Report No. 20300-IN India Improving Household Food and Nutrition Security Achievements and the Challenges Ahead (In Two Volumes) Volume II: Annexes June 25, 2001 Rural Development Sector Unit South Asia Region Document of the World Bank CURRENCY Rs/ US$ Currency Official Unified Market a 1980-81 7.89 1981-82 8.93 1982-83 9.63 1983-84 10.31 1984-85 11.89 1985-86 12.24 1986-87 12.79 1987-88 12.97 1988-89 14.48 1989-90 16.66 1990-91 17.95 1991-92 24.52 1992-93 26.41 30.65 1993-94 31.36 1994-95 31.40 1995-96 33.46 1996-97 35.50 1997-98 37.16 1998-99 42.00 1999-00 43.33 Dec 2000 46.75 Jan 2001 46.54 Feb 2001 46.52 Note: The Indian fiscal year runs from April 1 through March 31. Source: IMF, International Finance Statistics (IFS), line "rf"; Reserve Bank of India. a A dual exchange rate system was created in March 1992, with a free market for about 60 percent of foreign exchange transactions. The exchange rate was reunified at the beginning of March 1993 at the free market rate. Vice President Mieko Nishimizu Country Director Edwin R. Lim Sector Director Ridwan All Task Leader/Co-Task Leader Dina Umali-Deininger, Deepak Ahluwalia iii Volume II TABLE OF CONTENTS ANNEXES Page Annex A. Evolving Food Policy for Food Security and the Agenda under the Ninth Five Year Plan (1997-2002) ........................................................1 Annex B. Evolution of Nutrition Policy in India and the Agenda under the Ninth Five Year Plan (1997-2002) .......................................................9 Annex C. TPDS in Uttar Pradesh: Implementation Difficulties ............................................... 17 Annex D. National Program of Nutritional Support for Primary Education: Overview of Operations ....................................................... 23 Annex E The Design, Implementation And Impact Of Food Stamp Programs: A Review of and Lessons From Intemational Experience .......................................... 29 Annex G New Mechanisms to Promote Transparency and Accountability Of the TPDS ....................................................... 41 STATISICAL TABLES AND FIGURES Chapter 1 Annex Tables A1.L Social Indicators in Selected Countries ........................................................2 A1.2a Per Capita Consumer Unit Consumption Indicators by Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Classes in Rural and Urban Area in India, 1993/4 ........................................................3 A1.2b Percentage of Distribution f Adults According to Body Mass Index in Rural Areas ........................................................4 A1.2c Percentage of Distribution of Adults According to Body Mass Index in Urban Areas and State Level, 1995-96 ........................................................5 A1.3 Percent Distribution of Underweight, Stunting, and Wasting in Children (1 - 5 Years Old) .................. ......................................6 Al.4 Anthropometric data of children (1 - 5 years old) in Rural Areas, 1994 .......................................................7 A1.5 Per cent distribution of underweight children (1 -5 years): Weight for Age .......................................................8 A1.6 Per cent distribution of stunted children (I - 5 years): Height for Age ........................................................9 Al.7 Rice and Wheat Production, Area, Yield, and Percentage Area Irrigated 1949/50 to 1997/98 ....................... ................................ 10 A1.8 Percentage Annual (Compounded) Growth in Foodgrains . ........................... 10 A1.9: Quantity and Value of Monthly Average Consumption of Different Cereals Per Person for States and All-India in Rural and Urban Sectors, 1993/94 ...................................................... 11 Annex Figures Al.1 Foodgrain, Rice and Wheat Wholesale Price Index, Base Year 1990/91, Constant 1990/91 prices .12 iv A1.2 Percentage Distribution of Stunting in Children (1 - 5 Yrs), 1994 .............. 12 A1.3 Percentage Distribution of Stunting in Children (1-5 Yrs), 1995/96 ............ 13 A1.4 Ratio of Percentage of Girls Over Percentage of Boys: Stunted and Severely Stunted (Rural Areas) 1994-96 ..................................................... 13 A1.5 Ratio of Percentage of Girls Over Percentage of Boys: Underweight and Severely Underweight (Urban Areas) 1995-96 ...................................... 14 A1.6 Ratio of Percentage of Girls Over Percentage of Boys: Stunted and Severely Stunted (Urban Areas) 1995-96 ..................................................... 14 Chapter 2 Annex Tables A2.1a Central Issue Price of PDS/TPDS Rice, Rs/lOOkg, 19981 to200 .......... ..... 15 A2.lb : Central Issue Price of PDS/TPDS Wheat, Rs/100kg, 1978 to 2000 .. 15 A2.lc Central Issue Prices of PDS Edible Oil and Sugar, 1988-1997 .16 A2.2 Rice and Wheat Allocation and Offtake from the PDS from 1993/94 to 1997/98 and the TPDS from 1997/98 to 1998/99, 000 mt .16 A2.3a Total Number of Households and BPL Households, 1999 Fair Price Shops, and Ration Cards .18 A2.3b Total Number of Fair Price Shops, and Ration Cards, 1999 .19 A2.4 Volume of TPDS Rations in Various States, Kg/family/month, 1997/98 .20 A2.5a Retail Prices of TPDS foodgrain in various States, Rs. Per Kg, 1997/98 .21 A2.5b Retail Prices of TPDS edible oil and kerosene in various States, Rs. Per Kg, 1997/98 .22 A2.6 Central Issue Price for Levy Sugar for the PDS, Rs/kg, 1988-1997 ............. 22 A2.7 FCI Foodgrain Stocks and Minimum Buffer Stock Norms, 1993- 2000, million mt ............................................... 23 A2.8 Export/Import Policy on Foodgrains, as of 26h October, 1999 .................... 24 A2.9 Levy rates for procurement of rice in India, Percent, 1983-84 to 1997-98 .25 A2.10 Mid-Day Meals Scheme: Type and Mode of Food Transfer in Different States .25 A2.11 ICDS Package of Services and Target Population .26 A2.12a State and GOI Food and Civil Supplies Expenditure, 1994/95 to 1996/97, Rs million, current prices .26 A2. 12b: State and GOI Food and Civil Supplies Expenditure, India, 1997/98, Rs million, current prices .26 A2.13 Food and Civil Supplies Expenditure, India, 1989/90-1998/99, Rs million, current prices .27 A2.14 GOI Department of Food, Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies Expenditures, 1989/90-1999/2000, Rs million, current prices .27 A2.15a JRY and EAS Expenditures (current prices) and Number of Workdays Created, 1992.93 to 1998/99 .27 A2.15b Estimated cost of the food component of current employment programs, constant 1997/98 prices .28 A2.15c: Total Economic Cost and Equivalent Food Subsidy Through Employment Programs, current prices. 28 A2.16 CARE: Commodity Donations, volume and estimated value, 1997/98 and 1998/99 .28 A2.17 WFP Food Allocations, 1997-1998 .29 A2.18 WFP Country Program-India, 1997-2001 .29 A2.19 WFP Contribution in Food, Volume and Value, 1989 to 1998 .................... 29 v A2.20a Estimated 1997/98 Value of WFP Food Allocation by State (@$304.50/mt), US $ ........................................... 29 A2.20b: Number of Beneficiaries supported by CARE and WFP and the Estimated Share of Food Aid Contribution in GSDP, 1997/98 ...................... 30 A2.21 Estimated 1998/99 Value of WFP Food Allocation by State (@$296.48/mt), US$ ........................................... 30 A2.22 Central Government, Department of Women and Child Development Nutrition Expenditures, 1988/89 to 1998/99, Rs million current prices ........................................... 31 A2.23 Government of India, Department of Women and Child Development Nutrition Expenditures, 1988/99 to 1997/98, Rs million 1993/94 prices ........................................... 31 A2.24 Number of ICDS beneficiaries, 000, 1985 to 1998 ...................................... 31 A2.25 State Nutrition Expenditures in India, 1989/90 to 1998/99, Rs million, current prices .32 A2.26 Mid-day Meals Program and total Primary Education Expenditures of the Department of Education, Government of India .32 A2.27 Estimated National Nutritional Anemia Control and Vitamin A Prophylaxis Program, 1988/99 to 1998/99, Rs million, current prices .32 A2.28 Estimated Quantity and Caloric Equivalent of Food Transfer per Household through Selected Food-Based Transfer Programs .32 A2.29 Average Household Composition in India, 1993/94 .33 A2.30 Economic Cost and Consumer Price Subsidy Per mt of Foodgrain Handled by FCI .33 Chapter 3 Annex Tables A3.1a Average income transfer per household through the Public Distribution Systems by quintile in major states and poverty rates, 1994/95, Rs per month .35 A3. lb Average income transfer per household through the Public Distribution Systems by quintile in rural areas in major states and poverty rates, 1994/95, Rs. Per month .36 A3.2 Average Transfer Per Month (Rupees) By Type Of Commodity In UP .36 A3.3 Allocation Of BPL Cards and Income Distribution in UP ........................... 37 A3.4 Rice Marketed Surplus, 000 mt, 1992/93-197/98 ......................................... 37 A3.5 FCI/State Rice Procurement as Percentage of Marketed Surplus, 1992/93-197/98 ............................................... 37 A3.6 Wheat Marketed Surplus, 000 mt, 1992/93-197/98 ...................................... 38 A3.7 FCI/State Wheat Procurement as Percentage of Marketed Surplus, 1992/93-197/98 ............................................... 38 A3.8 Offtake of Foodgrains from Central Pool, million mt, 1989/90- 1998/99 .39 A3.9 Domestic Supply of Foodgrains in the Market: Rice and Wheat, 000 mt, 1992/93-1997/98 .39 A3.10 Findings of Recent Market Integration Studies of Rice and Wheat Markets in India .40 A3.11 Proportion of Eligible Children Receiving MDM and Frequency of Receipt of Food .40 A3.12 Gender-wise Coverage of NPNSPE .40 A3.13a Coverage of NPNSPE by Household Income . .41 vi A3.13b Caste-wise Coverage of NPNSPE ...................................................... 41 A3.14 Proportion of Enrolled Students Receiving Foodgrains for 1997-98 ............ 41 A3.15 Quantity of Foodgrains Received by Children ............................................. 42 A3.16 Procedures Adopted for Distribution In Case of Shortage of Foodgrains ...................................................... 42 A3.17 Availability of Storage Facilities for Foodgrains ......................... ................ 42 A3.18 Parent's Opinion on Quality and Quantity of Foodgrains/Meals (Parents Whose Children Received Foodgrains/Cooked Meal) .......... ......... 42 A3.19 Involvement of Children in Distribution of Cooked Meals ............. ............. 43 A3.20 Type of Involvement of Children in Cooked Meals ................... .................. 43 A3.21 Awareness Regarding Eligibility Criteria to Receive FoodgrainlMeals ...................................................... 43 A3.22 Number of Sample Households Covered by NPNSPE ................. ................ 44 A3.23 Number and Percentage of Schools Providing Different School Incentives ...................................................... 44 A3.24 Number of incentives Being Provided in Sample Schools ............. .............. 44 A3.25a: Results of Some Micro-studies on Composition, Employment and Wages of the MEGS Workers ...................................................... 45 A3.25b Labor attendance under the MEGS, by year and month, 1000 days, 1985/86 to 1990/91 ...................................................... 45 A3.26a Employment Assurance Scheme, Indicators of Progress, 1999-2000, 000 workdays, 1985/86 to 1990/91 .................................................. .... 46 A3.26b Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojana, Indicators of Progress, 1999-2000, 000 workdays (as of January 10, 2000) ...................................................... 47 A3.26c: Estimated Average Wage Rate Per Day under JGSY and EAS and Minimum Wage Rate for Unskilled Agricultural Workers, 1999- 2000 ...................................................... 48 A3.27 Percentage of JRY Workers Willing to Take Foodgrains as Part of Wages, 1993-94 ....................................................... 48 A3.28 State-wise ICDS Projects operationalized and coverage, as of March 31, 1998 ...................................................... 49 A3.29a Availability, Completeness and Reliability of Records in Anganwadi Centers (%) ...................................................... 50 A3.29b: Some Indicators of Activities for Improvement of Women's Nutrition and Health* ...................................................... 50 A3.30 Adequacy of stocks of supplies at Anganwadi Centers & Sub- Centers (at least for 2 months) (%) ........................................... ........... 51 A3.31 Percentage of Children Receiving Vitamin A Supplementation .......... ........ 51 A3.32a Some Indicators of Adoption of Desired Child Caring Behaviors under ICDS ...................................................... 52 A3.32b Percentage Utilization of AWW, ANM, PHC, Private Doctor for Children under 2 ...................................................... 52 A3.33 Percentage of AWW Who Weighed The Child Correctly and Discussed Nutritional Grade ...................................................... 52 A3.34 Percentage of AWW and ANW With Correct Knowledge Regarding Health Practices ................... ................................... 53 A3.35 Adoption Of Complementary Feeding Practices In Children Between 12-23 Months ...................................................... 53 A3.36 Percentage of Women Adopting of Desired Breast Feeding Practices ...................................................... 54 A3.37 Percentage Availability of Equipment at AWC & Sub-Centers .......... ......... 55 vii A3.38 Adoption of Practices to prevent and Rehabilitate Malnourished Children ..................................................... 55 A3.39 Adoption of Practices to Prevent and Manage Infection .............. ................ 56 A3.40 Completion of Growth monitoring and Promotion Activities ............ .......... 56 A3.41 Adoption of Practices to Promote Women's Nutrition and Health ............... 56 A3.42 Key Indicators for Project Implementation of the World Bank- Assisted ICDS and Second TINP Projects ................................................... 57 Annex Figures A3.1 Volume of TPDS Foodgrain Allocation in Various States, Average of 1994/95 to 1996/97 (Pre-TPDS) and 1998/99 (Post TPDS) ........... .......... 58 A3.2 FCI Rice Procurement Price and Procurement and Distribution Costs, 1976/77 to 1998/99, Rs/mt, constant 1998/99 prices ........................... 58 !ly, ANNEX A EVOLVING FOOD POLICY FOR FOOD SECURITY AND THE AGENDA UNDER THE NINTH FIVE YEAR PLAN (1997-2002) Introduction At the time of independence the country faced two major nutritional problems; one was the threat of famine and acute starvation due to lack of national and regional food security systems; the other was chronic under-nutrition due to low dietary intake because of lack of purchasing power among the poorer segments of the population. One of the first efforts of the Government of India to build up a food security system to was to ensure that the threat of famine no longer stalked the country. Investment in agriculture and the green revolution ensured that the food production kept pace with population growth and by and large India has achieved self sufficiency in food. Establishment of adequate buffer stocks helped ensure availability of food stuffs within affordable cost even during the times of drought. The fact that the country has not witnessed famine and acute starvation on a massive scale in the last five decades provides testimony for the success of these efforts. The Public Distribution System (PDS) providing foodgrains at affordable prices is one of the key elements of the Government's Food Security system. In spite of obvious limitations, the PDS did play a role improving in regional food security specially in drought prone areas. In an attempt to improve availability of food to population living in most vulnerable areas (remote, tribal and drought-prone regions) the revamped public distribution system gave priority for establishment of PDS in such vulnerable areas. In spite of mounting food subsidies evaluation studies indicate that supply of subsidised food given through PDS has not resulted in improvement in household level food security. Self-sufficiency of foodgrains at national level and availablility of foodgrains at affordable cost at local level have not been translated into household level food security for the poor. In an attempt to limit the mounting cost of food subsidy and at the same time ensure that people below poverty line do get subsidised foodgrains, the targeted public distribution system (TPDS) providing food grains at subsidised cost only the people below poverty line was initiated. If susscesfully implemented the targetted PDS is expected to achieve better household food security for families living below poverty line without substantially increasing food subsidy costs. This note deals with the perspectives, problems and proposed initiatives to ensure food adequacy at the national, regional and household level. India's Food Security System: A Historical Perspective Ensuring food security for the country has been a major pre-occupation of the Government since independence. Over the last five decades, policies and program were designed to ensure availability of foodgrains to all sections of the society, particularly the weaker sections. The basic food security system currently consists of, apart from policies to promote domestic foodgrains output, minimum support prices, procurement and storage, public distribution, maintenance of buffer stock and open market sales. Trade in foodgrains, which is highly regulated, was never a strategic instrument of food security system in India. Nevertheless, trade in cereals did take place on the margin depending on the extent of domestic shortages/surpluses in a particular year. With few exceptions, net imports of cereals have either been negative or negligibly positive since the 1970s. The Bengal Famine of 1943 was a major impetus for the formulation of a comprehensive food policy in India . Policy intervention in the foodgrain market was virtually absent till 1943. Free market forces were allowed to determine the prices of foodgrains. However, both internal and external forces often placed the economy in crisis. The consequences of the crises were severe since the nutrition intake levels of the poor were low even in normal periods. Weak integration of sub- -2- markets stifled market adjustments causing local foodgrain shortages even though there was no shortage at the global level. Disruption of imports and the internal transport system during W.W.II resulted in a near collapse of the free market system and led to the Bengal famine in 1943, in which more than a million people died of starvation. The situation was further worsened by the restrictions imposed by the surplus provincial governments on the movements of foodgrains outside their jurisdictions. The Food Policy Committee set up after the famine emphasized the need for the active involvement of the Central Government in the management of the food economy in the country. The Foodgrains Policy Committee favored government intervention in the foodgrain market and suggested a system in which a central agency would participate in the procurement and distribution of foodgrains parallel to the private trade. It assigned a major role to the central government in food management as it perceived potential conflicts of interest between surplus and deficit provinces in the procurement and distribution of foodgrains. The Committee also suggested a number of controls on private trade and the creation of a central reserve of foodgrains. The above suggestions were made on the premise that private trade would function efficiently in a normal period but in periods of drought and crop failure, the profit motive would lead them to hoard supplies and earn abnormal profits. The govemment introduced administrative controls, monopoly procurement and public distribution during 1943-1947. In the initial years, government activities were confined mainly to importing grains and distributing them through ration shops rather than procuring them from the domestic supply. Over the subsequent two decades, policies frequently shifted between loose and tight controls on the domestic grain market. The year 1965 can be taken as the point of departure for foodgrain policy. Single state zones were introduced for rice and restrictions were placed on grain movements out of surplus rates. Restrictions were imposed even on movements out of surplus districts within a state. Policy makers felt that the zone policy would depress market prices in surplus states and hence would facilitate procurement operations. The central government started the practice of assigning procurement targets to each surplus state on the basis of an assessment of nationwide needs. The states choose their own procurement methods. The central government would sell foodgrains to state governments for their public distribution system (PDS) at concessional rates. The zone policy allowed the play of supply-demand factors in determining the open market price within each state given the policy parameters of the central and state governments. Perhaps the observed increase in interstate price dispersion could be partly attributed to this policy. The Food Corporation of India (FCI) was established in 1965 to secure a strategic and commanding position for the public sector in the foodgrain trade. The Corporation was expected to act as a countervailing force to the speculative activities of the private traders. The Government of India had also transferred the functions of procurement, storage, and distribution to the Corporation heretofore performed by its department of food in several states. Since then, the Corporation has been undertaking the purchase, storage, movement, and distribution of food at the national level. It has also be handling all imported grain and its distribution. Food Security Under the Ninth Plan The Ninth Plan lays emphasis on developing strategies integrating the food production and distribution systems with the employment and poverty alleviation programs. In particular, the Public Distribution System (PDS) has been restructured in order to provide foodgrains at substantially lower prices to the poor in a targeted manner and to ensure availability of such commodities in the remote and deficit areas of the country. The structure of incentives for the producers of food is being reviewed. While incentive pricing would continue to remain an important element of the policy for boosting agricultural production in general, and foodgrains production in particular, the focus would be more on devising cost-saving and yield - raising technologies and on creating rural infrastructure. - 3 - This would require increased investments in research, extension, water and land improvement and infrastructure, which might involve reduction and diversion of resources away from subsidies. While an annual 3% growth of foodgrains output should be enough to feed the growing population, the new Government has formulated an Action Plan for doubling of food production (cereals, pulses, oils and fat, sugar, fruits and vegetables, milk, meat & fish) in order to make India hunger free in the next 10 years. This means that growth of food production will have to be accelerated at a compound rate of over 7 per cent per annum. Availability of foodgrains through increased production is a necessary condition for food security but not a sufficient one. In order to ensure access to food for all, the prices must be affordable. In order to combat the sudden spurt in prices arising out of occasional weather-induced declines in production, it is essential to design an effective buffer stocking program. While a buffer stocking program with a large public storage system exists in the country, it is essentially designed to safeguard the floor prices of the farmers during bumper harvests.It has rarely been used successfully to contain the spurts in open market prices, which have followed occasional harvest failures. With some re-orientation the existing buffer stocking programme can be utilized not only to smoothen the year-to- year fluctuations in production, but also to curb speculative spurt in prices that occasionally afflicts the foodgrains market. Towards this end, the current practice of restrictive and discretionary open market sales out of the public stocks needs to be reviewed. The correct policy to combat speculation by