The Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution has two Departments: (i) Food and Public Distribution, and (ii) Consumer Affairs.  The Ministry received the second highest budgetary allocation by the central government among all ministries. 

Department of Consumer Affairs is responsible for spreading awareness among consumers about their rights, protecting their interests and preventing black marketing.[1]  In 2018-19, the Department has been allocated Rs 1,785 core, which is 52% lower than the revised estimates of 2017-18.[2]

This note examines the allocations for the Department of Food and Public Distribution.  It also looks at broad issues in the sector, along with key recommendations and observations made by expert committees.

Overview of Finances

Budget Estimates 2018-19

(Details in Annexure)

Table 1: Allocations for the Ministry (Rs crore)

Department

2016-17 Actuals

2017-18 Revised

2018-19 Budgeted

% change in 2018-19 over 2017-18

Consumer Affairs

7,254

3,716

1,785

-52%

Food & Public Distribution

1,15,145

1,45,892

1,74,159

19.4%

Total

1,22,399

1,49,608

1,75,944

17.6%

Sources: Expenditure Budget, Union Budget 2018-19; PRS. 

Department of Food and Public Distribution is responsible for ensuring food security through procurement, storage and distribution of food grains.[3]  The Food Corporation of India (FCI) is responsible for some of these functions.[4]  In 2018-19, the Department has been allocated Rs 1,74,159 crore, which is 99% of the Ministry’s allocation.2  Allocation to this Department accounts for 7.1% of the central government’s budgeted expenditure. 

Food subsidy has been the largest component of the Department’s expenditure (96% in 2018-19).2  This subsidy is given to FCI under the National Food Security Act, 2013 for the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) or to states for the decentralised procurement of food grains.  The National Food Security Act, 2013 is mandated to cover 75% of the population from rural areas and 50% from urban areas, and currently covers 81 crore people.[5],[6]  Figure 1 shows the total allocation for the Department over the past 10 years and its corresponding expenditure on food subsidy. 

Figure 1: Allocation to the Department of Food and Public Distribution (Rs crore)

 Note: Figures for 2017-18 are revised estimates; and for 2018-19 are budget estimate.  

Sources: Expenditure Budget, Union Budgets 2007-08 to 2018-19; PRS.

As seen in Figure 2, over the last 10 years, the actual expenditure of the Department has been higher than the budget estimates for that year.  However, this trend reversed in 2016-17 where the actual expenditure was 18% lower than the budget estimates.

Figure 2: Budgeted Vs Actuals (Rs crore)

Note: Figures for 2017-18 are revised estimates;

Sources:  Expenditure Budget, Union Budgets 2008-09 to 2018-19); PRS.

Trends in expenditure on food subsidy

Food subsidy is the cost incurred and subsequently reimbursed by the Ministry for the procurement, storage and distribution of food grains in the country.  This subsidy is the difference between the cost of procuring food grains and the price at which they are given to the beneficiaries (known as Central Issue Price).

As seen in Table 2, expenditure on food subsidy is classified under three heads: (i) subsidy to FCI for TPDS, (ii) subsidy to states for decentralised procurement, and (iii) sugar subsidy.

Table 2: Break-up of food subsidy (Rs crore)

Subsidy

2016-17
Actuals

2017-18
Revised

2018-19
Budgeted

% change in 2018-19 over 2017-18

Subsidy to FCI on food grains

78,335

1,01,982

1,38,123

35.4%

Subsidy to states on DCP

27,338

8,000

31,000

-18.4%

Sugar subsidy

4,500

300

200

-33.3%

Total

1,10,173

1,40,282

1,69,323

20.7%

Sources: Demand for Grants 2018-19, Department of Food and Public Distribution; PRS.

Sugar Industry:  In 2018-19, Rs 200 crore has been allocated for the development of the sugar industry, which is 33% lower than the revised estimates of 2017-18.  The allocated money is used to provide financial assistance to the sugar industry and facilitate payment to sugar cane farmers. 

Note that as of March 2017, Rs 11,759 crore was outstanding against sugar mills for payment of dues to farmers.[7]  State-wise details of the arrears can be found in Table 16 of the Annexure.

The expenditure on food subsidy has increased four-fold over the past 10 years, from Rs 43,751 crore in 2008-09 to Rs 1,69,323 crore in 2018-19.   The Standing Committee on Food and Public Distribution noted that the reasons for the increase in food subsidy include an increase in the procurement cost of food grains, non-revision of the central issue price since 2002, and the implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013 in all states, among others.[8]  Table 3 looks at the expenditure on food subsidy over the last 10 years, and its share in the total Union Budget.

Table 3: Expenditure on food subsidy (2008 to 2018) (Rs crore)

Year

Food subsidy

% increase over previous year

% of total budget

2008-09

43,751

40%

4.9%

2009-10

58,443

34%

7.8%

2010-11

63,844

9%

5.3%

2011-12

72,822

14%

5.6%

2012-13

85,000

17%

6.0%

2013-14

92,000

8%

5.9%

2014-15

1,17,671

28%

7.1%

2015-16

1,39,419

18%

7.8%

2016-17

1,10,173

-21%

5.6%

2017-18

1,40,282

27%

6.3%

2018-19

1,69,323

21%

6.9%

Note: Figures for 2017-18 are revised estimates; and for 2018-19 are budget estimate.

