencies could also be temporarily tackled. But any solution to food insecurity requires an increase in the regular access to food in sufficient quantity and quality. This requires an increase in the production and earning capacity

Box 4.3: Meeting the Nutritional Needs of Vulnerable GroupsInfants and Young Children

According to the National Family Health Survey 3 (NFHS-III, 2005-06), in India 40.4 per cent and 44.9 per cent of children under three years of age are underweight and stunted respectively. The prevalence of underweight and stunting continually increases up to the age group of 18-23 months. This indicates that there is a need for improvement in complementary feeding practices and in the quality of complementary foods fed to infants and young children. Besides the high rates of malnutrition, the infant mortality rate is also quite high at 57 per 1000 live births.During the first two years of life, significant cognitive development and physical growth occurs that requires adequate nutrition as well as good care practices. Damage that may occur at this early age is often irreversible and has lifelong consequences. Therefore, it is of critical importance that children receive proper nutrition in the first few years of life.In order to address the prevalence of widespread malnutrition and the high infant mortality rate that impede human development, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) has developed a low-cost ‘ready-to-use supplementary food’ (RUSF). The main ingredients in the ready-to-eat food will be cereal, oil, sugar, pulse, peanut paste and milk powder. In addition, the ready-to-eat food will be fortified with an array of micronutrients and will be packaged in individual hygienic serving sachets.The food will be rigorously tested in a laboratory to ensure that it is compliant with internationally accepted standards. Next, acceptability trials will be carried out to determine how suitable the product is for the targeted beneficiaries. Finally, pilot distribution of the RUSF will be through the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) to infants and young children aged 6-24 months living in Nabarangapur district, Odisha. During the pilot distribution, an efficacy study will be conducted to assess the impact on the growth and micronutrient status of children receiving the RUSF compared to children receiving other foods.


of the households and individuals too, given that there are gender-based discriminations in the distribution of food and allied healthcare services within households. It is important, therefore, that food schemes be linked with development activities.

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS)

The MGNREGS has been devised as a public work programme and has a key role to play in providing assured employment to one person in each household for 100 days per year. The major objectives of this scheme are to provide income security through employment guarantee; and reduce/check distress migration from rural to urban areas. In this process, it also creates durable assets in villages, leading to overall development of the rural economy, and empowers rural women through the opportunity to earn income independently and participate in social groups.

MGNREGS is based on the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), 2005. The Act came into effect in 200 selected (backward) districts of the country on February 2, 2006 and was extended to 130 more districts from 1 April 2007. In April 2008, the Government of India decided to extend MGNREGA to all rural areas of all districts of the country. The Act provides a legal guarantee of 100 days of wage employment in a financial year to one person of every rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work at the minimum wage rate notified for agricultural labour prescribed in the state or, in the event that employment is not provided, to an unemployment allowance to be given to the person by the state.

The overall performance of MGNREGS is quite impressive. Of the 50.3 million job card holders who demanded work under the scheme, 49.9 million have been provided employment. As per the information reported on the government website, the Scheme has therefore been able to provide employment to almost all the people among the job card holders who demanded work. Under this scheme, people are mainly provided with work related to creating or improving rural connectivity, water conservation, land development, drought proofing, micro irrigation, renovation of traditional water bodies, land development, etc.

A large number of the beneficiaries under the scheme were women, especially in the early years close to 69 per cent of MGNREGS beneficiaries were women (as on 3rd April 2008). Although women in certain areas are still reported to

Table 4.2: Achievements of MGNREGS, India 2011-2012

MGNREGS Achievement

in Million

No. of households who have demanded employment

50.3

No. of households provided employment

49.9 (99.2%)

Persondays in LakhsTotal 2114.2SCs 466 (22%)STs 383.8 (18.2%)

Women 1018.7 (48.2%)

Others 1264.3 (59.8%)Source: MGNREGS website, 1 May 2012.


be substantial, the information for 2011-12 records 48 per cent women beneficiaries. It is well known that women spend more of their earnings than men on essential consumption needs of the family, education of children and healthcare requirements, all of which are supportive of improving the nutritional status of their households.

It is worthwhile noting that a large share of the earnings received from the MGNREGS works has been utilized for food-related expenses. A study undertaken by the IHD has documented this finding of contributions from the MGNREGS being expended by the villagers on food related

consumption needs (Box 4.4).

The scheme is being utilized by the landless agricultural labourers who are at the bottom of the income ladder in rural India.

Agricultural Labourers

One important category of the food insecure in India is of agricultural labourers. A large proportion of them are also likely to be dalits or STs. Agricultural wages and the number of days of employment can be influenced by a number of factors – including transfer of land and resources to the

Box 4.4: MGNREGA and Food SecurityA recent study done by the Institute for Human Development to evaluate MGNREGA’s performance in Bihar and Jharkhand indicated that beneficiaries of the scheme were spending a major part of their earnings from MGNREGS on food-related consumption items. In Bihar 67 per cent of the earning from MGNREGS was being spent on food while in Jharkhand, the percentage was 71. However in case of STs and SCs, who are generally more vulnerable to food insecurity because of low and irregular income, the spending on food from earnings received for the MGNREGS work undertaken was more than the state average. Given the finding of the study, one can suggest that MGNREGA can be a safety net for the food insecure population.

Percentage of Income from NREGA Spent on Food and Related Items

Sector Bihar Jharkhand TotalUpper Caste 51.29 89.16 73.31OBC I 62.62 68.13 63.64OBC II 72.62 68.69 71.28SC 68.7 75.68 69.65

ST 84.94 66.24 66.85

Total 67.3 71.31 68.6

Source: Understanding the Process, Institutions and Mechanism of Implementation and Impact Assessment of NREGA in Bihar and Jharkhand, Institute for Human Development, Delhi, March 2008.


landless and creation of other avenues of employment. In the current scenario where there is a lot of migration from the countryside, there could be scope for a market-mediated land reform programme.

The National Commission on Farmers points out that land reform is the first task for agrarian renewal. The issues in the currently needed round of land reform are not the same as in the earlier rounds of the 50s and 60s. The abolition of intermediary tenures is not any more an issue. What is important is: a) security of tenancy; b) redistribution of ceiling surplus land to the landless; and c) land rights of women. The last two are directly important for food security. One can also include the reduction of land ceiling in order to restrict ownership to the size of a family farm.

At the production level, the case for these kinds of land reform rests on three main propositions: that owner-operated family farms are in general more efficient in use of land and other inputs, than large farms operated with supervised wage labour; that secure tenancy rights promote longer-term investment in enhancing productivity and conservation, compared to insecure rights; and that securing women’s land rights too increases agricultural productivity. Land reform then qualifies as productivity-enhancing asset redistribution, something that is an important consideration in a globalized situation (Bowles and Gintis, 1998).

Historically, other than in China, land reform has excluded women. But in some second-generation land reform movements in India (e.g., the Bodh Gaya movement of the 1980s) women raised the demand for land to be allotted in their names. “We had tongues but could not speak; we had

feet but could not walk. Now that we have land, we have the strength to speak and walk” (poor peasant women of Bodh Gaya, 1987). “We were there in harvesting the fields, we were there in carrying ploughs and snatching arms from the zamindar’s goondas, why, when the land is distributed, do we not get our independent rights to land?” (Dalit women’s meeting, village Basuhari, Bihar, 3 September 1990, both in Kelkar, 1992). It is now recognized that women’s ownership of land is necessary to stimulate their labour and investment, and use their managerial talents (Agarwal, 1994). More particularly, in a situation of high male out-migration, as is characteristic of Nepal, Uttarakhand and the dry regions of India and China, women’s ownership of land becomes a necessary condition for adequate use of credit and necessary flexibility in management of farm resources.

Redistribution to the landless is both difficult to implement, and important in India, where the former untouchable castes (dalits) are largely landless. It is well known that the dalits are concentrated among the agricultural labourers in most of the Indian states. Traditionally in the caste system, the dalits have been excluded from ownership of land. It is thus a major step in ending this age-old social exclusion for the dalits to gain ownership of land. This issue remains relevant for the dalits all over India.

The aim of redistribution of ceiling surplus land is not to create ‘viable’ farms, but one of enabling a more equitable participation in the growth process, one, which would reduce the incidence of poverty of the landless.

Studies point out that ownership of even a tiny plot of land increases the bargaining power of the agricultural


labourers. In Andhra Pradesh, “…the policy of allowing landless to encroach government waste land and housing sites [along with cheap credit, asset subsidies and food subsidies]…together with state funded employment creation … significantly tightened the labour market…” (da Corta and Venkateshwarlu, 1997). In Uttar Pradesh, “The growth of non-agricultural opportunities, the more limited public works employment, as well as other factors – such as some increase in land and asset ownership among the rural poor have increased reservation wages in agriculture” (Srivastava, 1997, p. 47).

The transfer of property rights to the landless and land poor increased their bargaining power in the wage market. But the study from Andhra Pradesh (da Corta and Venkateshwarlu, 1997) points out that women agricultural labourers, whose families got some waste land, did not share in the improved bargaining position. The responsibility of women for household maintenance, and the diversion of men’s incomes into liquor and other channels of personal consumption, left women with lower reservation wages than men and forced to accept various onerous conditions of work, conditions that men refused to accept. This shows that it is not enough to increase the bargaining power of men in the name of the household. Specific attention has to be paid to increasing the bargaining power of women as agricultural labourers by allotting them individual land rights too.

The political coalition now existing does not favour an implementation of a forcible land distribution from large owners to landless and marginal owners, as was done in China, South Korea and Taiwan. Market assisted land reform, which attempts to accomplish land reallocation

by “voluntary” land market transactions, has been touted as an alternative to redistributive land reform. However, “voluntary” land market cannot function without deliberate policy interventions in support the purchase of land by the poor households. Such interventions can be justified not only on the equity ground but also by the proposition that small farms are more efficient than large farms.

Thus, a way of redistributing good quality land is through government purchase of designated lands and their subsequent transfer to the poor. Large landowners, anxious to migrate to urban locations with better education and more economic opportunities, may be keen to sell their lands. Without adequate political mobilization, however, the landless could be by-passed in yet another round of land reform. For the success of such market-mediated land reforms what is needed is to link up with movements of the landless in the various stages of identification, take-over and redistribution.

Is it likely that there would be enough land available on a ‘willing seller, willing buyer’ basis for the majority of the land-aspiring poor to gain access to it? As pointed out above, with larger landowners and their children keen to migrate to urban areas, drawn by superior educational facilities and new economic opportunities, there could be land available for such market-mediated transfers. There is a growth of fallow lands, some of which may be for the above reason.

The role of employment and food-based programmes comes in for supporting those newly acquiring land to invest labour in improving their lands. Employment schemes could be directed towards this end.


Adivasis

The report has pointed to the tribal inhabited forest districts as the most food insecure districts in the 8 states. There are problems of security of land holdings in these districts, an issue that could be addressed by the Forest Rights Act (FRA).

A large section of the population in the where almost one-third or more of the inhabitants are adivasis, depends on non-timber forest products (NTFPs) for seasonal livelihood sustenance. These forest-based livelihoods of the tribals result in low incomes and they often face other constraints in their access to forest areas. They require government support for conduct of these activities of NTFP collection and marketing.

Their problems of acquiring land are similar to those of other landless. But there is also scope for increasing productivity in the poor soils of the uplands – through developing irrigated patches in the valleys, improving moisture retention on the slopes and increasing the value of the mix of crops grown on slopes. A study in Koraput showed that even a small plot of irrigated rice land (in the valley) could make a substantial difference to food security (Rath, 2003).

A similar study of the IFAD Tribal development projects in Andhra Pradesh showed that building small check dams to create valley pockets of irrigated paddy land could make a substantial difference to households and shift them from mere subsistence cultivation to accumulation. Further, the transformation of upland cultivation, with a switch to a mix of commercial crops, could also begin the process of accumulation.

Consequently, increasing agricultural productivity through irrigation, water-retention schemes, etc. and the cultivation of higher-value commercial crops in uplands, has a role to play in improving food security in the insecure districts. Since the food insecure districts have a higher proportion of cultivators, increases in agricultural productivity will have a direct effect in improving food security.

The question is not one of diversification of lands where rice is cultivated. It is necessary to maintain existing levels of rice production for farmers in the uplands, as a reduction of own rice production would leave the farmers vulnerable to paying high effective rates of interest in interlinked market transactions. The diversification into high-value or horticultural crops therefore should be in addition to existing rice production. In the uplands there are vast areas that yield very little. These areas can be turned into cash crop cultivation areas. The cash from such high-value and horticultural crops can be used to advance the process of accumulation (of both physical and human capital).

The adoption of horticultural and other cash crops, however, needs to be undertaken with one qualification. Given the volatility of prices of various horticultural products (e.g., coffee, cashew) it is better for farmers to undertake a mixture of different horticultural crops, e.g., coffee mixed with pepper, or cashew with pineapple and turmeric, tea with arhar, and so on. Such combinations have a double purpose: They utilize the synergies between different parts of the eco-system, as in combining the nitrogen-fixing and shade-giving arhar with tea. On top of that, a combination of crops provides some insurance against the volatility of prices. If coffee prices fall, it is likely that pepper could


provide some stability in incomes, etc. Cultivation of, say, coffee without cutting natural forests, what is called “shade-grown coffee”, could provide an additional premium on price, along with the promotion of organic coffee.

It is important to emphasize that diversification should not be undertaken at the expense of existing food grain production. Reducing existing food grain production would worsen the food security of these farmers and expose them to forced sales of their commercial crops at minimal prices. A better food production situation would enable these farmers to get better prices for their commercial crops.

Undertaking investment in horticultural crops, however, requires security of tenure in the land. At present, most hill land is untitled. This inhibits any possible investment in the improvement of upland cultivation. The Forest Dwellers’ (Scheduled Tribes) Rights Act (2007) needs to be implemented in order to provide the farmers with the security of tenure needed to foster investments in the land.

Women’s Empowerment

While security of tenure would allow an increase in investments on land and thus higher incomes, complementary steps need to be taken to enhance women’s agency in the household and community. Besides literacy and education, there is also the matter of women’s land rights. Among the food insecure, women have high labour force participation rates, but they do not have ownership rights over the lands on which they work. Women’s ownership of land could have a double effect. By enhancing their standing in the household, it could pave the way for women to have more of a say in the disposition of household income – away from

wasteful areas (e.g., alcohol and cigarette consumption) towards more expenditure on food.

Given women’s general responsibility for food security in rural areas of developing countries, and given the pervasive gender bias in these societies, the enhancement of the voice of the poor, translates particularly into the empowerment of poor women. Consequently, food security approaches increasingly should pay attention to the elimination of gender inequality and women’s empowerment as important preconditions of food security.

The voice of poor women, or of the poor as a whole, is not only a matter of individual initiative (which itself might be dependent on collective mobilisation) but also of the poor putting their stamp on economic policies. This is necessary in order to bring about the much-needed political will which is often missing in order to bring about adequate attention to food security policies. Without adequate political pressure for reform, proper food security policies are unlikely to be adopted. When at a country level there are adequate supplies of food to ensure food security for all, why are such policies not implemented? There can be no question that the political mobilisation of the poor, through a combination of community-based and civil society organisations, is required for such a food security policy to be adopted and implemented.


4.3 Increasing Absorption

Clean Drinking Water: Rural Water Supply

Bharat NirmanRural water supply is one of the six components of Bharat Nirman. During the Bharat Nirman period, 55,067 uncovered habitations and about 331,000 slipped-back habitations are to be covered, and 217,000 quality-affected habitations are to be addressed. Under Bharat Nirman, tackling arsenic and fluoride contamination has been given priority for water quality problems.

The norms for coverage under rural drinking water supply are:

a) 40 litres per capita per day of safe drinking water for human beings.

b) One hand pump or stand post for every 250 persons.

c) The water source should exist within 1.6 km in the plains and within 100 metres elevation in the hilly areas.

Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme (ARWSP)The main objective of the ARWSP is to provide potable drinking water by way of installing tube wells, sanitary wells and piped water supply projects in rural areas. The Government of India provides funds under ARWSP for implementation of Rural Water Supply Schemes. It was decided to cover all ‘Not Covered’ (NC) and ‘Partially Covered’ (PC) habitations, rural schools and quality affected

habitations, in a phased manner from 2005-06 to 2008-09 to achieve the goal of Bharat Nirman.

SwajaladharaThe Rural Drinking Water Supply Programme has been operational country. The purpose of this scheme is to ensure community participation and to shift from a supply-driven to demand-driven approach. The scheme envisages 10 per cent of the capital cost of the project to be borne by the community along with the responsibility for operation and maintenance of water supply projects, and 90 per cent capital cost to be borne by the Central Government through the District Water Supply and Sanitation Mission.

Women and Child Related Schemes

The Women and Child Development Department of the state governments implement the following schemes towards reduction of vulnerability among these populations:

a) Swayamsidhdha Yojana: The Government of India’s Indira Mahila Yojana aims at economic empowerment of women through SHGs. Under the scheme, a number of community infrastructures have also been built.

b) Mangal Diwas Yojana: The scheme aims at complementing the ICDS programme by way of enhancing community participation in the ICDS services through Anganwadi centres. The scheme targets the pregnant and lactating women, children and adolescent girls wherein various programmes are run for health and nutrition on Tuesdays. The pregnant women are required to get registered at the Anganwadi Centre and the scheme ensures their nutritional


requirements, antenatal checks and vaccinations. Besides this, on specific Tuesdays, respective target populations like the infants (more than six months of age) and adolescent girls, are monitored for their nutritional requirements and gaps filled up through supplementary nutrition.

c) Bal Sanjeevani Abhiyan: The Bal Sanjeevni Abhiyan scheme was launched by the government to address and control the problem of the severe malnutrition. It has completed its 12 phases since June 2001.

d) Sahiya: The Government of Jharkhand initiated the Sahiya movement after a pilot in 2004 to encourage community participation in delivering quality health care to the needy and empowerment of women. Sahiya acts as a link between the community and service providers and works alongside the Anganwadi Worker (AWW) and Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM). It is facilitating integrated mother and child health care, encouraging Antenatal Care (ANC), institutional delivery and routine immunization. Sahiya provides family planning advice and first aid in the remotest part of the state.

e) Kishori Shakti Yojana (KSY): Kishori Shakti Yojana is viewed as a holistic initiative for the development of adolescent girls. The broad objectives of the Scheme are to improve the nutritional, health and development status of adolescent girls, promote awareness of health, hygiene, nutrition and family care, link them to opportunities for learning life skills, going back to school, help them gain a better understanding of their social environment and take initiatives to become productive members of the society. This scheme has been implemented as Dulari in few states such as Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.