the traders and panic buying by the consumers should be for the Government to be ready at all times to intervene in the market. Instead of holding back the stocks, which the Government. often does for fear of depleting the stocks meant for public distribution, the Government should release the stocks in adequate quantities at market related prices. Simultaneously, the Government should replenish the stocks, or at least announce its intention to do so, through imports. If too little quantities are released for open sales at much below the market- rates, which is the current practice, these are likely to be cornered by the hoarders. As far as possible, open sales should be conducted through auction instead of the present practice of sales to a chosen few. Close monitoring of prices should obviously be an important element of this strategy. Where the prices of foodgrains rule higher than normal in a sustained manner and which indicates a trend of demand outstripping domestic supply, it may be necessary to relax the policy of self-sufficiency. It should be realised that by allowing grain prices to rule higher than normal, consumption can be curtailed, production can be stimulated and the requirements of imports foreclosed. Achievement of self-sufficiency in this manner would clearly not be consistent with the aim of ensuring affordability. Sacrificing food imports on the altar of self-sufficiency will do nothing to guarantee that the poor have enough to eat. Banning food imports may even be counter productive. An engineered terms of trade, favorable to foodcrops, may result in a loss of acreage under non-food crops. In such an event, the country may end up spending more foreign exchange on the import of, say, cotton or sugar. Similarly, there is a strong case for libralizing export of foodgrains, especially when there are surpluses and public stocks pile up. Restricting exports as a matter of policy may be counter productive in terms of depressed prices and lower production, eventually forcing the Government to incur larger expenditure on higher support prices. As a matter of fact, import and export of foodgrains and other agricultural commodities should be allowed as a normal market operation. In general, there is a strong case for liberalising the trade not only in foodgrains but also in all other agricultural commodities. The virtually closed nature of Indian agricultural trade, on both import and export side, has led to high protection for the oilseeds & sugar subsector and taxation of foodgrains and cotton. On the import side, opening up India's agriculture to more competition would result in important efficiency gains for all crops and improve incentives to producers of foodgrains and cotton. On the export side, opportunities of exports of foodgrains and other rainfed agricultural products such as cotton & fruits will open up. Measures of opening up should include shifts from the use of quotas and restrictions to appropriate import tariffs and export taxes, maintaining consistent - 4 - export policies to allow the development of overseas markets, ending "stop and go" restrictions and eliminating domestic market and price controls. Though India is unlikely to be more than a marginal importer/exporter of basic agricultural commodities, greater openness will increase India's efficiency and competitiveness, particularly in the foodgrains sector. This will strengthen the food security system. Thus the objective of ensuring access to food, embodied in the concept of affordability, involves convergence of polices on at least four fronts: production, buffer stock operation imports and exports of foodgrains. While the importance of production and trade in ensuring food security is easily understood, the complementary role of a strong buffer stock management system is not. Fluctuating foodgrains production is a world-wide phenomenon and therefore, shortages and surpluses are the recurring themes for individual countries. Facing a shortage situation at home, many countries desperately buy in a rising market, thus pushing the prices higher. Similarly, facing a surplus situation at home, many countries try to sell aggressively in a soft market in the fear that prices will fall further. Because of the cumulative actions of several countries, particularly if their requirements are large, prices do fall or rise violently. This kind of market behaviour tends to inflate the import bill or to deflate the export earnings. In order to avoid paying more than necessary for import and receiving less than due on export, it is essential to build up sufficient capacity to hold back from purchases or sales for a short period. This capacity is essentially a derivative of a strong buffer stock management system. However, it needs to be pointed out that too large a buffer stock can be expensive since it involves costs in the form of interest payments, storage charges and storage losses. Excessive stocking can also be harmful since stocks beyond a limit may constrict the supply stream and thereby trigger an unwarranted spurt in prices. Hence, keeping the buffer stock down to a minimum size and relying on imports in the years of lean output and exports in the years of excess production appears to be a less costly option. Several Committees, set up by the Govemment in the past, have tried to determine the levels of stocks in India for minimising the fluctuations in supply arising out of uncertainity in production. A Technical Group set up by the Govemment in 1975 recommended a buffer stock of 12 million tonnes of foodgrains over and above the operational stocks which should range between the minimum of 3.5 to 3.8 million tonnes on the 1st April of the year and maximum of 8.2 to 8.8 million tonnes on the 1st July. In 1981, another Technical Group reviewed the buffer stocking policy. On the basis of this Group's report, the Govemment in 1984 took the decision to maintain public buffer stocks of 10 million tonnes, in addition to the operational stocks which, on different dates of the year, were to range between the lowest figure of 6.5 million tonnes on 1st April and the highest figure of 11.4 million tonnes on 1st July. Yet another Technical Group set up in 1988 recommended minimum levels of stocks on different dates of a year to be maintained by public agencies during the Eighth Plan. This Group was of the opinion that the buffer stocks and the operational stocks cannot, in practice, be maintained as separate physical entities. According to this Group's recommendations which were accepted by the Govemment and which are still in force, the total stocks to be maintained are 14.5 Million Tonnes on 1st April, 22.3 Million Tonnes on 1st July, 16.6 Million Tonnes on 1st October and 15.4 Million Tonnes on lt January. The assumption behind the stocks recommended by all these Technical Groups was that shortfalls in normal supply would be met entirely out of the stocks. Needless to say that the prescribed volume of stocks would get reduced to the extent that the country decides to import foodgrains during scarcity. As a matter of fact, the Government can take advantage of the international 'futures' in foodgrains, primarily rice and wheat, as a medium of buffer stock management at a relatively low volume. The 'futures' can ensure a stable equilibrium in the prices of foodgrains even in a situation of low domestic stocks. For example, if the domestic situation demands physical imports of foodgrains, the agent of the Government (FCI, STC or MMTC) having a futures contract can exercise appropriate option and arrange for taking delivery of foodgrains for actual shipments. If the physical imports are not necessary, the agent can exercise the option for not taking delivery by paying the required fees. However, to be effective, the Government through its agencies must have a sustained presence in the international futures market. Integrating Production and Distribution Systems Adequate availability of food at the national level does not necessarily lead to adequate availability in all the regions, especially in the deficit and inaccessible regions, of the country. Market imperfections (due to lopsided availability of credit and insurance, transport bottlenecks, inadequate storage capacities etc) and governmental restrictions hamper free movement of foodgrains across intra-national borders. These explain the regional scarcities and large regional spreads in foodgrains prices. Regional spreads of prices of cereals in major markets could be as high as 25% , which cannot be fully accounted for by the transport cost differentials. Minimising the restrictions, such as stock limits and penal provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and introduction of 'futures' in grain trade would greatly facilitate the development of a common market in the country. A common market is the best guarantee for establishing an efficient distribution network. Apart from strengthening and expanding the market, there is a need to disperse the foodgrains production base in the deficit regions in order to ensure physical access to food for all at affordable prices. The association between regional self-sufficiency in production and the level of regional prices is quite strong. This means that the consumers in the deficit regions have to pay substantially higher prices for foodgrains than those in the surplus regions. The data on per capita consumption of cereals and the corresponding values reported in the NSS 43rd Round Quinquennial Survey on Consumer expenditure show that the consumers in the rural areas of many deficit States paid significantly higher unit prices than their counterparts in the surplus States. For the poor consumers in the deficit regions higher prices of foodgrains may imply lower consumption of food and consequent poor intake of nutrition. While these problems will get minimised over time with greater market integration, in the short run an important element of food security strategy should be to expand food production in the deficit regions which, otherwise, would remain as pockets of food deprivation amidst plenty at the national level. The strategy of dispersal of production base has several other spin-off benefits. First, hitherto deficit regions will increasingly contribute to incremental production, since yield rates in the traditional surplus regions have plateaued. Second, large transaction costs involved in transporting foodgrains from a few surplus pockets to all corners of the country can be avoided. For example, distribution cost consisting of handling and storage charges, freight, interest, transit and storage losses and administrative overheads typically constitute about 20% of the pooled economic cost of foodgrains. Freight charges alone account for about 8% of economic cost . Rail freight ex-North to the Southem States typically accounts for 10% of the economic cost. Third, widely dispersed employment and income effects, implicit in such a trategy, will subserve the objective of poverty alleviation. Linking Production and Distribution Systems with Employment and Poverty Alleviation Programmes Increasingly higher production of food and its dispersal through an efficient marketing infrastructure, including the Public Distribution System ,is no guarantee for ensuring the food security of the poorest segments of the population. The poor must have adequate entitlements to access food either from the market or through the PDS. Entitlements are better created and preserved through employment programmes such as JRY, or income generation schemes such as IRDP, since these are less prone to leakages. These programmes, which already exist and will continue during the Ninth Plan, can be increasingly linked to creation of rural assets such as, irrigation and drainage channels, wells and tanks, check dams & bunds, roads & mandis etc. These will strengthen the production base and enhance productivity of the agricultural sector. - 6 - A system of payment of wages in the form of foodgrains to JRY/EAS workers already exists in the country. However, for various reasons, partly administrative and partly behavioural, the system did not become popular with the workers. As a part of the restructuring exercise regarding PDS, the Govermment has proposed to make the system of payment of wages in the form of foodgrains more attractive to the workers. The highlights of the restructured system are given in Box. Restructuring Public Distribution System A well targeted and subsidised Public Distribution System (PDS) is an important constituent of the strategy for poverty alleviation. A subsidised PDS should essentially be viewed as a mechanism for income transfer to low income segments of the population. While conceptually the function of income transfer to the low income groups can be better performed by food coupons, for several reasons it may not be workable in the Indian situation. First, dismantling of the PDS implicit in food coupons system may not be acceptable. Second, PDS is linked to the system of support prices and procurement operations as a part of the current agricultural price policy. The time is not yet ripe to disband the price support operations and therefore, the PDS. which provides an outlet for offloading the foodgrains procured from surplus areas to deficit areas. Third, food coupon system is fraught with unmanageable administrative problems associated with security printing of coupons, fraud prevention, fresh issue of stamps due to periodic indexation etc. Fourth, food coupons have characteristics similar to cash and are liable to be misused. Fifth, and more important, it has been argued that coupons (equivalent to cash) would typically enhance the demand for highly subsidised foodgrains (due to shift in the demand curve to the right) while the supply remains the same. This will cause food prices to rise. Increase in food price would mean deterioration in the well being of those who are left out of the coupon programme. Under the circumstances, a poverty-based targeting of PDS is a better option from the point of view of ensuring the food security of the poor. The PDS that existed till recently has been widely criticised for its failure to serve the population below the poverty line (BPL) , its urban bias, inequitous distribution as reflected in the poor coverage in the States with the highest concentration of the poor, lack of transparent and accountable arrangements for delivery and the consequent heavy leakages. Realising this, the Government has streamlined the PDS by targeting it to the BPL population at specially subsidised prices and with better monitoring of the delivery system. The new system, named Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS), has come into operation with effect from 1st June, 1997. The principles of TPDS was spelt out earlier in the Report of the Working Group (WG) on National Policy on Public Distribution system (June, 1996) set up in the Planning Commission in August, 1995,. In view of the fact that the poor devote a substantial part of their expenditure on foodgrains, it is essential to protect them from a continuous upward pressure on foodgrains prices, a phenomenon in-built in our system of procurement prices, which need an annual increase as an incentive for increasing production. If the poor are not protected from the impact of ever increasing prices of foodgrains, the effects of many of the poverty alleviation measures and programmes would get neutralised. In other words, a system of food subsidy becomes an essential element of food security. The challenge, however, is to contain the total food subsidy to the minimum necessary through a system of targeting, so that the subsidies benefit only those sections whom the State wants to protect. The Working Group after discussing various forms and experiences of targeting, such as, through wage employment programmes (JRY, EAS etc), area based targeting (ITDP, RPDS), exclusion of non-poor and the system of food coupons prevalent in some countries, suggested a scheme of allocation of foodgrains out of the Central Pool to the States at two sets of prices, namely, a highly subsidised price for the poor (BPL) and near open market prices for the non-poor (APL). Based on detailed calculation, the Working Group in effect recommended an issue price for the poor at half the normal Central Issue Price (CIP). The Working Group hoped that over a period of time, the absence of appreciable difference between the open market prices and the near open market prices for the non-poor would reduce the demand for increased allocations over and above those meant for the poor. Detailed calculations showed that a scale of 20 kgs of foodgrains per BPL family per month and priced at half the normal CIP could be accommodated within a sustainable limit of annual subsidy and within historically available quantity of foodgrains. The principles enunciated by the Working Group were adopted by the Govermnent while implementing the TPDS. However, by the time TPDS was implemented the numbers (population, BPL population, economic costs etc) underwent substantial escalation. As a consequence, the Government had to reduce the scale of allocation to BPL families. Under the TPDS, a quantity of 10 kgs of foodgrains per family per month is being issued to the States on the basis of the number of BPL families. The number of BPL families has been determined on the basis of provisional estimates for 1993-94 made by the Planning Commission, based on the methodology of the Expert Group under Professor Lakadawala. Poverty-based targeting under TPDS is a major improvement over the erstwhile PDS. While the objective of TPDS is to restrict the benefits of subsidised foodgrains to the poor, allocations of foodgrains out of the Central Pool is being continued for the above poverty line (APL) population. who were the beneficiaries of the erstwhile PDS. This is a transitory measure to soften the shock of sudden withdrawal of entrenched benefits of the erstwhile universal system. However, the transitory allocations have been restricted to the past 10 years' average lifting which is in excess of the requirement of the BPL population in each State. The unit subsidy for APL has also been eliminated. In order to make the TPDS transparent and accountable and thereby plug the leakages, a number of steps have been taken. These include: (a) release of foodgrains to the States subject to satisfactory completion of identification of eligible families; (b) involvement of the Panchayats/Nagar Palikas in the identification exercise as well as for supervision of the work of the Fair Price Shops, (c) constitution of Vigilance Committees at FPS, Taluk, District and State level and (d) a system of monitoring and reporting on the working of TPDS. Source: : Planning Commission, Ninth Plan 1997-2002, Government of India, R. Radhakrishna and S. Indrakant, 1988, "Effects of Rice Market Intervention Policies in India: The Case of Andhra Pradesh," in Evaluating Rice Market Intervention Policies, Some Asian Examples, Manila: Asian Development Bank, pp. 237-321. - 9 - ANNEX B Evolution Of Nutrition Policy In India And The Agenda Under The Ninth Five Year Plan (1997-2002) Introduction At the time of Independence the country faced two major nutritional problems - one was the threat of famine and acute starvation due to low agricultural production and lack of appropriate food distribution system. The other was chronic energy deficiency due to poverty, low-literacy, poor access to safe-drinking water, sanitation and health care; these factors led to wide spread prevalence of infections and ill health in children and adults. Kwashiorkor, marasmus, goiter, beri beri, blindness due to Vitamin-A deficiency and anemia were major public health problems. The country adopted a multi-sectoral, multi-pronged strategy to combat the major nutritional problems and to improve nutritional status of the population. The green revolution resulted in increased food production sufficient to meet the needs of growing population; establishment of adequate buffer stocks and PDS have helped ensure to improve per capita food availability and distribution at the national level. Improvement in per capita income, poverty alleviation programs including food for work and Employment Assurance Scheme contributed to improving the purchasing power and household food availability. Food supplementation programs were initiated to meet the extra food requirement of vulnerable groups namely pregnant and lactating mothers and preschool children. Programs for prevention of iodine deficiency disorders, anemia and blindness due to Vitamin A deficiency was initiated by the Departments of Health and Family Welfare. During the last 50 years considerable progress has been achieved in many of these programs. Famines no longer stalk the country. There has been substantial reduction in moderate and severe undernutrition in children and some improvement in nutritional status of all segments of population. Kwashiorkor, marasmus, beri beri and blindness due to Vitamin-A deficiency have become rare. However, the milder form of chronic energy deficiency (CED) continues to be widely prevalent Major Nutritional Problems of Public Health in adults and children. Undemutrition continues to Importance are: be a major problem in pregnant and lactating . Chronic energy deficiency and undemutrition women; over one-third of the new-borns still . Chronic energy excess and obesity weigh less than 2.5 kg at birth. Even though there . Micro-nutrient deficiencies: has been a marked reduction in blindness due to Vitamin-A deficiency, the less severe forms of (a) AnemiA detiron and Vitamin-A deficiency persist. Universal access to iodized salt has not been achieved and there has (c) Iodine deficiency disorders not been marked reduction in iodine deficiency disorders. There is no decline in prevalence or severity of anemia and its health consequences. During the last two decades, there had been major alterations in the life styles and dietary intake especially among urban middle and upper income group population. As a result newer problems such as obesity in adolescents and adults and increased risk of non-communicable diseases are emerging. India is currently undergoing demographic, economic, social, educational, agricultural and health transition. These factors individually and collectively can bring about substantial alteration in health and nutritional status of the population. If through effective planning and inter-sectoral coordination, appropriate synergy is brought about, it will be possible to achieve substantial improvement in nutritional and health status of the population. Achievement of Food and Nutrition Security is one of the nine major objectives of the Ninth Plan. The strategy for achieving improvement in Nutritional Status during the Ninth Plan period will - 10 - be through effective implementation of the National Nutrition Policy and National Nutritional Action Plan with emphasis on inter-sectoral coordination. The Special Action Plan has accorded high priority to increasing food production and making India hunger free in ten years; it envisages a mission mode approach for planning and implementation, with appropriate co-ordination between Center, State and Panchayati Raj institutions so that set goals are achieved within the defined time frame. Objectives during the Ninth Plan Objectives during the Ninth Plan are to achieve: * Freedom from hunger through increase in food production, effective distribution, improvement in purchasing power of the population; * Reduction in undernutrition and its health consequences through: universalization of ICDS, screening 'at risk groups', growth monitoring, better targeting of food supplements to those suffering from undernutrition, close monitoring of under- nourished persons receiving food supplements; effective intersectoral coordination between health and nutrition workers to ensure early detection and management of health problems associated with or leading to undernutrition; * Prevention, early detection and effective management of micronutrient deficiencies and the associated health hazards. Food Supplementaion Programs The initiatives and programs taken up during the last fifty years by the center and state for improving nutritional status are summarized in Table 1. These include programs to improve nutritional status directly, but also to increase per capita incomes, food production, purchasing power, equitable distribution of food and poverty alleviation. The direct nutrition interventions specifically aimed at: * Tackling adverse health consequences of nutrition-infection and nutrition-fertility interactions. * Programs for prevention, early detection and effective management of health problems associated with nutritional deficiencies. * Detection, correction and prevention of micronutrient deficiencies. * Food supplementation to specifically identified vulnerable segments of population to prevent or correct chronic energy deficiency. Food supplementation programs were launched at the state and national levels to combat chronic energy deficiency especially in women and children. It has long been recognized that pregnant and lactating women and pre-school children are nutritionally the most vulnerable segments of the population and undernutrition in them is associated with major health problems. Several different programs and projects have been in launched either exclusively as feeding programs or as integrated health and nutrition package for vulnerable groups. During the last 4 decades, these have included the Applied Nutrition Program, the Special Nutrition Program, the Tamil Nadu Integrated Nutrition Project (I & II), the Integrated Child Development Services Program, and the Mid-Day Meals Program. - 11 - Table 1: Nutrition Intervention Programs (1951-1992) Period Nutrition Situation Nutrition Services 1950s Food Shortages ood Production Phase: echnological advancement to improve food production ood fortification measures to improve nutritiv value. 