Sources:  Expenditure Budget, Union Budgets 2008-09 to 2018-19); PRS.

Issues

In this section, we examine some issues with the delivery of food subsidy, current challenges in PDS and discuss alternative subsidy systems proposed by various committees and experts over the years. 

Provision of food subsidy

Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) sought to provide food security to people below the poverty line.  Over the years, while the expenditure on food subsidy has increased, the ratio of people below the poverty line has reduced. (Table 4)

Table 4: Poverty ratio and number of poor persons

Year

Poverty Ratio (%)

No. of Poor (Crore)

1973-74

54.9%

32.1

1977-78

51.3%

32.9

1983-84

44.5%

32.3

1987-88

38.9%

30.7

1993-94

36.0%

32.0

2004-05

27.5%

30.2

2011-12

21.9%

26.9

Note: Figures from 1973 to 2004 have been computed using the Lakdawala Methodology, and figures for 2011-12 using the Tendulkar Methodology.

Sources: Planning Commission; PRS.

A similar trend can also be seen in the proportion of undernourished persons in India, which reduced from 24% in 1990 to 15% in 2014 (Table 5).

Table 5: Undernourishment data (1992-2015)

Year

Number of undernourished persons (crores)

Proportion of undernourished in total population (%)

1990-92

21

24%

2000-02

19

18%

2005-07

23

21%

2010-12

19

16%

2014-15*

20

15%

*Provisional data.

 Sources: Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2015: Table 5.14, Chapter 5, Economic Survey 2015-16; PRS.

Nutritional balance:  The National Food Security Act, 2013 guarantees five kg of food grains per person per month to entitled beneficiaries.  Further, Antyodaya Anna Yojana households which constitute the poorest of the poor, are entitled to 35 kg per household per month. 

As can be seen in Figure 3 and Figure 4, there has been a change in the pattern of nutritional intake among people both in rural and urban areas.

Figure 3: Protein intake (%) in rural areas

 Sources: “Nutritional intake in India 2011-12”, NSSO; PRS. 

Figure 4: Protein intake (%) in urban areas

Sources: “Nutritional intake in India 2011-12”, NSSO; PRS. 

Although, cereals or food grains contain only 10% protein, their share as a percentage of the total protein intake has been over 50% in both rural and urban areas.[9]   However, other foods such as meat and pulses contain more than 20% protein but contribute to only 15% of the total protein intake of the country.9

The share of cereals in food consumption has reduced by 7% in rural areas and 5% in urban areas, whereas that of milk, eggs, fish and meat has increased.9  This indicates a reduced preference for wheat and rice, and a rise in preference towards other protein rich food items.  The National Food Security Act, 2013 states that the central government and state governments should undertake steps to diversify commodities distributed under TPDS.5

More details related to the intake of calorie and nutrients by the rural and urban population can be found in Table 9 and Table 10 of the Annexure. 

Imbalance in farm production:  Minimum Support Price (MSP) is the price at which the government purchases a farmer’s produce.  Typically, the MSP is higher than the market price and seeks to incentivise farmers to grow crops on which the support is offered.  Food grains for PDS are usually procured at the MSP.  As a result, procurement under MSP has been restricted to wheat and paddy (rice) in a few states, to maintain a buffer stock for release under PDS.[10],[11] 

It has been argued that this skews the production of crops in favour of wheat and paddy, and does not offer an incentive for farmers to produce other items such as pulses.19  The figure below shows the share of crop produce procured in 2016-17.

Figure 5: Share of crop procured in 2016-17 (%)

Sources: Committee on Doubling Farmers’ Income 2017; Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; PRS.

Revision of central issue price (CIP)

Under the National Food Security Act, 2013, food subsidy is given to beneficiaries at the CIP, which was last revised in 2002.  CIP for wheat and rice can be found in Table 6. 

Table 6: Central Issue Price (Rs/Kg)

Commodity

AAY

BPL

APL

Rice

3.00

5.65

7.95

Wheat

2.00

4.15

6.10

Note: AAY-Antyodaya Anna Yojana, BPL-Below Poverty Line, APL-Above Poverty Line.

Sources: TPDS, Department of Food and Public Distribution.

In comparison to the CIP, the economic cost (including procurement, stocking, distribution) for wheat is Rs 24/kg and for rice is Rs 33/kg as of February 2018.[12]  Food subsidy is calculated as the difference between the economic cost of procuring food grains, and their CIP. 

While the economic cost for rice has increased from Rs 1,098/quintal (approximately Rs 11/Kg) in 2001-02 to Rs 3,310 /quintal in 2018-19, and of wheat, from Rs 853/quintal to Rs 2,446/quintal over the same period, the CIP has not been revised.12  This has led to an increasing gap between the economic cost and CIP, leading to an increase in expenditure on food subsidy.19  Trends in economic cost, CIP and subsidies for wheat and rice can be found in Figure 6 and Figure 7 below.