Improving Nutritional Practices

This report has dealt with both severe problems of food insecurity and malnutrition. The widespread problem of undernourishment in India shows nutritional problems affect not just those with lack of availability and access of food, but also those with reasonable ability to access adequate food of sufficient nutrition. It is interesting to note that Vietnam in the period 1992-93 to 1997-98 had a similar experience – a sharp fall in poverty without a corresponding reduction in undernourishment. This, however, changed in the period

Box 4.5: Female Literacy: The Pivot for Reducing Food Insecurity and Child MortalityRecent research findings from 35 demographic and health surveys have brought out that children of mothers with no education are more than twice as likely to die or to be malnourished compared with children of mothers who have secondary or higher education. Further, mothers with limited literacy and educational skills are much less likely to receive trained support during pregnancy and childbirth. In Nigeria, for instance, only 15% of births among uneducated women are assisted by trained medical personnel, compared to 56% of births among women with primary education and 88% among women with higher education.

Source: UNICEF, 2006


1997-98 to 2003-04, when there were sharp declines in both poverty and undernourishment. This, as argued in Vinod Mishra and Ranjan Ray (2007), was brought about by a combination of policy interventions through information campaigns to promote desired changes in dietary patterns, combined with nutrient enhancing programmes. All this took place in a situation of increasing literacy and educational attainment.

India has programmes of providing nutrition supplements – through ICDS programmes. But clearly, there is need for an improvement in nutritional practices even among those who can afford to acquire the right types of food. Adequate diversification of food to include more of superior calories, such as proteins, can be promoted through information campaigns along with providing supplements in processed foods, such as atta. Along with this, simple measures such as exclusive breast-feeding of children till the age of six months are known to have substantial benefits on the nutritional status of children. Improvements in nutritional practices are necessary to ensure that improved access to nutrition is translated into improved nutritional outcomes.

4.4 Improving Performance

How to improve the performance of these government schemes? It has been noted above that the poor often do not have the money to buy PDS grain. If grain is to be supplied at below market prices to the poor, a better scheme would be to give the equivalent of the subsidy as a grant, either in cash or as grain. If, say, the subsidy equals the price of

5 kg grain, the person could be given that amount of grain, without requiring the person to produce any supplementary money, as PDS now requires. In this fashion, the subsidy is more likely to reach the intended beneficiary. There would be the usual diversion problems, but not the problem that now exists of the poor not being able to utilise the subsidy. A direct transfer would make sure that the person/household actually benefited, since it is not conditional on the beneficiary having to provide some collateral amount.

The food-based schemes mentioned earlier are meant to meet the needs of shorter-term or even transient (seasonal) food insecurity. By increasing the quantities of public entitlements to food they can deal, to an extent, with immediate problems of hunger. If these foods are fortified, or supplements given as in the ICDS schemes, protein and fat deficiencies could also be temporarily tackled. But any solution to food insecurity requires an increase in the regular access to food in sufficient quantity and quality. This requires an increase in the production and earning capacity of the households and individuals, given that there are gender-based discriminations in the distribution of food and allied healthcare services within households. What this means is that food-schemes need to be linked with development activities.


Box 4.6: Innovative Food Security Initiatives: The Food for Work Programme in Tribal Development ProjectsBlessed with bountiful natural wealth and rich in human resources, the forested and tribal-dominated areas in the country are, nonetheless, among the poorest and severely food insecure areas. They are characterized by degraded natural resources, stark poverty, chronic hunger, high indebtedness and heavy out-migration. For the sustainable development of some of these regions, Tribal Development Programmes are being implemented in the states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Odisha. These were launched by the state government with the objective of ensuring household food security and improving livelihood opportunities based on the sustainable and equitable development of natural resources. The programmes are supported by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Food Programme. The latter provides food assistance for a food for work component of the projects. Given the abysmal poverty in the area, it is no surprise that the Food for Work (FFW) activity has become enormously popular. Payment for FFW includes a cash component and 3 kgs of grains (earlier pulses were also included). The programme, based on the performance of manual labour, is self-targeting towards the poor. It provides 70 days of work in the lean season when food insecurity is high.

Participatory Processes and Community OwnershipThe point of departure in this programme, compared to other government programmes, is the philosophy that the poor should be enabled to overcome their own poverty. This principle is woven intrinsically into all processes. To this end the project stresses the participation of the poor, community ownership and capacity building. Food is given to the community and they take the decisions. Inclusion of the most marginalized begins with the planning. All activities are discussed in the Gram Sabha. What activity should be taken up? What are the likely benefits? Who will benefit from the creation of the asset? How many people will get work? All these questions are debated and decided by the community. The project facilitates them in prioritizing, planning and implementing the plans. The project shows how a simple activity like providing food as wages for work can become a kaleidoscope reflecting all the pulls, pressures and dynamics of village life. This would not have been the case had it been a top-down programme where people had little or no role in decision-making. That not being the case, and all decisions now being taken in the Gram Sabhas, they have become sites of deep contestation. Valuable lessons in collective decision-making, negotiating, handling conflicts and targeting are being learnt. The most marginalized are for the first time in their lives finding a platform for articulating their views. It is for this reason that most community assets created under the programme are located so as to benefit poor hamlets and households and there is a significant impact on the food security of a desperately poor population living in remote and inaccessible areas.

Food for Work ActivitiesTribal communities share a symbiotic relationship with forests that are a major source of food, nutrition and livelihoods. Empowering the community to engage in forestry-related activities has led to increase in yields of NTFPs and enhanced food availability. The list of activities taken up under FFW is very long and, inter alia, includes land development, earth-bunding, stone-bunding, gully-plugging, pond construction and restoration, backyard plantations, plant nurseries, digging wells and building canals, trenches and check dams. These activities have helped to irrigate large areas. For the first time, people have been able to get a second crop of wheat apart from the single rain-fed crop of rice that they used to harvest earlier. Many farmers have cultivated vegetables for the first time in generations. ‘Neither our fathers nor our grandfathers ever cultivated these crops’ they say with obvious pride.In some villages, as for instance in Semra in Chhattisgarh, under the FFW programme, villagers have almost literally moved mountains: They dug a well that has been lined with massive boulders they hauled from nearby hills. Apart from providing work and food for a large number of the poorest, it has helped ease the problem of drinking water for them and their livestock.


Enhanced Production and ProductivityThere has been a big boost in production in many villages. In village Sagasai in Jharkhand for instance, paddy production takes place by the traditional ‘broadcast’ method. However, as a result of new sources of irrigation and water-harvesting, paddy production through transplantation has become possible. This has doubled yields, enhanced incomes and ensured food security. Demand-driven approaches that give play to people’s initiatives throw up as many diverse ways of doing an activity as the activities themselves. They draw on people’s intuitive knowledge of local conditions, their creative urges and their innate skills in a way no top-down programme can. In village Ghangari, in Chhattisgarh, bunding was taken up around fields of the poor. In addition, they had the innovative idea of planting arhar (a pulse rich in protein) on the bunding. This not only utilized the land which would otherwise have gone waste, but the roots of the plant also strengthened the bunding which often gets washed off in the rains, because the fields are situated on a slope.

Impact on Migration and IndebtednessAsk anyone what has been the impact of the FFW programme, and if the first answer is ‘people do not go hungry anymore’, the second will certainly be, ‘people have stopped migrating for work’. Migration has stopped almost totally, particularly distress migration to far-off areas. In Ranchi, the capital city of Jharkhand, it is tragic, if common, to see hordes of adolescent tribal girls standing by the main square, waiting for labour contractors who entice them with promises of employment. In project areas, migration of adolescent girls from the Ho tribe used to be a common phenomenon. This has almost stopped now. The impact has not been even across the project areas, but there is little doubt that it is one of the most important positive outcomes of the programme. The other significant impact has been on indebtedness. In fact, the main ‘casualty’ of the project has been the moneylender. SHGs have mushroomed in the project areas and as their lending operations expand, the business of the moneylender has been shrinking.

Strengthening of Local InstitutionsThe most intangible, but the most critical impact of the FFW programme, and one that holds the promise of sustainability, has been the strengthening of people’s grassroot- level institutions; particularly the Gram Sabha and SHGs. As one young man in a village in Ranchi said, ‘Earlier our village assembly used to meet only for settling disputes between families, or for religious purposes, but never to discuss development issues. Now we regularly meet to discuss what we should do for the progress of the village. Very often women outnumber men in the meetings.’A woman in Kalahandi district of Odisha said, “Initially, few people would come to the project meetings; in fact meetings frequently had to be adjourned for lack of a quorum. Now that people are seeing the benefits of the programme, the attendance has swelled.’The lessons learnt by the village community in decision-making, handling, distributing and monitoring the FFW activity has had visible positive spin-offs on other programmes. The impact on improved functioning of the ICDS and schools, for example, is in evidence in several villages. In a village in Koraput district in Odisha, the women say, ‘the anganwadi worker used to come to the centre only once a week. Now since the OTELP (Odisha Tribal Empowerment and Livelihood Project) started, she has been coming regularly because she knows she is accountable to the Gram Sabha’.Women’s SHGs have become vibrant vehicles of change. They are empowering women in many remarkable ways. For one, they are helping women to become financially sound through income-generating activities. The enhanced availability of water as a result of FFW activities has enabled them to take up diverse income-generating projects. Some women have taken up vegetable cultivation; others are engaged in aquaculture. At the same time, SHGs have helped women develop confidence to challenge regressive social norms and attitudes. The projects are being implemented in the most poverty stricken belt of India. Wherever there is poverty, there is alienation, strife and revolt. In all this the FFW programme has proved invaluable in building trust and confidence and has taken care of the primary need of people of food with dignity. In the words of a young labourer, it is a vardan or a ‘gift of God”.

Srivastava, N. (2006).


4.5 Cash and Asset Transfers

Some of the measures considered above are forms of cash transfer. NREGS as an employment programme is also a cash transfer. Tax revenues are used to transfer the wages paid to those who get employment.

On the other hand, some of the other measures considered though redistributive, are forms of asset transfer. This is the case with regard to the Forest Rights’ Act or with proposed land reform schemes of land to the landless. These are asset transfers. That they are so is self-evident with regard to the transfer of land to the landless. But even the creation of property rights where none existed before, is a form of asset redistribution – this time from the state to individuals or communities. Loans given through SHGs or other micro-finance institutions (MFIs) are also a form of redistribution of assets; in this case of financial assets such as loans, of course, to the extent that loans go beyond amounts saved.

There is an important difference between cash (or income) and asset transfers. The former can be directly used to increase consumption of food, etc. The latter, however, need to be put into production in order to yield an income, which can then be used for consumption of food, etc. With asset transfer there is an incentive effect in that the receiver keeps the residual income from using the income in production. With this incentive effect, it is possible that there could be an increase in national productivity - provided the receiver uses, say, the land more productively than the loser. With the general presumption that small-holdings in India, on the whole, yield more per hectare than large holdings (the well-known hypothesis of the superior efficiency of small farms); or that state forest land, which is effectively open access

property, will be less productive than the same land to which the settlers have title. Then the redistributed land becomes more productive than earlier.

What the above argues is that asset redistribution can be superior to income redistribution (or cash transfers) in that there will be a productivity enhancing effect related to the incentive of being the claimant to the residual income from the productive use of the asset. In this manner, food security measures through asset redistribution link social welfare with development. The context of globalization makes it necessary to pay more attention to the productivity impact of food security (and other social welfare) measures. Of course, at levels of severe malnutrition, any extra consumption of food would itself increase the labour capacity and possibly the productivity of the recipient. But in all other cases, the incentive effect of being the claimant on residual income from the use of assets makes asset redistribution superior to income (or cash) redistribution. At the same time, it should also be noted that there can be other purposes for which cash transfer of the conditional kind may be particularly appropriate. This could be the case in attempts to universalize education, where cash transfers could be linked to school attendance. But in the case of food security, other than that for severe malnutrition requiring immediate supply of food, asset transfers are superior. In particular, they help us to link food security measures with development, in the sense of lending to increased incomes and enhanced capabilities.

Another set of basic human capital assets which become important are education, health, skill development and income earning capacity. These influence the entitlements essential in improving food security levels as well as the


improved utilization of the proposed cash or asset transfers. Given the responsibility and involvement of women at the household level with ensuring food security, working towards improving women’s ownership of and access to assets is likely to yield better returns, as reflected in the analysis regarding the need for enhancing levels of women’s education in order to reduce food insecurity. Consequently, within an asset transfer policy (whether of above ceiling land, state land or financial assets) there is a need for particular emphasis on the transfer of assets to women in order to maximize the impact on improving food security.

4.6 Food Insecurity Information System

There are two important aspects to contemporary food security. First, there are regions, or particular communities, that are prone to inadequate access to food. These are the hill-forest regions of the country, largely populated by the adivasis or STs. Along with this, similar inadequate access to food appears with the agricultural labourers, who are also largely dalits or SCs. Their vulnerability is greater in areas where the agricultural economy is in decline, such as the rain-fed parts of the various states.

The second important aspect is that “… close attention needs to be paid to other aspects of food deprivation, such as the intake of vitamins and minerals, fat consumption, the diversity of the diet, and breast feeding practices.” (Deaton and Drèze, 2008, p. 70).

These two aspects of food security require different types of information systems for the public authorities. For the first, inadequate access to food, India has a system of food

information and management going back to the colonial Famine Codes. These relate to the shocks, labeled Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 by Meghnad Desai. Type 1 shocks are those such as rainfall forecasts; Type 2 are actual deficits in rainfall; Type 3 are failures of the harvest or changes in terms of trade for livestock vs. food grains. “… Shocks of Type 1 are the most important for an early warning system. They provide a warning sufficiently early for action to be possible. But it is Type 3 shocks which are unanticipated and hence the most difficult to provide against. Type 2 shocks are anticipatable but give a very narrow window of opportunity” (Desai, 1991, p. 238).

But there are definite weaknesses in the food insecurity information system. First, the information system is based on rainfall as the key trigger. But there could be other factors, as the analysis in the Atlases shows. Livelihood concerns, rather than just rainfall, are triggers of food insecurity.

For migrants, e.g. those who migrate to work in sugarcane-cutting or road construction, the possibility and conditions of migration would also affect food access. A reduction in infrastructure spending or a shift to mechanized forms of road and building construction would both affect the earning possibilities of low-skilled rural labour. Similarly, a rise in food grain prices relative to those of livestock would reduce the food access of pastoralists. This could trigger forced sale of additional livestock in the attempt to retain food access; which, in turn, could further lower the relative prices of livestock. Such a food access dynamic would not be captured by the usual rainfall and food grain harvest data that district authorities monitor.


Second, data is reported basically at the district level. But, food insecurity problems often exist at the sub-district level, at the level of the taluka, sub-division or block. Such sub-district regions of stress get missed out in the focus on the district as the unit of data reporting. For instance, Dahanu taluka of Thane district or Melghat taluka of Amravati district are areas with reports of starvation deaths. But since they are sub-district regions, a district-based information system would not cover them adequately.

Further, even the available information is not coordinated. Information often remains within departments and does not go across departments in a manner that would make quick action possible. For instance, what is known to department of rural development, that there is an unseasonal increase in the number of job requests from MGNREGS, may not be known to food supplies’ department or other departments that have the responsibility for undertaking food relief measures.

The gap faced by reliance on only rainfall and harvest data could be filled by integrating two new sources of information into the food security management system. One is MGNREGS. An increase in application for job cards, or an unseasonal application for jobs, or an increase in applications for jobs over the usual period of time would convey information that the usual livelihood sources have weakened. Further, the information could easily be collated by sub-district and community, in order to pinpoint the areas and communities under stress.

The other new source of information is the ICDS centre, the anganwadi. The anganwadi worker is already expected to record a number of types of information on malunutriton status of infants, children and pregnant/lactating women.

At present, the anganwadi workers regularly collect a number of nutritional data. Children below three years are weighed once a month and children of 3-6 years in every quarter. Weight for age cards are maintained for all children below 6 years. The anganwadi worker is oriented to detect disabilities in children, and those who are sick or malnourished. Severely malnourished children are identified and given special supplementary feeding and referred to health sub centres, and PHCs as and when required.

While weight for age data for children below 6 years of age is useful for identifying children who are malnourished, it cannot identify episodic changes in children’s condition. A malnourished child who is exposed to an intensification of deprivation will certainly exhibit an additional condition – a reduction in weight for height, or wasting. Wasting is likely to be first nutritional sign of a worsening of the food security situation. Consequently, we would recommend that weight for height data be collected on a regular basis. This data should be transmitted upwards to the district authorities responsible for food access interventions. Such data could help identify the early stages of food access crises and enable intervention before starvation crises develop.

Of course, for ICDS data to be usable, they must first be systematic and reliable. Clinic type accuracy is not required but there should be a reasonable margin of accuracy. Achieving reasonable accuracy might require improving the skills of the ICDS workers.

At a broader level, a nutrition study could be carried out to identify nutritional outcomes that signify differential levels of deprivation. The study should also identify trigger factors that worsen existing conditions of malnutrition.


Drèze and Sen make the point that one important factor in India’s post-Independence record of not having major famines is the existence of an independent press. Press reports can highlight food stresses, often triggering government responses. The question again is: why does this not work in the case of indigenous people? Or, more accurately, why does it only work when there are photographs of extremely wasted children, or reports of starvation deaths? The answer could be in the political marginalization of adivasis. Unlike Dalits, they are neither in large numbers nor politically mobilized. Consequently, in most states they remain somewhat marginal and excluded.