1 960s Malnutrition most prevalent in lower ommunity Development Phase: conomic strata. Launching of Applied Nutrition Program DD as a Public Health problem Mobile Food and Nutrition Extension Services lodization of salt 1970s - early Recognition of Chronic Energy Deficiency Direct Nutritional Interventions: Anemia, Vitamin A deficiency and IDD as pecial Nutrition Program major nutritional problems of public health rophylaxis against Anemia and Vitamin A importance deficiency Mid 1970s Recognition that infection and Multi Sectoral Indirect Interventions Phase: ndemutrition were major causes of Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) morbidity and mortality among infants and Universal Immunization Program (UIP) hildren Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) Nutrition Promotion through poverty alleviation, ublic Distribution of Food, Health and Family elfare measures, Adult Education. 1980s Felt need for nutritional bias in sectoral Efforts for adoption of a National Nutrition Policy olicies and programs 1990s Recognition that Malnutrition is an inalization of the National Nutrition Policy mpediment to national development; its .use as indicator of Development Process Source: Department of Women and Child Development, Govemment of India, New Delhi. The Applied Nutrition Program (ANP) ANP was started in 1963 to promote production of protective food such as vegetables and fruits and ensure their consumption by pregnant or nursing mothers and children. Nutrition education was the main focus and efforts were directed to teach rural communities through demonstration how to produce food for their consumption through their own efforts. The Special Nutrition Program (SNP) This was started in 1970; the objectives was to provide 500 K Cal and 25 g of protein to expectant and nursing mothers and 300 K Cal and 10 g of protein to children six days a week. The program was taken up in rural areas inhabited predominantly lower socio-economic groups, in tribal areas and urban slums. Tamil Nadu Integrated Nutrition Project The Tamil Nadu Integrated Nutrition Project (TINP) was an externally assisted health and nutrition intervention that offered a package of health and nutrition services to young children and pregnant and lactating women in rural Tamil Nadu. TINP-I was targeted at 6-36 month old children, and pregnant and lactating women. Project activities were started in October 1980 in one pilot block and extended gradually to cover 177 out of a total of 385 rural blocks in the State, by 1989/90. Of these, 31 rural blocks have been subsequently converted to ICDS blocks, so that a total of 146 blocks were covered by TlNP-I. The poorest districts not covered by ICDS were selected for coverage under TINP-I TINP's main goals were: * to halve malnutrition among children under four years of age; * to reduce infant mortality by 25%; * to reduce vitamin A deficiency in the under fives from about 27% to about 5%; and - 12 - * to reduce anemia in pregnant and nursing women from about 55% to about 20%. The project had four major components: nutrition services, health services, communications, and monitoring and evaluation. The main strategies were to provide food supplements, nutrition education and primary health care to pregnant and lactating women and children (6-36 month); to monitor the growth of children in this age group through monthly weighing and growth charting; and to provide supplementary feeding and health checks to children with growth faltering, as well as intensive counseling to their mothers. To provide these services, nutrition centers staffed by part- time women community nutrition workers were set up in about 9000 villages. They were assisted by local women's groups created under the project; in addition outreach and referral services for health care was improved. TINP-II TINP-Il was designed to cover in a phased manner, 316 of the total 385 rural blocks in Tamil Nadu, with an estimated total population of 32.8 million. The target population was children from birth until six years of age (as against 6-36 month old children in TINP 1) and pregnant and lactating mothers. The goals of TINP-II include: * increasing the proportion of children classified as "nutritionally normal" by 50% in new and 35% in TINP-I areas; * reduction in infant mortality to 55 per thousand live births; * 50% reduction in incidence of low birth weight. With the universalisation of ICDS all the TMNP blocks are being converted into ICDS blocks. The Integrated Child Development Services Scheme (ICDS) Experience gained from ANP and SNP showed that it is important to provide health and nutrition inputs and health and nutrition education as an integrated package of services. Therefore, the ICDS program was initiated in 1975 with the following objectives: - * To improve the health and nutrition status of children 0-6 years by providing supplementary food and by coordinating with state health departments to ensure delivery of required health inputs; * To provide conditions necessary for pre-school children's' psychological and social development through early stimulation and education; * To provide pregnant and lactating women with food supplements; * To enhance the mother's ability to provide proper child care through health and nutrition education; * To achieve effective coordination of policy and implementation among the various departments to promote child development. The anganwadi workers (AWN) provide supplementary food to children under 6 years of age, pregnant and nursing women, pre-school education to children between 3 and 6 years of age and health and nutrition education. Health and family welfare workers (ANM) deliver a package of services including immunization, health check-up, and organize referral services. The target group receiving food supplementation is children between the age of 6 months to 6 years and pregnant and lactating mothers. Efforts are made to provide 300 calories and 10 grams of proteins per child, 500 calories and 15 to 20 grams proteins for pregnant/nursing women and 600 calories and 20 grams of proteins to severely malnourished children as food supplements. It is expected that about 40% of the target population will utilize the services. It was believed that the program will be self-targeting and the poorest and the most needy will access the benefits. Experience gained during the last two decades indicate that the most needy may not access the - 13 - facility and even when they do the food provided acts more as a substitute than as a supplement. The beneficiaries receive the supplements through ICDS infrastructure, which is funded by the Dept. of Women and Child Development. The State Government and UTs meet the cost of food supplements through the State Plan budget. The funding constraints in the states come in the way of regular assured supply of food to the anganwadis. The inputs from the health sector are often suboptimal; referral care for those with severe undemutrition is often not available. ICDS was initiated in 1975 on an experimental basis in 33 blocks. The initial geographic focus was on tribal, drought-prone areas and blocks with a significant proportion of scheduled caste population. Even though the program envisages special targeting towards malnourished children, who are to be given double the quantity of the supplement, in practice most beneficiaries of supplementary feeding are not selected through nutritional screening. Over the last two decades the ICDS coverage has progressively increased. As of 1996, there are 4,200 ICDS blocks with 5,92,571 anganwadis in the country; the number of beneficiaries rose from 5.7 million children and 1.2 million mothers in 1985 to 18.5 million children and 3.7 million mothers in 1996. Evaluation of food supplementation programs The National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau (NNMB) has carried out evaluation of the: 1. Applied nutrition program (1977-78) 2. Vitamin A prophylaxis program (1977-78) 3. Supplementary Nutrition Program(1980-81) 4. World food program assisted supplementary nutrition program (1981-82) 5. Tamil Nadu Integrated Nutrition program Nutrition Foundation of India (NFI) and National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development (NIPCCD) had conducted evaluation of ICDS. Data from the evaluation conducted by NIPCCD indicates that there was a reduction Reasons for lack of improvement in Nutritional status in ICDS in severe CED in ICDS areas from 15.3% areas include: during 1976-78 to 8.7% during 1986-90. The . Inadequate coverage of children below three years of age nutritional status of children in ICDS areas who are at greatest risk of malnutrition; was found to be better than that of children in . Irregularity of food deliveries to anganwadis and hence non-ICDS areas (Fig 1). While 25 percent of irregular feeding and inadequate rations; nursing mothers in ICDS areas introduced a Poor nutrition education (of mothers and communities) to semi-solids supplements to their breast fed improve feeding practices at home; infants at 6 months, only 19 percent did so in * Inadequate training of workers in nutrition, growth non-ICDS areas. These evaluations have monitoring, and communication; shown the gains in terms of improvement in . Poor supervision nutritional status from the ICDS program . Poor co-ordination and linkage with health workers have not been very impressive. . Lack of community ownership and participation One of the major problems responsible for poor performance is the lack of funds from the States for providing food supplements on a regular basis. During the Ninth Plan in addition to the funds that are available through the State Plan and the externally assisted projects, the funds from ACA for BMS will also be available to fill critical gaps. The focus will be on detection of undernourished children and women who will receive available supplements on priority basis. - 14 - ICDS in Ninth Plan The ICDS program is being modified to During Ninth Plan efforts will be made to improve performance eliminate problems identified by the evaluation under ICDS through: studies. During the Ninth Plan every effort will be * Elimination of bottlenecks made a) to eliminate bottlenecks; b) improve the . Improvement in quality and regularity of services * Effective inter-sectoral coordination regularity and quality of services c) ensure effective . Growth monitoring inter sectoral coordination between health, family . Targeted nutritional supplements to children and mothers welfare and nutrition programs. Growth with CED monitoring, targeted nutritional supplemens to * Improvement in Nutrition and health education monitoring, targeted nutfitional supplements to . Active community/ PRI participation children and mothers with CED, nutrition and health education will be intensified through joint coordination of activities of Anganwadi Workers/ANMs; active community/ PRI participation in planning, implementation and monitoring of ICDS activities at village level will be ensured. Mahila Mandals will be actively involved in implementing various supplementary feeding programs. By 2002, it is planned to universalize ICDS program in 5614 blocks with 804671 anganwadis; 57.9 million beneficiaries are to be covered by these anganwadis. The National Nutrition Policy The National Nutrition Policy adopted in 1993 advocates a comprehensive inter-sectoral strategy for alleviating the multi-faceted problem of malnutrition and achieving an optimal state of nutrition for all sections of the society. The Policy seeks to strike a balance between the short term measures like direct nutrition interventions and the long-term measures like institutional/structural changes and thus create an enabling environment and necessary conditions for improving nutritional and health status. The National Nutrition Goals envisaged under the Policy to be achieved by 2000 AD include: reduction in the incidence of moderate and severe malnutrition among pre-school children by half; reduction in the chronic undemutrition and stunted growth among children; reduction in the incidence of low birth weight to less than 10 percent; elimination of blindness due to Vitamin "A" deficiency; reduction in the iron deficiency anaemia among pregnant women to 25%; universal iodization of salt for reduction of iodine deficiency disorders to below the endemic level; due emphasis to geriatric nutrition; annual production of 250 million tonnes of food grains; improving household food security through poverty alleviation programmes; and promoting appropriate diets and healthy lifestyles. National Nutrition Policy Direct Short Term Interventions Indirect Long Term Interventions Universalisation of ICDS Ensuring household food security Nutrition education of mother Improving dietary pattem Better coverage of expectant women Improving purchasing power Reaching the adolescent girls Strengthening PDS Control and elimination of micronutrient Land Reforms malnutrition Better health and family welfare coverage Popularisation of low cost nutritious foods Basic nutrition and health education Fortification of food Nutrition surveillance Universal coverage of IFA, Vit. A and IDD hiformation, education and communication Control Programme Research Education and literacy . Improving status of women - 15 - The Policy also prescribed a series of action points/initiatives to be undertaken by various Ministries/Departments of the Government. Accordingly, a National Plan of Action on Nutrition (NPAN) was formulated in 1995 with sectoral commitments to be undertaken by the 14 nutrition- related Ministries/Departments viz., Agriculture, Food Production, Civil Supplies and Public Distribution, Education, Forestry, Information and Broadcasting, Health and Family Welfare, Labour, Rural Development, Urban Development, Welfare, Women and Child Development etc. The Ministry/Department-wise Action Points, as laid down in the NPAN, are summed up in the following: Sectoral Commitments Under National Plan Of Action On Nutrition (NPANI Sector Sectoral Commitments in the NPAN 1 Agriculture To ensure national level food security including buffer stocks and nutritional considerations in Agricultural policy 2. Civil Supplies & To ensure food security at the household level by making the essential foods available Public Distribution through the Public Distribution System to the people particularly to the disadvantaged sections. 3. Education To provide convergent services under Education Sector to enhance the nutritional and health status of the community with special emphasis on girls' education and improved status of women. 4. Forestry To popularise the growing of plants/trees supplying food stuffs/fruits with special emphasis on Beta carotene (Vitamin A) rich species in the social forestry programmes with a view to create nutritional awareness and promote the consumption of nutritious foods. 5. Health Prevention and control of infections , micronutrient malnutrition, diseases related to inappropriate diets, creating health awareness among the people and ensuring adequate primary health care for all. 6. Family Welfare To improve the nutritional status of women and children through nutrition prophylaxis programmes, health and nutrition education and promotion of small family norm. 7. Food To ensure food security in the country. 8. Food Processing To meet the nutritional needs of the people by giving nutrition orientation to the projects in Industries food processing sector. 9. Information and To create a climate of awareness in the country about the importance of nutrition for the broadcasting well being of the people and ways and means of preventing various forms of malnutrition through its different units 10. Labour To protect and promote the nutrition of various types of labour-agricultural, construction, industrial etc. with special emphasis on children and women at work, through formulation and enforcement of appropriate labour laws. It, Rural Development To improve purchasing power of the people in rural areas through employment generation and poverty alleviation programmes with a view to improve food security at the household level. 12. Urban Development To ensure access to social services relating to health care, nutrition , women and child development, preschool and non-formal education and physical amenities like potable water supply, sanitation, sewerage, drainage etc., with a view to improve the nutritional level of the urban poor. 13. Welfare To improve nutrition of the disadvantaged sections of society by ensuring implementation of nutritional components of various welfare programmes. 14. Women and child To ensure appropriate development of human resources both through direct nutrition development interventions for specially vulnerable groups as well as through various development policy instruments for improved nutrition as laid down in the National Nutritional Policy. Improving nutrition and health of women and children through strengthening and extension of ICDS programme and setting up of appropriate systems for monitoring the follow-up actions under National Plan of Action for Children Source:National Plan of Action on Nutrition (NPAN), Dept. of WCD, Govemment of India, New Delhi, 1995. - 16 - Source: Planning Commission, Ninth Plan 1997-2002, Govermnent of India - 17 - ANNEX C TPDS in Uttar Pradesh: Implementation Difficulties The note summarizes the findings of a qualitative assessment of the implementation performance of the TPDS in Eastern and Southern Uttar Pradesh. The qualitative approach used semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions to analyze the administrative arrangements for the TPDS to investigate the problems contributing to errors of inclusion, exclusion, and leakages in the system. This study is a subcomponent of the 1997-98 UP-Bihar Survey of Living Conditions conducted by the World Bank. Perspectives of Government Officials In their assessment of the TPDS many government officials in the state, district and block level view the program more as an instrument for price stabilization rather than a means to transfer subsidized food grains. Consequence, targeting problems are not seen as a crucial challenge, but rather considered as necessary administrative costs of a program, which fulfills its stabilizing function through its mere existence. Some officials interviewed showed skepticism about the targeting of the PDS and its capacity to improve effectiveness as an anti-poverty program. They indicated several arguments to support this critical view. They mentioned problems in the design of the program which lead to a low interest of poor households in the TPDS: The 10 kg of allocation per household were generally considered as insufficient to give real support to poor households. The low quantity would often not even justify the time the card-holders have to spent to acquire the food grains. In many cases the quality of the food grains supplied by the FPS was so low that even the poorest were not interested in buying it. Liquidity problems of the poor were also mentioned as a major reason for the low interest of poor households in acquiring the subsidized food grains. Small farmers might not be interested in the food grains because they produce for their own consumption. Poor households without land on the other hand often only receive in-kind payments for their daily labor. Both types of poor do not have the necessary cash to buy supplementary food grains and - so conclude many officials - are not interested in the food subsidy anyway. However, this view about the low interest of the poor in attaining subsidized food grain did not match the perspective of the poor themselves. Interviews with the poor indicate a considerable interest in getting access to the subsidized food grains. While there were complaints about the quality of the food grains and accessibility of the shops, this did not appear to decrease the demand for the food grains. In some rare cases BPL cardholders reported liquidity problems but in general all the allocations were lifted at the village level. Supply Problems Unreliability of Supply. A major complaint among villagers was the irregular supply of food grains. These irregularities in supply could occur at different levels. Government officials complained that the supply from the FCI was unreliable and often late. Beyond that loaders in the godowns and lorry drivers often take advantage of bottlenecks in the system to renegotiate their wage. In other cases the physical access to the block godowns or to the FPS might be a problem, especially during the monsoon, when road may be flooded and many villages become inaccessible by car. Diversions of Supplies. Diversions of foodgrain supplies could reportedly occur at points in the supply chain. The food grains could disappear during the storage at the godowns or during transport or at the FPS. There were reportedly cases where a shopkeeper sold the whole allocation directly from the block godown to the free market. The system also provides many possibilities for diversion of grain and where such diversion happens, it is highly likely that some amount of - 18 - collusion between the different agents takes place. This may involve the Gram Pradhan protecting the shopkeeper and certifying that the foodgrains were distributed, even if this did not happen for that a shopkeeper is forced by the supply inspector to certify receipt of food grain even when it did not arrive. There were claims of an instance where the supply inspector threatened to stop further allocations to the shopkeeper if he was not willing to collaborate. Price Premiums over Official Standards. The retail prices of the subsidized food grains in the fair price shops are found to be about 10-14% above the limit set by the Central Government. In some cases shopkeeper just set the prices higher in order to increase their profit margin as running a PDS-shop is in general not a very profitable business. Usually the shop is a side business of the household. The shop operates only some days of a month and the sales do not provide a large margin. The shopkeeper has to lift the quota at the block godown and transport it to his own shop. In many cases selling the food grains at the official price would not leave a margin large enough to cover the costs of transportation. One shopkeeper complained, for example, that he had to pay Rs 2.94 for a kg of wheat and 30 paisa for the transportation. Another shopkeeper reported that he had to pay Rs 3.05 at the block godown. If he had to sell the wheat for Rs 3, he would lose money. He explained: "I am forced to do illegal things." Some shopkeepers might raise the price just to get a reasonable margin. Other shopkeepers reported manipulating their weights or sold other subsidized commodities like kerosene at a higher price. Some of the shopkeepers even felt entitled to divert some of the food grains to the open market which they claimed as necessary to break even. Low quality of food grain. Complaints about the quality of the supplied food grain were very common in the villages visited. During a random check of food grains in the FPS, in 3 out of 4 cases, the quality of the food grains was below the official quality criteria of the