Figure 6: Subsidy on a Kg of Wheat (Rs)

Sources: Food Corporation of India; PRS.

Figure 7: Subsidy on a Kg of Rice (Rs)

Sources: Food Corporation of India; PRS.

In 2017-18, the Ministry had stated that increasing the CIP could be one of the measures to bridge the gap between the funds it requires, and the funds it is actually allocated.7  Details related to the procurement of food grains, off-take and stock can be found in of the Annexure.

Delivery of food subsidy

Leakages in PDS:  Leakages refer to food grains not reaching intended beneficiaries.  According to 2011 data, leakages in PDS were estimated to be 46.7% (see Table 11).4,[13] 

Leakages may be of three types: (i) pilferage or damage during transportation of food grains, (ii) diversion to non-beneficiaries at fair price shops through issue of ghost cards, and (iii) exclusion of people entitled to food grains but who are not on the beneficiary list.[14],[15]  Studies have shown that targeting mechanisms such as TPDS are prone to large exclusion and inclusion errors.[16] 

Exclusion errors occur when entitled beneficiaries do not get food grains.   It refers to the percentage of poor households that are entitled to but do not have PDS cards.  As seen in Figure 8, exclusion errors declined from 55% in 2004-05 to 41% in 2011-12.  

Inclusion errors occur when those that are ineligible get undue benefits.  Inclusion errors increased from 29% in 2004-05 to 37% in 2011-12.   

Declining exclusion errors and increasing inclusion errors are due to two reasons.  First, increase in the coverage of TPDS has reduced the proportion of poor who do not have access to PDS cards.  Second, despite a decline in poverty rate, the non-poor are still identified as poor by the government thus allowing them to continue using their PDS cards.[17]

Figure 8: Inclusion and exclusion errors (%)

Sources:  Evaluation study on the role of PDS in shaping households and nutritional security in India, Niti Aayog, December 2016; PRS.

Note that under NFSA, states are responsible for identification of beneficiaries.  In 2016, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) found that this process had not been completed by the states, and 49% of the beneficiaries were yet to be identified.[18] 

Alternative subsidy systems:  Over the years, several solutions that have been suggested include: (i) DBT of food subsidy, and (ii) end to end computerisation of the entire system.4,38 

The NFSA states that the centre and states should introduce schemes for cash transfers to beneficiaries.5  Various experts and bodies have also suggested replacing TPDS with a Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) system.[19],[20]  Advantages and disadvantages of these methods of delivering benefits have been discussed below. 

  • TPDS: TPDS assures beneficiaries that they would receive food grains, and insulates them against inflation and price volatility.  Further, food grains are delivered through fair price shops in villages, which are easy to access.[21],[22]

 However, high leakages have been witnessed in the system, both during transportation and distribution.  These include pilferage and errors of inclusion and exclusion from the beneficiary list.  In addition, it has also been argued that the distribution of wheat and rice may cause an imbalance in the nutritional intake.5  Beneficiaries have also reported receiving poor quality food grains as part of the system. 

  • Cash Transfers: Cash transfers seek to increase the choices available with a beneficiary, and provide financial assistance.  It has been argued that the costs of DBT may be lesser than TPDS, owing to lesser costs incurred on transport and storage.  These transfers may also be undertaken electronically.21,22

On the other hand, it has been argued that cash received as part of DBT may be spent on non-food items.  Further, such a system may expose beneficiaries to inflation.  In this regard, one may also consider the low penetration and access to banking in rural areas.[23]

Evaluation Report on DBT in Food by Niti Aayog, July 2017 [24]

Since September 2015, DBT for food subsidy is being implemented in Puducherry, Chandigarh, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli.27  In July 2017, Niti Aayog conducted an evaluation study of DBT in the three union territories.  Key findings of the study include:

·   On average, only two thirds of beneficiaries confirmed receiving the DBT benefits in their accounts. (67% in Chandigarh, 67% in Puducherry and 65% in Dadra and Nagar Haveli)

·   On average, it costs beneficiaries more (in time and money) to access and redeem DBT amount than in collecting food rations from Fair Price Shops.

·   Adding the time costs and expenses incurred in travel with the additional out of pocket spending on rations, 24% of beneficiaries cited DBT entitlement insufficiency as the biggest issue they faced.

In 2015, the Department released two notifications: The Cash Transfer of Food Subsidy Rules and The Food Security (Assistance to State Governments) Rules.[25],[26]   As per these notifications, the central government offers state governments two choices for reforming their respective PDS machinery: (i) replacing the existing PDS with DBT, or (ii) Fair Price Shop automation, which involves installation of Point of Sale devices, for authentication of beneficiaries and electronic capturing of transactions.

So far, more than 2.9 lakh (54%) Fair Price Shops have been automated across the country.[27]  Details regarding the status of computerisation of PDS can be found in Table  of the Annexure. 