Yet another weakness of the food security information management system is that there is no regular analysis of the factors that result in food insecurity. These Atlases have pointed to the importance of various factors, such as road communication, medium- and small-scale irrigation, the empowerment of women and livelihoods. Regular analysis of trends in these indicators needs to be accompanied by monitoring of the progress in filling the identified data gaps. Doing this analysis on a regular, say, five-yearly basis, and making the results available to all government departments and to community and civil society organizations, could help to improve implementation of key interventions. Finally, the impact of these interventions and development as a whole, needs to be assessed in nutritional status outcomes.

We have listed and discussed the various interventions to improve food security in relation to development of the concerned districts and regions. Here we briefly summarize their relevance and priority in these broad agro-economic regions.

There are two ways in which one could go about addressing the food insecurity, particularly in the context of meeting the MDGs of reducing by half the incidence of child malnutrition, defined as children under five who are underweight. One could target those who are just below the international weight norm, and undertake special interventions to bring them up to the norm. In this manner, the state could meet its MDG target of reducing by half the incidence of child malnutrition.

Another approach would be to target the most severely undernourished populations, both by region and by social class, including gender characteristics. This would be amply justified on moral grounds – that those who are the most deprived should receive the most attention in any use of public money. It would also be justified on economic grounds – that at the lowest levels of nourishment, the very ability of adults to work and of children to learn, are most adversely affected. An improvement in nutritional status of such persons would increase the productivity of working adults (or working persons, given that children also work), thus yielding an immediate economic benefit. An improvement in the nutritional status of school-going children would increase

their learning capacity and thus be an investment in the future. Finally, an improvement in the nutritional status of the most undernourished mothers is a gain not only for them but would also have inter-generational benefits in reducing the incidence of low-weight births.

The analysis in this report shows that ensuring food security and improving nutritional status is a challenge for all the states under study. The identification of certain districts for priority action does not mean that either resources or efforts to bring up all districts can slacken; but only draws attention to the need for more inclusive growth efforts and the special efforts needed to bridge the divides between different regions and districts of the state.

5.1 Linking Food Programmes and Development

How can food-based schemes be linked with development? In the case of the MDM scheme in schools there is already a link with development. Improved school attendance is of benefit to the individual and her household in terms of an increase in potential future earnings. A reduction in illiteracy also provides a social benefit to the village or relevant area, as the quality of the workforce goes up. Improved school attendance is also beneficial in enabling migration to better urban livelihoods than would be open to illiterates.

Chapter V Conclusion: Towards a Food Secure Rural India

Chapter 5: Conclusion | 79

At very low levels of nutrition, any improvement in nutrition would increase the productivity of the individual. With regard to mothers, there is the substantial future benefit of reducing the incidence of low birth weight babies. For those with severe malnutrition, supplementary feeding programmes have a considerable role in improving production capabilities.

But, as mentioned earlier, the implementation of such programmes, including issues of reaching those with severe malnutrition, depends very much on the demand from the affected persons for these services. In the absence of such demand from the most malnourished, the benefits of such programmes are very likely to be captured by the better-off in the village. Decentralization of the implementation of programmes has to be combined with enhancing the voice of the malnourished in order for the benefits to reach the desired persons.

At the same time, there are critical bureaucratic and political blocks to the implementation of agreed policies and even

laws. Important laws, such as the FRA, have a very poor implementation record. Along with demands from below, political and bureaucratic commitment are also necessary to implement decided policies and laws.

Securing the ‘Right to Food’ too is very much a matter of mobilizing of the concerned persons to secure their rights. The Right to Information (RTI) provides a means that can be used to reveal corruption at different levels. But what is important is the mobilization and organization of the poor or food insecure themselves. Their voice is necessary to make the ending of hunger a part of the political platform of various political parties and civil society organizations, NGOs and Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), including traditional tribal organizations.

One factor that could both stabilize and increase the incomes, and then food access, of small farmers is a better use of water. Looking at average rainfall (which is medium to high in some of these regions, other than the arid

Box 5.1: Do Rights Make A Difference?When entitlements become rights, then agencies of the state have a duty to fulfill those rights. Provided people are or become aware of their rights and can mobilize for the same, they can demand the fulfillment of these rights. Such demands for the fulfillment of rights are not limited to petitions to, say, the Supreme Court. What does one do if administrations fail to fulfill their duties? In the case of a right, as with the right to rural employment as embodied in the NREGA, there is a provision for financial punishment for officials who do not provide work. But there are innumerable cases where officials do not perform their duties – as in the case of defaulting teachers or medical personnel who, due to supportive higher authorities, do not suffer even the normal penalties of cuts in salaries.

But even in the case of non-implementing officials, where people have a right to a service and understand it as a right, this right can be the enabling condition for an empowering process that demands provision of the service. A right takes the service out of the realm of official discretion in its fulfillment. When coupled with awareness and mobilization, a right can become the basis for an improvement in the functioning of these services.


Rajasthan desert and the semi-arid plateaus in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh) and the variability over time and space, it becomes clear that the main issue here is not the adequacy of rainfall per se. Rather the issue is more of effective conservation and utilization of water resources in these regions. The watershed programmes and medium and small irrigation works have a significant role to play in this regard (Sen et al., 2007). Food programmes need to, and often are linked to such watershed employment.

While it is possible to increase irrigation to some extent in hill and plateau regions, there is a limit to such irrigation. There can also be some reduction of the impact of drought on yields through forms of rainwater and moisture conservation. Overall attention is needed on methods of increasing productivity in rain-fed conditions. If high yielding cereal crops cannot be developed in rain-fed conditions, attention can be paid to increasing the production of high value crops.

Special care should be taken for tribal population in these states. The government needs to pay special attention to ensure proper functioning of the special tribal schemes, since a large number of evidences reveal that acute malnutrition is present among tribes. For instance, in Sheopur district, of Madhya Pradesh the tribal population is almost 40 per cent. Within this 40 per cent population, the malnutrition level is skyscraping; the ‘Saharia’ tribals especially have a miserable life.

Another issue that needs urgent attention in terms of mitigating persisting high levels of malnutrition is the departmental mode of implementation of programmes.

All issues related to malnutrition of child and women are solely vested with the Department of Women and Child Development. However, the Health Department as well as the Panchayat and Rural Development Department do not find themselves responsible and accountable towards previous starvation deaths, even though in reality, they should have a responsibility. This calls for a synergy in action and convergence in planning for handling such issues.

Another core area of concern is rural roads. The tribal populated districts are among the most neglected. MGNREGA and other food-for-work schemes can be channelized to improve both these key areas of village road connectivity and small-scale irrigation. Village approach roads to main roads, and small irrigation schemes (e.g., check dams in valleys, or moisture retention works on sloping lands) can both increase economic opportunities and productivity. Improved roads would also provide better access to both health and educational facilities. Improved roads, including the building of culverts, have a clear impact in improving girls’ attendance at schools. Post-primary schooling often involves some travel outside the village, and boys seem to be able to overcome communication problems in attending school; but good roads increase girls’ attendance at schools.

Improved communications will also enable rural producers to produce for the wider market, whether regional, national or global. In a relatively open economy, there need not be sole reliance on agriculture as the engine of rural growth. Non-agricultural production for wider markets is also an option. But along with better communications, this also requires a more educated workforce. A higher level of education would both


enable producers to take up opportunities available through connections with the wider economy and also improve the types of jobs they can try to get on migrating. As we have seen earlier, consumption in the better-off districts is probably related to income from non-farm development and to migrants’ remittances. This is not to deny the importance of increasing farm productivity in the food insecure districts, but to point out that options are not limited to agricultural development.

The linking of food schemes with infrastructure works for development, additionally can be a two-fold process. The manner of implementation of standard infrastructure schemes by line departments can be changed so that the benefiting communities are involved in the implementation of these works. Involving SHGs as contractors of small schemes (minor irrigation, school buildings, approach roads) has been found to result in substantial income benefits for the concerned village. There can also be an improvement in the quality of the work, as the beneficiaries are themselves the implementers of the construction works. Construction with local labour through SHGs will provide substantial income from the implementation of small infrastructure works, besides increasing the knowledge and management capabilities of the communities.

The implementation of infrastructure and related schemes (school feeding) through the community could be expected to provide additional income, particularly in lean periods. Some of it could be used to carry out investments on private lands. Investments in higher-value tree crops (e.g., coffee and pepper, or cashew, pineapple, turmeric, etc.) have been seen to provide substantially higher incomes, in combination with traditional swidden cultivation. But such

investment, unlike seasonal swidden crops, is a medium-term one. Households require security of tenure in order to undertake such investments. The recently-passed Forest Dwellers’ Rights Act could provide some security of tenure for these lands.

While security of tenure would allow an increase in investments on land and thus higher incomes, complementary steps need to be taken to enhance women’s agency in the household and community. Besides literacy and education, there is also the issue of women’s land rights. Among the food insecure, women have high labour force participation, but they do not have ownership rights over the lands on which they work. Women’s ownership of land could have a double effect. It could lead to greater productivity and investment by women in land improvement by enhancing their standing in the household; it could also pave the way for women to have more of a say in the use of household income – away from wasteful areas (such as., alcohol and cigarette consumption) and towards more expenditure on food and education.

Revitalizing the agrarian economy in the districts with rain-fed agriculture is crucial to improving the income and thus food security of the poor in these areas. This requires both an increase in irrigation and in watershed development programmes. Appropriate diversification to high-value crops could be undertaken. At the same time, productivity needs to be increased in the vast CPRs, including the arid Rajasthan desert and the semi-arid Deccan Plateau, classified as wastelands.

Particularly in areas of high concentrations of landless labour, such as Bihar and Eastern UP, distribution of land to the


landless, including women, would improve the food security and could also be an incentive to increase productivity.

Security of tenure creates conditions favourable for investment to enhance production or to take up new forms of cultivation. But bringing about changes in production systems also requires an enhancement of capabilities of both women and men. Enhancing capabilities, through rights, access to resources, and training, will open the road for building capacity to aspire – the aspirations for a better life exist, but the means or capacity to realise those aspirations is lacking.

Given women’s general responsibility for food security in rural areas of developing countries, and given the pervasive gender bias in these societies, the enhancement of agency of the poor, translates particularly into the enhancement of the agency of poor women. Consequently, food security approaches increasingly pay attention to the elimination of gender inequality and to women’s empowerment as important preconditions.

Access to safe drinking water in the food insecure districts is poor with high levels of fluoride content and poor quality of water. Treatment of drinking water and information about it can go a long way in improving the water quality and thereby food absorption. Given the high incidence of water-borne morbidity and mortality, improving the quality of water is likely to have a strong bearing on the food security outcomes.

There should be a regular monitoring of weight-for-height of children and adults in identified vulnerable communities.

Besides tracking nutrition outcomes, the existing food security information management system requires a number of modifications. Rather than just rainfall and related indicators, it is also necessary to keep track of overall livelihood concerns that affect access to food. The information system needs to report data not just at district but also sub-district levels.

5.2 State-specific Strategies

While there are a lot of commonalities in the strategies to improve food security in the priority districts of the 8 states, there are also differences among these areas. In geographical terms, some of the priority areas are in hill-forest regions, some in dry and arid or semi-arid areas, some are parts of plateaux, and so on. Thus the strategy needs to be specified for each state. The state specific strategies were set out in the state atlases. We summarize them over here.


BIHARIn Bihar the flood prone northern plain obviously requires flood control works, while the drier North-east and the South Kaimur region both require different forms of irrigation. Improving year-round connectivity is important all over. The need to increase female literacy is also critical. Recent schemes in Bihar to promote girls’ education are showing good results. The main feature of the food security strategy of rural households in Bihar, North Bihar in particular, is that of migration. The impact of migration on food security could be substantially increased by improving the educational status of migrants. A higher educational status would enable them to be better-off sections of the working classes, wherever they go. This, in turn, would enable them to increase their remittances and thus the food security of their rural households. In addition, land to the landless would be a powerful means to reduce food insecurity among agricultural labourers.

CHHATTISGARHThe priority areas of Chhattisgarh all lie in the extensive forest regions of the plateau, denser forests in the southern belt and not-so dense in the northern and eastern belt. The largely tribal population carries on subsistence agriculture, supplemented by collection of NTFP. Small and medium-scale irrigation can improve productivity and yields. Improved connectivity will help the food insecure belts move away from subsistence agriculture and develop activities, such as horticulture, in which they have an advantage over the plains’ areas. But in order to undertake such medium-term investments, as horticulture requires, they need security of tenure over the lands they possess. The implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) could be an important step in this direction, along with PESA, which also grants ownership of many NTFP and minor minerals to the Gram Sabhas.

JHARKHANDThe priority food insecure areas of Jharkhand are very similar to the food insecure areas of Chhattisgarh. Connectivity, small and medium scale irrigation, security of tenure and improved female literacy are common requirements. With the high fluctuation in year-to-year crop yields, attention needs to be paid to stabilizing harvests. Along with the small to medium-scale irrigation, watershed management problems would help. In addition the tribal population in the Jharkhand belts, as also parts of Chhattisgarh, have suffered from mineral-based industrialization which, while depriving them of their traditional livelihoods, have not given them new livelihoods of any substance. Consequently, the manner in which the deprived tribal populations could be provided jobs in the industries coming up on their lands, is an important issue that remains unresolved.

MADHYA PRADESHThe food insecure regions of Madhya Pradesh are the Western tribal belt, and the districts adjoining Chhattisgarh and Bundelkhand. The first two are similar to the tribal districts of Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. They too require investments to improve road connectivity, small- to medium-scale irrigation schemes, and shifts from subsistence to higher-value market-based agriculture. Bundelkhand is a semi-arid region. Watershed development would help moisture retention and increase yields. Again, there is need to shift from self-sufficient cereal production to those which have a comparative advantage in dry areas.


MAHARASHTRAIn Maharashtra there are the usual tribal belts of food insecurity on the eastern and northern sides. The shifts from subsistence to accumulation, the improvement of connectivity and the assurance of tenurial security are all part of the package required for these areas. It goes without saying that a massive dent needs to be made in the status of female illiteracy. The other belt of food insecurity is part of the relatively dry Deccan Plateau. Besides, improved irrigation there is a potential to use the vast ‘wastelands’ or common property areas for rearing livestock.

ODISHAThe most food insecure areas of Odisha are all in the hill-forest regions, some of it part of the Eastern Ghats and some of it an extension of the Jharkhand Plateau. Even within this poor region, the KBK districts stand out for their high levels of food insecurity. Southern Odisha has amongst the poorest human development indicators in the world. Special attention needs to be paid to this whole tribal region. Again the package is not very different from those discussed above – improved communication, and security of tenure to promote a shift from subsistence to comparative advantage-based production of various horticultural crops. In addition, an increase in female literacy and the promotion of tribal employment in and around the new industries being set up in the state will prove beneficial.

RAJASTHANRajasthan has a number of different areas that are prone to food insecurity – the Aravalli hills, the Western desert, and the relatively humid but hilly South. The package of improved communication, and tenurial security in the hills is important for developing agriculture aimed at utilizing the scale provided by regional markets. But given the poor agricultural potential of these areas, there is an urgent need to promote the shift of workers out of agriculture. An extension of the already-developed tourist circuit in the state, could provide many new types of jobs even for the not-so-well educated rural poor.

UTTAR PRADESHThe last state covered is Uttar Pradesh. In this state the food insecure districts are mainly in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, which is a part of the Gangetic Plain, but somewhat flood prone, and Bundelkhand, the semi-arid region that crosses over into Madhya Pradesh. Once again improved communications, along with appropriate irrigation systems, are the key interventions for improving local income from agriculture.


In summing up the state specific strategies, we return to one generalization. While attempts are made to increase incomes from local agriculture, it is important to stress links with the all-India economy. With India continuing to grow reasonably fast (a growth rate of 6.5 per cent in 2011-12 keeps it as the second-fastest growing economy in the world, after China) and growing urbanization, earnings from links with the urban economy through migration are a continuing possibility for poorer and more food insecure areas. Migration removes some persons from having to be fed from local production, and also leads to remittances that can increase local food consumption. Additionally, by tightening the labour market, migration can lead to higher local wages, and thus increase the food security of agricultural labourers. Of course, the level at which migrants enter the destination economy depends on the level of education and skills possessed by the migrants. Consequently, in addition to promoting local production, states need to promote educational and skill upgrading of their population.

Agarwal, Bina (1994), A Field of Her Own: Women and Land Rights in South Asia, Cambridge University Press.

Black, R., et al. (2008), ‘Maternal and Child Undernutrition: Global and Regional Exposures and Health Consequences’, Lancet, Paper I, ‘Maternal and Child Undernutrition’, Lancet: 9.

Bokil, Milind (1996), “Privatisation of Commons for the Poor: Emerging Agrarian Issues,” Economic and Political Weekly, 31(33), August 17, pp. 2254-2261.

Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis (1998), Recasting Egalitarianism: New Rules for Communities, States and Markets, edited by Erik Olin Wright, London and New York: Verso.

Centre for Science & Environment (CSE), (2008), “NREGA Martyrs”, Down to Earth, June 16-30.

Chand, Ramesh (2007), “Demand for Foodgrains”, Economic and Political Weekly, 42 (52), December 29 – January 4, pp. 10-13.

Chand, Ramesh and P Kumar (2006), “Country Case Study: India”, in Trade Reforms and Food Security, Harmon Thomas (ed.), Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Chandrasekhar, C.P., Jayati Ghosh and Anamitra Roychowdhury (2006), “The Demographic Dividend and Young India’s Economic Future”, Economic and Political Weekly, 41 (49), December 9–15, pp. 5055-5064.

Da Corta, Lucia and Davluru Venkateshwarlu (1997), “Labour Relations, Domestic Relations and the Feminisation of Agricultural Labour in Andhra Pradesh,” paper presented at Workshop on Rural Labour Relations in India, London: LSE.