government. In one case a quality controller of the FCI certified that the consumption of the grain might be a health hazard. The low quality might be caused by prolonged storage or inadequate storage facilities at the FCI godown. In a random check, the team found food grains in a godown which was older than 4 years, although the godown manager explained that he only distributes grain which is not older than 2 years. Another reason for the loss of quality is the exchange of the original food grain against a lower quality. This could happen at a godown, during transport or in the shops. There were complaints that the original food grains are exchanged against a lower quality or even mixed with stones. Coordination Problems and Fragmented Responsibilities Complex administrative arrangements of the TPDS lead to high coordination costs, as well as to a fragmentation and evasion of responsibilities. On the district and block level five different agencies are involved in the process of procurement of the food grains and its supply to the BPL cardholders. The responsibility oscillates between them several times during the process: it goes from the marketing inspector to the FCI, back to the marketing inspector and to the administration of the regional godown, then to the supply inspector and the BDO (Table C. 1). The constant shift of responsibilities between the different departments is reproduced at the micro level. The team found cases where the transportation of food grains from the FCI godowns to the regional godowns is done by the marketing department whereas the loading of the trucks is organized by the FCI itself. Administrative problems in either of these institutions as well as the presence of strong unions, who took advantage of the monopolistic position of the FCI, led to constant interruptions of the regular supply and transportation of food grains. Weak Accountability and Transparency The complex supply chain requires constant coordination between the different agencies and creates serious constraints for the necessary flow of information. The agencies on the block and district level report to three different departments of the State Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies, as well as to the FCI administration. The different departments operate within different regional - 19 - administrative units. The marketing department divides the state into 19 different regions, which are headed by the Food Controller. The FCI on the other hand has their district managers in 23 different "FCI-districts". In such an arrangement, addressing complaints by the supply inspector about the low quality of the food grain, for example, gets entangled in the maze of inter-connected responsibilities of the FCI, the Marketing Department and the Supply Department. Table C. 1: Official Supply Chain for TPDS Grain in UP Local Responsibility State and District Responsibility Marketing Inspector on Block Level Marketing Department * Procures food grains on the open market on behalf of the government * Regions with Regional Food * Procurement also done by Essential Commodities Corporation and Producer Co- Controllers Operative * Sells food grains to the FCI' * Transports food grains to the FCI godowns FCI on District Level FCI * Storage and supervision of the food grains in own godowvs or transported 23 FCI-District with District Managers godowns * Issues food grains to Regional Food Controller for TPDS and other public programs * Keeps buffer stocks Marketing Inspector on Block Level Marketing Department * Transports stocks from FCI to block godowns * Administrative control of the block godown Block Godowns UP State Food and Essential * Short time storage of food grains for supply to FPS Commodities Corporation * Partly subcontracted, partly handled by the State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Block Development Officer District Administration * Responsible for the survey to determine the BPL cardholders * Gram Pradhan reviews the list of BPL card-holders and verifies the infornation collected by the survey team * BDO decides the final allocation of BPL cards * Receives complaints about supply-problems Supply Inspector on Tehsil Level Supply Department * Distributes the BPL and APL cards * Supervises the bidding to subcontract the storing at the block level * Coordinates and supervises the supply of food grains from block godowns to shops * Supervises election of shop keeper and licenses the FPS * Inspects the shops on a regular basis FPS-Shopkeeper * Lifts the food grains at the block godowns and transports it to his shop * Sells food grains to the cardholders As a result of this fragmentation of responsibility, there was observed a low degree of transparency and accountability among the agencies as well as an elaborated culture of attributing the responsibility for failures to other agencies: irregularities within one's own area were explained as a consequence of the failures of other actors or external pressures. Thus the enforcement of regulations is in general weak and incentives for improvements are low. For example, the theft of food grains could happen at the FCI godown, at the regional godown, during transport, or at the FPS; however, every agency involved can blame the other agencies for the loss, or can argue that external constraints, political pressure, or even threats of violence impede effective performance. For the beneficiaries as well as the supervisory institutions, it is extremely difficult to trace back the person finally responsible for supply-problems especially if their access to reliable information is limited. The system of fragmented responsibilities does not decrease illegal activities or corruption. Theoretically this would be possible because such a system also increases the coordination cost for such activities, as many different actors have to be able to collude. In other words, fragmentation of - 20 - responsibilities could serve as a system of checks and balances. For example, the supply inspector is responsible for the quality and quantity of the supply to the FPS. But villagers send their complaints about supply problems also to the Block Development Officer (BDO). Thus the BDO, who is not directly involved in the supply of food grains, could fulfill a kind of monitoring function. But in the cases the team found, there was hardly any supervision nor any interaction between the BDO and the supply inspector. In some cases the BDO reported supply problems to the Additional District Magistrate at the district level. But as the supply inspector seemed to be politically protected, no measures were taken against him. "That is why the BDO loses his interest and keeps quiet" reported one of respondents. Instead of checks and balances, the current system of fragmented responsibilities creates indifference and inertia. The accountability of the agencies and the enforcement of regulations are in general very weak. In theory, if there are reports about irregularities in the FPS, it is possible that the shop-keeper would lose his license, but the team did not hear of any such cases during the survey. There was one case where the supply inspector cancelled the license of one shop-keeper, it was reported that this was because the shop-keeper refused to collude with him in the misappropriation of food grains. Weak monitoring. The supervision of the states by the central government is based only on self-reported monthly reports sent in by the states, with general information about the supply of bpl households. The guidelines lay down that the regional reallocation of food grains will be based on how effectively the targeted system has been implemented in the different states. However, it is hardly possible to evaluate the effectiveness of the system based merely on these self-reported numbers. There was not a single case where a state was threatened with a reduction of allocation because of their unsatisfactory performance. The officials at the Ministry of Food in Delhi were aware that the numbers reported by the states are often unreliable, but they see no possibility for efficient checks of the provided information. During the course of the field investigations, in cases where the team was able to check the numbers reported at the state, district and block level, the team could not find any inconsistencies which might hide a loss of quantity. The agencies seem to keep their bookkeeping straight. But these numbers, based on the household-survey do not reflect the reality in the villages, where only a fraction of the supply reaches the card-holders. A realistic monitoring system would need to gather field information independently in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the targeting efforts. However, there is no monitoring body at the Central Government which systematically assesses the situation on the ground. There is also no mechanism for the vigilance committees or independent bodies to report directly to the Central Government. The supervision by the supply inspector on the block and village level is in general weak. The supply inspector is supposed to have the final responsibility for the control of quantity and quality supplied to the card-holders. The inspector supervises the regional godown and has a small team to inspect the FPS. In theory, visits should be made to the shops on a regular basis; however, the team found no village where such a supervisory visit had taken place.' The vigilance committees of the PRI comprise some of the same government officials who are supposed to be supervised by these committees. The committee on the block level should supervise the block level operations, where the supply inspector and the BDO are among the main responsible figures. As the supply inspector and BDO are also part of the vigilance committee, this potentially interferes with the independence of the committee. In localities visited, there were no functioning vigilance committee on the district or block level. The authorities in UP report that only 8% of the committees meet on a regular basis But confronted with these observations the supply inspectors pointed at their own limited responsibilities. They accused the BDO of collusion with the gram pradhan and the misallocation of BPL cards or reported about being threatened with violence when he tried to exercise his supervisory function and suspend the license of a shopkeeper. - 21 - (TableC.2). In the villages visited, the committee was formed only by the gram pradhan and one or two other members of the panchayat and neither the BPL card holders, nor representatives of the disadvantaged groups participated in it. The "committee" met in order to certify that the shop received the food grains and distributed it to the card-holders. In such cases, the committee increases the influence of the gram pradhan over the process. TABLE C. 2 MEETINGS OF VIGILANCE COMMIlTEES IN UTTAR PRADESH IN JULY 1998 # of vigilance #of meetings in Percentage of # of units in UP conmnittees July 1998 cormmittees that met FPS 76,719 59,252 4,726 8% Block 904 904 70 8% District 83 83 6 7% Source: Report of the Government of UP to the GOI The BDO and supply inspector visit the villages infrequently so as to receive feedback and complaints from the beneficiaries. This limits the possibilities for intervention by the beneficiaries. Travelling to the block or tehsil to report complaints is often too expensive for the poorest segments of the population, especially if they do not know if their complaint will be acted upon. Inadequate Transparency.The beneficiaries' access to information about quantity, quality, prices, and times of supply was limited in several of the villages visited. Officially the shops are obliged to display all information about the supply at their shops. But this regulation was not enforced in the villages visited nor were people aware of this regulation. As the shop-keeper was the only person who had direct contact with the block godown, the beneficiaries had no way to check if the information about insufficient supply from the block godowns was actually true or not. Neither the beneficiaries nor members of the vigilance committees had access to the block godowns or to the FCI godowns at the district level. Thus the shopkeeper had many possibilities to divert food grains or exchange the quality. The same scheme is often repeated on the block and district level. The shopkeeper might be told at the block godown that there was no supply by the FCI and therefore cannot receive the monthly allocation. The shopkeeper has neither authority nor the mechanism to verify this information. Role of PRIs The analysis of the distribution of BPL cards suggests that the increased responsibility of the village PRI during the identification of beneficiaries had a positive effect on the targeting efforts. Their influence on political decisions at the higher levels, however, is still limited and their independence hardly guaranteed. Source: S. Kriesel and S. Zaidi, 1999, "The Targeted Public Distribution System in Uttar Pradesh, India-An Evaluation," Draft mimeo. - 22 - - 23 - ANNEX D National Program of Nutritional Support for Primary Education: Overview of Operations The National Program for Nutritional Support to Primary Education (NPNSPE) is a centrally sponsored program introduced by the Government of India in 1995-96. Its two principal objectives are to give a boost to universalization of primary education by increasing enrollment and improving retention and attendance and to enhance the nutritional status of school children. The program is designed to benefit children in primary school and absorbs about 60 percent of the Central education budget. The NPNSE is one of the major incentive schemes being implemented across the country to bridge the gap between school enrolment and retention. Despite substantial gains in providing access to primary education, the primary schooling system continues to be characterized by low participation especially girls, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) and children from economically weaker sections, and by low retention and irregular attendance. The NPNSE, as an incentive scheme, is part of the overall strategy for improving enrolment, retention and attendance of children in primary school. The concept of a noon meal program in India dates back to 1925 in the Madras Corporation Area for children belonging to poor families. Subsequently, similar programs whereby meals were to be provided to children were introduced across numerous states at varying periods of time, some with assistance from different international agencies such as UNICEF, FAO, WHO, CRS, CARE, etc. Program benefits. The program provides States with three options for providing nutritional support: (i) cooked meals (100 gms per day) for 200 school days; (ii) pre-cooked meals; or (iii) 3 kgs of wheat/rice per child per month for 10 months. Implementation of each alternative also varies by state. In States opting for cooked meals, the central assistance is limited to provision of foodgrains, vis rice/wheat. Expenditure on other items, such as pulses, oil, fuel, cooking arrangements, is borne by the respective state. Presently, cooked meals are being served in Gujarat, Kerala, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. In Madhya Pradesh, cooked meals are served in EAS blocks, while foodgrain is distributed in others.2 About 22 percent of the NPNSE beneficiaries receive cooked meals. In Delhi and Chandigarh, processed foods (sweet breads) are being distributed. The rest of the States distribute foodgrains. Some states, such as Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Jammu started with providing cooked meals, but due to implementation difficulties faced, shifted to foodgrain distribution. The type of foodgrain distributed varied according to local staple preference. For example, Haryana, Karnataka and Rajasthan distribute rice and wheat, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh distribute one or the other, while Assam and West Bengal provide only rice. The level of food provision has been fixed by the Committee on NPNSPE established at the Central Govemment level under the chairmanship of the Education Secretary. The basis for fixing the provisions was the estimated additional nutritional value required by children in the primary school age group in order to meet their nutritional dificiency. A higher provision of foodgrains relative to cooked meals is provided, with the recognition that the foodgrains would be shared by the family. The mechanism for distributing foodgrains varies considerably by State. In Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradhes and Kamataka, teachers distribute foodgrain coupons to eligible students each month. 2 In addition, a State mid-day meals scheme in Madhya Pradesh for school children in the age group of 6-14 called "Madhyana Bhojan" was started in 1995 in the tribal blocks. - 24 - These coupons are redeemable at Fair Price Shops operated as part of the Public Distribution System. In Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, foodgrains were stored in Fair Price Shops. Today, it covers schools in all states and union territories3 using up more than half of the union budget for primary education. The Ninth Five Year Plan (1997-2002) proposed to universalize the scheme to all rural blocks and urban slums, and disadvantaged sections within the country/states and union territories. The costs for this outreach was estimated to be in the order of Rs. 22.26 billion (at 1997-98 constant prices). The central support under NPNSPE is on (i) provision of food-grains, free of costs, and (ii) reimbursement of transportation cost for food-grains. In case cooked meals are provided, the state has to arrange for additional food such as pulses and oil and pay for food preparation. The eligibility criteria of the nutritional support for a student is generally a minimum class attendance rate of 80 %. Institutional Design Central Level Implementing Agencies. The NPNSPE is implemented by the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). In view of the broad scope of the program, 67 additional posts in the MHRD were to be created for program implementation. However, currently, it is being managed by the Joint Secretary, Elementary Education (as an additional responsibility), the Director Mid-Day Meals and a Section Officer. MHRD is responsible for sanctioning the amount of foodgrain for a particular state based on district wise information received from the States. The enrollment details as of September 30 of the previous year are used to calculate the grain requirement for the next academic year. Regular updating of enrollment figures, however, have not been met in some states. In Haryana and Assam, for instance, enrollment figures and thus the foodgrain allocations have not been adjusted since inception. The requisitions for the 10 month foodgrain requirement are then sent by MHRD to the central office of FCI, which are subsequently transmitted to FCI's regional and district depots and the District level state goverrnent representative who in most cases is the District Collector (Table 1). The District Collector is responsible of instructing the lifting agency4 to collect the months requirement of foodgrains from the designated FCI district level depot. The cost of total liftings are then compiled by FCI and submitted to the MHRD for reimbursement. MHRD is also responsible for reimbursing the cost of transportation incurred at different levels for lifting and transporting the foodgrain to the school. Delays in reimbursement to FCI for foodgrains received have contributed to the smooth functioning of the NPNSPE. In August and September 1998, FCI stopped the supply of foodgrains due to delays in payment. State Level Implementing Agencies. The mechanism for implementing the program varieds by state (Table 1). In many states, the Department of Education or Primary Education is responsible for implementing the program. In other states where the designated department is other the the Education Department (Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan), the necessary linkages are development between the two departments. The State nodal agency is responsible for compiling the enrolment figures,5 monitoring foodgrain utilization, number of beneficiaries and the financial details of the program. State level monitoring committees are supposed to be constituted to over see and monitor the program. However, in Haryana and Rajasthan, the committees are not functional. In other states, they have not been constituted. Lakshadweep is not included in the program. The designated lifting agency is generally the State Civil Supplies Corporations or Department. In Madhya Pradesh, enrolment details are sent directly to the MHRD, bypassing the State nodal agency. - 25 - Table 1: Administrative Structure for NPNSPE Implementation in Selected States State Nodal Agency . State Level District Level Block/Panchayat Level Assam Dept of Elementary Education District Collector/District Elementary Block Elementary Education Education Officer Officer/Gram Panchayat SS Gujarat Dept of Education Deputy Collectors MamlatdarlDeputy Hemlatdar Haryana Dept of Primary Education District &Additional District Collector with Block Education Officer District Primary Education Officer Jammu Directorate of Education Deputy District Collector & Additional Zilla Education Officer/Tchsil Supply Director Civil Supplies Officer Kamataka Dept of Education Deputy Director Public Instructions Block Education Officer Madhya Pradesh Dept of Rural Development and District Collector with Zilla Panchayat and Block Education Officer/Cluster Panchayat Raj' Chief Executive Officer Resource Person Orissa Dept of Women & Child District Collector with Social Welfare Officer Block Development Officer/Social 1 Development Education Organizer Rajasthan Dept of Rural Development ) District Collector/Chief Executive Officer Block Development Officer Uttar Pradesh Dept of Education District Collector/Basic Shiksha Adhikari Sub-District Inspector/Asst. Basic Shiksha Adhikari West Bengal Dept of Education District Magistrate/District Inspector (Primary Block Sub-ispector Education) administers primary rural schools In the case of States providing cooked meals, the nodal agency at the State level sanctions other food materials like oil, pulses, vegetables and other ingredients. These are forwarded to district level authority, who subsequently authorizes the designated nodal agency to procure the food materials and transports them to the schools. Generally the vegetables are purchased by the teachers according to the amount sanctioned. The lack of synchonization between the supplies of foodgrains (under central allocation) and other cooking ingredients (under state provision) in some cases cause problems in the effective implementation of the program. Village Level Implementation. At the village level, teachers are responsible for a number of activities. They collect and compile enrollment data for transmission to the Block level, key records of foodgrain received and distributed, and distribute the foodgrain or cooked meal (with the help of a cook/helper) to students. In Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka where a coupon system is implemented, they sometimes take the students to the Fair Price Shop. In Jammu and Rajasthan, they collect the foodgrains from the cluster school or pay center. Such a system, however, affected timely lifting of foodgrains as the teachers had to identify the contractors to transport the foodgrain. Ceilings on transportation cost (Rs 500/mt) reimbursement posed further difficulties in recruiting contractors. The quality of the services at the school level varies enormously, depending on the state, the functioning of 'upper level' NPNSPE implementation, the involvement of parents or village institutions, and, above all, on the individual teacher. Often teachers seem to be overburdened when almost the entire task of NPNSPE implementation at school level lies on their shoulders. Particularly difficult seems to be the application of the eligibility criteria of the program, which calls for an attendance rate of at least 80 %. Less than half of the teachers claimed to adopt this criteria for the distribution of food grain (ORG 1999, p.111.22). Local bodies, such as the Village Education Committees (VECs) and Gram Panchyats were envisaged to participate in the implementation of the program. Desk Committees were envisaged to create awareness about the program, to help in the distribution process and to