The High-Level Committee on Restructuring of FCI in 2015 had suggested that switching to DBT for food subsidy would reduce the food subsidy bill of the government by more than Rs 30,000 crore.[28]  While making this recommendation, the Committee illustrated this by taking the case of subsidy given on rice (Table 7).  It assumed that as part of DBT, the government would transfer Rs 22/Kg for rice to a beneficiary.

Table 7: Illustration: subsidy given on Rice

1. CIP

Rs 3/Kg

2. MSP

Rs 20/Kg

3. Subsidy (3=2-1)

Rs 17/Kg

4.Cost to government
(Subsidy + Costs on procurement, storage and distribution)

Rs 27/Kg

5. Cash subsidy to beneficiaries

Rs 22/Kg

6. Government saving (6=5-4)

Rs 5/Kg

7. Increase in beneficiary benefit (7=5-3)

Rs 5/Kg

Sources: High Level Committee Report on Reorienting FCI, January 2015; PRS.

Aadhaar: The Committee had also recommended the introduction of biometrics and Aadhaar to plug leakages in PDS.  Such transfers could be linked to Jan Dhan account, and be indexed to inflation.28  As of December 2017, 119 crore Aadhaar cards had been issued, covering 98% of the population.[29]

In February 2017, the Ministry made it mandatory for beneficiaries under NFSA to use Aadhaar as proof of identification for receiving food grains.[30]  This is expected to facilitate the removal of bogus ration cards, check leakages and ensure better delivery of food grains.4,[31],[32] 

Note that as of July 2017, while 100% ration cards had been digitised, the seeding of these cards with Aadhaar was at 79%.[33]   For details related to deleted ration cards due to detection of bogus, fake, and duplicate cards, see Table 13 of the Annexure.

Current challenges in PDS

Storage:  The Department allocates funds for the construction of godowns to increase storage capacity.  This includes allocations for the Warehousing Development and Regulatory Authority (WADA).  In 2018-19, Rs 60 crore has been allocated for storage and godowns, and Rs eight crore has been allocated to WADA.

As of December 2017, the total storage capacity in the country is 725 lakh tonnes, of which 359 lakh tonnes is with the FCI and 366 lakh tonnes is with the state agencies.[34]  The total stock of food grains in the country as of July 2017 was 555 lakh tonnes. 

The CAG in its performance audit found that the available storage capacity in states was inadequate for the allocated quantity of food grains.[35]  For example, as of October 2015, of the 233 godowns sanctioned for construction in Maharashtra, only 93 had been completed.  In Assam, although the storage capacity was enough for the state’s allocation, the conditions of the godown were found to be too damp for storage.  Some of the storage in Jharkhand was also found to be unfit, either because of its remote location or the damaged condition of the godowns. 

The CAG also noted that in four of the last five years, the stock of food grains in the central pool had been higher than the storage capacity available with the FCI (see Figure 9).23

Figure 9: Stock and Capacity of FCI (lakh tonnes)

Sources: CAG Performance Audit on Preparedness for Implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013; PRS.

As seen in Figure , it was only in 2015 that the stock of food grains was lower than the storage capacity.  According to the CAG, this was owing to an increase in procurement under Decentralised Procurement (DCP), and less food grains in the central pool.23  Under DCP, the state governments undertake procurement, storage and distribution of food grains on behalf of the central government.  The states are reimbursed by the centre for the expenditure incurred by them.[36] 

The Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution has recommended increasing the procurement undertaken by states, and reducing the expenditure on centralised procurement by the FCI.7  They noted that this would drastically reduce the transportation cost borne by the government as states would distribute the food grains to the targeted population within their respective states.  As on December 2017, only 17 states have adopted decentralised procurement.[37]

Note that during 2018-19, while the food subsidy given to FCI has increased by 35% over the revised estimates of 2017-18, the allocation to states for DCP reduced by 18%.2

Fair Price Shops:  It has been observed by various experts and the Ministry that the margins on which the Fair Price Shops operate are low.[38]  Further, in the absence of economic viability, there may be cases where the dealer resorts to unfair practices.  In order to make these shops viable, states have taken various steps:

  • Chhattisgarh provided seed capital of Rs 75,000 to each fair price shop free of any interest for 20 years. It also increased the commission on food grains from Rs 8/quintal to Rs 30/quintal.
  • States such as Assam and Delhi have permitted the sale of non-PDS items at these fair price shops. Such items include oil, potatoes, onion, tea, and mobile recharge coupons.

Annexure

Detailed expenditure table

Table  provides an overview of expenditure on the major schemes of the Ministry, provided in the Demands for Grants (2018-19). In addition, major shifts in the budgetary allocation are shown in the last two columns. 