De Haan, Arjan and Dubey, Amaresh (2005), “Poverty Disparities or the Development of Underdevelopment in Orissa”, in Economic and Political Weekly. May 28-June 4, pp. 2321-2329.

Deaton, Angus & Jean Drèze (2008), “Nutrition in India: Facts and Interpretations,” Working Papers 1071, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Research Program in Development Studies.

Deolalikar, Anil B. (2001), The Spatial Distribution of Public Spending on Roads in Vietnam and its Implications, Manila: Asian Development Bank.

References

References | 87

Deolalikar, Anil and Amaresh Dubey (2008), Presentation on ‘Changes in Calorie Consumption in India,’ at NCAER Seminar on Human Development in India, New Delhi.

Desai, Meghnad (1991), ‘Modeling An Early Warning System for Famine,’ in Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen, editors, The Political Economy of Hunger, Vol. 2, Famine Prevention, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Dreze, Jean (1991), ‘Democracy and Famine’ in The Political Economy of Hunger, Vol. 2, Famine Prevention, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Eide, Asbjorn (1999), “The right to adequate food and the right to be free from hunger”, Study on the Right to Food, submitted to ECOSOC, Commission on Human Rights, 28 June, New York: United Nations, www.unhchr.org.

FAO (1996), Report of the World Food Summit, Rome, www.fao.org.

Fan, S., P. Hazell and S. Thorat (1999), Linkages between Government Spending, Growth and Poverty in Rural India, Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Gaiha, Raghav (2003), “Does the Right to Food Matter?” Economic and Political Weekly, 38(40), Oct 4 –10, pp. 4269-4276.

Government of India (2007a), The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, The Gazette of India, January 2.

Gujja, Biksham and Hajara Shaik (2005), “A Decade for Action: Water for Life”, Economic and Political Weekly, 40 (12), March 19, pp.1086-1089.

Gupta, Monika Das (2005), “Public Health in India: Dangerous Neglect”, Economic and Political Weekly. 40 (49), December 3, pp??.

Hanumantha Rao, C. H. (1994), “Reforming Indian Agriculture in the New Context,” Economic and Political Weekly, 29(16-17), June 12, pp. 1005-1010.

IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, Technology and Development) (2009), East and South Asia and the Pacific, Vol. 3, Washington, DC: Island Press.

IPCC (2007), Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers, Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change.

Jacoby, H. (2000), “Access to Rural Markets and the Benefits of Rural Roads”, The Economic Journal, No. 110, pp. 713–37.

Jodha, N. S. (2000), “Waste Lands Management in India”, Economic and Political Weekly, 35(6), Feb. 5 – 11, pp. 466-473.

Kelkar, Govind (1992), Women, Peasant Organizations and Land Rights, Gender Studies, Occasional Paper 3, Gender and Development Studies Unit, Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology.


Krishnan, Rekha, Suruchi Bhadwal, Akram Javed, Shaleen Singhal, S Sreekesh (2003), “Water Stress in Indian Villages”, Economic and Political Weekly, 38 (37), September 13, pp. 3879-3884.

Leipziger D., M. Fay, Q. Wodon and T. Yepes (2003), Achieving the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Infrastructure’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3163, Washington DC: World Bank.

Mazumdar and Sarkar (2007), Globalization, Labor Markets and Inequality in India, Routledge Studies in the Growth Economies of Asia, Routledge, IDRC.

Mishra, Vinod and Ranjan Ray (2007), ‘Dietary Diversity, Food Security and Undernourishment: The Vietnamese Evidence’, [email protected]

Mooij, Jos (2001), “Food and Power in Bihar and Jharkhand: PDS and its Functioning”, Economic and Political Weekly, 36(34), August 25, 3289-3299.

MSSRF and WFP (2001), Food Insecurity Atlas of Rural India, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation and World Food Programme.

NCEUS (2007), Report on Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganized Sector, New Delhi: National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector.

NFHS (2000), ‘National Family Health Survey II’, Mumbai: International Institute for Population Studies.

NFHS (2007), ‘National Family Health Survey III’, Mumbai: International Institute for Population Studies.

Nhalpo, Charlotte McClain (2004), Implementing a Human Rights Approach to Food Security, IFPRI, www.ifpri.org/pubs/ib/ib29/pdf.

Patnaik, Utsa, (2007), “Neoliberalism and rural poverty in India,” Economic and Political Weekly, 42 (30), July 28, pp. 3132-3150.

Planning Commission (2007), Poverty Estimates for 2004–05, Press Information Bureau, Govt. of India, March 2007.

—— (2007a), Towards Inclusive Growth: Approach Paper for the 11th Five-Year Plan.

Rao, C. H. Hanumantha (1994), Agricultural Growth, Rural Poverty and Environmental Degradation in India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Rath, Sharadini (2001), ‘Poverty by Price Indices’, Economic & Political Weekly, 38(40), October 4, 2003, pp. 4260-4268.

Save the Children (2006), State of World’s Mothers 2006: Saving the Lives of Mothers and Newborns, Save the Children.

—— (2008), Saving Children’s Lives: Why Equity Matters, London: Save the Children.

Sen, Amartya (1981), Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

References | 89

Sen, Sucharita, Shah, Amita, and Kumar, Animesh (2007), “Watershed Development Programmes in Madhya Pradesh: Present Scenario and Issues for Convergence”, Technical Paper, Forum for Watershed Research and Policy Dialogue, Pune.

Shah, Amita (1997), Food Security and Access to Natural Resources,” Economic and Political Weekly, 32(26), June 28, pp. A46-A54.

Sharma, R. K. and Babu Jacob (1997), “Livestock Growth, Employment and Rural Poverty in India,” in Growth, Employment and Poverty: Change and Continuity in India, G. K. Chadha and Alakh Sharma, (eds.), Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.

Sinha, Amarjeet (2010), Theme paper on “Creating a Credible Public System for Health and Nutrition for All”, presented at International Consultation on Human Development in India, Emerging Issues and Policy Paradigms, organized by IHD, February 5-6, 2010, New Delhi.

Srivastava, N. (2003), “The Paradox of Food Insecurity in a Food Surplus State: The Case of Uttar Pradesh”, in Towards A Food Secure India: Issues and Politics, S. Mahendra Dev, K. P. Kannan and Nira Ramachandran, (eds.), New Delhi: Institute for Human Development and Hyderabad: Centre for Economic and Social Studies.

Srivastava, N. (2006), “Innovative Interventions: The Food for Work Project in the Chhattisgarh Tribal Development Programme” in Protecting the Vulnerable Poor in India:

The Role of Food Safety Nets, N. Srivastava and Sharma (eds), New Delhi: World Food Programme.

Srivastava, Ravi (1997), “Rural Labour in Uttar Pradesh: Emerging Features of Subsistence, Contradiction and Resistance,” paper read at workshop in Rural Labour Relations in India, London: LSE.

Srivastava, Ravi and S.K. Sasikumar (2003), An Overview of Migration in India, its Impacts and Key Issues, Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit, University of Dhaka and Department of International Development.

UN, Report of the World Food Conference, Rome 5–16 November 1975, New York: UN.

UNDP (2005), Human Development Report, New York.

UN Economic and Social Council, New York, November 15: 3–4.

UNICEF (2005), UNICEF Joint Health and Nutrition Strategy for 2006–2015 (E/ICEF/2006/8)

—— (2006b), Countdown to 2015, Tracking Progress in Child Survival: The 2005 Report, Health Section, New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.

—— (2007a), The State of the World’s Children 2007: Women and Children - The Double Dividend of Gender Equality, New York: United Nations Children’s Fund, December, pp. 137, 141.

—— (2007b), The State of the World’s Children 2008: Child Survival, New York: United Nations Children’s Fund, December.


—— (2007c), Progress for Children: A World Fit for Children, Statistical Review.

UNICEF & WHO (2006), Pneumonia: The forgotten killer of children, New York and Geneva: United Nations Children’s Fund and World Health Organization, 5.

Viswanathan and Meenakshi (2007), “Changing Pattern of Undernutrition in India: A Comparative Analysis across Regions” Research Paper No. 2006/118, October 2006, WIDER Research Paper series, World Institute for Development Economics Research, (UNU-WIDER) Helsinki.

WHO (2007), Health Status: Mortality, World Health Statistics 2006, Geneva: World Health Organization, pp. 29-31.

Along with the change in understanding of the meaning of food security, there has been much discussion on whether there is a right to food. The kind of economic growth that the world has been undergoing has been seen to not automatically ‘trickle down’ in benefits to all. Even a reasonably high rate of growth, like India’s 6 per cent or more over the period 1995-2010, has been seen to not bring about a commensurate reduction in the proportion of those who are undernourished. The existence or acceptance of a right to food would make the exertion of pressure to adopt and implement a policy that secures this right more likely. But is there a right to food?

The right to food or ‘freedom from hunger’ figures in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Subsequently the UN General Assembly adopted two covenants in 1966, one on Civil and Political Rights and the other on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Besides these covenants, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) both considerably strengthened the place of the right to food and adequate nutrition in international law on human rights.

A two-fold distinction is often made between the civil and political rights, on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights, on the other (Eide, 1999). The first set is said

to be ‘absolute’, and ‘immediate’, while the second set is considered something relative, to be realized gradually, over time. In a sense this distinction coincides with the Indian constitution’s distinction between its ‘core’ provisions, which are to be realized immediately, and its ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’, which are programmatic and to be realized over time.

It can well be argued that the civil and political rights are also something that can only be realized over time. Merely putting them into the statute books does not result in their being realized. On the other side, if civil and political rights are held to be the foundation of democracy, one can as well argue that economic and social rights are equally important to democracy. Without economic rights, and not just the right to property, political democracy itself would be a mere shell. The realization of political and economic rights is inter-twined and one set may not have any a priori precedence over the other.

A related distinction is between rights that are respected through non-interference and those that require resources to be realized. The first is like the freedom of religion, or of association, while the right to food would require resources to be realized. Jean Zigler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, questioned the whole distinction between those freedoms that require resources to be realized and

Appendix I The Right to Food

92 | Food Security Atlas 0f Rural India: An Overview

those freedoms that do not. The whole machinery of the state, of administration, police, courts, etc. all need to set up, and involve costs, to enable citizens to realize the freedom to religion, or freedom be of association, and associated rights. ‘Even implementing civil and political rights does in fact imply resources. The cost of setting up and training the police force, military and judiciary to implement international human rights law is not insignificant.’ (Jean Zigler, 2002, quoted in FAO, WFS-fyl, Focus on Issues, What is the right to food? www.fao.org))

Thus, rights require state action with regard to the obligations to respect, protect and fulfil them, (Shue, 1980 in Gaiha 2003), which require the setting up of administrative, police, and judicial structures to enable rights to be realized. Consequently all rights have a cost in their being realized. And the costs of the right to food may not be as much as they seem, since it is only in certain circumstances that it involves state provision of food (Gaiha, 2003, 4270).

What the acceptance of the right to food does is to focus attention on the necessity of economic and social policy paying attention to the poorest and most marginal. It also takes the debate on rights inside the ‘private sphere’ to raise the question of women’s rights in assuring food to themselves and their children and families. ‘The “right to adequate food” may be as much a question of the full realization of the rights of women as of ensuring a bundle of nutrients handed over through food supplement schemes.’ (Asbjorn Eide, 1999, ‘The right to adequate food and to be free from hunger,’ Study on the Right to Food submitted

to the ECOSOC, Commission on Human Rights, 28 June, United Nations, New York, (www.unhchr.ch).

Right to Food in India

Earlier, we looked at the status of the right to food and its embodiment in various international covenants. Food policies, however, are critically formulated and implemented at the level of the national state. It is, perhaps, only in the case of ‘failed states’ that the international covenants can themselves be the basis for action by international agencies. For the most part, and certainly in India, it is through the national state that actions on the right to food are carried out. Of course, this does not mean that some actions cannot be carried out at the international level, as, for instance, by groups representing women or indigenous peoples taking their case for redressal of grievances to their respective international forums in the manner that trade unions also take their case to the ILO.

The establishment of a ‘right to food’ in India was substantially carried forward by the April 2001 petition of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Rajasthan, (PUCL vs Union of India and Others, Writ Petition (Civil) 196 of 2001) and the orders of the Supreme Court of India in response to this and subsequent petitions. In the context of the then-prevailing drought in Rajasthan, the argument of the PUCL1 was simple – that Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the ‘right to life’ and imposes on the state the duty to protect this right to life. In elaborating the right to life, the Supreme Court in past decisions had held that this

1. This account of the PUCL’s petition and related matters is based on Legal Action for the Right to Food: Supreme Court Orders and Related Documents, January 2004, downloaded from www.righttofood.org now replaced by the website www.righttofoodindia.org.

Appendix I: The Right to Food | 93

right also includes the right to live with dignity and all that goes to make this up, including the right to food.

The petition argued that in the context of the drought in Rajasthan, the actions or inactions of the Governments of India and of the State of Rajasthan, constituted a violation of this right to food and, thus, of the right to life. Specifically, the violation of the right to food was seen in two aspects. First, was the failure of the Public Distribution System (PDS), in terms of the exclusion of various Below Poverty Line (BPL) households from its scope. Second, was the inadequacy of the quantities delivered through the PDS as the monthly quota could not meet the household’s nutritional requirements as per by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).

The PUCL petition also pointed to the inadequacy of government relief works in the Rajasthan drought condition. Thus, it linked the right to access relief works in a drought condition as part of the meaning of the right to food. As the Supreme Court pointed out in a later order, while agreeing with the High-Level Committee on Long-Term Grain Policy (Abhijit Sen Committee), employment generation should be distinct from food delivery: ‘This should not, however, undermine the importance of employment and income generation in eliminating hunger and malnutrition’ (Supreme Court Order of 2 May 2003).

The different orders of the Supreme Court:

• Established a Constitutional basis for the right to food in terms of the right to life;

• Drew attention to the serious plight of the aged, destitute, etc;

• Stated that where the hungry are not able to buy grain, even at the subsidized price, the relevant governments should consider giving them the grain free;

• Pointed out that ‘Plenty of food is available, but distribution of the same amongst the very poor and destitute is scarce and non-existent leading to mal-nourishment, starvation and other related problems’;

• Identified the various schemes to operationalize the right to food;

• Changed the status of those who received food or income through these schemes from ‘beneficiaries’ to ‘rights-holders’;

• Made the Government of India and the State Governments responsible for securing the right to food through these schemes;

• Placed responsibility on specified government officials (Chief Secretary of the State Governments, District Magistrates) as being answerable for the implementation of the schemes that concretize the right to food, and thus being accountable for failures, like starvation deaths; and

• Established Food Commissioners who would report on and monitor implementation of schemes constituting the right to food.

At the level of rights this is a reasonably comprehensive scheme with rights, ways of achieving them, responsibilities for achieving them, all fairly well specified. Given the fact that there is a clear perpetuation of both endemic starvation and frequent bouts of acute starvation, it is necessary to see how to link food security measures with development.

94 | Food Security Atlas 0f Rural India: An Overview

Rights are critical in establishing the obligation of the state to provide a means of realizing those rights. But the measures that realize the right to food also need to be connected and contribute to development objectives, such as to improve productive capacities of small and marginal farmers, increase employment opportunities for agricultural labour, and empower women so as to increase the access to food through their normal economic activities. Measures relating to the above have all been discussed in various sections of this report. They need to be drawn together into a comprehensive package.

At the outset we must state that the Food Security Index is calculated for rural areas only. All variables constructed are for rural areas, unless otherwise specified.

Here, we have attempted to construct a Food Security Index (FSI) at the sub-state level, that is, the district level. The district having a higher index value is considered as relatively more food secure as compared to a district with a lower index value.

Broadly, we have adopted Max-Min (range equalization method, REM) approach, adopted by UNDP (HDR 2005); and Principal Component Analysis (PCA). One of the objectives of the district FSI is to show the district’s position in various dimensions of food security.

The FSI is a composite index covering three dimensions, i.e., Availability factors, Access factors, and Absorption factors. Besides, these three groups of factors, an additional component i.e. public entitlement has been used to explain how this influences food security. But the public entitlement factor is not included in the indices of food security. The public entitlement policy is based on various parameters which are supposed to be directly linked with food insecurity; the lower the level of food security, the greater should be public intervention. In such a scenario, the direction of public interventions should run counter to the FSI, though it need not be so.

For each of the dimensions, as discussed earlier, some relevant variables have been chosen.

Max-Min Approach

Using the Max-Min approach an index has been constructed for each variable. This is calculated by applying the following general Range Equalization Method (REM) formula adopted by the UNDP:

Variable Index = (Xi-min X)

(Max X-Min X)

where Xi- Value of the variable

min X- Minimum value of X in the scaling

max X- Maximum value of X in the scaling

In undertaking the scaling procedure, desirable norms have been adopted for each indicator. In some cases, the scaling of indicators is self-selecting, and for some others there is an element of value judgment.

Construction of Food Security Index

Different indicators included in the three components of the FSI have been scaled and normalized (to make them

Appendix II Food Security Index (FSI) - A Methodological Note


Name of Variable and Description Sources(a) Availability

1. Proportion of net irrigated area to net sown area Agricultural Statistical Information, State Government

2. Per capita value of agricultural outputIn order to take into account the cyclical nature of agricultural production the variable uses an average of three to five years depending on the availability of data. The value of each food and non-food item is derived by multiplying the amount of production with its price obtained from all-India prices of these items at constant 1993-94 prices. Adding the value of each and every food and non-food item gives the overall value of agricultural output for a year. The per capita value of agricultural output is calculated by dividing the average value of agricultural output by total population in the midpoint year.

Department of Agriculture, State Government

3. Percentage of inhabited villages having access to paved roads. This is calculated as a share of total number of villages in the district.