play a monitoring and supervisory role. The ORG 10 State study (1999) found that VECs were formed in most villages only in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. Gram Panchayats have been formed in most villages in Gujarat, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh. However, the study also found that the role of these village institutions in the implementation of the NPNSPE have been limited According to the ORG (1999) study, general awareness and statement of support by village community members for NPNSPE was very high (90%), but less than two thirds (64%) of 6 The ten states included Assam, Gujarat, Haryana, Jammu, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. - 26 - VECs or Gram Panchayats were undertaking activities to promote primary education in their village. Active participation was found in only about half of these 64% and was limited to presence at day of food-grain distribution; in case cooked meals are prepared, very little involvement of villagers in the cooking of meals was observed. Moreover, the extent of stakeholders' involvement is very limited not only at the community level, but also the students themselves hardly help with the distribution of food-grain (only 7% according to ORG, 1999) or preparation of meals (36%). Only 29% of all respondents of the ORG (1999) study reported a formal monitoring of NPNSPE at village level. A stylized flow chart of food-grain, information and funds is given in Figure 1.The chart reflects the situation in states which opted for the distribution of food-grains. This is the preferred option of most states. Convergence with Other Programs. The ORG 10 state study found that there is no coordination between the ICDS providing mid day meals to pre-schoolers and NPNSPE. Gujarat, however, is an exception where linkages between the NPNSPE and State micro-nutirient programs have been developed so that supply of medicines, Vitamin A, and iron tablets are being given to the children with the mid-day meal. Effectiveness of Foodgrain Delivery System. The delivery system for the NPNSPE tended to operate better where a single agency was involved in the movement of foodgrains with support from organizers/community members or mobile vans as in Orissa, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Kamataka and West Bengal. In states such as Madhya Pradesh, Assam, and Jammu, involvement of multiple agents led to delays in delivery. In Rajasthan, Jammu and Orissa, transportation cost ceilings increased the complexity of hiring contractors for teachers contributing to delays Allocation of Grain. States are granted foodgrain allocations based on their enrollment figures. An analysis of the proportion of allocated grains lifted in the last 3-4 years by ORG of 10 states show that less than three-fourth of the allocated grain are lifted by the states (Table 2). Table 2:Utilization of Allocated Foodgrains in Selected States. Percentage of Allocated Foodg ain Lifted State 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99' Assam 67 28 40 2 Gujarat 70 64 23 17 Haryana 100 95 75 18 Jammu 43 40 - - Kamataka 77 64 83 17 Madhya Pradesh 97 79 73 21 Orissa 99 62 80 43 Rajasthan 86 55 75 10 Uttar Pradesh 85 96 93 22 West Bengal 63 65 70 13 Total 75 70 71 19 Note: aI 1998/99 figures are lower due to FCI stoppage of foodgrain delivery in September to November 1998 due to non- reimburse of costs by MHRD. Source: ORG, 1999 - 27 - FIGURE 1: STYLIZED FOOD GRAIN, INFORMATION, AND FUND FLOW OF NPSNPE Center MHRD FCI Level Dept. of Education headquarter FCI regional and State State Nodal Agen4y subregional offices Level e.g. Dept. of Edudation t , FCI District Offices FCI District Depots District District Education Officer Level District Collector Block Block Education Officer loc Block Development Officer Agent(s) for Leve .~~~~~~~~~~~Transportation Village Level / School i; Gram Sabha School Level Teacher Village Education Committee Students * Information, Orders ................. . .* Funds ---------- P- * Grain Source: Adapted from ORG (1999). Source: Operations Research Group, UNICEF (1999): Evaluation Study to Assess the efficiency and Effectiveness of the National Programme for Nutritional Support to Primary Education in Ten States of India, Final Report, July 1999. - 28 - - 29 - ANNEX E: The Design,Implementation And Impact Of Food Stamp Programs: A Review of and Lessons From International Experience Food stamps have been used for a variety of reasons in developing and developed countries. Most programs have sought to increase food availability and consumption by target groups who, for the most part, have comprised the poor and vulnerable. In most cases, food stamps were introduced at the beginning or during a period of economic adjustment that reduced general food price subsidies, increased taxes and applied other measures to reduce fiscal deficits and restore macroeconomic balance. The objective of food stamp programs was to protect vulnerable groups from the adverse effects of these measures on real incomes and food consumption. In other cases, such as the USA, food stamps were introduced as a way to combat hunger and malnutrition among the poor. Recently, food stamps or direct income transfers have been used in social safety nets, and to promote social objectives such as the education of poor children who drop out of school to work and help sustain their families. While many food stamp programs were introduced as temporary programs during economic adjustment (or to replace general price subsidies) many continued even after the worst effects of the economic adjustment have passed. There are at least three reasons for this. The first is the significant savings obtained by FSP relative to previous price subsidy programs, in part, as a result of reductions in beneficiary populations and, in part, as a result of inflation, as food stamp nominal values have not been adjusted by inflation. This provided a politically expedient way to reduce food subsidy expenditures. The second is that FSP can be an efficient means to transfer support/income to poor and vulnerable groups in comparison to other means such as in-kind food assistance, which may have higher administrative costs. The third is that FSP was used as an incentive to promote use or consumption of other social programs that have positive externalities and/or produce savings in other government expenditures. This occurred with health promotion and illness prevention measures -- pre-natal checks ups, vaccinations for mothers and children-- which not only benefit mothers and young children, but may reduce curative health expenditures significantly. Also, food stamp programs were conditioned on school attendance by children to lower repetition rates and improve school performance. A Review of Selected Country Experiences: Following is a brief review of the salient features of food stamp programs implemented in a number of countries, including Jamaica, Sri Lanka, Honduras, Mexico, the United States of America, Venezuela, and Colombia A summary review of six of these programs is in matrix form in Annex I, at the end. Jamaica Jamaica implemented a national Food Stamp Program (PSP) in 1984 to mitigate the impact of reductions in general food price subsidies in response to major macroeconomic reform on poor and vulnerable groups. An additional longer-term program objective was to combat hunger and malnutrition among the poorest and most vulnerable groups in the population. By 1997, over 270,000 people (about 7.5% of the population) were benefiting from the program. Beneficiary groups include pregnant and lactating mothers (from pregnancy until six months after birth) and children less than six years of age. These groups are identified and registered at health clinics and centers and are required to have regular health check ups before receiving food stamps. Other beneficiaries include the elderly poor and disabled people, and single and multiple member households whose annual incomes are below an established threshold level. This level varied over time as a result of partial adjustment to compensate for inflation. In 1996, the threshold level was about 40% of the minimum wage. - 30 - Beneficiary food stamp purchases are limited to specific food items selected on the basis of nutritional content, customary consumption by the population, and in-kind food assistance provided by international donors, such as the United States of America (under PL480 assistance), the World Food Program (WFP) and countries, such as Canada. In-kind bi-lateral and multi-lateral food aid assistance is sold in the open market in Jamaica, and the proceeds are used to partially finance the stamp program. Food stamps can be used to purchase rice, cornmeal, skimmed milk and wheat flour. These foods were chosen because they are important for the poor, representing 12.5% and 10.0% of food budgets of the first and second lowest income quintiles of the population, in the Survey of Living Conditions in 1988. Cornmeal, flour and rice, in that order, were also found to be the most efficient providers of calories per dollar of food purchase, in nutrition studies. There are several issues that have affected program operations since 1984. The first, is the rapid erosion in real stamp values, as these have not been adjusted in line with inflation. From 1990 to 1996, stamp values dropped by over 40%, affecting primarily the value of stamps provided to children less than 6 years of age and mothers. The value of stamps provided to the elderly poor and disabled dropped by a smaller percentage, in those years. Overall, as a percentage of the cost of a low-income basket calculated by the government, the value of stamp subsidies declined from 7.2% in 1991 to 2.8% in 1996, the latest year for which information is available. A second issue is the not insignificant program management difficulties owing to the lack of a functional management information system. There are difficulties registering beneficiaries (especially women and small children at health clinics), removing them from the rolls (after the lactation period and when children attain 6 years of age), and in distributing and cashing of food stamps. Despite the small and declining value of stamps, the program appears to be have had some important impacts, especially on the elderly population over 60 years who constitute about 37% of all stamp beneficiaries. Additionally, they have suffered less from declines in food stamp value between 1990 and 1996. Recent reviews of the program (Anderson 1998) indicate that the FSP was effective in reaching the poor, particularly the poorest of the poor. The 1996 Survey of Living Conditions shows that 15.3% of the individuals in the poorest consumption quintile received food stamps, in contrast to 2.9% of the highest quintile. Ezemanari and Subbarao found that although the program had no effect on the percent of the population in poverty, it has significantly reduced the amount by which the income of the poor households fall below the poverty line. Despite these favorable effects in poverty reduction, the effect with regards to nutrition is not a strong. While food stamp transfers significantly increase food expenditures; in the case of nutritional status, Anderson (1998) finds that malnourished children under 5 were significantly less likely to be enrolled in the FSP than children of normal weight for age.This problem has highlighted the lack of coordination between the Ministry of Health clinics and centers and the Food Stamp Program Administration in both identifying and registering malnourished children, and to the self-selection element incorporated in the registration process. Malnourished children, among the poorest of the poor, may not be participating due to lack of information and/or lack of time due to the cumbersome bureaucratic procedures involved in registration, among other reasons. Recent studies have recommended pro-active involvement of program administration officials in searching for and registering malnourished children even when they are older than six years of age. Sri Lanka Sri Lanka was one the first developing countries to introduce a well-designed food stamp program, at the end of 1979. The program was designed to replace expensive general food price subsidies and subsequently ration coupons, which had existed since the 1940s, with a lower cost direct subsidy program targeted to needy beneficiaries. By 1989, over 8.0 million people (about 50% of the population) were participating in the program. Eligible people were selected on the basis of family income (SR$300 or US $ 20 dollars, in 1979, when the program started). This limit was - 31 - adjusted several times, although by much less than inflation, until the food stamp program was phased out in the early 1990s. Beneficiaries were supposedly restricted in their choice of foods. Qualifying foods included rice, paddy, flour, bread, sugar, milk products and locally produced pulses, but, in practice, beneficiaries purchased many other food items with stamps, according to studies of purchase patterns. However, the bulk of food stamp purchases, some 75%, were rice, the main staple food. Program operations were affected by a number of issues from the beginning. The first, was the rapid erosion of stamp values. By 1981/82, only two years after program initiation, the real value of stamps was little more than 50% of the original value. The second, was the governmenit's inability, despite several attempts, to achieve its stated objectives of targeting subsidies to the needy and vulnerable. According to government calculations, needy groups comprised only 20-25% of the overall population, or about 3.5 million in 1989, yet there were some 8.0 million beneficiaries. Consequently, in order to contain program expenditures, the government allowed food stamp values to be eroded by inflation. If program subsidies had been directed only to the poor, a substantial nominal increase in the value of food stamps for this population could have been made. In 1984, food stamps were adequate to buy 7-10 days of food needs, according to a recipient attitude survey conducted in that year. In the 1980-82 consumption survey, nearly 30% of the poorest quintile did not participate in the program, while 45% of the fourth and 20% of the fifth quintiles were participating in the program. Program participants in most quintiles received similar per capita transfers with the exception of the richest quintile which received a per capita transfer about 9% larger than the rest. Some of the reasons for exclusion of poor families and inclusion of the rich include misclassification of income and the absence of recourse for appeals and reclassifications. Once initial classifications were made, beneficiary rolls were closed for some years. The impact of the food stamp program on nutrition indicators appears to have been modest. According to consumer surveys, food stamps covered only 20-25% of food needs for a family of four. Food consumption behavior in Sri Lanka indicated, however, that when food was scarce, adult working members ate first, to be able to work, with women and children last. Thus, as is the case in other countries, food stamps need to be complemented with special programs, such as nutrition education, designed for women and children and other vulnerable groups, to have a significant nutritional impact. Of course, if food stamps were targeted to only the poorest of the poor, say the poorest 20%, given the same overall public budget, food transfers would have been larger covering a larger share of family food needs. Reducing the number of beneficiaries further to target only the neediest population, however, was politically difficult in Sri Lanka. Despite these problems the food stamp program did result in a significant reduction in the fiscal cost of food assistance programs in the country. In 1978-79, prior to the food stamp program, food subsidies in the form of universal price subsidies and food rations were estimated at 5% of GDP and 15% of government expenditures, contributing to significant macroeconomic imbalances. By 1984, costs of the food stamp program represented approximately 1.3% of GDP and 3% of government expenditures. The reductions occurred, in part, because the beneficiary population was reduced to 50% - down from 100% when price subsidies were in place - one year before the food stamp program was introduced, and, in part, because of the rapid erosion in value of stamps with inflation. Because of the government's inability to reduce the beneficiary population, it was reluctant to adjust nominal values of stamps in line with inflation when the program was in operation. MEXICO Mexico has been experimenting with direct food support programs since the 1980s as a way of improving food assistance to the poor and vulnerable groups, replacing costly food price subsidies, - 32 - and dismantling direct food purchases by government entities. First was the Tortibono -food coupon- program, introduced in the late 1980s, that provided free of charge one kilogram of tortilla per day per family. This started replacement of general price subsidies on maize with direct subsidies to targeted poor families. Selected families were given a coded card that could be read at authorized food shops in selected areas. In 1997, the Tortibono program distributed 47 million kilograms of tortilla per month to 1.9 million families located in over 1000 urban and 400 rural localities of all 31 States in the country and the Federal District of Mexico City. There were 13,000 registered shopkeepers nationwide. Beneficiaries are selected on the basis of a proxy means test that combines information on housing quality, availability of basic services and family income. In 1997, the fiscal cost of the program amounted to 89 million pesos monthly or $mx 1,068 million (US$ 135 million) annually. There is little known about the impact of this program on food consumption of the poor, and even less on whether the program has had any nutritional impact. The second program was an integrated food support and health and nutrition program introduced as a pilot in Campeche State in 1995-1996. The program sought to replace the tortibono subsidy and other in-kind food subsidies, such as the milk subsidy, with a cash transfer to buy a food basket. The main objectives of the pilot program were to test logistical arrangements, including coordination of different government agencies providing food assistance to the poor, evaluate administrative costs and study whether other benefits, such as basic health care, could be linked to transfers of food. This program, which served over 32,000 families in three urban localities of the State, was an improvement over the tortibono program. It allowed a greater variety of foods to be purchased and thus enhanced consumer choice. It also linked food assistance to health and nutrition interventions for pregnant and lactating mothers and small children. The program provided a monthly cash allowance of 125 new Mexican pesos (about US$ 17) for a family -irrespective of family size- programmed in a "smart" card given to beneficiary women (spouses or female household heads) for the purchase of selected food items at authorized stores. Cards were recharged when beneficiaries certified they had fulfilled the required health monitoring every month. Evaluations made by the Instituto Tecnologico de Mexico (ITAM) with the Fideicomiso para la Liquidacion del Subsidio a la Tortilla (Fidelist) of a longitudinal sample of beneficiaries showed good results of the pilot project. Beneficiaries were happy to have a greater food choice, shopkeepers were having no major problems in reading smart cards and health posts were meeting the increased demand from women and children rather expeditiously (ITAM-Fidelist, 1996). The third program is the Progresa program introduced in mid-1 997 to combat poverty through integrated family interventions with education, health and feeding programs. Families are selected using a two stage means testing progress. In the first stage the poorest localities are selected on the basis of census information on basic sanitary services, schools, health facilities, dispersed populations and other socioeconomic indicators. In the second stage the poorest families in those selected localities are chosen on the basis of family information on quality of housing, public services, literacy, occupation, disability of family members and income.8 In education, Progresa provides money assistance to families to purchase food and school supplies for young children attending from the third grade of primary school to the third grade in secondary school, which were found to be the grades with the highest levels of drop outs. Girls get a premium in their allocations to reduce their higher drop out rates than those of boys. The value of the money transfer to parents and children amounts to about 15% of the estimated income produced by children who drop out of school (GOM, 1998). School upgrading and teacher training is also part of the program. In health, a basic health care package containing mother-child pre-natal and well-baby care, and nutrition and hygiene education is provided to enrolled poor families. In-kind food supplements that meet about 20% of caloric needs and up to 100% of micronutrient (iron, zinc, vitamins B 12, C, Most of the information provided in this paragraph was obtained from www.sedesol.gov.mx See G6mez De Leon (1998) - 33 - D, among others) needs are also provided to pregnant women, undernourished mothers and children, and children at risk of malnutrition. The program also includes improvement of public primary health care infrastructure especially in rural areas where the program started. With respect to family food subsidies, Progresa provides an income transfer in the form of a check or wire transfer where no banks are nearby, to complement family income. An accompanying program of nutrition education with community participation seeks to ensure that additional income improves food intake and nutrition of family members, especially children and pregnant and lactating mothers. By the end of 1998 Progresa is expected to have covered 1.9 million of the poorest families in 48,000 localities in 28 (out of 31 States). To receive the income support, families are required to show that they have attended health centers and clinics for the required health checkups for all family members (according to established age-gender frequencies) nutrition and hygiene education, and that beneficiary children of school age are attending school regularly. In summary, Progresa provides direct cash income and in-kind food support to the poorest families to help them meet their basic food needs and get critical health and education services to enhance human capital investments. Direct cash assistance is designed to supplement family income and can be spent on any food item. This cash assistance, 235 Mexican pesos in 1997, is estimated to be about 34% of money income for an average poor family. Because it is assumed that women are more concerned about food needs of the family and children, all money income assistance -- scholarships and cash food assistance-- is given to the mother, every two months. The program so far appears successful in meeting stated objectives. The Government plans a major evaluation of the program, with support from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), in 1999. HONDURAS Faced with economy-wide structural adjustment, Honduras implemented two food stamp programs in 1990 to protect food consumption of the poorest people during the adjustment. One was the Food Stamp Program for poor primary school children (Bono Escolar, BE), distributed through primary schools in selected areas of the country. The other was the Food Stamp Program for young children (0-5 years old) and pregnant and nursing mothers (Bono Matemo Infantil, BMI) distributed at health posts and centers in selected poor areas. The programs were administered by an autonomous government agency, the Programa de Asignacion Familiar, PRAF. By 1991, the BE program was benefiting over 125,000 school children while the BMI program was benefiting over 56,000 small children and pregnant and nursing mothers. The program continues until today (1998), but little recent information on the program was available. The World Bank is planning an evaluation study in 1999. Beneficiaries of the food stamp programs can purchase any food they want, school supplies and medicines. According to early studies of the programs, most food stamp recipients spent over 80% of food stamp benefits