Table 8: Major heads of allocation in the Department of Food and Public Distribution (in Rs crore)

Major Heads

Actual
2016-2017

Budget
2017-2018

Revised
2017-2018

Budget
2018-2019

% increase in 2018-19 (BE) over 2017-18 (RE)

Increase

Secretariat

50

55

65

64

-2%

1

National Sugar Institute, Kanpur

19

21

20

24

15%

3

Other Establishment Expenditure of Food, Storage and Warehousing

17

19

18

19

5%

1

Food Subsidy

1,10,173

1,45,339

1,40,282

1,69,323

21%

29,041

Of which:

       

 

           -  

Food Subsidy to FCI under NFSA

78,335

1,07,139

1,01,982

1,38,123

35%

36,141

Food Subsidy for DCP of Food grains under NFSA

27,338

38,000

38,000

31,000

-18%

7,000

Sugar Subsidy payable under PDS

4,500

200

300

200

-33%

100

Assistance to State Agencies for intra-state movement of food grains and FPS dealers margin under NFSA

2,500

4,500

4,500

4,000

-11%

500

Development of Sugar Industry

1,672

496

918

611

-33%

307

Strengthening of PDS Operations

57

 -

30

41

39%

12

Storage and Godowns

12

60

53

60

14%

7

Warehousing Development and Regulatory Authority

15

15

7

8

21%

1

Other

589

               -  

0

10

 

 

Total

1,15,145

1,50,505

1,45,892

1,74,159

19%

28,267

Sources: Expenditure Budget, Vol. 2, Union Budget 2018-19; PRS. 

Table 9: Share of calorie intake from different food groups (%)

 

Cereals

Pulses, nuts & oilseeds

Vegetables & fruits

Meats, eggs & fish

Milk & milk products

Miscellaneous food

Rural

1993-94

71.0

4.9

2.0

0.7

6.2

2.4

1999-00

67.6

5.5

2.0

0.8

6.2

2.3

2004-05

67.5

5.0

2.2

0.8

6.4

3.0

2009-10

64.2

4.5

1.8

0.7

6.8

6.0

2011-12

61.1

5.2

1.9

0.8

7.1

7.0

Urban

1993-94

58.5

6.1

3.3

1.0

8.0

5.6

1999-00

55.1

6.9

2.9

1.1

8.2

5.5

2004-05

56.1

6.7

3.2

1.1

8.6

5.3

2009-10

55.0

5.9

2.6

1.0

9.4

5.9

2011-12

51.6

6.4

2.6

1.1

9.1

8.6

Sources: Table T18, “Nutritional Intake in India, 2011-12”, NSSO; PRS. 

Table 10: Share of protein intake (%)

Year

Cereals

Pulses

Milk & milk products

Egg, fish & meat

Other food

Rural

1993-94

69.4

9.8

8.8

3.7

8.4

1999-00

67.4

10.9

9.2

4.0

8.4

2004-05

66.4

9.5

9.3

4.0

10.8

2009-10

64.9

9.1

10.0

4.0

12.0

2011-12

62.5

10.6

10.6

4.7

11.7

Urban

1993-94

59.4

11.5

11.7

5.3

12.1

1999-00

57.0

13.1

12.4

6.0

11.5

2004-05

56.2

11.0

12.3

5.5

15.0

2009-10

56.4

11.3

13.8

5.6

13.0

2011-12

53.7

12.4

13.6

6.4

13.9

Sources: Table T21, “Nutritional Intake in India, 2011-12”, NSSO; PRS. 

Table 11: Leakages in PDS for wheat and rice (in lakh tonnes)

State/UT

Total consumption from PDS

Offtake (2011-12)

Leakage

% leakage

Andhra Pradesh

36.1

40.7

4.6

11.3%

Arunachal Pradesh

0.8

1.0

0.2

20.0%

Assam

9.5

24.4

14.9

61.1%

Bihar

11.3

36.2

24.9

68.8%

Chhattisgarh

16.7

16.7

0.0

0.0%

Goa

0.4

0.8

0.4

50.0%

Gujarat

4.4

15.7

11.3

72.0%

Haryana

2.2

7.3

5.1

69.9%

Himachal Pradesh

4.9

6.3

1.4

22.2%

Jammu and Kashmir

8.8

9.1

0.3

3.3%

Jharkhand

3.1

12.4

9.3

75.0%

Karnataka

16.2

30.1

13.9

46.2%

Kerala

11.4

20.1

8.7

43.3%

Madhya Pradesh

15.5

30.7

15.2

49.5%

Maharashtra

19.3

42.7

23.4

54.8%

Manipur

0.0

2.0

2.0

100.0%

Meghalaya

0.8

2.5

1.7

68.0%

Mizoram

0.9

1.1

0.2

18.2%

Nagaland

0.1

2.0

1.9

95.0%

Odisha

15.4

24.4

9.0

36.9%

Punjab

3.4

8.7

5.3

60.9%

Rajasthan

10.1

29.8

19.7

66.1%

Sikkim

N/A

N/A

-

-

Tamil Nadu

39.5

45

5.5

12.2%

Tripura

2.7

3.3

0.6

18.2%

Uttar Pradesh

43.2

82.9

39.7

47.9%

Uttarakhand

4.6

6.6

2.0

30.3%

West Bengal

13.4

43.9

30.5

69.5%

Total

295.5

554.5

259

46.7%

Note: Data is from National Sample Survey, 2011-12.