Census of India, 2001

4. Percentage of forest area to total geographical area* # Directorate of Agriculture, State Government

5. Percentage of agricultural labourers to total workers. Agricultural labour comprises both main and marginal workers*


6. Proportion of ST and SC population to total population* Census of India, 2001

7. Dependency ratio*This is calculated as rural population in the age group (15-59) divided by the sum of (0-14) child population and 59+ population.


8. Per capita monthly consumption expenditure (inequality adjusted)The formula for inequality adjusted monthly per capita consumption expenditure (MPCE) is: MPCE*(1-Gini).

61st NSS round, 2004-05

9. Rural casual wage rateThis is calculated as average daily wage rate for the age group 15-59

61st NSS round, 2004-05

10. Women’s literacy rate (7+)Total female literate as a proportion of total female population for the 7 years and above.


11. Percentage of households having access to safe drinking water.Here rural households with access to three sources of drinking water, such as tube well, tap and hand pump have been considered.


12. Percentage of inhabited villages having access to a PHC (PHC facility within the village or within 5 kms from the village)


Table A 2.1: Choice of Indicators, Sources and Calculating Procedure

* The directions of these variables have been reversed to have a positive association with food security.# This indicator has been used in selected state level analysis, but excluded for the consolidated analysis.

Appendix II: Food Security Index | 97

unidirectional) to take a value on a scale ranging from 0 to 1. The scaled least achievement corresponds to zero, whereas the best achievement corresponds to 1. For three selected variables, viz., percentage of agricultural labourers to all labour and proportion of ST and SC population and percentage of forest area to total geographical area, we have used the reverse figure (per cent of non-agricultural labour to total workers; per cent of non-ST & SC to total population; and per cent of non-forest area to total area). Likewise, the variable dependency ratio has also been reversed.

After calculating the index of each variable, we have averaged them to give each of the three dimensions of food security. The composite Food Security Index is again derived by averaging all the selected indicators.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

The PCA is a data reduction technique. Sometimes there is a high correlation between variables. In such cases, it is useful to transform the original data set into a new set of uncorrelated variables called principal components. It is quite likely that the first few components account for most of the variability in the original data set. The PCA can be applied either to the original values of variables or to the normalized values of the variables. In general, normalization can be done by three methods, i.e., by deviation of the variables from their respective means (i.e. ); by dividing the actual values by their respective means (i.e. ) and by the deviation of the value of a variable from the mean which is then divided by standard deviation {i.e. ( )/}. We have applied

the second method. The basic objective of using PCA is to find the factor loading of each and every variable. Factor loading gives us the amount of total variation explained by a particular variable.

We have used PCA in the Food Security Index for those states where the correlation between indices derived through the RE method and PCA method is highly correlated.

Food Security Outcome (FSO)

To crosscheck the validity of the Food Security Index for the three AAA (Availability, Access and Absorption) components, we have used the Food Security Outcome (FSO) index. The nutritional status of an individual can be considered as the outcome of food security. Though intake of food is not the only factor that affects nutritional status, it is definitely the prime one. The outcome index calculated here is based on two child-related variables: child mortality rate (CMR) and child malnutrition (weight for age -2SD). Child malnutrition - 2SD includes children who are below -3SD from the International Reference Population median. The district-wise figure relating to the above two variables are taken from the Reproductive and Child Health (RCH) 2002 Survey.

The food security outcome (FSO) against which the input variables are considered here as explanatory indicators should ideally be a composition of morbidity, mortality and under-nutrition among the entire rural population, which includes adults. However, due to inadequacy of data on adults, especially at the district-level, we have resorted


to using the child-related variables to construct the FSO. In order to validate the use of this, we have undertaken a simple correlation exercise at the state level between the Body Mass Index (BMI) for adults and the FSO.

The State-level Body Mass Index for men and women has been used from NFHS III. The NFHS calculates BMI as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters and the resulting value is again divided by the number of men/women in the 15–49 age group. Here we have taken the number of men and women with BMI below 17.0 which tells us the number of men /women who are moderately and severely thin. The composite adult BMI has been calculated by aggregation of BMI for men and women using the population share of men and women in the sample as weights.

We have calculated the state-level Food Security Outcome index (for 29 states) from DLHS and NFHS child-related variables (the same two variables taken for the district-level FSO). We have adopted the RE method for finding out the state-level FSO. The correlation among the DLHS and NFHS child-related indicators as well as NFHS-based BMI adult indicators shows a very high correlation across 29 states, thereby justifying the use of the child FSO as the outcome measure. However, it can be argued that inter-district variations within different states can be quite dissimilar.

Grouping of Districts

For each variable, component and index, districts have been divided into five classes: Secure to Moderately Secure, Moderately Insecure, Severely Insecure and Extremely Insecure. The method used for making class intervals is the ‘equal intervals’ method, i.e. the difference between all upper and lower class intervals for an indicator is the same. This method takes into account the range of the indicator’s values and divides the range into five equal classes. The number of districts in different classes can be different.

Appendix III Datasets used for Calculation of Indices and Index Values

States Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Bihar Araria 707.8 34.4 35.3 84.7 1.0 20.4 306.5 45.4 35.3 98.6 25.2 141.1 62.6 0.2493 0.3180 0.6681 0.3629 0.5794

Bihar Aurangabad 1093.7 69.6 25.6 75.5 1.1 39.9 282.0 33.7 56.0 82.5 30.9 123.4 60.0 0.3512 0.3691 0.6249 0.4107 0.5286

Bihar Banka 662.7 65.8 22.0 82.7 1.1 27.9 311.7 45.4 47.8 49.4 26.1 99.1 44.3 0.3050 0.3617 0.4158 0.3561 0.3976

Bihar Begusarai 446.2 73.0 62.9 85.2 1.0 34.0 314.4 50.1 50.6 89.0 41.1 106.4 48.5 0.4623 0.3890 0.7321 0.4714 0.4344

Bihar Bhagalpur 483.4 37.0 50.2 86.1 1.0 32.1 315.1 47.0 45.6 65.4 39.5 99.5 55.6 0.2991 0.3725 0.5967 0.3933 0.4555

Bihar Bhojpur 923.2 81.3 46.7 83.4 1.1 38.5 323.7 56.0 57.1 90.2 38.7 96.0 50.9 0.4562 0.4208 0.7217 0.4852 0.4244

Bihar Buxar 1399.2 99.3 30.3 84.8 1.0 37.5 308.9 53.9 57.3 87.4 37.2 96.9 56.8 0.4817 0.4139 0.6961 0.4837 0.4561

Bihar Darbhanga 325.3 36.0 45.9 84.0 1.0 27.6 323.0 43.7 45.7 99.0 33.6 113.0 58.0 0.2732 0.3572 0.7313 0.4023 0.4964

Bihar Gaya 528.1 81.8 27.0 67.4 1.0 31.8 335.7 36.2 52.5 68.5 33.1 108.0 59.2 0.3696 0.3463 0.5671 0.3928 0.4918

Bihar Gopalganj 899.9 67.3 40.3 87.2 1.0 31.0 357.5 54.7 58.9 97.3 40.8 93.7 57.1 0.3858 0.4156 0.7741 0.4726 0.4508

Bihar Jamui 286.4 39.4 23.7 77.1 1.1 23.9 311.7 49.3 66.4 36.3 14.9 106.1 55.4 0.2048 0.3904 0.2655 0.3171 0.4686

Bihar Jehanabad 754.9 96.2 36.5 80.7 1.1 37.9 289.1 32.3 53.8 82.7 32.9 111.5 59.5 0.4616 0.3707 0.6403 0.4445 0.5008

Bihar Kaimur (Bhabua) 1406.6 92.0 35.7 74.6 1.0 37.9 308.9 47.2 50.5 74.2 25.5 125.3 58.6 0.4766 0.3735 0.5418 0.4322 0.5256

Bihar Katihar 697.1 54.4 25.3 85.2 1.0 19.7 343.1 47.0 35.7 96.9 22.5 123.1 53.2 0.2804 0.3265 0.6391 0.3707 0.4936

Bihar Khagaria 649.8 81.8 52.3 85.1 1.0 27.3 383.7 42.9 43.8 95.9 35.3 101.7 56.2 0.4641 0.3661 0.7268 0.4584 0.4633

Bihar Kishanganj 740.0 15.1 25.1 90.0 1.0 15.4 306.5 36.9 39.0 90.4 24.9 144.5 52.5 0.1507 0.3130 0.6231 0.3251 0.5356

Bihar Lakhisarai 524.5 51.3 35.3 82.6 1.0 31.2 383.7 53.5 54.1 53.6 26.8 112.7 49.0 0.2967 0.4060 0.4428 0.3829 0.4503

Bihar Madhepura 868.2 73.9 43.3 82.0 1.0 20.6 450.7 43.7 42.6 96.6 31.6 98.2 71.4 0.4167 0.3655 0.7033 0.4409 0.5326

Bihar Madhubani 406.0 36.5 52.9 86.3 1.1 25.4 297.1 42.7 46.4 98.1 41.4 97.2 62.9 0.3033 0.3521 0.7824 0.4170 0.4875

Bihar Munger 459.9 68.3 64.2 83.3 1.1 39.3 383.7 53.5 49.0 42.8 40.6 86.4 51.1 0.4517 0.4206 0.4854 0.4408 0.4049

Bihar Muzaffarpur 490.9 48.1 44.6 83.4 1.0 32.1 292.5 49.7 51.1 92.6 37.3 122.5 50.8 0.3169 0.3785 0.7241 0.4246 0.4802

Bihar Nalanda 821.0 78.3 39.8 78.4 1.1 35.0 330.9 44.2 54.2 61.6 33.2 108.3 50.4 0.4170 0.3878 0.5312 0.4218 0.4480

Bihar Nawada 653.7 78.0 37.9 74.7 1.0 29.7 347.2 31.9 58.3 73.0 35.1 96.3 50.2 0.4012 0.3633 0.6047 0.4175 0.4215

Bihar Pashchim Champaran 1347.4 47.5 33.9 83.4 1.1 21.9 267.4 40.7 34.6 96.7 29.3 99.5 59.6 0.3191 0.3049 0.6874 0.3783 0.4757

Bihar Patna 802.3 63.9 40.5 80.3 1.1 36.6 319.9 58.4 53.1 67.8 28.9 91.2 45.4 0.3704 0.4084 0.5325 0.4206 0.3864

Bihar Purba Champaran 690.1 46.1 38.6 86.4 1.0 22.0 395.5 41.3 43.3 92.7 35.1 112.7 54.3 0.2988 0.3601 0.7088 0.4068 0.4771

Bihar Purnia 677.6 49.7 26.1 82.9 1.0 19.6 385.7 42.2 33.7 98.2 25.4 122.5 54.7 0.2665 0.3256 0.6673 0.3716 0.4999

Bihar Rohtas 1341.6 97.6 43.9 79.3 1.1 42.9 338.5 45.8 57.7 92.1 29.3 94.4 47.5 0.5209 0.4152 0.6632 0.4891 0.4038

Bihar Saharsa 757.8 69.7 42.6 82.9 1.0 22.1 450.7 43.7 45.3 96.4 28.0 97.2 56.1 0.3950 0.3762 0.6769 0.4360 0.4532

Bihar Samastipur 499.8 47.5 57.2 81.2 1.0 30.3 309.7 43.9 51.4 86.5 34.9 105.8 57.8 0.3599 0.3654 0.6746 0.4201 0.4801

1-Per Capita Value of Agricultural Output; 2-% Net Irrigated Area to Net Sown Area; 3-Paved Road; 4-% Non SC&ST Population; 5-Non Dependency Ratio; 6-Female literacy; 7-Average Per Capita Expenditure; 8-Wage; 9-% Other than Agricultural Labourers to All Labourers; 10-% Household Access to Safe Drinking Water; 11-Primary Health Centres; 12-Child Mortality Rate; 13-Underweight Children; 14-Food Availability Index; 15-Food Access Index; 16-Food Absorption Index; 17-Food Security Index; 18-Food Security outcome Index.



Bihar Saran 513.3 54.6 39.1 87.6 1.0 34.0 305.4 47.7 60.6 87.1 45.2 86.7 45.7 0.3204 0.4016 0.7523 0.4432 0.3783

Bihar Sheikhpura 814.6 77.4 66.0 79.3 1.0 30.9 383.7 53.5 55.2 55.9 19.8 111.2 37.4 0.5056 0.4041 0.4044 0.4318 0.3885

Bihar Sheohar 565.6 42.9 36.2 85.6 1.1 23.6 383.7 41.3 37.8 98.0 31.4 131.8 52.0 0.2736 0.3493 0.7097 0.3942 0.5061

Bihar Sitamarhi 432.8 45.7 43.2 88.0 1.1 24.3 383.7 41.4 42.7 98.0 35.1 125.6 58.7 0.3012 0.3650 0.7363 0.4151 0.5267

Bihar Siwan 690.7 74.1 39.2 87.8 0.9 35.6 372.8 57.5 64.9 96.3 37.5 84.2 55.8 0.3944 0.4434 0.7451 0.4849 0.4240

Bihar Supaul 691.1 46.9 45.9 84.4 1.0 19.3 434.7 45.4 44.1 97.4 31.2 100.7 58.6 0.3272 0.3689 0.7053 0.4187 0.4732

Bihar Vaishali 405.8 62.0 45.0 79.0 1.0 35.2 323.0 44.8 57.1 77.9 44.0 98.8 49.8 0.3607 0.3891 0.6957 0.4371 0.4248

Chhattisgarh Bastar 1102.6 2.0 33.1 25.8 1.2 27.0 196.4 27.9 67.6 71.2 11.9 137.4 51.1 0.1527 0.2688 0.4273 0.2659 0.5135

Chhattisgarh Bilaspur 1061.8 38.7 39.5 55.4 1.1 40.5 321.6 31.2 54.0 65.2 11.5 136.2 36.4 0.2956 0.3434 0.3931 0.3394 0.4367

Chhattisgarh Dantewada 1470.5 1.7 15.8 14.9 1.3 17.1 196.4 27.2 85.6 71.3 7.1 169.3 38.1 0.1087 0.2684 0.3933 0.2476 0.5157

Chhattisgarh Dhamtari 1445.7 75.1 31.2 64.6 1.3 62.4 306.3 33.6 56.4 71.1 15.9 121.8 48.5 0.4063 0.4233 0.4553 0.4245 0.4671

Chhattisgarh Durg 1598.1 39.1 48.6 70.8 1.2 59.3 313.9 30.4 60.3 80.5 17.0 112.7 69.0 0.3549 0.4252 0.5134 0.4221 0.5513

Chhattisgarh Janjgir - Champa 1168.4 58.1 38.4 64.1 1.1 48.1 344.8 42.0 60.5 81.6 18.9 112.4 25.3 0.3617 0.4077 0.5331 0.4179 0.3300

Chhattisgarh Jashpur 1259.2 3.2 22.4 30.8 1.2 51.3 349.4 34.4 74.4 47.9 15.5 145.4 48.0 0.1269 0.3897 0.3304 0.3073 0.5148

Chhattisgarh Kanker 1305.8 9.5 31.0 38.1 1.3 62.5 306.3 42.3 75.5 69.1 12.9 132.4 36.9 0.1803 0.4330 0.4235 0.3624 0.4311

Chhattisgarh Kawardha 1659.9 20.3 27.4 65.5 1.1 37.5 299.7 34.7 67.1 64.9 9.2 156.2 56.1 0.2208 0.3772 0.3750 0.3341 0.5787

Chhattisgarh Korba 748.4 5.4 28.5 34.6 1.2 35.0 349.4 37.1 60.7 43.7 9.9 134.9 57.7 0.1308 0.3328 0.2686 0.2660 0.5415

Chhattisgarh Koriya 1019.8 6.4 20.6 36.0 1.2 42.4 283.2 34.5 74.0 33.9 12.1 133.4 23.0 0.1196 0.3586 0.2325 0.2705 0.3630

Chhattisgarh Mahasamund 1593.5 25.1 27.6 58.6 1.3 51.6 347.0 28.8 54.9 74.0 8.6 122.5 58.3 0.2340 0.3913 0.4183 0.3533 0.5181

Chhattisgarh Raigarh 1104.5 19.3 25.9 46.8 1.3 55.7 349.4 36.4 57.9 77.7 12.7 126.2 56.5 0.1852 0.4008 0.4675 0.3541 0.5169

Chhattisgarh Raipur 1085.6 51.2 40.6 66.8 1.1 48.1 347.0 37.6 59.6 75.4 12.2 130.9 41.1 0.3420 0.4062 0.4513 0.3969 0.4491

Chhattisgarh Rajnandgaon 1475.5 18.9 39.6 59.9 1.2 66.2 299.7 25.2 72.3 72.6 9.5 152.2 48.6 0.2497 0.4384 0.4172 0.3831 0.5323

Chhattisgarh Surguja 1132.2 7.6 30.6 37.8 1.2 38.8 283.2 34.5 63.9 32.9 17.0 118.1 45.9 0.1642 0.3287 0.2622 0.2718 0.4461

Jharkhand Bokaro 151.5 24.1 25.7 68.5 1.2 28.8 312.4 52.4 67.7 26.2 16.2 131.0 61.9 0.1543 0.4013 0.2221 0.3014 0.5544

Jharkhand Chatra 224.7 21.7 13.4 62.9 1.0 28.1 330.6 52.9 59.4 30.7 19.1 120.0 72.7 0.1064 0.3624 0.2664 0.2751 0.5855

Jharkhand Deoghar 240.3 15.0 13.2 72.8 1.1 25.2 307.6 44.9 66.5 35.7 22.7 114.6 65.6 0.0844 0.3776 0.3188 0.2869 0.5382

Jharkhand Dhanbad 169.9 0.9 44.1 70.2 1.2 40.1 417.5 59.1 83.2 37.2 35.2 160.2 55.1 0.1424 0.5007 0.4177 0.3879 0.5822

Jharkhand Dumka 641.2 17.7 18.9 50.6 1.2 29.6 295.9 45.3 64.1 50.7 22.5 123.0 56.0 0.1330 0.3552 0.3968 0.3022 0.5076