on food. Only a few expenditures were made on school supplies and medicines. Both programs --originally implemented in non-overlapping areas of the country-- financed 17-20% of food requirements of beneficiaries in 1991-92. Both programs have been financed, at one time or another, by international organizations, including the World Food Program (WFP), which agreed to monetize some in-kind food donations, the USAID, the Regional Unit for Technical Assistance in Agriculture (RUTA II) and the World Bank. The World Bank supported financing of the BMI pilot project under the Social Investment Fund Project (FHIS), started in 1991. A number of challenges have occurred since program inception. First the low administrative capacity of PRAF to administer the programs --register beneficiaries, print, distribute, redeem and dispose of stamps, budgeting and accounting-- given there was no previous experience in these matters. Second a slow response by health centers and posts to register and meet the increased demand for growth monitoring and vaccination activities for children, a requirement for program participants in order to receive benefits. Third, there was an absence of program monitoring and - 34 - evaluation activities. PRAF appears to have made, and still is making, efforts to correct most of these problems. PRAF expects to improve distribution of stamps by using NGOs, instead of teachers and health workers who were complaining about the additional work. Additionally, PRAF is about to begin, with support from the Inter American Development Bank (IDB), a program to improve the supply side of the program (health centers, posts, and schools).9 According to a recent preliminary review, the PRAF program seems to be transparent, self- critical and adaptable (McGuire, 1998). Three issues cause concern. First, many observers are concerned that by targeting malnourished children, as opposed to identifying those at risk, the program is rewarding bad behavior. Second, there appears to be a serious problem with compliance with participation requirements (especially with regard to health care visits by pregnant mothers and children, and vaccinations). These supply side problems may indicate the difficulties in combining what is essentially an income transfer program with health and nutrition objectives. Third, the PRAF program is now perceived as an entitlement program which is available to everyone with a malnourished child living in a poor community, on a permanent basis. This may be a disincentive to self-reliant behavior. However, given PRAF has not formally evaluated the impact of the program, it is difficult to say how widespread the problems illuminated above are or whether, in spite of the problems, the program has been successful. An evaluation done by USAID in 1995 found, for instance, that food stamps were more effective than food handouts at increasing school attendance and advancement, but that food handouts were more effective than stamps in increasing utilization of preventive health care (Rogers et al, 1995). UNITED STATES The United States established its first coupon-based food subsidy system in the Food Stamp Act of 196410. The main purpose was to help low income families and individuals meet their basic nutritional needs by ensuring that they were able to buy a nutritionally adequate low cost diet (Kuhn et al. 1996). Food stamp recipients are free to purchase any food they want. In terms of fiscal cost, the food stamp program in the US is one of the largest federal programs. In 1995 the federal government spent over $24 billion; an additional $3.2 billion in administrative costs was spent by states and local governments. Administrative costs are composed of issuance costs, distribution by mail or over the counter, management and updating of beneficiary rolls, and redemption and final disposition of stamps by the federal reserve. In 1995, the latest year for which information was available, the program had about 27 million beneficiaries per month -- including 14 million children-- at a total cost of over 24 billion dollars to the federal budget. One reason for political support for food stamps beyond the agricultural lobby is that food stamps have been found to increase food consumption by beneficiaries even beyond what is expected theoretically from an equivalent value income transfer. The marginal propensity to consume food (MPC) out of FS is estimated to range from 0.20-0.45, based on a review of more than 17 studies of the effect of food stamps on consumption and nutrient intake in the US (Fraker, 1990). By contrast, the marginal propensity to consume food out of income is only about 0.12. Stamps provide a significant amount of support for different low-income groups. For instance, food stamps amount to McGuire (1998) 10 Food stamps were introduced during the depression of the 1930s with the purpose not only of providing food for the needy but also to reduce surplus of agricultural commodities that had been accumulated by the federal government as a result of support to farmers. Food stamps were termiinated in 1943 and were introduced again in the Food Stamp Act of 1964 (Fraker, 1990). - 35 - 25-50% of the money income of a family composed of a mother and two children, depending on the state's other transfers, such as the AFDC (Fraker et al., 1995).11 Several changes have occurred in the program in recent years. With the purpose of increasing participation by the poorest, the requirement to buy stamps for a specified amount to be able to receive "bonus" stamps was eliminated, and national eligibility standards were set in 1971.2 In 1995, major changes were introduced by the Personal Responsibility Act (PRA). Under this Act, states and local governments would be able to experiment with alternative forms of delivering food subsidies to make the program more efficient and reduce administrative costs. One issue which is greatly debated by policy makers and academicians is the possible effects of cashing out the program, that is to say, distribute money via checks (cash) instead of stamps, on food consumption by beneficiaries. Proposals for cashing out the program have been introduced as a way of reducing administrative costs by several states and municipalities, since the beginning of the 1990s. Proponents of cash out cite several benefits including lower administrative costs (especially if money is distributed along with other cash programs, such as the Aid for Families with Dependent Children), loss due to theft, redemption costs, less stigma and more freedom and responsibility for beneficiaries. Opponents argue that household food consumption would drop13, cost savings will be small, and that political support from the public, farm producers and other groups will be reduced (Kuhn et al., 1996: Levedahl, 1995: Fraker et al., 1995: Devany-Fraker, 1995). Recent evaluations of four demonstration experiments involving cashout in four sites in three states (California, Alabama, Washington) appear to indicate that if cash, instead of stamps, was given to beneficiaries, food consumption will drop from 18 to 28 cents per dollar of cashout. This effect on food consumption by the poor has to be weighted against the savings obtained from the change to issuing checks (Fraker-Marini-Ohls, 1995). The discussion of the effect of cash out on food consumption is relevant in the USA where the income support in food stamps is a large share of expenditures on food. It is probably less relevant in many developing countries where beneficiaries receive only a modest income supplement in food stamps. In the USA, benefits per beneficiary population (Adult Male Equivalent, AME) vary widely among localities and states, but based on the experiments cited, monthly benefits per AME amount to 72-78 dollars or about 56-70% of monthly mean expenditure on food. In developing countries that share normally is much less than 20%. VENEZUELA Venezuela introduced a direct income support program to protect poor families from food price increases which occurred at the beginning of the 1990s owing to a reduction in general food price subsidies to balance macroeconomic accounts. The subsidy --the Beca Alimentaria-- was given to all families with children attending pre-primary and primary education regularly. The subsidy consisted of three coupons --one to obtain two kilograms of powdered milk, one to obtain I Another important social program, available to some of the poorest food stamp recipients, is the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). The program seeks to improve nutrition of pregnant women and their babies and children by providing them food supplements, nutrition education and primary health care. Mothers receive food baskets containing specific high nutrition foods prescribed according to needs or special food stamps for purchasing those foods in the market place. Evaluations of the program found that while overall consumption of food did not increase, consumption of the WIC prescribed foods did increase. Also, nutritional benefits were observed in termns of weight gains by mothers and children. More information can be found in Research Triangle Institute (1986). 12 When the requirement to pay to get food stamps was eliminated, the amount of the transfer was consequently reduced to have the same net transfer as before in stamps. The justification of having beneficiaries paying a contribution for stamps is to increase overall food consumption by the family. This is, however, rarely implemented by and large because of administrative problems and the danger of excluding the poorest populations. 13The marginal propensity to consume food out of stamps is larger than the marginal propensity to consume food out of cash. - 36 - four kilograms of precooked wheat flour and four kilos of rice, and one money coupon for an amount of Bls. 500 per child, up to a maximum of three children. In 1996, the program was restructured to amalgamate all three coupons into a single transfer --Subsidio Unico Familiar-- of about US$ 12 per child per month, which can be used to buy a variety of foods by the family. The subsidy -- in the form of vouchers -- is distributed by teachers through the school system. Parents can cash them out at participating banks nationwide. The objectives of the new program are to provide income support to poor and vulnerable families to enable them to meet basic needs and promote school attendance by pre-primary and primary school children. The target population is families with school children living in poor neighborhoods in the cities, in rural areas, and indigenous populations in frontier regions. Teachers select beneficiary children at schools. In 1997, more than 2.8 million children were beneficiaries of the program --about 90% of school enrollment-- at a fiscal cost of Bs. 172,299 million (about US$ 350 million per year). Major problems of the program are obviously targeting of beneficiaries --in effect the program is almost universal-- and high administrative costs. In 1997 administrative costs, including commissions for participating banks, were 27% of program budgets, which is too high for an untargeted program such as this one. The program appears to be very popular, ranking among the highest, in terms of consumer support among the array of social programs of Venezuela. COLOMBIA Colombia introduced a food coupon program to accompany an Integrated Nutrition Improvement Project, supported by the World Bank, in 1975. The project contained, in addition to coupons, investments in primary health care infrastructure and equipment, basic sanitation, and nutrition education and information. The coupon permitted selected beneficiaries (poor mothers and small children) to obtain specified processed foods with high nutritional content, including precooked corn, flour, vegetal mixes, pasta or noodles, texturized vegetal proteins and soya flour. Beneficiary families were those unable to buy a minimum food basket with their own monthly income. The coupon program, which was under the National Feeding Program (Programa Alimentario Nacional, PAN), distributed 64.8 million coupons to about 420,000 beneficiaries during the 1975-81 period. Among the beneficiaries, the program was highly thought of A national survey of coupon recipients indicated that 90% of them considered the program to be an important economic assistance. Almost 60% thought it has increased their food supply.t4 Only 1% found it useless. One problem with the program, especially in latter years, was that because it expanded coverage rapidly without increases in budget allocations, the amount of the transfer became only 1% of monthly family income. In terms of nutrition, the impact appears to have been limited due to the small size of the transfer, the fact that processed foods in the program were too expensive (about 0.80/1,000 calories in 1981 prices) and food quality problems (World Bank, 1988). Despite its early success, the program was phased out in 1981 at the beginning of a new administration. In addition to a change in priorities of the new government, beneficiaries --mostly women and children-- lacked the political support to maintain the program."5 DESIGNING FOOD STAMP PROGRAMS Several lessons in designing food stamp programs could be drawn from the country experiences described above. These include: Establishing clear program objectives (income support, food security, incentives to attract people to other programs, nutrition improvements, etc.). Also, establishing the means by which the program is to be monitored and evaluated. 14 Cited in World Bankl 988. 15 A review of the political economy aspects of why the program was discontinued is in Uribe (1985). - 37 - Determining specific target populations, the means to identify them, and exit mechanisms. For example, if geographical targeting is used, determine the criteria to select areas, regions, etc. If targeting is by means testing, indicate the variables that will be considered and methods by which those variables will be weighted. If poverty lines are considered, indicate threshold levels and income and asset tests required for eligibility. Determining which agencies can do, and which will actually carry out, the beneficiary identification (Agency charged with running the program, such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Labor or other government agencies, states, municipalities, local organized communities, churches, etc.) and making sure that everybody knows and understands the criteria and procedures. Selection of beneficiaries according to established criteria conveys the notion that people are treated fairly and the system is free from patronage or political interference. Building institutional capacity to carry out the program. This means determining the rules for participation, which institutions will participate, and, procedures and incentives/ disincentives to carry out specified tasks on time. Usually, creating a new institution to carry out a FSP involves high start-up costs and a steep and potential lengthy learning curve. In some cases, such as Romania, it may be better to contract out program activities among government agencies and with non- government agencies and the private sector, than to have a single agency or Ministry doing all the work. IMPLEMENTING FOOD STAMP PROGRAMS Successfully implementing a food stamp program would involve several critical steps, including: Enacting normative acts (Laws, Decrees, other) incorporating the design decisions mentioned above. Most food stamp programs, as with any other program involving government fiscal outlays, need to be approved by normative acts. If a law is required, it is better that it contains generic program descriptions and criteria instead of precise formulae or definitions that can change through time when new information is available. Preparing a detailed operation manual, including a matrix of responsibilities of all agencies involved. This matrix should contain, at a minimum, agency, responsibility, responsible person/ unit, timelines, and costs involved. Preparing a registry of beneficiaries is a critical activity since this is the target population to whom benefits will be provided. As indicated previously, beneficiary rolls can be prepared and maintained by local agencies, under established criteria and methods (self-selection, active search for beneficiaries, etc.). One decision that has to be taken is whether new beneficiaries can enter the program at any time or only at specified dates. The first case poses greater administrative costs and greater data management problems than the second case. Advances in communication technology permit sharing of data bases via internet or intranet networks that were not available only a few years ago, facilitating data cleaning (elimination of duplicates among neighboring localities, elimination of people no longer eligible) and data auditing by the Program Agency. Beneficiary lists can be published at local government or parish offices, so that local communities can scrutinize the selection process, increasing transparency. Stamp printing is also an important activity. Attention should be given to security issues to avoid forgery, the denomination of each stamp to determine the number of stamps to be given to each beneficiary, and printing costs. Most food stamps have no beneficiary names on them (except in Jamaica), which adds to the easiness of transactions, but reduces security by eliminating any possibility of cross checking the identity of the person using the stamps in a store. Stamp distribution is probably one of the two most critical activities of a food stamp program - the other being preparation of beneficiary rolls,. Delays in distribution and queues (lines) can ruin a program's credibility and political support. There are essentially two distribution options. One is by - 38 - Program or other government agencies such as state, local government or decentralized branches of Ministries; the other is by independent contractors, such as the Post Office or other mail delivery companies. The first option may have cost advantages because distribution activities can be combined or piggybacked with other agency activities. It has a drawback, however, if officials try to patronize beneficiaries or use stamps to get political influence. If stamp distribution is made by independent contractors, timely distribution can be assured within contract performance criteria and any political interference can be eliminated, adding to more transparency and accountability of the program. Stamp redemption by beneficiaries and by banks is the final stage of the food stamp logistical cycle. How fast and free this process is from bureaucratic procedures is critical in determining the unwanted presence of discounts on stamps and black markets. These situations arise when stamps are not readily accepted by banks as checks or money deposits, and banks do not get immediate reimbursement for cashed stamps. Food stamp programs work best when shopkeepers can deposit stamps in their bank accounts or can cash them, and when banks are paid within a maximum of two- three days. Monitoring and evaluation activities should be incorporated at the outset when programs are designed. To date these activities have been rare in most food stamp programs. With the exception of the Philippines' pilot scheme implemented in 1983-84 and the USA in recent years, few food stamp programs have included experimental or quasi-experimental designs to evaluate the impact of stamp programs on incomes, food consumption and nutrition. New programs must, however, include strong monitoring and evaluation activities to follow progress in key program indicators. This can avoid costly mistakes made in past programs, facilitate ongoing program modification, and take advantage of all potential benefits that a well designed and implemented food stamp program can provide to improve the lives of the poorest and most vulnerable groups in developing countries. Source: Tarsicio Castafieda, 1999, The Design, Implementation And Impact Of Food Stamp Programs In Developing Countries, World Bank. Mimeo; Kene Ezemenari, 1999,"Linking Food Transfers to Nutritional Services in India-Implications from International Experience," World Bank, mimeo. Table 1: Characteristics and Impacts of Food Stamp Programs in Selected Countries: Jamaica, Sri Lanka, Honduras, Mexico, the United States and Romania Jamaica Sri Lanka Honduras Mexico United States Objective Buffer impact of structural Compensate for reductions Alleviate impact of structural Campeche Pilot: Provide cash assistance Help low income families and adjustment policies on and/or elimination of general adjustment on the poor. to families to replace in-kind subsidies to individuals meet basic nutrition needs by vulnerable groups. price subsidies and ration (Two food stamp programs. tortillas, milk, etc. ensuring they have means to purchase a Combat hunger and malnutrition coupons. One for poor school children, Progresa. Provide integrated cash, health low cost diet. of poorest groups the other for children 0-5 and and education assistance to families to opregnant, nursing mothers.) reduce extreme poverty and malnutrition. Implemented 1984 End of 1979 1990 Campeche: 1995-1996 1964 Progresa: 1997 Number of 277,100 (1997) 7.2 million (1979) -125,700 school children Campeche: 32,000 families (1997). 27 million (1995). Beneficiaries 7.5% (1997) 50% of population (1992). Progresa: 1.9 million families (end 1998). 10.4% of population % Population -56,200 children 0-5 years old, 8.0 million (1989) pregnant, nursing women 50% of population (1992). Target Group Pregnant & lactating mothers Households with monthly Poor primary school children Campeche Pilot: Poor families located in Households have to meet both asset and Children 0-5 years old income below a threshold in selected areas. three urban areas. income tests (see report). Elderly poor level (the poorest 20% of All 0-5 age children and Progresa: Extremely poor families in Incapacitated poor population). pregnant, nursing mothers in mainly rural localities. All family Selected poor families selected areas. members of chosen families are beneficiaries (children, parents).. General Self-selection. People apply and Self-selection. People apply Schools are selected by Campeche Pilot: Selected families were Self-sclection. People apply for the Targeting register for the program at for registration and are Ministry of Education, teachers from the rolls of those receiving tortilla program on basis of asset and income Criteria health centers and clinics and required to show income choose children. (Tortibono) and milk subsidies. tests. (Selection by parish program offices. eligibility for the program. Self-selection. Mothers who Progresa: Families are selected in a two program or self- attend health posts and centers stage process. First poor rural localities selection) with their children. are selected on basis of housing and public services. Second, fanmilies are selected in those localities. Income and/or Family income less than the Family income less than Eligible children determined Campeche Pilot: Families with less than Asset test: Other Eligibility equivalent of 40% of minimum SR$300 (US$ 20) per month by teacher assessment of two minimum wages. Assets less than $2,000; or $ 3,000 if at Criteria wage, in 1996. for a family of five, in 1979. family income, size and civil Progresa: Families are ranked according least one member is age 60 or older. (Threshold Estimated level to get the status of parents. to poverty index combining a series of Income test: levels) 20% poorest population. Villages selected based on socioeconomic variables in a Logit Gross monthly income below 130%, aggregate poverty index. function. and net monthly income below 100% of Poverty Guidelines Eligible Foods Rice, commeal, skimmed milk Rice, paddy, flour, bread, Any food, medicines, school Campeche Pilot: Rice, beans, cooking oil, Any food item. Originally, before 1964, flour. There are also kerosene sugar, milk products, pulses supplies. eggs, milk, pasta, meat, sugar, fruits. stamps were restricted to surplus foods. stamps. and kerosene (separate Progresa: Any food item desired by the stamps that can be changed family. for food) - 40 - Jamaica Sri Lanka Honduras Mexico United States Value of Stamp US$3.5 per person per month Real value declined by over -For school children: $ 37 per Campeche Pilot. Value was 125 Mexican Value of stamps is the difference per Beneficiary (1990). Real value declined by 50% during 79-89 due to year (distributed biannually. pesos per family (about US$ 17) per between expected purchases on food and over 40% between 90-96 due to inflation. -For 0-5 age children and month. amount budgeted adequate to meet low- inflation. mothers: $44 (distributed Progresa: Value varies with family size cost diet. Expected purchase is 30% of monthly in health posts and and age composition of children. Subsidy net income. In 1995 maximum amount centers). Data for 1992. for average family per month was 235 for single person was $ 115; for a family Mexican pesos (about US$ 26). of 8, was $695, per month. Importance of Value of stamp subsidies was Value of stamp subsidies was Stamp subsidies increased Campeche Pilot: Subsidy was about 25% Stamps amount to 25-50% of a family Stamps in 7.2% of cost of low-income 32% of food purchases in disposable income of bottom of minimum wage. composed of a mother and two children, Consumption of basket in 1991, and 2.8% in 78/79 and 30% by 26% in urban and 13% Progresa. Subsidy amount is about 34% of depending on the State's other transfers. Food 1996. 