Sources: Table 1, Working Paper 294, “Leakages from Public Distribution System”, ICRIER, January 2015; PRS.

Table 12: Procurement, Offtake and Stocks of food grains (in million tonnes)

Year

Procurement

Offtake

% Offtake

Stocks

Rice

Wheat

Total

Rice

Wheat

Total

Rice

Wheat

Total

2007-08

28.7

11.1

39.9

25.2

12.2

37.4

94%

13.8

5.8

19.8

2008-09

34.1

22.7

56.8

24.6

14.9

39.5

70%

21.6

13.4

35.6

2009-10

32.0

25.4

57.4

27.4

22.4

49.7

87%

26.7

16.1

43.3

2010-11

34.2

22.5

56.7

29.9

23.1

53.0

93%

28.8

15.4

44.3

2011-12

35.0

28.3

63.4

32.1

24.3

56.4

89%

33.4

20.0

53.4

2012-13

34.0

38.2

72.2

32.6

33.2

65.9

91%

35.5

24.2

59.8

2013-14

31.9

25.1

56.9

29.2

30.6

59.8

105%

30.6

17.8

49.5

2014-15

31.6

28.0

59.6

30.7

25.2

56.0

94%

23.8

17.2

41.3

2015-16

34.1

28.1

62.2

31.8

31.8

63.7

102%

28.8

14.5

43.6

2016-17

36.5

23.6

60.1

31.5

30.7

62.1

103%

28.8

14.5

43.6

2017-18

6.2

30.1

36.3

8.5

5.7

14.2

39%

27.7

30.1

57.8

Notes: Figures for stock as of August 2017.  Offtake and stock numbers up to May 2017.

Sources: Reserve Bank of India; PRS.

Table 13: Status of operation of component one of end-to-end computerization of TPDS scheme

State/UT

Digitisation of Ration Cards

Aadhaar Seeding in Ration Cards

Online Allocation of Food grains

Computerization of Supply-chain

Transparency Portal

Online Grievance Redressal

Andhra Pradesh

100%

100%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Arunachal Pradesh

100%

45%

-

-

Yes

-

Assam

100%

0%

Implemented

-

Yes

Yes

Bihar

100%

69%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Chandigarh

100%

100%

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

Chhattisgarh

100%

100%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Goa

100%

91%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Gujarat

100%

95%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Haryana

100%

86%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Himachal Pradesh

100%

91%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Jammu and Kashmir

100%

45%

Up to TSOs

-

Yes

-

Jharkhand

100%

97%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Karnataka

100%

100%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Kerala

100%

98%

Implemented

-

Yes

Yes

Madhya Pradesh

100%

91%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Maharashtra

100%

87%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Manipur

100%

22%

Partial

-

Yes

Yes

Meghalaya

100%

0%

-

-

Yes

Yes

Mizoram

100%

45%

Implemented

-

Yes

Yes

Nagaland

100%

7%

-

-

Yes

Yes

Odisha

100%

88%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Punjab

100%

97%

Implemented

-

Yes

Yes

Rajasthan

100%

95%

Implemented

-

Yes

Yes

Sikkim

100%

82%

Implemented

-

Yes

Yes

Tamil Nadu

100%

100%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Telangana

100%

100%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Tripura

100%

98%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Uttar Pradesh

100%

77%

Implemented

-

Yes

Yes

Uttarakhand

100%

90%

Implemented

-

Yes

Yes

West Bengal

100%

62%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

100%

100%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Dadra and Nagar Haveli

100%

96%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Daman and Diu

100%

100%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Delhi

100%

100%

Implemented

Implemented

Yes

Yes

Lakshadweep

100%

98%

-

NA

Yes

Yes

Puducherry

100%

100%

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

Total

100%

79%

30*

20

36

34

Sources: Unstarred Q. No. 1464, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on July 24, 2017; PRS

Table 14: Minimum Support Prices fixed for paddy and wheat from 2006-07 to 2017-18 (in Rs/Quintal)

Crop

Paddy Common

% increase over last year

Wheat

% increase over last year

2006-07

580

1.8%

750

15.4%

2007-08

645

11.2%

1,000

33.3%

2008-09

850

31.8%

1,080

8.0%

2009-10

1,000

17.6%

1,100

1.9%

2010-11

1,000

0.0%

1,120

1.8%

2011-12

1,080

8.0%

1,285

14.7%

2012-13

1,250

15.7%

1,350

5.1%

2013-14

1,310

4.8%

1,400

3.7%

2014-15

1,360

3.8%

1,450

3.6%

2015-16

1,410

3.7%

1,525

5.2%

2016-17

1,470

4.3%

1,625

6.6%

2017-18

1,550

5.4%

1,735

6.3%

Note: Data includes bonus announced for the particular crop.

Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation; CCEA; PRS. 