Jharkhand Garhwa 272.0 36.8 21.4 59.9 0.9 21.2 340.6 54.4 50.9 46.0 19.7 147.0 55.1 0.1873 0.3263 0.3514 0.2929 0.5541

Jharkhand Giridih 190.6 6.8 19.4 76.3 1.0 23.5 371.1 55.3 66.3 11.8 19.1 137.0 44.3 0.0765 0.4048 0.1668 0.2720 0.4783


Appendix III: Datasets used for Calculation of Indices and Index Values | 101


Jharkhand Godda 603.7 24.7 21.5 67.0 1.1 25.7 345.7 45.3 51.5 40.1 27.3 120.9 39.0 0.1634 0.3529 0.3753 0.3053 0.4172

Jharkhand Gumla 745.1 3.9 20.7 24.8 1.1 37.8 269.1 40.9 83.2 16.0 15.3 140.0 53.0 0.0980 0.3484 0.1618 0.2462 0.5286

Jharkhand Hazaribagh 214.4 12.9 28.8 71.9 1.1 35.2 386.6 55.2 81.3 14.0 31.6 140.0 54.0 0.1307 0.4601 0.2690 0.3355 0.5336

Jharkhand Kodarma 226.7 27.3 23.2 83.9 1.0 27.9 330.6 52.9 77.5 20.0 28.3 154.4 49.7 0.1599 0.4355 0.2768 0.3314 0.5426

Jharkhand Lohardaga 792.4 6.5 28.3 36.2 1.0 34.1 269.1 40.9 75.6 26.5 17.1 155.0 50.5 0.1358 0.3318 0.2299 0.2598 0.5479

Jharkhand Pakaur 351.6 6.5 17.8 50.2 1.1 18.1 295.9 47.8 67.6 66.6 16.5 153.0 54.3 0.0778 0.3336 0.4366 0.2826 0.5628

Jharkhand Palamu 300.0 29.0 24.2 53.8 1.0 27.3 313.4 53.9 55.0 41.9 25.4 154.4 53.6 0.1722 0.3353 0.3711 0.2973 0.5623

Jharkhand Pashchimi Singhbhum 461.0 5.0 22.8 35.5 1.2 27.5 313.1 39.5 65.4 51.8 26.3 130.0 54.4 0.0954 0.3212 0.4300 0.2794 0.5144

Jharkhand Purbi Singhbhum 422.3 11.6 16.9 46.4 1.4 36.1 287.8 39.5 52.5 45.0 18.0 135.0 52.7 0.0948 0.3413 0.3339 0.2727 0.5164

Jharkhand Ranchi 409.8 11.7 24.7 41.6 1.2 38.9 399.3 50.2 76.1 27.7 20.4 149.4 64.1 0.1219 0.4124 0.2601 0.3055 0.6046

Jharkhand Sahibganj 394.7 10.1 24.8 62.3 1.1 22.3 309.7 49.9 66.0 55.5 18.3 115.0 43.5 0.1160 0.3613 0.3916 0.2999 0.4274

Madhya Pradesh Balaghat 918.5 43.0 44.4 69.7 1.3 54.7 269.1 31.9 58.5 52.7 12.0 73.9 51.3 0.3199 0.4101 0.3307 0.3711 0.3794

Madhya Pradesh Barwani 538.0 32.9 27.5 18.5 1.0 25.8 391.6 49.0 71.0 75.0 20.1 81.9 46.2 0.2088 0.3164 0.5064 0.3216 0.3706

Madhya Pradesh Betul 1958.3 25.4 29.8 44.2 1.1 50.5 308.9 27.4 58.2 67.9 12.7 88.3 56.4 0.2603 0.3456 0.4154 0.3350 0.4358

Madhya Pradesh Bhind 2146.8 32.1 42.7 77.6 1.1 53.0 421.8 53.0 79.7 45.9 15.8 92.5 67.4 0.3373 0.5117 0.3223 0.4297 0.5002

Madhya Pradesh Bhopal 3182.9 52.0 29.5 74.9 1.0 36.5 314.6 40.4 60.0 84.9 11.1 73.6 58.8 0.4074 0.3808 0.4939 0.4086 0.4166

Madhya Pradesh Chhatarpur 1589.1 54.7 32.3 70.9 1.0 32.3 292.7 41.8 77.4 34.0 9.3 69.0 44.5 0.3490 0.3986 0.2130 0.3513 0.3346

Madhya Pradesh Chhindwara 2056.1 23.3 27.0 46.9 1.1 48.3 353.0 31.5 59.9 69.6 15.8 72.3 57.3 0.2488 0.3672 0.4473 0.3495 0.4063

Madhya Pradesh Damoh 1806.6 34.4 32.3 65.5 1.1 41.4 275.5 29.9 65.8 52.5 7.0 45.0 34.6 0.2921 0.3761 0.2933 0.3381 0.2335

Madhya Pradesh Datia 2236.3 59.6 36.1 71.5 1.2 54.1 421.8 53.0 82.1 64.1 10.8 61.9 39.4 0.4101 0.5174 0.3820 0.4635 0.2937

Madhya Pradesh Dewas 3667.4 42.4 22.9 60.1 1.1 36.8 424.4 41.7 59.7 74.9 11.6 54.4 37.0 0.3756 0.3955 0.4446 0.3990 0.2656

Madhya Pradesh Dhar 2252.5 46.9 42.3 32.0 1.1 33.6 392.9 34.3 67.9 80.2 20.2 44.3 40.1 0.3905 0.3395 0.5346 0.3889 0.2598

Madhya Pradesh Dindori 935.2 0.7 21.9 27.6 1.3 36.6 235.0 29.1 70.1 45.9 13.5 45.3 34.5 0.1008 0.3104 0.3060 0.2524 0.2337

Madhya Pradesh East Nimar 1217.4 35.7 37.6 49.5 1.1 41.0 433.6 36.6 53.9 81.8 15.5 53.8 42.8 0.2863 0.3692 0.5093 0.3720 0.2937

Madhya Pradesh Guna 2362.5 37.1 27.3 67.0 1.0 37.2 368.0 43.5 67.5 69.4 9.5 61.0 48.4 0.3103 0.4068 0.4004 0.3793 0.3373

Madhya Pradesh Gwalior 2678.0 54.6 59.2 71.6 1.1 34.4 421.8 52.8 73.2 61.4 11.8 57.4 48.5 0.4957 0.4505 0.3750 0.4491 0.3301

Madhya Pradesh Harda 5464.6 77.5 24.6 50.9 1.1 48.1 308.9 32.0 54.4 65.0 8.9 77.1 52.5 0.5860 0.3469 0.3730 0.4168 0.3922

Madhya Pradesh Hoshangabad 3955.9 85.0 31.7 64.5 1.2 48.8 308.9 31.6 54.9 71.5 12.6 76.8 58.5 0.5630 0.3781 0.4338 0.4386 0.4219

Madhya Pradesh Indore 3246.3 58.1 51.0 65.7 1.2 39.8 392.9 38.2 63.2 92.1 30.5 91.5 60.0 0.5063 0.4142 0.6720 0.4862 0.4607

Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur 1429.9 37.2 35.0 59.6 1.3 49.7 318.7 31.9 53.1 83.8 11.8 143.0 57.1 0.2926 0.3798 0.4929 0.3766 0.5557




Madhya Pradesh Jhabua 823.0 17.7 40.2 5.4 0.9 21.1 281.0 52.2 85.4 77.4 19.0 152.0 64.7 0.2162 0.2869 0.5113 0.3084 0.6132

Madhya Pradesh Katni 775.4 28.7 32.7 61.4 1.2 41.3 318.7 30.9 62.7 62.1 12.5 143.0 48.9 0.2245 0.3780 0.3838 0.3372 0.5143

Madhya Pradesh Mandla 710.1 8.7 32.7 33.4 1.3 41.7 235.0 34.8 56.5 51.7 14.6 112.0 60.7 0.1546 0.3114 0.3443 0.2746 0.5079

Madhya Pradesh Mandsaur 2128.0 42.9 32.0 76.7 1.3 50.9 471.7 42.9 68.4 58.5 21.1 107.0 47.8 0.3348 0.4959 0.4275 0.4395 0.4321

Madhya Pradesh Morena 2317.2 62.0 48.8 77.8 1.0 41.6 373.1 58.0 87.1 46.9 15.2 158.0 60.8 0.4665 0.4953 0.3234 0.4562 0.6063

Madhya Pradesh Narsimhapur 3047.2 56.5 30.9 68.8 1.3 66.7 318.7 30.8 52.0 92.2 13.0 137.0 54.4 0.4210 0.4272 0.5454 0.4470 0.5293

Madhya Pradesh Neemuch 2680.6 43.3 40.3 76.9 1.3 41.8 471.7 42.9 71.9 66.5 31.9 166.0 44.3 0.3922 0.4893 0.5479 0.4735 0.5400

Madhya Pradesh Panna 1021.6 32.7 25.6 62.5 1.1 45.1 292.7 41.5 66.9 46.9 8.3 159.0 55.1 0.2246 0.3951 0.2740 0.3266 0.5796

Madhya Pradesh Raisen 2584.9 42.7 24.8 64.5 1.1 59.6 276.6 38.7 56.9 77.8 9.7 144.0 56.9 0.3311 0.3991 0.4465 0.3892 0.5568

Madhya Pradesh Rajgarh 2770.0 41.5 19.6 77.7 1.1 32.3 424.4 36.4 70.1 70.5 13.3 121.0 63.7 0.3177 0.4287 0.4339 0.3994 0.5422

Madhya Pradesh Ratlam 2742.5 36.9 49.4 49.7 1.2 45.9 374.3 39.5 65.6 81.6 16.0 166.0 58.8 0.4056 0.3974 0.5115 0.4204 0.6132

Madhya Pradesh Rewa 885.4 23.7 30.7 69.5 1.0 44.2 295.8 28.8 62.1 41.0 11.4 143.0 64.7 0.2059 0.3729 0.2643 0.3076 0.5941

Madhya Pradesh Sagar 1783.6 40.7 23.2 66.4 1.1 45.9 275.5 31.8 66.7 50.2 1.3 170.0 61.0 0.2798 0.3865 0.2405 0.3308 0.6328

Madhya Pradesh Satna 941.6 37.0 31.8 66.2 1.1 46.7 386.8 34.8 63.0 48.3 12.3 106.0 58.1 0.2571 0.4119 0.3097 0.3511 0.4820

Madhya Pradesh Sehore 3760.2 58.9 26.3 65.9 1.0 42.6 276.6 39.0 60.0 70.1 13.0 168.0 45.6 0.4472 0.3687 0.4293 0.4011 0.5508

Madhya Pradesh Seoni 1487.1 26.6 37.5 49.6 1.2 50.8 269.1 24.8 55.7 63.7 10.0 164.0 43.1 0.2688 0.3444 0.3744 0.3292 0.5296

Madhya Pradesh Shahdol 675.3 5.9 33.7 38.7 1.2 37.7 252.0 28.6 59.4 28.5 12.7 78.0 45.0 0.1468 0.3098 0.2080 0.2468 0.3563

Madhya Pradesh Shajapur 2944.3 45.4 32.1 72.6 1.1 55.1 424.4 32.6 65.1 75.7 9.6 134.0 41.0 0.3831 0.4546 0.4343 0.4314 0.4552

Madhya Pradesh Sheopur 3131.2 70.2 42.3 59.1 1.0 24.6 373.1 55.6 69.9 80.8 12.0 156.0 65.5 0.5106 0.3886 0.4787 0.4383 0.6258

Madhya Pradesh Shivpuri 2384.9 47.6 22.4 67.7 1.1 36.0 304.8 49.2 80.7 53.3 10.5 199.0 57.3 0.3294 0.4256 0.3226 0.3807 0.6758

Madhya Pradesh Sidhi 692.2 17.7 41.4 55.0 1.0 32.2 265.8 32.3 66.0 29.6 9.9 168.0 53.6 0.2145 0.3256 0.1941 0.2714 0.5912

Madhya Pradesh Tikamgarh 1310.1 73.1 32.2 70.2 1.1 37.3 292.7 42.2 82.1 30.7 10.4 127.0 60.7 0.3964 0.4265 0.2036 0.3778 0.5398

Madhya Pradesh Ujjain 3487.6 46.2 27.6 66.2 1.2 48.4 374.3 33.8 66.6 84.6 10.4 136.0 46.6 0.3964 0.4265 0.4875 0.4294 0.4877

Madhya Pradesh Umaria 581.9 17.9 32.1 45.5 1.1 41.4 252.0 28.6 60.4 36.3 8.7 134.0 58.5 0.1767 0.3229 0.2201 0.2643 0.5436

Madhya Pradesh Vidisha 3235.2 43.7 24.0 72.9 1.0 41.3 314.6 40.9 56.5 68.6 9.8 121.0 61.6 0.3632 0.3836 0.3981 0.3806 0.5316

Madhya Pradesh West Nimar 867.6 42.9 42.3 47.9 1.1 47.2 391.6 32.4 62.4 82.1 21.8 190.0 62.7 0.3097 0.3795 0.5564 0.3926 0.6840

Maharashtra Ahmadnagar 864.7 26.5 86.2 79.4 1.2 61.1 477.5 43.3 71.6 53.5 31.2 66.1 45.4 0.4094 0.5305 0.4741 0.4872 0.3330

Maharashtra Akola 2368.0 3.3 86.2 80.0 1.3 69.1 414.1 31.8 38.0 76.0 19.0 113.0 54.5 0.4048 0.4489 0.5044 0.4470 0.4787

Maharashtra Amravati 1905.6 8.6 91.8 62.5 1.3 71.1 343.7 32.5 37.2 83.4 25.2 84.2 48.4 0.4193 0.4071 0.5880 0.4433 0.3866

Maharashtra Aurangabad 1578.7 21.9 83.8 84.0 1.1 51.6 317.9 37.3 67.6 70.9 22.5 69.1 50.6 0.4199 0.4462 0.5027 0.4493 0.3656




Maharashtra Bhandara 1089.7 66.0 54.4 73.5 1.5 65.2 281.7 32.6 50.7 62.2 49.7 85.8 62.0 0.4402 0.4420 0.6537 0.4800 0.4587

Maharashtra Bid 1823.1 25.3 86.5 85.7 1.0 51.0 305.3 37.4 68.3 77.2 26.8 156.5 50.5 0.4526 0.4431 0.5674 0.4683 0.5511

Maharashtra Buldana 2119.9 5.8 79.8 82.8 1.2 61.0 390.2 31.6 50.0 66.0 32.0 87.0 62.9 0.3787 0.4490 0.5456 0.4474 0.4658

Maharashtra Chandrapur 1591.8 23.4 92.6 64.9 1.4 56.0 415.9 38.1 51.4 57.9 23.5 99.5 50.4 0.4565 0.4462 0.4413 0.4481 0.4293

Maharashtra Dhule 1454.3 12.5 79.5 60.7 1.2 55.7 362.5 35.1 49.4 87.2 33.8 130.0 50.3 0.3676 0.4004 0.6700 0.4405 0.4937

Maharashtra Gadchiroli 682.3 32.8 74.6 48.8 1.4 46.0 281.7 36.5 61.0 56.8 26.7 88.3 49.9 0.3806 0.3771 0.4586 0.3929 0.4029

Maharashtra Gondiya 816.9 66.0 50.3 68.8 1.5 65.6 345.7 36.7 60.8 49.3 56.1 86.7 61.6 0.4126 0.4743 0.6325 0.4862 0.4586

Maharashtra Hingoli 2932.9 9.3 81.9 79.7 1.0 48.3 378.6 35.1 59.5 71.4 16.9 105.8 48.0 0.4370 0.4256 0.4648 0.4358 0.4306

Maharashtra Jalgaon 2193.4 18.1 92.5 77.1 1.3 59.6 416.0 37.3 44.9 92.0 33.9 107.7 50.7 0.4675 0.4458 0.6964 0.4973 0.4482

Maharashtra Jalna 2651.2 18.1 88.1 86.2 1.0 44.6 348.7 35.7 62.7 70.8 23.8 121.8 50.7 0.4745 0.4276 0.5112 0.4556 0.4782

Maharashtra Kolhapur 2406.5 26.4 77.3 86.0 1.5 60.7 484.7 42.8 78.9 84.3 39.9 113.0 55.6 0.4524 0.5773 0.6994 0.5655 0.4843

Maharashtra Latur 1838.8 7.6 83.4 77.0 1.1 55.9 311.4 37.3 57.0 84.6 35.4 88.0 44.4 0.3835 0.4199 0.6681 0.4551 0.3745

Maharashtra Nagpur 1870.2 20.9 90.7 68.4 1.4 66.6 410.1 44.0 53.3 74.3 36.9 86.4 45.9 0.4549 0.4828 0.6249 0.5010 0.3787

Maharashtra Nanded 1872.8 8.1 67.9 71.2 1.1 50.0 333.3 38.9 52.6 72.4 36.6 108.3 62.7 0.3325 0.3952 0.6132 0.4177 0.5101

Maharashtra Nandurbar 1072.7 12.5 66.2 22.7 1.1 40.0 302.2 35.6 48.1 81.7 47.6 66.1 40.2 0.3023 0.2790 0.7416 0.3695 0.3067

Maharashtra Nashik 908.0 22.6 90.8 57.5 1.3 55.8 319.0 33.1 66.8 54.0 29.0 64.2 51.2 0.4144 0.4197 0.4606 0.4257 0.3582

Maharashtra Osmanabad 1676.8 17.6 83.0 81.2 1.1 54.4 481.8 41.3 58.2 87.3 32.2 93.1 55.9 0.4077 0.4757 0.6596 0.4906 0.4434

Maharashtra Parbhani 3317.5 9.3 99.5 87.0 1.0 45.5 378.6 32.4 55.8 80.0 21.3 74.5 50.6 0.5175 0.4172 0.5417 0.4672 0.3771