20% in 81/82, of the poorest in rural areas. money income obtained by families in 20%. extreme poverty. Time Profile No end date has been set. No end date has been set. No end date has been set. Campeche Pilot. Lasted only for 1996. No end date has been set. Progresa. No end date for the program has been set. IMPACTS Fiscal Costs Fiscal cost has dropped greatly Fiscal cost as share of GDP School children cost: $ 4.6 Campeche Pilot. No final figures were $24 billion (1995) as a result of drop in value of dropped from million (1991). available for this report. plus $3.2 billion in administrative cost. stamps. 5% in 78-79 before FSP to Progresa. Budget for 1998 was 5 billion Cost as % of government 1.3% in 1984. Young children and mothers Mexican pesos (about US$ 560 million). expenditure: 1.6% Fiscal cost as share Gov. Exp cost: $1.4 million (1991) General Subsidy: 3% (1988). dropped from (Pilot). 15% in 1970s to 3% in 1984. Administrative 4% (Grosh, 1993) 2% (Comia & Stewart, 1993) -16% in school children Campeche Pilot. Were not available for 13.5% (shared among federal, state and Costs program. this report. local governments). -23% in 0-5 years old children Progresa. Were not available for this and mothers program. report. Income Transfer to poorest quintile: Target poorest 20% got 40% Both programs appear to be Campeche Pilot. Over 90% of Program available to only poor persons Distribution 31% (1988). of FSP (1981/82). well targeted to the poorest beneficiaries had total family expenditures and families. Transfer to richest quintile: 8% 30% of the population. of less than 1.5 times the minimum wage (1988). Progresa. Not known. Evaluation planned % elderly poor in FSP: 37% for 1999. Food Increased food consumption, Increased food consumption Benefits amount to 17-20%/ of Campeche Pilot. No studies were done on Food stamps increase food consumption Consumption especially of elderly poor. of poor and other segments of beneficiary food requirements. this. but less than amount of subsidy. MPC population. Over 80% of beneficiaries used Progresa. Evaluation is planned for 1999. food out of FS is estimated to range from food stamps to buy food, 0.20-0.45. exclusively. Nutrition Impact Low impact: Transfer too small to have a No study on this has been Campeche Pilot. No evaluation was done n. k. % malnourish. children in FSP great impact on children. made. on this. However, reported attendance to was 6.8% in 1996. Share of calories from FSP Important impacts has been health posts by mothers and children less % normal children in FSP: 11% in total calories was only noticed on: school attendance, than 5 years of age was universal for in 1996. 11% for poorest quintile. preventive visits to health people in the program. Leakage was also high. clinics by mothers and Progresa. Evaluation is planned for 1999.. _ children. Notes: n. a.: Not available; n. n.: Not applicable; n. k: Unknown; AEU: Adult Equivalent Unit. Annex G New Mechanisms to Promote Transparency and And Accountability of the TPDS To improved the effectiveness of the TPDS in reaching its intended beneficiaries the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution is promoting three mechanisms to foster greater transparency and accountability in the implementation of the TPDS at the local level. These incoude the establishment of Vigilance Committees at the village, block and district level, the adoption of a Citizen's Charter and measures to increase the involvement of Panchayat Raj institutions in the monitoring the operations of the TPDS at the local level. Vigilance Committees The concept of Vigilance Committees has been in existence since the inception of rationing system. Central Government from time to time have been requesting the State Govenmments to establish PDS Vigilance Committees and to reconstitute them if not done so by associating members from amongst the card holders and consumer activists as well as Members of Parliament. In the Model Citizens' Charter issued in Nov., 1997 for adoption by State Govemments, constitution of Vigilance Committees by State Governments at the level of Panchayat [Ward, Taluk, District and State/UT have been emphasised . In Panchayati Raj Institutions guidelines issued in June 1999, it is mentioned that the Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha should be encouraged to form FPS committees. The main functions of Vigilance Committee are to ensure smooth functioning of PDS and solve related problems with their redressal. Vigilance Committees at the following levels are at present functioning in most of the States: Fair Price Shop level, Block/Mandal/Taluk level, District level, State level. Citizens' Charter The Citizens' Charter is an important milestone in the ongoing efforts of the Government to provide services under the PDS in a more transparent and caring manner. This Charter is intended to be a model for the State Governments. It contains inter-alia, basic infonnation of interest to the consumers and a model procedure and time schedule for the services. The Charter contains essential information viz. entitlement of BPL families, fair average quality of foodgrains, information regarding FPS, procedure of issue of ration cards, inspection and checking, right to information and vigilance and public participation. Involvement Of Panchyati Raj Institutions (Pris) This Department has also issued detailed guidelines in June, 1999 for greater involvement of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in the functioning of TPDS and to bring in a more transparent and accountable system of distribution as a measure of social audit. This included: * Consumers right to information regarding Fair Price Shops (FPS), entitlement, price, number of cards attached to shop etc. * Display of stock position at FPS. * List of BPL beneficiaries to be displayed at FPS and office of Gram Panchayat for public scrutiny. * Formation of FPS Committee by Gram Panchayat for inspecting the FPS records and to keep a watch on functioning of FPS. FPS committee's report to be placed before larger body i.e. Gram Sabha for onward transmission to State Government for taking necessary action. - 42 - * Responsibility of the Gram Panchayats in checking of ration cards occasionally for its genuineness and correct entries of units in them. * Redressal of grievance. With the objective of revamping and strengthening the PDS and to ensure that the benefit of PDS reaches the poor, Hon'ble Minister of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution has addressed a letter on 13h January, 2000 to all Chief Ministers and Administrators of UTs, calling for active participation by Panchayati Raj Institutions in PDS and a better computerized monitoring mechanism. It has also been impressed upon the state governments to issue licenses under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995 whereby the rights, duties, responsibilities, obligations and liabilities of the FPS owners may be defined. Some of the responsibilities would be: * Display of information, such as beneficiary's entitlement of various essential commodities, the issue prices, name of fair price shop keeper, timing of opening and closing of FPS, weekly closing days, stock position etc. * Display of procedure for lodging the complaints with reference to quality and quantity of ration and other problems being faced by the beneficiaries. * Maintenance of records of ration cards holders, stock position, issue register, issue prices etc. * Furnishing of copies of certain documents like ration card, register, stock register and sales register concerning PDS to the interested groups. * Display of samples of foodgrains being supplied through Fair Price Shops. Source: Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution, 2000, Annual Report 1999-2000, New Delhi: Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs Statistical Tables and Figures - 2 - Chapter 1 Annex Tables and Figures Annex Table A1.1: Social Indicators in Selected Countries India China Indonesia Bandladesh Pakistan Sri Lanka Ghana SSVu Basic Indicators Under 5 Mortality Rate (%) 1960 236 209 216 247 226 130 213 257 1996 III 47 71 112 136 19 110 170 Infant Mortality Rate < 1 (%) 1960 144 140 127 151 139 90 126 154 1996 73 38 47 83 95 17 70 105 Life Expectancy at Birth 1996 (yrs) 62 69 64 57 63 73 57 51 Total Adult Literacy 1995 (%) 52 82 84 38 38 90 65 57 GNP per Capita 1995 340 620 980 240 460 700 390 501 Nutrition Indicators Infants with Low Birth Weight 1990-94 (%) 33 9 14 50 25 24 7 16 Under Fives Suffering from: 1990-97 (%) Underweight-moderate and severe 53 16 11 56 38 7 27 30 Underweight-severe 21 na 2 21 13 16 8 10 Wasting-moderate and severe 18 na na 18 na 24 11 8 Stunting-moderate and severe 52 na 4 55 na 14 26 42 Children who are: 1990-96 (%) Exclusively breastfed:0-3 mos 51 64 47 51 16 60 19 32 Breastfed w/ complementary food:6-9 mos 31 na 85 na 31 66 63 61 Still breastfeed:20-23 mos 67 na 63 na 56 38 48 47 Health Indicators Popn w/ access to safe water 1990-96 (%) _ Total 81 67 62 97 74 57 65 49 Urban 85 97 78 99 82 88 88 79 Rural 79 56 54 96 69 52 52 36 Popn w/ access to adequate sanitation 1990-96 (%) Total 29 24 51 48 47 63 55 44 Urban 70 74 73 79 77 68 62 73 Rural 14 7 40 44 22 62 44 33 Popn w/ access to health services 1990-95 (%) 85 88 93 45 55 na na na Notes: 1/ SSA- Sub-Saharan Africa. Source: UNICEF, The State of the World's Children 1998; UNDP, Human Development Report 1998. Annex Table A1.2a: Per Capita Consumer Unit Consumption Indicators by Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Classes in Rural and Urban Areas in India, 1993/94. RURAL Monthly Per- Percentage of Per Capita Per Diem Intake of Average Monthly Cummulative Capita Expenditure on Food to Calories Protein Fat Per Capita Percentage Share Expenditure Total Consumer Kcal/capita/ Grams/capita/ Grams/capita Expenditure of Total Classes Expenditure Population Rslcapita/month Percent day day day Rs/capita/month Percent Less than 120 73.59 1327 37.9 12.1 100.37 3.7% 120-140 74.07 1583 44.3 15.6 130.68 7.8% 140-165 73.74 1721 47.7 17.6 152.89 15.2% 165-190 73.33 1850 51.0 20.4 177.55 24.4% 190-210 72.46 1968 54.0 23.1 200.01 32.1% 210-235 71.40 2048 56.6 26.2 222.10 41.5% 235-265 70.40 2154 59.8 29.5 249.45 52.0% 265-300 68.47 2271 63.3 33.4 281.52 62.1% 300-355 66.65 2410 67.6 38.6 324.94 74.1% 355-455 62.86 2592 73.7 46.9 398.30 86.3% 455-560 58.19 2804 80.3 55.2 500.27 92.6% 560 & above 43.62 3262 92.7 72.3 872.39 100.0% All Classes 63.20 2153 60.2 31.4 281.40 RDA 2400 60 40 URBAN Less than 160 71.63 1327 37.6 15.4 132.84 4.4% 160-190 71.05 1560 43.6 19.8 175.52 8.7% 190-230 70.27 1697 47.1 23.7 210.80 17.6% 230-265 68.80 1787 49.5 27.5 247.51 26.3% 265-310 67.01 1890 52.3 31.8 286.84 37.2% 310-355 65.19 1987 55.1 36.6 331.57 46.7% 355-410 62.99 2070 57.2 41.5 380.72 56.7% 410-490 60.39 2186 60.1 46.5 447.58 67.6% 490-605 56.60 2299 63.2 52.9 543.46 77.9% 605-825 53.10 2474 68.2 61.6 698.33 88.2% 825-1055 48.81 2689 73.5 73.8 923.38 93.0% 1055 & above 34.90 3011 82.7 85.4 1643.06 100.0% All Classes 54.7 2071 57.2 42.0 458.04 RDA 2200 60 40 Notes: RDA - Recommended daily allowance. Source: NSSO Organization, 1996, "Nutritional Intake in India, NSS 50th Round, 1993/94, Fifth Quinquennial Survey on Consumer Expenditure," New Delhi, Govemment of India. - 4 - Annex Table A1.2b: Percentage of Distribution of Adults According to Body Mass Index in Rural Areas. Chronic Energy D ficiency Pr valence % Normal __ |_Obese StatelUT Severe Moderate Mild Deficient Low Normal Normal Obese I Obese II Obese <16 16-17 17-18.5 Total Normal 20.0 - 25.0 Total 25.0 - 30.0 < 30.0 Total 18.5-20 1996-97 NNMB Surveyl/ Andhra Pradesh 13% 15% 27% 55% 20% 21% 41% 3% 0% 3% Gujarat 16% 15% 27% 59% 1 90/0 20% 390% 3% 1% 3% Kamataka 13% 14% 26%1 54% 21% 22% 42% 3% 0% 4%o Kerala 6% 7% 15% 27% 18% 42% 590/o 12% 2% 14% Maharashtra 9% 12% 27% 47% 23% 27% 50% 3% 0% 3% Orissa 10% 12% 27% 48% 31% 19% 50% 1% 0% 1% TarmilNadu 9% 11% 22% 41% 22% 29% 51% 7% 1% 8% Pooled 10% 12% 24% 47% 22% 26% 48%1 5% 1% 5% 1995-96 DNP Survey2/ Assarn 2% 4% 22% 17% 20% 61% 81% 2% 0.1% 2% Arunachal Pradesh 2% 2% 4% 8% 8% 47% 55% 30% 7% 37% Bihar 15% 12% 24% 51% 20% 27% 47% 1% 0.0% 1% Delhi 4% 4% 12% 19% 19% 55% 73% 6% 1% 8% Haryana 4% 6% 16%1 26% 24% 46% 70% 4% 0.4% 4% Himachal Pr. 7% 8% 23% 38% 26% 32% 58% 3% 1% 4% Punjab 4% 5% 14% 23% 19% 43% 62% 12% 3% 15% Rajasthan 10% 8% 17% 36% 16% 41% 57% 7% 0.0% 7% Sikkim 2% 2% 9% 13% 17% 61% 78% 8% N ___ 9% Chandigarh 3% 6% 11% 19% 15% 59% 73% 7% 0.1% 7% Manipur 1% 2% 10% 13% 23% 60% 83% 4% 0.3% 4% Meghalaya 1% 2% 11% 14% 37% 48% 85% 1% 0.2% I % Mizoram 2% 2% 11% 15% 26% 57% 83% 2% 0.1% 2% Nagaland 3% 2% 6% 11% 16% 68% 84% 5% 0.4% 6% Tripura 6% 5% 17% 27% 21% 46% 68% 5% 0.4% 6% Dadra Nagar Haveli 12% 11% 200/o 43% 21% 32% 53% 4% 0.2% 4% Daman & Diu 2% 5% 18% 25% 24%1 43% 66% 8% 1% 8% Goa 8% 8% 18% 34%N 19%° 40% 59% 6% 0.4% 7% Notes: Body Mass Index = (weight in kg/square of height in meters), measures chronic energy deficiency in adults (I S yrs. or older) 1/ Data from National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau Report of Second Repeat Survey-Rural, 1996-97, National Nutrition Bureau Report, 1999 2/ Data from District Nutrition Survey of 18 States, 1995-96, Department of Women and Child Development - 5 - Annex Table A1.2c: Percentage of Distribution of Adults According to Body Mass Index in Urban Areas and State Level, 1995-96. Chronic Energy Deficienc Prevalence % Normal % Obese % State/UT Severe Moderate Mild Deficient Low Normal Normal Obese I Obese II Obese <16 16-17 17-18.5 Total Normal 20.0 - 25.0 Total 25.0 - 30.0 5 30.0 Total 18.5 - 20 I. URBAN Bihar 13.0 10.9 21.3 45.2 18.6 33.4 52.0 2.7 0.0 2.7 Chandigarh 3.1 5.6 11.5 20.2 14.7 58.0 72.7 7.1 0.1 7.2 Delhi 3.7 3.6 11.5 18.8 18.3 54.9 73.2 6.7 1.3 8.0 Goa 8.4 7.3 22.3 38.0 20.2 37.6 57.8 4.2 0.0 4.2 Manipur 1.2 2.8 9.9 13.9 25.8 56.2 82.0 4.2 0.0 4.2 Meghalaya 0.4 1.5 7.1 9.0 28.2 59.4 87.6 3.4 0.0 3.4 Mizoram 1.7 3.7 11.1 16.5 17.6 55.9 73.5 10.0 0.2 10.2 Rajasthan 11.8 10.7 21.1 43.6 19.7 33.5 53.2 3.1 0.0 3.1 Sikkim 0.5 0.7 4.2 5.4 11.3 78.5 89.8 4.5 0.3 4.8 Tripura 9.1 8.0 19.3 36.4 27.3 34.1 61.4 2.3 0.0 2.3 II. ALL I Bihar 15.0 11.8 23.5 50.3 20.0 28.2 48.2 1.5 0.0 1.5 Chandigarh 4.8 5.5 15.8 26.1 16.4 51.5 67.9 6.1 0.0 6.1 Delhi 2.1 2.5 8.9 13.5 12.4 56.9 69.3 13.8 3.4 17.2 Goa 8.2 8.0 18.6 34.8 19.0 39.9 58.9 5.9 0.3 6.2 Gujarat* 14.2 13.7 25.2 53.1 17.1 25.0 42.1 4.0 0.8 4.8 Maharashtra* 12.3 12.3 26.4 51.0 20.2 24.4 44.6 4.0 0.4 4.4 Manipur 1.4 1.8 10.1 13.3 23.3 59.6 82.9 3.6 0.3 3.9 Meghalaya 0.8 1.7 10.6 13.1 35.6 50.0 85.6 1.3 0.1 1.4 Mizoram 1.8 2.6 11.3 15.7 23.5 56.6 80.1 4.1 0.1 4.2 Rajasthan 12.1 11.3 21.9 45.3 20.5 31.8 52.3 2.3 0.0 2.3 Sikkim 1.4 2.0 8.5 11.9 16.5 63.4 79.9 7.4 0.8 8.2 Tripura 5.8 5.1 16.6 27.5 21.6 45.5 67.1 5.1 0.4 5.5 Notes: Body Mass Index = (weight in kg/square of height in meters), measures chronic energy deficiency in adults. Data from District Nutrition Survey of 18 States, 1995-96, Department of Women and Child Development. Source: Department of Women and Child Development, India Nutrition Profile 1998. - 6 - Annex Table A1.3: Percent Distribution of Underweight, Stunting, and Wasting in Children (1-5 Years Old) WEIGHT FOR AGE HEIGHT FOR AGE WEIGHT FOR HEIGHT Underweight Severely Stunted Severely Stunted Wasting Severe Wasting States/Uts (Median-2SD to Underweight (Median-2SD to ( 1.40 ____ . 1.20 -__________ =._= 1l.00- 0.80 ~0.60- ~0.40- ~0.20- El Stunted * Severely Stunted Notes: *-State figures are from NNMB 1994 survey. Other States are from NIN 1995/96 survey. Source: NNMB 1996, Department ofWomen and Child Development, 1998, India Nutrition Profile.. - 14- Annex Figure A1.5: Ratio of Percentage of Girls Over Percentage of Boys:Underweight and Severely Underweight (Urban Areas)., 1996-96 3.50 3.00 ' 2.50- ; 2.00 * 1.50 1.00 0.50 El Underweight * Sev. Underweight Source: Department of Women and Child Development, 1998, India Nutrition Profile. Annex Figure A1.6: Ratio of Percentage of Girls Over Percentage of Boys: Stunted and Severely Stunted (Urban Areas), 1995-96. 4.00 3.50 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ g 3.00 w 2.50 -_ - 200 (U 1.50 cg 0.00 Eg Stunted * Severely Stunted Source: Department of Women and Child Development, 1998, India Nutrition Profile. Chapter 2 Annex Tables and Figures Annex Table A2.1a: Central Issue Price of Rice, Rs/lOOkg, 1981 to 2000 RICE Effective From Common Fine l S. Fine PDS 01/01/81 165 177 192 01/10/81 175 187 202 01/10/82 188 200 215 16/1/84 208 220 235 10/10/85 217 229 . 244 01/02/86 231 243 253 01/10/86 239 251 266 01/10/87 239 264 279 25/1/89 244 304 325 25/06/90 289 349 370 28/12/91 377 437 458 11/01/93 437 497 518 01/02/94 537 617 648 Common Fine BPL APL BPL APL TPDS 01/06/97 350 550@i 350 650 750 20/1/99 350 700 _____ 905 _ _______ _ 01/04/00 5901 11801 Notes: @Applicable only to Janumu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, and hilly areas of Northeastern States, including Sikkim And Uttar Pradesh. Source: Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs, Annual Report 1997/98; Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Agriculture at a Glance 1999. Annex Table A2.1b: Central Issue Price of Wheat, Rs/lOOkg, 1978 to 2000 Common Effective From Common PDS 01/02/78 130 01/04/81 145 01/08/82 160 15/4/83 172 10/08/84 172 01/02/86 190 01/04/86 190 16/07/86 190 01/05/87 165 25/3/88 204 01/05/90 234 28/12/91 280 11/01/93 330 01/02/94 402 Common BPL APL TPDS 01/06/97 250 450 20/1/99 250 682 _______________ 1/4/00 450 900 - 16 - Annex Table A2.1c: Central Issue Prices of Edible Oil and Levy Sugar, 1990-1997 Edible Oil: Bulk 15 kg. Tin(Rs. Per Ton e) Imported 01/09/88 13150 14500 Edible Oil 26/01/91 16500 19000 .______________ 04/10/92 22000 25000 21/07/94 24000 27000 01/08/97 26000 27000 Levy Sul sar (Retail, Rs/kg) Levy Sugar 1/9/88 Rs. 5.25/kg. (Retail) 24/07/91 Rs. 6.10/kg. 21/01/92 Rs. 6.90/kg. 17/02193 Rs. 8.30/kg. 1/2/94 Rs. 9.05/kg. 10/2/97 Rs. 10.50/kg. 1/10/97 Rs. 11.40/kg. Source: Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs, Annual Report 1997-98, New Delhi. Annex Table A2.2: Rice and Wheat Allocation and Off take from the PDS from 1993/94 to 1997/98 and the TPDS from 1997/98 to 1998/99, 000 mt. 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 Rice Wheat Rice Wheat Rice Wheat States/UT Alloc. Offtake Alloc. Offtake Alloc. Offtake Alloc. Offtake Alloc. Offtake Alloc. Offtake Andhra Pradesh 2282.5 2172.7 172.6 117.2 2230.0 2198.8 180.0 110.0 2620.0 2159.1 192.0 102.7 Arunachal 124.2 87.4 7.2 6.4 90.7 82.7 15.2 13.6 102.7 90.6 7.2 5.4 Pradesh Assam 510.8 397.3 260.0 247.1 465.8 310.5 310.0 277.3 568.0 434.5 360.0 351.7 Bihar 299.2 85.3 725.2 430.4 372.0 39.7 714.0 222.3 381.6 23.5 705.6 227.3 Delhi 240.0 142.3 864.01 568.8 240.0 53.9 936.0 205.0 240.0 26.5 840.0 153.2 Goa 54.0 39.8 37.2 22.9 63.0 39.5 40.3 17.3 78.0 44.8 42.4 23.4 Gujarat 414.0 239.0 642.0 308.3 414.0 187.5 642.0 379.0 409.0 208.6 835.5 425.0 Haryana 36.0 15.9 141.9 74.1 36.0 6.2 151.8 31.0 53.6 8.4 209.5 62.4 Himachal 80.6 77.1 121.0 107.6 108.0 38.8 136.0 117.6 131.0 45.2 144.0 98.2 Pradesh . . _ _ Jammu& 434.4 149.4 240.0 124.1 520.2 154.5 350.0 110.1 528.0 271.7 360.0 115.9 Kashmir _I _ Kamataka 828.5 596.3 295.0 256.5 1307.3 678.0 360.0 262.4 1443.1 942.9 360.0 219.5 Kerala 1825.0 1579.4 350.0 315.5 1800.0 1118.1 445.0 386.8 1800.0 1170.6 585.0 557.4 Madhya Prdesh 490.8 190.8 492.0 247.3 559.7 162.2 560.9 142.8 580.2 204.6 583.9 136.6 Maharashtra 858.0 577.7 960.0 528.6 858.0 284.4 960.0 463.5 858.0 359.7 1100.0 610.5 Manipur 120.0 49.6 34.4 24.4 120.0 30.7 32.4 13.2 120.0 32.9 32.4 28.2 Meghalaya 126.0 122.5 32.0 29.6 136.0 113.8 25.0 24.4 172.0 164.4 28.0 27.7 Mizoram 103.2 92.4 16.8 16.3 100.0 79.8 19.5 16.8 94.0 93.7 24.0 23.3 Nagaland 112.6 95.0 40.5 33.2 84.0 75.9 70.0 59.3 72.5 71.0 18.2 21.6 Orissa 464.4 185.6 270.0 221.0 543.6 192.4 415.0 182.2 790.0 365.7 420.0 238.5 Punjab 18.0 5.2 240.0 12.8 17.3 1.3 210.0 1.5 16.7 2.0 155.0 8.0 Rajasthan 84.6 18.1 1140.0 577.3 46.0 14.4 1443.7 528.5 52.0 8.7 1453.9 459.31 Sikkim 54.0 44.7 7.2 6.3 56.1 31.8 10.0 8.3 57.6 43.1 12.3 9.9 Tamil Nadu 878.8 856.2 245.0 235.7 1200.0 1224.3 300.0 155.1 1590.0 1745.1 310.0 174.2 Tripura 194.4 147.1 21.6 13.9 194.4 125.8 21.6 8.0 194.4 148.7 21.6 9.6 Uttar Pradesh 535.6 228.7 972.6 405.9 549.6 205.21 1185.6 207.8 549.6 209.5 1185.6 225.7 West Bengal 967.2 528.9 992.0 821.8 932.4 434.4 1035.0 751.7 856.0 447.1 1098.6 842.3 AA&Nlslands 36.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 31.3 0.0 8.4 0.0 30.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 Chandigarh 3.6 2.5 21.6 10.9 3.6 0.8 21.6 0.7 3.6 1.1 21.6 1.0 D &N Haveli 6.0 1.1 2.4 0.0 6.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 6.0 1.6 2.8 0.7 Daman & Diu 6.0 1.1 1.8 0.4 6.0 2.1 1.8 0.1 6.7 0.9 2.2 0.2 Lakshadweep 6.3 3.1 0.5 0.1 6.3 6.7 0.5 0.1 6.3 4.7 0.5 Neg Pondicherry 24.0 3.1 9.0 Neg 24.0 3.0 9.0 0.0 24.0 2.0 9.0 Neg Total 12218.7 8735.3 9368.1 5764.4 13121.3 7897.2 10612.7 4696.4 14434.5 9332.9 11129.7 5159.4 CRPIBSF 18.0 19.0 30.0 27.6 18.0 14.2 30.0 28.8 18.0 17.1 30.0 25.01 DEFENCE 148.2 105.0 140.0 102.2 162.0 109.7 141.0 93.5 143.8 102.2 _134.0 105.9 BHUTAN T 22.2 9.2 20.4 12.0 22.2 6.3 20.4 7.7 22.2 8.7 20.4 2.3 Grand Total 12407.1 8868.5 9558.5 5906.2 13323.5 8027.4 10804.1 4826.4 14618.5 9460.9 11314.2 5292.6 (All- India ) _ _ _ _ - 17 - Annex Table A2.2 cont'd: Rice and Wheat Allocation and Offtake from the PDS from 1993/94 to 1997/98 and the TPDS from 1997/98 to 1998/99,000 mt. 1996197 1997/98 1998/99 Rice Wheat Rice Wheat Rice Wheat States/UT Alloc. Offtake Alloc. Offtake Alloc. Offtake Alloc. Offtake Alloc. Offtake Alloc. Offtake Andhra Pradesh 2540.0 1946.8 180.0 127.3 2309.0 2000.1 183.0 125.3 2350.4 2116.3 137.0 123.8 Arunachal 109.2 100.7 7.2 5.5 107.9 89.3 7.1 5.8 109.2 94.2 7.2 5.8 Pradesh _ Assam 648.7 520.9 355.5 301.9 590.9 438.3 323.1 193.9 620.0 555.1 363.6 311.9 Bihar 389.6 37.5 713.1 438.7 489.8 156.3 788.4 513.7 507.4 235.8 831.0 714.3 Delhi 240.0 113.6 700.0 574.7 174.3 100.3 661.5 532.0 164.7 112.7 694.8 560.2 Goa 90.0 59.5 37.2 32.6 76.8 52.0 32.3 27.1 76.0 60.0 33.7 31.1 Gujarat 376.0 276.4 690.9 624.2 308.0 178.8 741.7 519.3 356.0 251.4 494.0 403.5 Haryana 52.0 21.8 208.2 131.3 5.0 4.1 178.6 98.4 0.0 0.0 156.6 75.4 Himachal 122.8 86.5 140.0 119.3 135.0 90.1 131.0 115.7 144.9 94.0 139.7 126.6 Pradesh Jammu & 528.0 353.7 360.0 149.0 430.8 296.6 290.6 167.7 386.5 318.3 364.5 138.2 Kashrnir I_I_I Kamataka 1453.1 1110.0 356.0 286.7 1024.5 833.9 260.0 248.8 940.0 888.1 300.0 279.8 Kerala 1847.0 1530.8 572.5 544.1 1827.4 1607.4 389.0 370.9 1788.8 1625.9 452.6 433.0 Madhya Pradesh 613.7 302.9 605.6 431.1 463.5 297.3 584.9 308.9 417.2 306.0 503.9 319.8 Maharashtra 858.0 553.6 1010.0 850.1 678.4 562.4 1251.8 987.4 722.5 666.1 1178.2 1093.6 Manipur 120.0 58.9 32.4 31.3 101.4 45.2 25.7 27.6 122.5 43.0 32.6 31.0 Meghalaya 190.0 181.9 29.5 26.5 199.3 152.9 26.5 28.7 209.6 182.4 29.5 29.6 Mizoram 92.1 88.6 23.5 20.9 106.2 95.1 16.9 17.7 125.1 123.1 24.1 23.7 Nagaland 81.2 89.4 8.6 8.3 109.0 92.2 28.7 29.2 125.8 114.8 38.1 37.6 Orissa 1012.0 592.9 451.0 419.6 715.4 550.8 299.0 207.2 657.0 575.8 435.0 401.9 Punjab 18.0 1.6 121.0 54.0 12.6 1.8 91.3 14.2 11.5 0.8 61.6 8.3 Rajasthan 59.0 16.7 1358.4 1141.3 56.9 4.2 901.3 451.4 47.5 5.4 839.6 449.1 Sikkim 60.1 60.9 10.7 11.3 77.4 52.1 5.7 5.3 87.7 63.0 10.7 8.5 Tamil Nadu 1903.5 1866.5 287.2 217.2 1359.7 1261.9 244.6 124.5 1310.8 1282.7 360.0 228.8 Tripura = 194.4 150.1 21.6 14.8 167.3 153.5 18.0 14.5 200.0 182.9 21.6 17.6 Uttar Pradesh 532.2 359.3 1140.4 894.9 521.6 321.0 1214.8 867.2 632.4 462.5 1319.0 1002.9 West Bengal 800.0 517.1 1071.0 904.5 536.9 316.0 1193.2 927.7 567.3 249.7 1047.4 959.6 A & N Islands 30.