Table 15: Deleted Ration Cards (2013-2017)

States/UTs

Total Deleted Cards

Andhra Pradesh

11,55,661

Arunachal Pradesh

19,561

Assam

1,29,243

Bihar

41,369

Chandigarh

-

Chhattisgarh

12,38,000

Goa

1,57,461

Gujarat

1,60,685

Haryana

1,88,425

Himachal Pradesh

3,260

Jammu and Kashmir

55,344

Jharkhand

4,53,958

Karnataka

27,49,532

Kerala

-

Madhya Pradesh

4,18,509

Maharashtra

21,62,391

Manipur

336

Meghalaya

-

Mizoram

1,503

Nagaland

3,247

Odisha

6,86,211

Punjab

1,01,249

Rajasthan

14,66,629

Sikkim

12,840

Tamil Nadu

4,22,746

Telangana

20,97,564

Tripura

1,76,986

Uttar Pradesh

68,80,999

Uttarakhand

-

West Bengal

66,13,961

Andaman and Nicobar Islands

37

Dadra and Nagar Haveli

549

Daman and Diu

631

Delhi

64,090

Lakshadweep

1,390

Puducherry

95,393

Total

2,75,59,760

Sources: Unstarred Q. No. 632, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on Feb 6, 2018; PRS.

Table 16: Sugar Cane Arrears (As on January 31, 2017) (Rs crore)

State

Cane Price Arrears 2016-17

Cane Price Arrears 2015-16

Cane Price Arrears For 2014-15

Cane Price Arrears For 2013-14 & Earlier

Total Cane Price Arrears

Andhra Pradesh

 215

 22

 16

 -  

 253

Bihar

 239

 2

 3

 39

 283

Chhattisgarh

 24

 1

 -  

 -  

 25

Goa

 2

 -  

 -  

 -  

 2

Gujarat

 455

 14

 -  

 14

 482

Haryana

 308

 -  

 -  

 -  

 308

Karnataka

 911

 28

 -  

 86

 1,024

Madhya Pradesh

 208

 4

 -  

 13

 225

Maharashtra

 363

 70

 140

 69

 642

Odisha

 36

 -  

 -  

 3

 39

Puducherry

 -  

 8

 -  

 4

 12

Punjab

 322

 -  

 -  

 -  

 322

Tamil Nadu

 617

 677

 277

 273

 1,845

Telangana

 115

 2

 -  

 -  

 117

Uttar Pradesh

 5,305

 368

 45

 108

 5,826

Uttarakhand

 284

 45

 -  

 25

 354

West Bengal

 -  

 -  

 1

 -  

 1

Total

 9,403

 1,241

 482

 633

 11,759

Sources:  Report of the Standing Committee on Food and Public Distribution on Demand for Grants 2017-18; PRS.

 

[1] Functions and the duties of the Department of Consumer Affairs, Department of Consumer Affairs, http://consumeraffairs.nic.in/forms/contentpage.aspx?lid=204

[2] Expenditure Budget, Union Budget 2018-19, http://unionbudget.nic.in/ub2018-19/eb/allsbe.pdf

[3] Department of Food and Public Distribution, http://dfpd.nic.in/

[4] Report of the High Level Committee on Reorienting the Role and Restructuring of Food Corporation of India, January 2015, http://www.fci.gov.in/app2/webroot/upload/News/Report%20of%20the%20High%20Level%20Committee%20on%20Reorienting%20the%20Role%20and%20Restructuring%20of%20FCI_English_1.pdf.

[5] National Food Security Act, 2013, http://indiacode.nic.in/acts-in-pdf/202013.pdf

[6] Unstarred Question No. 612, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on February 6, 2018, http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/14/AU612.pdf.

[7] 15th Report of the Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution: Demands for Grants 2017-18, Department of Food and Public Distribution, http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Food,%20Consumer%20Affairs%20&%20Public%20Distribution/16_Food_Consumer_Affairs_And_Public_Distribution_15.pdf.

[8] 18th Report of the Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution: Demands for Grants 2017-18, Department of Food and Public Distribution, http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Food,%20Consumer%20Affairs%20&%20Public%20Distribution/16_Food_Consumer_Affairs_And_Public_Distribution_18.pdf.

[9] “Nutritional Intake in India 2011-12, NSS 68th Round, National Sample Survey Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, October 2014, http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/nss_report_560_19dec14.pdf

[10] Volume II, Economic Survey of India 2015-16, http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2015-16/echapvol2-05.pdf

[11] Task Force on Agricultural Development, NITI Aayog, http://niti.gov.in/mgov_file/Raising%20Agricultural%20Productivity%20and%20Making%20Farming%20Remunerative%20for%20Farmers.pdf.

[12] Economic Cost, Food Corporation of India (last accessed on February 9, 2018), http://fci.gov.in/finances.php?view=23

[13] Third Report of the Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution: Demands for Grants 2015-16, Department of Food and Public Distribution, http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Food,%20Consumer%20Affairs%20&%20Public%20Distribution/16_Food_Consumer_Affairs_And_Public_Distribution_3.pdf

[14] The Case for Direct Cash Transfers to the Poor, Economic and Political Weekly, April 2008, http://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2008_43/15/The_Case_for_Direct_Cash_Transfers_to_the_Poor.pdf

[15] Performance Evaluation of Targeted Public Distribution System, Planning Commission of India, March 2005, http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/peoreport/peo/peo_tpds.pdf

[16] Report of the Expert Group to advise the Ministry of Rural Development in the methodology for conducting the Below Poverty Line (BPL) Census for 11th Five Year Plan, August 2009, http://rural.nic.in/sites/downloads/circular/ReportofExpertGroupChaired-Dr.N.C.Saxena.pdf.

