Not a matter of dole

Not a matter of dole

The World Hunger Task Force, a body set up by the un to come up with proposals to reduce global hunger, presented a draft report at a recent meet in Delhi. It advocates a paradigm shift in eradicating global hunger. And it also dwells upon poverty, food security and gender equality; prioritising agriculture and rural development in national budgets are also recommended.

All these are important concerns. But they can also divert attention from the real issue. This is particularly so because the report does precious little to bring hunger into the political agenda. Influencing governments and politicians is limited to persuasion through research and studies highlighting costs of 'inaction'. This is at best a naive strategy. For no politician will refuse out right issues relating to hunger, but when it comes to making investments, the poor are unlikely to get any political backing. Instead they are most certainly to be seen as passive beneficiaries of food-aid programmes.
The old trend continues The report persists with this condescending approach. There is no appreciation of the requirements of the poor consumer: a premium has been placed upon increasing agricultural productivity but little emphasis has been accorded to the quality of food doled out to the poor. India has witnessed steady growth in agricultural production but simultaneously there has also been a rapid fall in the quality of grains consumed by the poor. The report's focus on increasing production of new varieties of rice for mass consumption ignores matters such as people's tastes, their cooking needs and the shelf life of grains disbursed by the public distribution system. The belief that any grain is fine as long it is subsidised shows scant respect for the choices and expectations of the poor. This dichotomy between the preferences of the rich and the needs of the poor must end urgently if the issue of global hunger is to be addressed effectively.

It is true that the biggest issue confronting hungry households is the trauma and anxiety about where their next meal would come from. And this trauma is also the biggest health issue among women in poor households. But this does not make the poor passive recipients of charity. The issue is not merely one of food provisioning but the dignity of the people and their livelihood; the Task Force must recognise that self-image, confidence and happiness are also vital in improving the health of the poor.

Moreover, the fiscal basis of the recommendations is completely flawed. Experience shows that tying social welfare programmes to the apron strings of government 'philanthropy' rarely work. The only way to safeguard investments for the poor is by tying a potentially rising revenue source to a social welfare programme. For example, the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme was able to provide assured work to the rural poor because it was linked to the earnings of the Mumbai Octroi. The scheme's success was also in large measure due to its effective elimination of government control.

Finally, the Task Force cannot effectively address its mandate by engaging with scholars or reading reams of scholarly paper. Each member must live with and listen to five hungry families by spending a least a week with them. This would serve as a reality check and also equip them adequately to address the issue of global hunger.

Despite its claims to seeking a paradigm shift, the report is on lines of earlier publications of the World Bank, United Nations Development Programme, Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research and International Food Policy Research Institute. It advocates a global plan to address hunger. Past experience has shown that such plans do not work. Hunger can only be eliminated by fitting it into national programmes.

K S Gopal is with the Centre for Environment Concerns, Hyderabad 12jav.net12jav.net