Maharashtra Pune 1121.3 25.3 88.9 85.2 1.4 60.7 529.4 45.4 76.5 64.4 32.9 103.3 51.2 0.4270 0.5753 0.5436 0.5291 0.4414

Maharashtra Raigarh 841.2 6.1 72.0 83.5 1.4 63.6 429.3 56.4 75.0 60.3 35.2 62.6 50.4 0.2898 0.5681 0.5391 0.4870 0.3508

Maharashtra Ratnagiri 608.2 1.2 91.2 97.4 1.3 63.6 431.2 47.9 85.6 42.5 29.8 71.6 58.0 0.3298 0.5920 0.4062 0.4867 0.4083

Maharashtra Sangli 1753.5 22.0 93.5 87.4 1.3 63.5 432.6 43.7 73.8 76.4 37.3 105.5 59.1 0.4626 0.5503 0.6390 0.5425 0.4860

Maharashtra Satara 1457.8 31.1 85.5 90.8 1.4 66.4 519.5 48.6 76.6 81.5 22.8 82.6 52.4 0.4508 0.5976 0.5602 0.5508 0.4034

Maharashtra Sindhudurg 1297.1 26.5 80.7 94.9 1.4 69.8 499.2 38.8 79.2 25.0 39.9 116.2 61.9 0.4110 0.6048 0.3870 0.5123 0.5229

Maharashtra Solapur 956.5 21.8 98.9 82.7 1.2 56.1 475.5 41.9 63.7 69.1 22.7 113.4 57.3 0.4426 0.5054 0.4947 0.4863 0.4937

Maharashtra Thane 609.0 4.6 80.3 51.0 1.4 52.6 377.6 53.8 72.8 52.4 45.2 78.7 58.8 0.3032 0.4708 0.5701 0.4431 0.4275

Maharashtra Wardha 3076.7 5.8 80.9 73.1 1.4 68.6 410.1 37.9 49.6 64.2 27.4 72.3 51.4 0.4289 0.4798 0.5029 0.4701 0.3765

Maharashtra Washim 2917.1 3.3 86.2 75.2 1.2 57.6 414.1 33.6 44.3 52.9 26.5 83.2 55.2 0.4312 0.4243 0.4370 0.4285 0.4188

Maharashtra Yavatmal 2092.5 6.0 79.6 67.9 1.3 58.5 350.4 32.4 44.7 57.4 23.4 54.4 36.0 0.3769 0.4045 0.4381 0.4031 0.2606

Odisha Anugul 1275.4 22.2 28.3 70.1 1.4 52.0 285.7 38.4 68.8 39.3 16.3 138.0 48.1 0.2115 0.4472 0.2917 0.3546 0.4996




Odisha Balangir 1679.1 14.9 40.6 60.2 1.4 35.8 259.2 29.4 56.7 73.9 24.3 147.0 68.3 0.2497 0.3487 0.5313 0.3549 0.6208

Odisha Baleshwar 1081.1 37.7 41.0 68.6 1.4 57.4 350.5 45.8 64.6 86.3 33.9 145.0 67.0 0.2984 0.4697 0.6663 0.4587 0.6099

Odisha Bargarh 2632.5 44.4 45.2 60.0 1.5 48.6 268.1 34.1 56.4 83.3 47.6 148.0 30.5 0.4104 0.3935 0.7497 0.4629 0.4320

Odisha Baudh 1804.5 47.4 25.9 65.1 1.4 37.4 232.8 22.1 59.2 64.3 6.8 156.0 65.5 0.3128 0.3497 0.3540 0.3404 0.6258

Odisha Bhadrak 1263.9 62.4 43.1 75.3 1.3 63.0 377.2 58.1 69.8 88.6 28.5 174.0 26.5 0.3969 0.5257 0.6398 0.5113 0.4671

Odisha Cuttack 1022.1 57.3 62.7 74.4 1.4 62.5 408.1 56.1 69.6 50.0 22.8 142.0 58.2 0.4370 0.5360 0.3951 0.4833 0.5591

Odisha Debagarh 1555.0 29.2 60.1 50.3 1.3 45.6 224.4 24.5 54.0 56.2 9.0 128.0 44.3 0.3599 0.3305 0.3276 0.3380 0.4591

Odisha Dhenkanal 1460.4 27.2 38.8 67.7 1.4 56.1 277.3 43.2 63.6 31.3 23.4 158.0 36.9 0.2741 0.4484 0.3008 0.3740 0.4856

Odisha Gajapati 1194.1 24.5 29.3 37.3 1.2 24.5 316.3 45.2 52.4 43.3 19.7 124.0 62.5 0.2188 0.3008 0.3369 0.2850 0.5425

Odisha Ganjam 1182.5 64.1 43.3 76.8 1.3 41.3 316.3 45.2 56.8 57.9 18.7 163.0 54.9 0.3992 0.4164 0.4064 0.4099 0.5871

Odisha Jagatsinghapur 1212.7 78.1 57.3 77.2 1.5 68.8 318.1 52.9 72.1 78.0 36.2 166.0 65.2 0.4966 0.5350 0.6389 0.5434 0.6455

Odisha Jajapur 1250.6 28.5 61.9 68.9 1.4 60.1 420.6 56.2 68.6 42.4 27.1 170.0 77.6 0.3493 0.5217 0.3859 0.4500 0.7167

Odisha Jharsuguda 1562.3 20.3 47.1 41.9 1.4 53.6 224.4 27.7 67.5 62.8 31.9 154.0 54.7 0.2848 0.3724 0.5280 0.3768 0.5670

Odisha Kalahandi 2167.7 34.5 41.5 51.9 1.3 26.5 221.1 34.4 47.5 81.2 21.0 125.0 56.7 0.3422 0.2925 0.5461 0.3522 0.5154

Odisha Kandhamal 898.8 13.6 20.5 28.7 1.2 32.8 232.8 35.8 62.4 32.0 19.2 175.0 46.3 0.1372 0.2901 0.2740 0.2455 0.5692

Odisha Kendrapara 1233.0 21.5 35.2 78.9 1.3 66.3 324.9 53.1 73.8 73.7 22.2 173.0 60.9 0.2316 0.5245 0.5154 0.4429 0.6387

Odisha Kendujhar 1235.6 22.9 46.5 40.9 1.4 43.6 298.1 44.2 60.2 52.4 14.8 122.0 61.9 0.2757 0.3705 0.3495 0.3408 0.5352

Odisha Khordha 911.3 36.1 64.1 77.2 1.5 63.0 358.3 50.1 71.9 43.0 39.2 119.0 45.7 0.3657 0.5277 0.4765 0.4742 0.4470

Odisha Koraput 1448.6 30.6 22.2 30.6 1.3 15.6 205.6 35.9 55.1 67.3 22.3 119.6 47.8 0.2266 0.2485 0.4824 0.2850 0.4589

Odisha Malkangiri 2565.3 30.8 21.2 18.5 1.2 18.4 205.6 41.0 73.2 82.1 16.1 116.2 31.5 0.2777 0.2692 0.5153 0.3163 0.3694

Odisha Mayurbhanj 1151.5 29.7 42.1 33.0 1.3 35.0 287.0 34.5 59.9 43.9 21.4 109.6 59.9 0.2792 0.3163 0.3524 0.3128 0.4988

Odisha Nabarangapur 1752.4 5.8 45.1 28.6 1.2 18.0 195.1 30.4 45.9 80.4 28.4 143.3 45.9 0.2390 0.2108 0.5953 0.2884 0.4997

Odisha Nayagarh 1480.8 26.3 52.9 80.1 1.5 56.7 288.0 46.5 66.2 51.5 20.0 130.6 50.0 0.3213 0.4845 0.3822 0.4214 0.4934

Odisha Nuapada 1145.2 19.2 61.2 50.4 1.3 23.8 232.8 32.4 52.2 84.3 25.6 128.1 13.9 0.3108 0.2874 0.5952 0.3498 0.3058

Odisha Puri 1204.8 65.1 49.4 80.0 1.5 66.3 335.3 42.2 71.6 75.6 39.6 148.5 29.9 0.4252 0.5246 0.6510 0.5205 0.4300

Odisha Rayagada 1219.4 22.9 33.5 23.3 1.3 18.3 221.1 34.4 50.1 78.1 13.2 130.0 30.0 0.2295 0.2288 0.4735 0.2735 0.3911

Odisha Sambalpur 1991.7 33.9 30.6 39.4 1.4 49.5 224.4 25.7 61.8 56.5 13.5 165.1 50.7 0.2935 0.3453 0.3613 0.3341 0.5704

Odisha Sonapur 2117.7 59.0 36.3 66.2 1.4 44.7 259.2 26.5 53.6 76.3 14.1 127.1 54.9 0.4032 0.3672 0.4701 0.3957 0.5107

Odisha Sundargarh 1120.1 19.1 38.0 25.0 1.3 43.1 238.6 30.4 61.2 57.0 28.0 117.4 27.8 0.2278 0.3092 0.4696 0.3162 0.3532

Rajasthan Ajmer 743.4 12.6 62.1 80.8 1.1 32.6 460.7 54.1 85.9 64.2 21.4 125.0 47.4 0.2723 0.5016 0.4589 0.4313 0.4684




Rajasthan Alwar 2017.3 87.6 64.3 72.7 1.0 38.5 522.9 59.1 90.4 58.7 20.0 95.6 9.9 0.5918 0.5254 0.4202 0.5244 0.2164

Rajasthan Banswara 879.8 32.9 46.7 18.9 1.1 24.4 372.0 48.4 89.2 67.3 35.5 157.4 40.6 0.2923 0.3564 0.5775 0.3791 0.5030

Rajasthan Baran 3961.9 81.0 37.8 57.7 1.1 37.7 451.1 51.2 71.5 82.6 11.6 186.5 48.7 0.5710 0.4363 0.4855 0.4820 0.6058

Rajasthan Barmer 522.1 5.8 44.3 77.8 1.0 42.0 443.9 64.6 95.2 39.3 10.6 134.0 35.9 0.1765 0.5352 0.2499 0.3855 0.4295

Rajasthan Bharatpur 2373.0 75.3 60.8 76.2 1.0 39.1 469.6 64.3 85.7 24.8 23.3 129.0 50.6 0.5556 0.5119 0.2654 0.4790 0.4931

Rajasthan Bhilwara 1025.0 22.4 41.6 73.1 1.2 26.2 465.6 54.0 91.9 67.9 21.3 114.0 44.9 0.2467 0.4944 0.4785 0.4240 0.4324

Rajasthan Bikaner 1476.3 9.9 65.1 75.3 1.0 28.4 428.5 62.8 92.8 45.0 8.4 153.4 43.5 0.3092 0.4918 0.2643 0.4006 0.5091

Rajasthan Bundi 2731.8 68.6 44.5 57.9 1.1 32.5 484.2 64.1 85.0 84.4 16.1 158.3 56.1 0.4937 0.4830 0.5276 0.4940 0.5832

Rajasthan Chittaurgarh 2168.2 28.7 40.1 61.0 1.3 30.0 484.2 51.1 88.6 85.1 24.8 90.6 47.7 0.3181 0.4829 0.5939 0.4581 0.3967

Rajasthan Churu 977.2 4.0 61.6 75.2 1.0 50.9 428.5 66.2 95.0 51.5 14.9 156.2 33.4 0.2533 0.5489 0.3453 0.4313 0.4641

Rajasthan Dausa 1605.6 71.7 51.3 49.1 1.0 40.0 424.8 62.1 93.0 52.6 21.0 130.3 10.7 0.4734 0.4734 0.3955 0.4592 0.2943

Rajasthan Dhaulpur 1901.1 66.2 56.8 73.4 0.9 38.9 476.7 68.9 92.1 47.8 28.5 135.9 57.0 0.4886 0.5238 0.4241 0.4961 0.5401

Rajasthan Dungarpur 503.3 26.6 55.4 27.6 1.1 28.9 372.0 52.1 83.4 71.6 34.1 135.9 27.7 0.2837 0.3729 0.5902 0.3881 0.3921

Rajasthan Ganganagar 3856.7 70.6 67.1 61.4 1.2 47.2 459.8 64.2 72.1 68.2 16.7 162.9 50.6 0.6341 0.4944 0.4465 0.5238 0.5652

Rajasthan Hanumangarh 2874.2 38.2 65.0 71.1 1.2 46.3 431.1 81.9 82.3 66.2 14.8 122.8 52.4 0.4712 0.5449 0.4223 0.5025 0.4890

Rajasthan Jaipur 1656.0 47.0 57.5 71.4 1.1 43.9 473.6 67.8 92.9 60.3 24.5 109.9 58.2 0.4151 0.5415 0.4613 0.4925 0.4908

Rajasthan Jaisalmer 1088.3 8.0 49.7 79.0 1.0 27.3 443.9 70.6 90.9 45.5 6.1 114.9 56.4 0.2301 0.5072 0.2502 0.3849 0.4924

Rajasthan Jalor 1246.4 31.0 63.6 73.0 1.0 26.2 439.5 70.4 88.5 48.0 19.2 121.2 69.1 0.3633 0.4849 0.3582 0.4287 0.5699

Rajasthan Jhalawar 2846.9 52.1 27.1 70.7 1.2 35.3 451.1 60.3 77.0 62.2 23.8 103.3 57.6 0.3831 0.4824 0.4664 0.4524 0.4737

Rajasthan Jhunjhunun 1631.0 50.5 67.8 81.4 1.1 59.3 576.4 92.5 92.1 71.7 32.5 168.7 41.7 0.4616 0.6512 0.5789 0.5864 0.5326

Rajasthan Jodhpur 1119.7 10.1 61.9 79.3 1.0 24.7 418.2 61.6 87.3 66.2 15.3 130.3 66.9 0.2816 0.4737 0.4257 0.4126 0.5781

Rajasthan Karauli 1753.2 54.5 59.9 50.7 1.0 42.8 476.7 60.3 89.1 40.8 13.7 120.9 72.6 0.4533 0.4820 0.2807 0.4376 0.5869

Rajasthan Kota 4370.2 78.9 52.4 62.1 1.2 49.9 451.1 71.6 74.2 90.5 18.8 112.4 45.4 0.6350 0.5079 0.5786 0.5554 0.4315

Rajasthan Nagaur 1412.0 19.8 56.2 78.5 1.1 36.8 413.6 59.3 88.5 47.6 19.7 152.8 50.2 0.3081 0.5036 0.3600 0.4242 0.5417

Rajasthan Pali 752.8 15.8 65.9 74.9 1.0 31.7 395.7 59.0 77.0 53.5 19.9 73.6 70.2 0.2968 0.4548 0.3919 0.4003 0.4742

Rajasthan Rajsamand 352.5 9.7 50.7 73.2 1.1 33.0 435.2 59.2 85.3 68.6 21.3 123.1 63.9 0.2035 0.4900 0.4815 0.4103 0.5477

Rajasthan Sawai Madhopur 1903.8 57.9 43.7 54.0 1.1 29.5 476.7 68.1 90.7 51.0 16.0 154.7 65.2 0.4148 0.4817 0.3508 0.4396 0.6215

Rajasthan Sikar 1277.7 41.5 59.5 81.2 1.0 55.3 471.7 68.0 93.5 65.3 22.9 89.9 66.9 0.3856 0.5812 0.4760 0.5087 0.4922

Rajasthan Sirohi 582.4 38.8 63.1 52.6 1.1 31.3 395.7 52.2 79.4 74.7 25.9 117.8 54.2 0.3552 0.4162 0.5471 0.4234 0.4874

Rajasthan Tonk 2125.3 27.9 41.5 64.9 1.1 25.7 460.7 56.9 88.1 54.5 18.9 133.1 61.6 0.3179 0.4695 0.3907 0.4138 0.5573




Rajasthan Udaipur 595.4 18.2 42.8 37.4 1.1 35.1 435.2 54.5 87.6 64.7 26.5 173.9 57.0 0.2162 0.4328 0.4991 0.3858 0.6209

Uttar Pradesh Agra 2006.0 82.3 83.5 78.5 1.0 38.0 436.0 61.1 80.0 85.5 38.7 81.0 50.6 0.6408 0.4901 0.6968 0.5688 0.3909

Uttar Pradesh Aligarh 1888.3 97.5 78.0 76.8 1.0 38.0 502.9 64.4 75.0 96.5 26.4 75.5 50.5 0.6667 0.4994 0.6661 0.5754 0.3787

Uttar Pradesh Allahabad 942.7 70.1 70.8 75.5 1.0 37.7 361.6 46.7 69.7 57.8 21.9 101.7 56.9 0.5042 0.4279 0.4291 0.4490 0.4668

Uttar Pradesh Ambedkar Nagar 1352.0 93.9 44.1 74.0 1.0 43.4 421.8 39.4 64.3 98.7 21.8 108.6 69.6 0.5095 0.4303 0.6438 0.4907 0.5456

Uttar Pradesh Auraiya 1840.0 78.5 60.6 70.4 1.1 56.3 399.0 63.0 74.7 77.6 24.9 134.9 51.8 0.5398 0.5046 0.5550 0.5233 0.5117

Uttar Pradesh Azamgarh 944.2 92.9 58.2 73.1 1.0 41.9 383.2 46.5 70.6 98.6 26.5 118.4 52.6 0.5360 0.4346 0.6774 0.5064 0.4806

Uttar Pradesh Baghpat 2714.0 99.6 86.2 88.4 1.1 47.2 480.4 59.4 79.2 97.8 35.8 74.9 58.7 0.7425 0.5411 0.7408 0.6323 0.4189

Uttar Pradesh Bahraich 1551.7 42.9 45.3 84.2 1.1 18.4 345.5 53.6 67.6 90.9 23.6 95.6 52.1 0.3535 0.4046 0.6162 0.4291 0.4296

Uttar Pradesh Ballia 872.7 82.3 60.6 82.8 1.0 41.5 351.3 47.3 57.7 96.4 36.3 122.1 58.7 0.5054 0.4224 0.7367 0.5022 0.5193

