Universaling PDS won't work here: UN World Food Programme India Head

In a Q&A, Bishow Parajuli explains not everyone in the country needs social protection

Amid a debate on whether more people should be included in the public distribution system or the coverage should be pruned, the Centre recently announced resuming a scheme to provide free extra foodgrains to all Food Security Act beneficiaries as part of Covid relief. In an interview with Sanjeeb Mukherjee, Bishow Parajuli, United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) country director in India, said universalising the PDS, demanded by many civil society activists, might not be feasible as everyone in India does not need social protection. Edited excerpts
 
Should the PDS be universal or targeted? There has been discussion recently on changing the coverage. Your views?
 
The underlying aim of any social protection scheme is to assist the needy. Universalising the PDS means all the citizens of India have access to subsidised food grains. Not everyone in India needs social protection and, indeed, there is a targeting mechanism used by the government to reach the most vulnerable. Nowhere in the world is there a large number of people who are middle-class and yet with universal government support. The current targeted PDS covers almost 67 per cent of India’s population, which is close to being universal if you exclude the creamy layer. By excluding the people who do not need such support, the government can use these funds for other development efforts.
 
Between the cash versus physical grain debate, which model is better in the Indian context?
 
Cash or in kind are not exclusive choices. The choice of transfer modality depends on the context and its appropriateness. India has varied demographics, climatic conditions, and geographies and therefore cash may not be appropriate universally across the country.
 
In remote areas where markets are not fully functional, cash will have no use. Unless India finds a solution to utilising its surplus grains, which is generated by supporting farmers, the use of cash may neither be viable or appropriate from the government’s viewpoint.
 
Is it fair to say that giving cash addresses nutritional problems better?
 
There is no evidence to support that in India. While cash does provide flexibility for the beneficiary to choose the use of it at the same, it also allows for its misuse. Food and cash transfers are critically important. Ideally, it will be good to have a combined transfer of food and cash, which will allow diversity in the food diet to include fresh vegetables, fruit, eggs, and others.
 
Did the lockdown lead to a drop in nutritional levels in India? How do we ensure that no one is left behind, especially vulnerable populations?
 
The information emerging from the lay press and others on the ground seems to suggest that lockdowns may have impacted food and nutrition security because supply chains were disrupted, production capacities were affected, and access was compromised. There was loss of livelihood, and decreased purchasing power due to loss in jobs and employments and earnings.
 
Is fortification of cereals a better way to address nutritional challenges than distributing pulses?
 
Food fortification is the practice of deliberately increasing the content of essential micronutrients. Staple food fortification is one among several strategies to address anaemia and micronutrient deficiency disorders.
 
Pulses distribution is undertaken to improve protein intake and therefore both can be done.
 
What are your views on the “one nation one ration card (ONORC)” for improving access? Is universalisation a better idea to address the needs of migrating and shifting populations?
 
It is a game-changing plan and an excellent step for India, which will have a long-term impact on ensuring food security to the citizens. ONORC is not just for migrants or shifting populations, it is for any (National Food Security Act) beneficiary and under this it allows you to buy from fair price shops in the country.