[17] Evaluation Study on the Role of Public Distribution System in shaping household and nutritional security in India, Niti Aayog, December 2016, http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/Final%20PDS%20Report-new.pdf.

[18] Audit on the Preparedness for Implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013 for the year ended March, 2015, Report No. 54 of 2015, Comptroller and Auditor General of India, http://cag.gov.in/sites/default/files/audit_report_files/Union_Civil_National_Food_Security_Report_54_of_2015.pdf

[19] “Prices, Agriculture and Food Management”, Chapter 5, Economic Survey 2015-16, http://unionbudget.nic.in/budget2016-2017/es2015-16/echapvol2-05.pdf.  . 

[20] Working Paper 294, “Leakages from Public Distribution System”, January 2015, ICRIER, http://icrier.org/pdf/Working_Paper_294.pdf

[21] Revival of the Public Distribution System: Evidence and Explanations, The Economic and Political Weekly, November 5, 2011, http://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2011_46/44-45/Revival_of_the_Public_Distribution_System_Evidence_and_Explanations.pdf

[22] The Case for Direct Cash Transfers to the Poor, Economic and Political Weekly, April 2008, http://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2008_43/15/The_Case_for_Direct_Cash_Transfers_to_the_Poor.pdf.

[23] ‘Report of the Internal Working Group on Branch Authorisation Policy’, Reserve Bank of India, September 2016, https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/PublicationReport/Pdfs/IWG99F12F147B6E4F8DBEE8CEBB8F09F103.PDF.   

[24] Evaluation Report on the Direct Benefits Transfer in Food, Niti Aayog, July 2017, http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/DBT%20Consolidated%20Narrative%20Report.pdf.

[25] “The Cash Transfer of Food Subsidy Rules, 2015”, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, September 3, 2015, http://dfpd.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/News/32_1_cash.pdf.

[26] The Food Security (Assistance to States) Rules, 2015, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, August 17, 2015, http://dfpd.nic.in/fgAvAHcAcgBpAHQAZQByAGUAYQBkAGQAYQB0AGEALwBQAG8AcgB0AGEAbAAvAE0AYQBnAGEAegBpAG4AZQAvAEQAbwBjAHUAbQBlAG4AdAAvAA==/1_135_1_Food-Security.pdf.

[27] Unstarred Question No. 604, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on February 6, 2018, http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/14/AU607.pdf.

[28] Report of the High Level Committee on Reorienting the Role and Restructuring of Food Corporation of India, January 2015, http://www.fci.gov.in/app2/webroot/upload/News/Report%20of%20the%20High%20Level%20Committee%20on%20Reorienting%20the%20Role%20and%20Restructuring%20of%20FCI_English_1.pdf.

[29] Key Achievements 2017, Ministry of Electronics and IT, Press Information Bureau, December 29, 2017.

[30] S.O. 371 (E), Gazette of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, February 8, 2017, http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2017/174131.pdf

[31] Unstarred Question No. 844, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on February 7, 2017, http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/11/AU844.pdf

[32] “Envisioning a role for Aadhaar in the Public Distribution System”, Unique Identification Authority of India, Planning Commission, June 2010, http://uidai.gov.in/UID_PDF/Working_Papers/Circulated_Aadhaar_PDS_Note.pdf

[33] Unstarred Q. No. 1464, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on July 24, 2017, http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/11/AU844.pdf.   

[34]Unstarred Question No. 549, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on February 6, 2018,  http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/14/AU549.pdf.

[35] Audit on the Preparedness for Implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013 for the year ended March, 2015, Report No. 54 of 2015, Comptroller and Auditor General of India, http://cag.gov.in/sites/default/files/audit_report_files/Union_Civil_National_Food_Security_Report_54_of_2015.pdf

[36] Decentralised Procurement Scheme, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, http://dfpd.nic.in/decentralized-procurement.htm

[37] Unstarred Question No. 511, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on December 19, 2017,  http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/13/AU511.pdf

[38] Newsletter of the Department of Food and Public Distribution, Jan-March, 2015, http://dfpd.nic.in/writereaddata/images/pdf/Final_English_version_of_newsletter_May_29_2015.pdf

 

DISCLAIMER: This document is being furnished to you for your information.  You may choose to reproduce or redistribute this report for non-commercial purposes in part or in full to any other person with due acknowledgement of PRS Legislative Research (“PRS”).  The opinions expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s).  PRS makes every effort to use reliable and comprehensive information, but PRS does not represent that the contents of the report are accurate or complete.  PRS is an independent, not-for-profit group.  This document has been prepared without regard to the objectives or opinions of those who may receive it.