Uttar Pradesh Balrampur 1566.8 39.2 48.8 84.6 1.0 18.8 338.0 47.3 67.1 82.3 17.1 103.6 63.1 0.3541 0.3911 0.5236 0.4051 0.5021

Uttar Pradesh Banda 1602.7 32.3 55.9 78.3 1.0 32.0 320.4 52.5 65.8 72.4 15.6 100.4 68.6 0.3578 0.4092 0.4605 0.4045 0.5231

Uttar Pradesh Barabanki 1656.6 84.4 54.5 71.2 1.1 32.2 483.0 41.4 72.0 76.9 25.1 159.9 48.1 0.5291 0.4429 0.5527 0.4864 0.5462

Uttar Pradesh Bareilly 2039.7 81.0 69.3 84.8 1.0 26.6 389.6 55.1 76.3 98.4 21.5 144.2 66.2 0.5882 0.4468 0.6402 0.5205 0.6042

Uttar Pradesh Basti 5254.5 62.7 43.2 78.8 1.0 34.9 414.4 46.6 71.6 97.2 24.4 137.4 66.5 0.5915 0.4429 0.6547 0.5219 0.5912

Uttar Pradesh Bijnor 2974.2 83.3 81.0 74.6 1.0 43.3 464.2 59.7 67.1 98.1 28.1 79.0 44.3 0.6825 0.4756 0.6864 0.5704 0.3549

Uttar Pradesh Budaun 2069.9 93.1 51.9 81.6 1.0 20.3 380.0 50.0 81.4 98.1 20.6 134.0 68.5 0.5692 0.4299 0.6322 0.5047 0.5941

Uttar Pradesh Bulandshahar 2090.7 87.3 82.5 77.4 1.0 39.1 502.9 66.1 81.3 98.2 30.4 143.6 62.1 0.6584 0.5212 0.7038 0.5918 0.5822

Uttar Pradesh Chandauli 1163.6 94.4 64.4 74.8 1.1 41.6 388.1 47.0 61.7 65.3 27.2 150.4 54.5 0.5736 0.4271 0.5072 0.4816 0.5583

Uttar Pradesh Chitrakoot 1439.1 26.4 40.2 72.8 1.0 48.4 320.4 52.5 71.8 60.5 19.1 121.5 33.1 0.2751 0.4425 0.4236 0.3934 0.3887

Uttar Pradesh Deoria 998.0 78.8 60.7 81.0 1.0 40.3 345.6 51.1 66.5 99.1 31.8 141.0 70.3 0.5004 0.4350 0.7184 0.5043 0.6181

Uttar Pradesh Etah 2097.7 96.8 62.7 82.2 1.0 35.7 364.1 55.3 79.8 92.2 22.4 146.0 43.2 0.6210 0.4659 0.6141 0.5351 0.4919

Uttar Pradesh Etawah 2057.0 79.5 71.2 74.2 1.1 53.5 399.0 63.0 73.2 80.3 22.4 121.0 46.8 0.5908 0.5007 0.5514 0.5345 0.4568

Uttar Pradesh Faizabad 1284.6 86.3 62.2 75.4 1.1 38.5 421.8 39.4 68.3 88.2 26.2 126.0 76.9 0.5445 0.4355 0.6206 0.4989 0.6195

Uttar Pradesh Farrukhabad 2710.4 85.6 56.0 82.7 1.1 44.4 392.0 62.0 79.2 95.4 26.0 123.0 53.7 0.5896 0.5052 0.6571 0.5559 0.4959

Uttar Pradesh Fatehpur 1392.1 63.5 50.2 73.7 1.1 39.5 386.5 54.4 65.5 62.6 23.3 92.0 86.0 0.4315 0.4411 0.4649 0.4428 0.5931

Uttar Pradesh Firozabad 1927.0 97.5 73.6 80.2 1.0 47.4 415.2 55.3 79.3 94.5 27.0 155.0 44.9 0.6531 0.5004 0.6596 0.5710 0.5196

Uttar Pradesh Gautam Buddha Nagar 1609.9 87.1 74.4 80.4 1.1 46.5 479.2 66.1 85.7 98.2 29.7 95.0 50.5 0.6060 0.5459 0.6988 0.5900 0.4202

Uttar Pradesh Ghaziabad 2007.8 95.6 89.0 80.7 1.1 48.3 479.2 66.1 86.2 98.5 35.5 169.0 55.8 0.7045 0.5541 0.7419 0.6293 0.6044

Uttar Pradesh Ghazipur 976.4 83.3 51.6 77.7 1.0 42.4 299.6 52.0 70.9 85.8 29.6 139.0 57.7 0.4823 0.4306 0.6324 0.4814 0.5502




Uttar Pradesh Gonda 1442.2 62.8 46.8 83.6 1.0 24.2 328.9 47.3 75.1 95.1 20.2 153.0 48.2 0.4197 0.4176 0.6132 0.4537 0.5320

Uttar Pradesh Gorakhpur 889.2 80.3 56.5 75.6 1.0 36.5 324.0 45.8 58.5 98.2 28.0 129.0 48.5 0.4855 0.3893 0.6866 0.4696 0.4825

Uttar Pradesh Hamirpur 1964.1 33.9 69.9 76.9 1.1 36.1 421.9 45.1 61.3 72.1 17.3 129.0 56.0 0.4298 0.4271 0.4708 0.4358 0.5203

Uttar Pradesh Hardoi 1672.9 86.0 54.8 65.9 1.1 33.8 379.2 45.8 79.8 78.1 14.8 119.6 39.1 0.5364 0.4305 0.4847 0.4692 0.4150

Uttar Pradesh Hathras 2325.8 99.1 75.1 73.7 1.0 43.9 377.1 71.8 71.1 95.0 36.6 155.9 50.2 0.6831 0.4766 0.7311 0.5792 0.5483

Uttar Pradesh Jalaun 2687.3 45.7 55.6 71.3 1.2 45.3 421.9 46.9 62.2 80.6 16.8 144.0 96.0 0.4541 0.4467 0.5120 0.4606 0.7543

Uttar Pradesh Jaunpur 876.3 86.6 61.9 77.0 1.0 42.5 392.9 44.6 78.4 74.5 23.8 111.0 49.4 0.5248 0.4593 0.5310 0.4902 0.4487

Uttar Pradesh Jhansi 2317.2 57.4 58.2 68.0 1.2 38.2 399.7 46.9 72.0 56.3 18.1 142.0 61.1 0.4841 0.4466 0.3939 0.4472 0.5737

Uttar Pradesh Jyotiba Phule Nagar 2583.5 35.1 67.4 80.2 1.0 30.8 442.5 61.8 81.8 99.2 21.1 118.0 53.1 0.4549 0.4831 0.6414 0.5042 0.4823

Uttar Pradesh Kannauj 2220.3 88.3 45.7 80.2 1.1 47.3 392.0 62.0 83.0 95.1 22.3 156.5 48.9 0.5387 0.5133 0.6286 0.5412 0.5430

Uttar Pradesh Kanpur Dehat 1821.7 74.0 56.5 74.5 1.1 53.7 394.8 54.4 73.6 77.8 20.0 105.0 62.2 0.5099 0.4926 0.5212 0.5025 0.5006

Uttar Pradesh Kanpur Nagar 1601.2 68.8 75.9 73.0 1.2 54.5 394.8 54.4 68.9 81.3 32.0 116.0 58.4 0.5497 0.4865 0.6264 0.5292 0.5048

Uttar Pradesh Kaushambi 993.5 67.0 71.9 62.7 1.0 28.2 361.6 47.2 55.8 79.8 24.1 132.0 84.0 0.5001 0.3557 0.5612 0.4324 0.6681

Uttar Pradesh Kheri 2904.9 67.5 52.5 71.2 1.1 32.2 418.8 39.7 74.5 93.6 21.9 145.0 61.4 0.5263 0.4263 0.6181 0.4884 0.5816

Uttar Pradesh Kushinagar 1355.4 77.7 59.2 81.5 1.0 28.3 312.2 47.6 53.4 98.5 28.6 134.6 45.7 0.5088 0.3709 0.6925 0.4670 0.4802

Uttar Pradesh Lalitpur 1881.1 73.6 44.3 73.3 1.0 27.2 399.7 45.1 81.6 49.8 6.7 102.0 35.2 0.4684 0.4361 0.2773 0.4161 0.3578

Uttar Pradesh Lucknow 938.6 88.2 70.8 59.9 1.1 40.1 398.4 52.9 73.5 86.9 30.5 89.0 69.2 0.5644 0.4361 0.6450 0.5091 0.5019

Uttar Pradesh Mahoba 2125.3 42.9 48.0 72.6 1.1 31.2 421.9 45.1 65.4 32.6 9.3 102.0 50.7 0.3908 0.4187 0.2049 0.3722 0.4361

Uttar Pradesh Mahrajganj 1790.1 75.3 61.5 80.1 1.0 26.2 312.9 45.8 54.9 98.9 23.9 129.0 50.3 0.5299 0.3649 0.6605 0.4636 0.4915

Uttar Pradesh Mainpuri 1799.1 98.2 62.6 80.1 1.0 48.7 415.2 63.0 82.5 92.5 22.8 98.0 58.4 0.6104 0.5220 0.6187 0.5637 0.4665

Uttar Pradesh Mathura 2306.7 98.8 82.5 78.0 1.0 36.3 377.1 61.1 78.7 68.5 25.5 138.0 61.1 0.7070 0.4663 0.5117 0.5402 0.5652

Uttar Pradesh Mau 1058.9 89.8 69.0 74.0 1.0 45.6 351.3 47.3 68.2 98.7 37.9 163.2 46.6 0.5689 0.4325 0.7609 0.5294 0.5456

Uttar Pradesh Meerut 3071.2 95.5 92.4 78.9 1.1 47.7 480.4 61.8 81.4 98.3 31.7 142.0 71.2 0.7678 0.5333 0.7136 0.6300 0.6248

Uttar Pradesh Mirzapur 941.1 61.1 58.7 71.1 1.0 36.0 378.6 45.2 63.1 57.9 25.4 125.0 52.3 0.4317 0.4035 0.4550 0.4205 0.4931

Uttar Pradesh Moradabad 1948.6 78.8 71.1 81.3 0.9 24.8 480.4 58.3 77.8 98.9 22.1 133.0 51.7 0.5832 0.4666 0.6476 0.5313 0.5071

Uttar Pradesh Muzaffarnagar 2965.2 99.4 93.1 84.7 1.0 44.5 440.5 59.4 71.6 98.9 45.4 134.9 57.2 0.7780 0.4994 0.8160 0.6330 0.5389

Uttar Pradesh Pilibhit 3257.8 96.1 66.0 83.1 1.0 31.3 389.6 46.3 71.0 98.1 18.7 122.0 68.1 0.6862 0.4348 0.6180 0.5367 0.5665

Uttar Pradesh Pratapgarh 866.5 83.1 63.2 77.4 1.0 40.3 281.1 42.1 68.4 72.3 22.8 132.0 46.5 0.5171 0.4052 0.5123 0.4552 0.4787

Uttar Pradesh Rae Bareli 1081.4 85.4 47.9 68.6 1.1 36.5 312.9 50.0 63.3 71.9 27.7 155.0 54.4 0.4815 0.3955 0.5455 0.4462 0.5676

Uttar Pradesh Rampur 2233.6 96.9 70.6 83.9 0.9 21.4 442.5 54.1 70.5 99.2 30.7 130.0 53.7 0.6555 0.4327 0.7108 0.5441 0.5108




Uttar Pradesh Saharanpur 2265.7 90.8 85.8 73.8 1.1 45.8 465.7 63.5 68.3 97.3 29.9 148.0 63.2 0.6898 0.4903 0.6950 0.5820 0.5971

Uttar Pradesh Sant Kabir Nagar 1110.5 87.5 53.6 78.1 0.9 33.4 312.2 49.1 60.6 98.0 25.0 156.5 56.9 0.5102 0.3875 0.6634 0.4711 0.5834

Uttar Pradesh Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi 527.7 81.8 76.3 76.8 1.0 36.1 378.6 45.2 83.2 59.6 20.6 109.0 55.0 0.5424 0.4536 0.4289 0.4733 0.4727

Uttar Pradesh Shahjahanpur 2655.9 98.0 47.4 80.0 1.0 32.2 357.6 46.3 74.1 93.6 21.3 159.0 64.6 0.5983 0.4317 0.6130 0.5101 0.6276

Uttar Pradesh Shrawasti 967.5 42.1 45.2 80.8 1.1 17.7 338.0 53.6 71.8 83.4 18.9 113.4 57.6 0.3222 0.4073 0.5421 0.4086 0.4952

Uttar Pradesh Siddharthnagar 1045.9 58.2 46.6 83.2 1.0 25.9 280.7 54.3 62.8 96.7 24.6 149.0 58.9 0.3848 0.3846 0.6533 0.4335 0.5775

Uttar Pradesh Sitapur 1712.5 56.9 50.5 65.1 1.1 30.9 429.4 39.8 76.7 74.5 26.2 132.0 61.5 0.4263 0.4213 0.5479 0.4456 0.5545

Uttar Pradesh Sonbhadra 884.5 28.1 42.6 51.4 1.0 24.2 388.1 47.0 56.1 56.0 18.0 126.5 88.1 0.2622 0.3351 0.3916 0.3255 0.6771

Uttar Pradesh Sultanpur 1070.0 74.3 61.2 77.1 1.0 39.4 397.3 42.1 66.1 76.4 30.8 113.0 57.6 0.4909 0.4295 0.5918 0.4757 0.4944

Uttar Pradesh Unnao 1260.4 88.1 45.6 66.5 1.1 37.9 398.4 54.0 76.4 71.1 18.6 93.0 44.8 0.4914 0.4513 0.4755 0.4666 0.3872

Uttar Pradesh Varanasi 576.1 87.1 75.7 82.2 1.0 45.6 380.5 50.6 84.0 65.1 30.1 101.0 82.6 0.5604 0.4945 0.5273 0.5184 0.5951

District Minimum Value 152 0.69 13.25 5.35 0.93 15.39 195 22.07 33.69 11.76 1.33 44.30 9.90

District Maximum Value 5465 99.65 99.52 97.43 1.5 71.09 576 92.55 95.23 99.23 56.07 199.00 96.00

Minimum Range 125 0 5 0 0.5 10 150 15 20 5 1 15 1

Maximum Range 7000 100 100 100 2.5 90 800 140 100 100 70 250 100


Appendix IV Priority Districts Identified from the Consolidated AnalysisS.No Priority District by Both FSI and FSO

State District

1 Bihar Araria

2 Chhattisgarh Kawardha

3 Korba

4 Jharkhand Garhwa

5 Madhya Pradesh Dindori

6 Sidhi

7 Mandla

8 Jhabua

9 Barwani

10 Panna

11 Sagar

12 Katni

13 Damoh

14 Chhattarpur

15 Balaghat

16 Tikamgarh

17 Guna

18 Vidisha

19 Shivpuri

20 Dhar

21 Dewas

22 Rajgarh

23 Odisha Kandhamal

24 Malkangiri

25 Gajapati

26 Rayagada

27 Nuapada

28 Rajasthan Dungarpur

29 Barmer

30 Udaipur

31 Pali

32 Jaisalmer

33 Uttar Pradesh Chitrakoot

34 Mahoba

S.No Priority District by Only FSI

State District

67 Jharkhand Gumla

68 Lohardaga

69 Giridih

70 Purbi Singhbhum

71 Chatra

72 Pashchimi Singhbhum

73 Pakaur

74 Deoghar

75 Palamu

76 Sahibganj

77 Bokaro

78 Dumka

79 Godda

80 Ranchi

81 Kodarma

82 Hazaribagh

83 Dhanbad

84 Rajasthan Banswara

85 Uttar Pradesh Sonbhadra

86 Maharashtra Nandurbar

87 Gadchiroli

88 Odisha Koraput

89 Nabarangapur

90 Mayurbhanj

91 Sundargarh

92 Sambalpur

93 Debagarh

94 Baudh

95 Kendujhar

96 Kalahandi

97 Anugul

98 Balangir

99 Dhenkanal

100 Jharsuguda

101 Sonapur

S.No Priority District by Only FSI

State District

35 Bihar Jamui

36 Kishanganj

37 Banka

38 Katihar

39 Purnia

40 Pashchim Champaran

41 Lakhisarai

42 Gaya

43 Bhagalpur

44 Sheohar

45 Chhattisgarh Dantewada

46 Bastar

47 Koriya

48 Surguja

49 Jashpur

50 Bilaspur

51 Mahasamund

52 Raigarh

53 Kanker

54 Rajnandgaon

55 Raipur

56 Madhya Pradesh Shahdol

57 Umaria

58 Rewa

59 Seoni

60 Betul

61 Chhindwara

62 Satna

63 East Nimar

64 Jabalpur

65 Raisen

66 West Nimar


S.No Priority District by Only FSO

State District

138 Uttar Pradesh Fatehpur

139 Maharajganj

140 Kanpur Dehat

141 Jyotiba Phule Nagar

142 Hamirpur

143 Siddharthnagar

144 Sitapur

145 Mirzapur

146 Rae Bareli

147 Banda

148 Budaun

149 Shrawasti

150 Hardoi

151 Etah

152 Shahjahanpur

S.No Priority District by Only FSO

State District

102 Chhattisgarh Durg

103 Ratlam

104 East Nimar

105 Sheopur

106 Datia

107 Umaria

108 Sehore

109 Harda

110 Narsimhapur

111 Shajapur

112 Mandsaur

113 Rajasthan Chittaurgarh

114 Rajsamand

115 Sirohi

116 Sawai Madhopur

117 Tonk

118 Baran

119 Ajmer

120 Dhaulpur

121 Bundi

122 Bhilwara

123 Uttar Pradesh Bulandshahr

124 Mainpuri

125 Farrukhabad

126 Lalitpur

127 Hathras

128 Auraiya

129 Aligarh

130 Unnao

131 Balrampur

132 Kaushambi

133 Meerut

134 Baghpat

135 Moradabad

136 Kheri

137 Pilibhit