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 30.0 0.2 9.0 0.1 30.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 Chandigarh 3.6 2.1 21.6 7.9 2.9 2.1 17.6 5.3 3.6 1.7 21.6 4.6 D & N Haveli 6.0 1.5 3.0 0.6 5.0 2.8 2.0 I.3 6.6 3.8 3.0 2.0 Daman & Diu 7.2 1.4 2.4 0.2 4.4 3.3 1.5 0.7 7.2 1.5 2.4 0.7 Lakshadweep 6.3 6.6 0.5 0.3 8.7 3.1 0.5 0.9 3.2 2.6 0.3 0.3 Pondiche 25.0 4.1 9.0 0.0 20.1 0.0 4.8 0.0 26.0 1.6 9.0 0.1 Total 15008.7 11014.3 10536.9 8370.1 12655. 9764.8 9924.0 6938.6 12757.1 10620.9 9919.7 7823.5 ___ _ _9_ 9 CRP/BSF 18.0 18.8 30.0 31.7 18.0 12.9 30.0 20.9 18.0 10.5 30.0 12.0 DEFENCE 112.5 100.9 135.0 112.4 135.8 116.1 140.0 98.0 136.6 106.4 145.0 106.8 BHUTAN 22.2 9.7 20.4 6.2 22.2 7.2 20.4 22.8 22.2 5.4 20.4 6.8 Grand Total (All 15161.4 11143.7 10722.3 8520.4 12831. 9901.0 10114.4 7080.4 12933.9 10743.2 10115.1 7949.1 India) __ I 9 _ Source: Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution. - 18 - Annex Table A2.3a: Total Number of Households and BPL Households, 1999 Fair Price Shops, and Ration Cards States/UT Population % BPL as per No. of Households No. of BPL Reported 1999 Expert Group 1999 Households, 1999 as of Million Group Million Million Andhra Pradesh 74.617 25.68 15.643 3.778 Oct99 Arunachal Pradesh 1.155 40.86 0.234 0.077 Oct99 Assani 25.878 40.86 4.439 1.906 Jan2000 Bibar 98.122 54.96 15.929 8.590 Nov 97 Goa 1.547 14.92 0.31 0.038 Jan2000 Gujarat 47.551 24.21 8.630 1L995 Jan2000 Hatyana 19.546 25.05 3.103 0.733 Jan2000 Himachal Pradesh 6.545 40.86 1.226 0.426 Nov99 Jammu&Kashmir 9.709 40.86 1.842 0.617 Sep97 Kamataka 51.436 33.16 9.318 2.875 Dec99 Kerala 31.982 25.43 6.057 1.535 Jan2000 Madhya Pradesh 78.346 42.52 13.867 5.334 Jan2000 Maharashtra 90.122 36.86 17.533 6.045 Oct99 Manipur 2.441 40.86 0.470 0.130 Jun97 Meghalaya 2.359 40.86 0.435 0.144 Mar97 Mizoram 0.922 40.86 0.162 0.053 Jun99 Nagaland 1.629 40.86 0.292 0.095 Mar99 Orissa 35.535 48.56 6.730 3.182 Sep99 Punjab 23.276 11.77 3.932 0.430 Dec99 Rajasthan 52.639 27.41 8.715 2.166 Jan99 Sikkim 0.541 41.43 0.102 0.034 Oct97 TamilNadu 61.255 _ 35.03 13.765 4.579 Mar2000 Tripura 3.665 _ 40.86 0.699 0.231 Nov99 Uttar Pradesh 166.364 40.85 26.747 9.548 Jul99 West Bengal 77.972 35.66 14.333 4.659 Oct99 A&N Islands 0.374 34.47 0.079 0.022 Nov99 Chandigarh 0.860 11.35 0.196 0.018 Dec99 D&N Haveli 0.184 50.84 0.035 0.014 Jan2000 Daman & Diu 0.135 15.8 0.025 0.003 Nov99 Delhi 13.418 14.69 2.673 0.296 Jan2000 Lakshadweep 0.069 25.04 0.011 0.002 Dec99 Pondichery 1.076 37.4 0.216 0.065 Jan2000 Total 981.27 ... 177.748 59.62 Source: Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution, 2000. - 19 - Annex Table A2.3b: Total Number of Fair Price Shops, and Ration Cards, 1999 States/UT Fair Price shops Ration Cards in Lakhs No of Cards/ Report as of Fair Price Rural Urban Total BPL APL Total shop Andhra Pradesh 32813 7040 39853 113.25 51.53 164.78 413 Oct 99 Arunachal Pradesh 842 103 945 0.82 2.43 3.25 344 Oct 99 Assam 28687 3660 32347 18.81 23.69 42.5 131 Jan 2000 Bihar 47293 10242 57535 84.26 88.74 173 301 Nov 97 Goa 429 161 590 0.07 2.99 3.06 519 Jan 2000 Gujarat 10358 3766 14124 33.85 71.37 105.22 745 Jan 2000 Haryana 5297 2675 7972 5.52 37.48 43 539 Jan 2000 Himachal Pradesh 3590 280 3870 2.86 8.93 11.79 305 Nov 99 Jammu&Kashmir 2237 689 2926 3.36 10.12 13.48 461 Sep 97 Karnataka 14540 5353 19893 64.77 46.82 111.59 561 Dec 99 Kerala 12279 1982 14261 20.58 41.06 61.64 432 Jan 2000 Madhya Pradesh 20489 3652 24141 43.65 90.13 133.78 554 Jan 2000 Maharashtra 35005 10802 45807 58.29 135.82 194.11 424 Oct 99 Manipur 1753 175 1928 0.67 1.13 1.8 93 Jun 97 Meghalaya 3257 572 3829 0.97 0.98 1.95 51 Mar 97 Mizoram 886 195 1081 NA 1.73 1.73 160 Jun 99 Nagaland 138 213 351 0.96 1.05 2.01 573 Mar 99 Orissa 20824 3841 24665 41.12 39.81 80.93 328 Sep 99 Punjab 9557 3896 13453 4.89 47.79 52.68 392 Dec 99 Rajasthan 14041 ! 4551 18592 21.15 76.92 98.07 527 Jan99 Sikkim 519 359 878 NA NA 0.66 75 Oct97 TamilNadu 20296 6246 26542 64.88 91.08 155.96 588 Mar2000 Tripura 1185 174 1359 2.31 4.55 6.86 505 Nov99 UttarPradesh 64393 12326 76719 95.48 159.96 255.44 333 Jul99 WestBengal 15673 4842 20515 46.11 109.13 155.24 757 Oct99 A&N Islands 286 118 404 0.12 0.73 0.85 210 Nov 99 Chandigarh 47 183 230 0 2.06 2.07 900 Dec 99 D&NHaveli 78 N.A. 78 0.16 0.16 0.32 410 Jan2000 Daman & Diu 7 6 13 0.02 0.27 0.29 2231 Nov99 Delhi 428 2739 3167 N.A. 35.71 35.71 1128 Jan2000 Lakshadweep 21 14 35 N.A. 0.12 0.12 343 Dec99 Pondichery 163 233 396 0.9 1.63 2.53 639 Jan 2000 Total 367411 91088 458499 729.83 l 1185.92 1916.42 418 Source: Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution, 2000. - 20 - Annex Table A2.4: Volume of TPDS Rations in Various States, Kg/family/month, 1997/98 No. State/UTs Scale of Issue per Month, KgJfamily/month BPL Rate APL Rate 1. Andhra Pradesh 20 -(BPL-Addl cost will be bom by State Govt.) 25 (APL) 2. Arunachal Pradesh 12 N.A. (BPL) N.A. (APL) 3. Assam 10 Rural RiceiWheat: 500 gins/I kg per head Urban Rice and Wheat: I kg/3 kg per adult 500 gns/I kg per minor 4. Bihar 10 (Rural) 10 (Urban) N.A. (BPL) _____ 10 (Urban) N.A. (APL) 5. Goa 10 N.A. 6. Gujarat 12.5 7.5 (BPL) _ 17.5 (APL) 7. Haryana 10 -N.A. (APL) - N.A. (APL) 8. H. Pradesh 10 (BPL) _ - As per availability 18 (APL) 9. Jammu & Kashmir 10 Urban 13 (BPL) - Rural 35 (APL) 10 Kamataka 10 NA (BPL) - 41 (APL) I. Kerala 10 10-12 (BPL) - 16 (APL) 12. Madhya Pradesh 10 As per (BPL) - Availability (APL) 13. Maharashtra 10 20 (BPL) = 30 (APL) 14. Manipur 10 N.A. (BPL) N.A. 22 (APL) 15. Meghalaya 10 15 (BPL) - N.A. 16. Miizoram N.A. N.A. 17. Nagaland 10 N.A. 18. Orissa 10 Rural-10 Kg. Urban-Nil 19. Punjab 10 N.A. 20. Rajasthan 10 N.A. (BPL) - N.A. (APL) 21. Sikkim 10 20 (BPL) _ 30 (APL) 22. T. Nadu 12 to 20 (4 kg/adult & 2kg/child) 23. Tripura 10 15 (BPL) - 25 (APL) 24. U. Pradesh 10 (7 wheat, 3 rice) -(BPL) - tO (APL) 25. W. Bengal 10 10 (BPL) - Rural 5 kg (APL) Urban 1-14 26. A&N Islands 10 --{BPL) _ 10 (APL) 27. Chandigarh 10 N.A. 28. Daman & Diu N.A. 29. D&N Haveli N.A. 30. Delhi TPDS NOT LAUNCHED 31. Lakshdweep -Do- 32. Pondicherry to -.(BPL) __-_ N.A. (APL) Note: N.A.-Not Available Source: Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs, Annual Report 1997-98, New Delhi. - 21 - Annex Table A2.5a: Retail Prices of TPDS foodgrain in various States, Rs. Per Kg, 1997/98 S No. BPL APL States/UTs Wheat Rice Wheat Rice Fine S. Fine 1. Andhra Pradesh * 2.50 3.50 5.00 7.00 8.00 2. Arunachal Pradesh 3.00 4.00 5.00 7.50 10.50 3. Assam # 3.00 4.00 5.01-5.26 7.20-7.45 8.29-8-55 4. Bihar 3.00 4.00 5.12 7.28 8.38 5. Delhi - - 5.00 N.A N.A 6. Goa - 3.95 4.80 7.40 7. Gujarat* 2.00 - 5.00 8.00 8.50 8. Haryana 3.00 - 5.00 - 9. Himachal Pradesh# 3.00 4.00 5.50 7.10-10.00 10. Jamru & Kashmir T 3.00 4.00 4.30-4.55 6.05-6.95 11. Kamataka* 2.50 3.50 5.00 7.60 8.10 12. Kerala - 3.90 5.00 6.50 7.50 13. Madhya Pradesh # 3.00 4.00 5.20-5.30 7.20-7-30 8.20-8.30 14. Maharashtra# 3.00 4.00 5.00 5.20-7-50 5.50-7.90 15. Manipur 3.00 4.00 5.00 7.12 8.16 16. Meghalaya 3.00 4.00 N.A N.A N.A 17. Mizoram 3.00 4.00 5.28 7.50 8.00 18. Nagaland 3.00 4.00 5.10 7.10 8.10 19. Orissa 5.50 4.00 5.50 N.A 7.50 20. Punjab N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A 21. Rajasthan 3.00 4.00 5.10 7.15 8.20 22. Sikkim 3.00 4.00 N.A N.A N.A 23. Tamil Nadu* - 2.00-3.75 4.50 N.A N.A 24. Tripura 3.00 4.00 5.10 7.10 8.10 25. Uttar Pradesh 3.00 4.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 26. West Bengal 3.00 4.00 5.50 7.40 8.50 27. A&N Islands 3.00 4.00 5.10 7.80 8.30 28. Chandigarh 2.78 3.77 4.87 - 7.43 29. D&N Haveli 3.00 4.00 5.00 N.A 7.50 30. Daman & Diu 3.00 4.00 5.25 N.A 8.50 31. Lakashadweep 3.00 4.00 5.10 7.90 8.40 32. Pondichenry 4.00 5.00 7.50 8.00 Note: TPDS not launched in Delhi and Lakshadweep. N.A.: Not available Additional subsidy to be bome by State Govemment, differs from area to area. * - Additional subsidy borne by State Govemment. # - Differs from area to area. Source: Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs, Annual Report 1997-98, New Delhi. - 22 - Annex Table A2.5b: Retail Prices of TPDS Edible Oil and Kerosene in Various States, Rs. Per Kg, 1997/98 S No. Kerosene Imp. Edible Oil States/UTs (Rs. Per liter) (Rs. Per kg.) 1. Andhra Pradesh * 3.00 28.00 2. Arunachal Pradesh 2.41-3.09 - 3. Assam# 2.46 4. Bihar 2.70-2.80 - 5. Delhi 2.54-2.95 31.35 6. Goa 2.60-3.00 29.50 7. Gujarat* 2.98-3.39 33.50 8. Haryana 2.80-3.00 34.75 9. Jammu & Kashmir 3.15-3.82 - 10. Kamataka 3.00-3.75 32.65 (per liter) 11. Kerala 2.80-3.00 33.00 (loose),34.00 (packed) 12. Madhya Pradesh 3.00-3.20 - 13. Maharashtra 2.55-3.90 32.00 14. Manipur 2.35 33.38 15. Meghalaya 2.57-3.50 33.70 16. Mizoram 3.21 36.26 17. Nagaland 3.50 32.00 18. Orissa 2.80-3-20 31.00 (Pouch) 28.50 (Loose) 19. Punjab 2.70-3.10 - 20. Rjasthan 2.79-3.11 32.00 21. Sikkim 2.82 31.25 22. Tamilnadu 2.80-3.10 32.00 23. Tripura 2.86-3.20 32.00 24. Uttar Pradesh 3.25 - 25. West Bengal 2.80-3.05 29.40 (Loose) 26. A & N Islands 3.80 34.50 27. Chandigarh 2.85 32.00 28. D & N Haveli 2.65 30.00 29. Daman & Diu 2.65 31.60 30. Delhi 2.58 29.50 31. Lakshadweep 3.80 36.00 32. Pondicherry 3.00 30.50 * - Additional subsidy borne by State Government. Source: Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs, Annual Report 1997-98, New Delhi. Annex Table A2.6: Central Issue Price for Levy Sugar for the PDS, Rs/kg, 1988-1997 Date Issue Price, Rs/Kg 01/09/1988 5.25 24/07/1991 6.10 21/01/1992 6.90 17/02/1993 8.30 01/02/1994 9.05 10/02/1997 10.50 01/10/1997 11.40 Source: Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs, Annual Report 1997-98, New Delhi. - 23 - Annex Table A2.7: FCI Foodgrain Stocks and Minimum Buffer Stock Norms,1993-2000, million mt Beginning of Wheat Rice Total Wheat and Rice the month Min. Norm Act. Stock %ActlMin Min. Norm Actual Stock % ActMin Min. Norm Actual Stock % ActlMin January --1992 7.7 5.3 69% 7.7 8.6 112% 15.4 13.9 900/0 April 3.7 2.2 590%o 10.8 8.9 82% 14.5 11.1 77% July 13.1 6.5 50%0 9.2 7.4 80% 22.3 13.9 62% October 10.6 4.4 42% 6 5.1 85% 16.6 9.5 57% January --1993 7.7 3.3 43% 7.7 8.5 110% 15.4 11.8 77% April 3.7 2.7 73% 10.8 9.9 92% 14.5 12.6 87% July 13.1 14.9 114% 9.2 9.3 101% 22.3 24.2 109% October 10.6 13.7 129% 6.0 7.2 120% 16.6 20.9 126% January -1994 7.7 10.8 140% 7.7 11.2 145% 15.4 22.0 143% April 3.7 7.0 189% 10.8 13.5 125% 14.5 20.5 141% July 13.1 17.5 134% 9.2 13.3 145% 22.3 30.8 138% October 10.6 15.6 147% 6.0 10.9 182% 16.6 26.5 160% January -1995 7.7 12.9 .168% 7.7 17.4 226% 15.4 30.3 197% April 3.7 8.7 235% 10.8 18.1 168% 14.5 26.8 185% July 13.1 19.2 147% 9.2 16.4 178% 22.3 35.6 160% October 10.6 16.9 1590/o 6.0 13.0 217% 16.6 29.9 180% January --1996 7.7 13.1 170%/o 7.7 15.4 200% 15.4 28.5 185% April 3.7 7.8 211% 10.8 13.1 121% 14.5 20.9 144% July 13.1 14.1 108% 9.2 12.9 140% 22.3 27.0 121% October 10.6 10.5 990/% 6.0 9.3 155% 16.6 19.8 119% January --1997 7.7 7.1 92% 7.7 12.9 168% 15.4 20.0 130% April 3.7 3.2 86% 10.8 13.2 122% 14.5 16.4 113% July 13.1 11.4 87% 9.2 11.0 120% 22.3 22.4 100% October 10.6 8.3 78% 6.0 7.0 117% 16.6 15.3 92% January --1998 7.7 6.7 87% 7.7 11.5 149% 15.4 18.2 118% April 3.7 5.1 138% 10.8 13.0 120% 14.5 18.1 125% July 13.1 16.5 126% 9.2 12 130% 22.3 28.5 128% October 10.6 15.2 143% 6 9 150% 16.6 24.2 146% January --1999 8.4 12.7 151% 8.4 11.7 139% 16.8 24.4 145% April 4 9.9 248% 11.8 11.7 990/o 15.8 21.6 137% July 14.3 21.6 151% 10 10.7 107% 24.3 32.3 133% October 11.6 20.4 176% 6.5 8.8 135% 18.1 29.2 161% January--2000 8.4 17.3 206% 8.4 14.2 169% 16.8 31.5 188% Source: GOI, Economic Survey, various issues. - 24 - Annex Table A2.8: Export/Import Policy on Foodgrains as of 26th October, 1999. Item Policy & Conditions relating to the policy IMPORT EXPORT Paddy Canalised. Import through FCI. Restricted. Export permitted under license. Rice-Basmati 50% or more broken-import freely Free. Export allowed subject to allowed. registration of contracts with APEDA. Other basmati rice import canalised through FCI. Rice-Non-Basmati 40% or more broken and common and Free. Export allowed subject to coarse varieties-import freely allowed. registration of contracts with Other rice-import canalised through APEDA. FCI. Wheat Canalised. Import through FCI. Export permitted against license However, import by Roller Flour Mills subject to quantitative ceilings as either directly or through may be notified by Ministry of STC/MMTC/PEC for milling purposes Commerce (DGFT) from time to allowed freely. time and registration of contracts with APEDA. For 1999-2000 a ceiling of 1.00 million tonnes has been fixed. Wheat products Restricted - Consumer goods - Not Free permitted to be imported except against license or in accordance with Public Notice. Coarse grains (barley, Canalised. Import through FCI. Export permitted subject to an Maize, Bajra, Ragi & annual quantitative ceiling of lowar) 1.00 lakh tonnes. However, export of Hybrid Jowar produced ad Khaif crop is free. Pulses Free All types including flour made thereunder except those in consumer packs up to 5.00 kg. Restricted, export permitted under license. Export of pulses in consumer packs up to 5.00 kgs. Is free. Source: Food Corporation of India. - 25 - Annex Table A2.9: Levy Rates for Procurement of Rice in India, Percent, 1983-84 to 1997-98 State Category 1983-84 1991-92 1992-93 1997-98 Andhra Pradesh Millers/Dealers 50 50 50 50 Assam Millers/Dealers 50 50 50 50 Bihar Millers 20-40 None None None Chandigarh/ Millers/Dealers 75-90 75 75 75 Delhi _ Gujarat Millers 33.3 2 7 1 0 Haryana Millers/Dealers 75-90 75 75 75 Jammu & Millers Nil Nil Nil Nil Kashmir ___ Kamataka Millers/Dealers 50 33.3 33.3 33.3 Kerala Millers x Nil Nil Nil Madhya Pradesh Millers 50%25% (special mills)@ Orissa Millers 50 50 50 75 Pondicherry Millers/Dealers 50 20-30 20-30 10 (20% transport levy on paddy/rice) Punjab Millers/Dealers 75-90 75 75 75 Rajasthan Millers/Dealers 50 50-75 50-75 25 Tamil Nadu Millers/Dealers 50 50 50 50b' Tnpura Millers Nil Nil Nil Nil Uttar Pradesh Millers/Dealers 60 40 60 40 (East UP); 60 (West UP) West Bengal Millers 40 50 30 50% Delhi Millers _ ______X_75 Chandigarh Millers 75 Note: x Graded levy on producers a/ 25% levy applies to 12 rice mills under the "Registered Small Industries and Revival Scheme" of the Khadi Gramodyog Board. b/Tamil Nadu promulgated monopoly purchase order of paddy in Kaveri Delta in 1996/97. Source: 1. GOI, Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Bulletin on Food Statistics (Various issues) 2. Food Corporation of India. Annex Table A2.10: Mid-Day Meals Scheme: Type and Mode of Food Transfer in Different States State Type of Food Quantity Period Eligibility Criteria Delivery Pt Andhra Cooked meal 10 months Classes I-V School Pradesh Assam Rice 3 kg/child/month 10 months 80% attendance in previous School month, Classes I-IV Gujarat Cooked meal 100 gm foodgrain, dal 20 gm, 10 months All students present, Classes I- School oil 10 gin, vegetable and spices V, state program for Classes VI 50 gm and VII Haryana rice and wheat 1.5 kg of each grain/child/month 10 months 80% attendance in previous School I_____________ month, Classes J-IV Jammu Rice 3 kg/child/month 10 months All students present, Classes I- School I __ . IV Kamataka Wheat or rice 3 kg/child/month 10 months 80% attendance in previous Coupons thru Fair month, Classes I-IV price shop Madhya Wheat or rice 3 kg/child/month 10 months 80% attendance in previous Coupons thru Fair Pradesh month, Classes I-TV price shop Maharashtra Cooked meal 100 gm "paushtik ahar" or 150 10 months Class I-IV School ml boiled milk or one boiled egg Orissa Cooked meal Rice 125 gm, Dal 15 gm, all working days All students present, Classes I- School vegetable condiments and salt IV for 10 paise, salt I gm and oil I gm Rajasthan Wheat 3 kg/child/month 10 months All students present, Classes I- School I_______ IV _ Tamil Nadu Cooked meal rice, lentils and vegetables 10 months Class I- IV School Uttar Pradesh Wheat and rice 1.5 kg of each grain/child/month 10 months 80% attendance in previous Coupons thru Fair month, Classes I-IV price shop West Bengal Rice 3 kg/child/month 10 months 80% attendance in previous School _month, Classes I-IV Source: ORG, 1999. - 26 - Annex Table A2.11: ICDS Package of Services and Tar t Population Rural/Urban Project Tribal Project (Population:100,000/illages:100) (Population: 35,00/Villages:550 Target Services Total Target % Coverage Total Target % Group Population Population Population Population Coverage Children Supplementary 17,000 6,800 40% 5,950 4,462 75% below 6 ys Nutrition Immunization 17,000 100% 5950 100% Health Check-UP 17,000 100% 5950 100% Non-formal pre-school 8,000 4,000 500/o 2,800 2100 75% education (3-6 yrs) Expectant & Supplementary 4,000 1,600 40% 1,400 1050 75% Nursing Nutrition Mothers Health Check-up 4,000 4,000 100% 1,400 1400 100% Tetanus Immunization 2,400 2,000 100% u91 910 100% Women 15- Health & Nutrition 20,000 20,000 100% 7,000 5250 75% 45 yrs Education I_I_I_I_I Source: Department of Women and Child Development, 1999, Integrated Child Development Services, Govemment of India, New Delhi. Annex Table A2 12a: State and GOI Food and Civil S pplies Expenditure, India, 1994/95 to 1996/97, Rs million, current prices 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 State State GOI Price Total State GOI Price Total State GOI Price Total Program Expenditure Subsidy Program Expenditure Subsidy Program Expenditure Subsidy Cost Cost Cost Andhra 7,663 2,224 9,886 11,403 2,706 14,109 8,102 4,880 12,982 Pradesh Bihar 115 356 471 168 879 1,047 167 997 1,164 ujarat 261 0 261 911 0 911 1,072 1,947 3,020 Haryana 22 0 22 27 27 41 32 362 Kamataka 137 1,013 1,15 2,283 1,35 3,633 2,535 3,225 5,761 Kerala 37 1,605 1,642 3 2,482 2,517 587 4,75 5,343 Madhya 303 357 660 337 792 1,129 418 1,61 2,02 Pradesh aharashtra 589 931 1,521 1,13 2,061 3,198 976 3,072 4,048 Orissa 152 442 59 853 902 1,755 917 2,274 3,191 Punjab 59 0 5 77 C 77 96 133 229 Rajasthan 104 771 87 11 644 763 114 2,402 2,51 Tamil Nadu 5,346 1,373 6,71 8,16 1,698 9,864 10,227 4,875 15,102 Uttar Pradesh 455 491 945 443 1,592 2,035 582 2,704 3,28 West Bengal 35 1,485 1,841 421 1,697 2,118 485 3,098 3,583 Himachal 15( 0 15 16 0 160 185 452 63 Pradesh Other States 2,418 3,103 5,521 2,92 4,898 7,818 951 7,145 8,097 All India 18,166 14,149 32,315 29,460 21,701 51,161 27,456 43,440 70,896 Source: Expenditure Budget, Volume 2, GOI, various issues; State Budgets. Annex Table A2 12b: State and GOI Food and Civil Supplies Expenditure, India, 1997/98, Rs million, current prices TPDS Total Program Cost, Rs million Poverty GOI Subsidy State Cost as State Total State GOI Subsidy" Rate, 93/942' as % Total cost % of GSDP Andhra Pradesh 14,452 7,353 7,099 29% 49% 0.790/o Bihar 2,818 224 2,594 60% 92% 0.05% Gujarat 3,460 769 2,690 34% 78% 0.09% Haryana 457 45 412 90% 0.01% Kamataka 6,156 2,401 3,756 38% 61% 0.37% Kerala 8,603 1,787 6,815 290/% 79% 0.47% Madhya Pradesh 2,638 409 2,230 44% 85% 0.06% Maharashtra 7,919 2,070 5,849 44% 74% 0.12% Orissa 3,615 961 2,654 40% 73% 0.33% Punjab 190 126 63 22% 33% 0.02% Rajasthan 1,983 142 1,840 44% 93% 0.03% Tamil Nadu 14,990 10,327 4,663 35% 31% 1.18% Uttar Pradesh 5,410 843 4,567 40% 84% 0.06% West Bengal 5,342 547 4,795 26% 90% 0.13% Himachal Pradesh 596 193 403 68% Other States 11,110 774 10,336 93% All India 89,337 28,973 60,363 35% 68% Note 1/ GOI subsidy = total offtake x consumer subsidy/kg. 2/ Poverty rate uses the head count index. Source: State Budgets; Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs Annual Report 1997/98, and World Bank, 2000. - 27 - Annex Table A2.13: Food and Civil Supplies Expenditure, India, 1989/90-1998/99, Rs million, current prices State 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98RE 1998-99BE Andhra Pradesh 3,026 3,757 3,601 2,547 4,210 7,663 11,403 8,102 7,353 7,344 Bihar 97 112 98 123 117 115 168 167 224 357 Gujarat 242 246 331 250 209 261 911 1,072 769 948 Haryana 6 15 13 22 22 22 27 41 45 87 Karnataka 50 4 81 492 640 137 2,283 2,535 2,401 1,919 Kerala 12 66 381 1,245 28 37 35 5871 1,787 1,660 MadhyaPradesh 75 212 161 198 201 303 337 418 409 680 Maharashtra 240 249 302 423 897 589 1,137 976 2,070 2,911 Orissa 122 152 169 156 106 152 853 917 961 1,070 Punjab 38 36 46 47 56 59 77 96 126 147 Rajasthan 50 50 63 80 88 104 119 114 142 192 Tamil Nadu 1,940 2,698 3,697 6,939 4,021 5,346 8,166 10,227 10,327 5,405 Uttar Pradesh 263 299 337 412 520 455 443 582 843 754 West Bengal 185 276 260 300 358 356 421 485 547 648 Himachal Pradesh 72 84 58 140 153 150 160 185 193 176 All 15 States 6,419 8,255 9,596 13,376 11,626 15,748 26,540 26,505 28,199 24,298 All States 10,357 14,303 12,746 18,166 29,460 27,456 28,973 28,352 Source: State Budgets. Annex Table A2.14: GOI Department of Food, Minitry of Food and Civil Supples Expenditures, 1989/90-19992000, Rs million, current prices Category 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98* 1998-99 199900 (BE) 1. Secretariat-Economic 36.1 37.0 41.0 41.0 47.9 55.3 62.5 66.6 89.6 88.9 103.8 Services 2. Food Storage and Warehousing 2.1 Food Subsidy 24,760.0 24,500.0 28,500.0 28,000.0 52,000.0 51,000.0 55,000.0 60,660.0 79,000.0 91,000.0 85,600.0 2.11 Sugar _ _ 4,000.0 4,000.0 3,600.0 2.12 Food __ _ 75,000.0 87,000.0 82,000.0 2.121 Foodgrain Price 60,363.4 84,355.5 subsidy _ _____ 2.122 Foodgrain Buffer 14,636.6 2,644.5 Stock Subsidy l_ l_l_L_l__ 2.2OtherProgramsof 85.4 99.7 107.5 109.0| 104.1 106.8 122.9 136.2 174.8 193.5 202.2 Food Storage and Warehousing _ __Ll _ ll_ |Total 124,881.5 24,636.7 .}648.5 28,150.0152,152.01 51,162.1 55,185.4 60,862.8 79,264.4 91,282.4 85,906.0 Total excluding Food 121.5 136.7F 148.5 150.01 152.01 162.1 185A 202.8 264A 282.4 306.0 Subsidy I _ _ I Note: 1. Secretariat expenditure of the Department of Food and the Pay and Accounts Offices. 2.1 Food Subsidy is paid to the Food Corporation of India for reimbursement of the (i) the difference between the economic costs of foodgrains and their issue price and (ii) carrying cost of buffer stocks. The economic costs comprises procurement incidentals for indigenously procured foodgrains as well as distribution incidentals comprising movement, storage, handling, interests, charges, etc. 2.11 Subsidy on the maintenance of buffer stocks of sugar and represents the provision for meeting outstanding claims of Sugar mills for maintenance of buffer stocks to be met out of the Sugar Development Fund. 2.2. This includes the provision for direction and administration", residual expenditure on purchase of foodgrains, research training and evaluation, international cooperation, and other schemes. 1998-99 forward, includes expenditures on other programs of the Dept of Food and Civil Supplies and Dept of Sugar and Edible Oils. * 1997-98 Dept of Food and Dept of Civil Supplies were merged into one Dept of Food and Civil Supplies. A separate Dept of Sugar and Edible Oils is created. Source: Expenditure Budget, Volume 2, GOI, various issues. Annex Table A2.15a: JRY and EAS Expenditures (current prices) and Number of Workdays Created, 1991/92 to 1998/99. JRY EAS Total JRY EAS Estimated Average Wage Rate l l l l l l I (Rs/d~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ay)I Year Rs million Rs million Rs million Million person days Million person days JRY EAS 1991-92 n.a. 0 na 776 0 1992-93 20,460 0 20,460 782.1 0 26 1993-94 33,060 4,380 37,440 1025.8 49.5 32 88 1994-95 35,350 11,400 46,750 951.7 274 37 42 1995-96 29,550 18,160 47,710 895.8 346.5 33 52 1996-97 16,550 18,400 34,950 400.6 403 41 46 1997-98 19,530 19,050 38,580 395.8 471.8 49 40 1998-99 20,600 19,900 40,500 375.2 416.5 55 48 Note: The program was launched in October 1993, n.a.-not available. Source :Economic Survey, various issues. - 28 - Annex Table A2.15b: Estimated cost of the food component of current employment programs, constant 1997/98 prices. Dept of Rural Development Est. Food Cost of Est. WFP Food Aid Est. WFP Food Aid Est. JRY& EAS Expenditures on JRY/ EAS Rural Devt Value to Forestry Value to Irrigation Total Food Department' Dept Dept Costs Year Rs million Rs million Rs million Rs million Rs million 1992-93 30,436 2,211 na na 1993-94 50,896 2,126 na na 1994-95 57,948 3,078 na na 1995-96 54,438 995 na na 1996-97 36,948 816 407 49 1,272 1997-98 38,580 36 274 173 483 1998-99 36,940 103 na na Note: l/Foodgrains are valued at economic costs. Source: Data from Economic Survey, various issues; WFP New Delhi. Annex Table A2.15c: Total Economic Cost and E uivalent Food Subsidy Through Employment Programs, current prices Year Off-take Unit Economic Cost Total Economic Unit Consumer Subsidy Total Subsidy Equivalent 000 mt Rs/mt Cost, Rs 000 Rs/mt Rs 000 Wheat 1991-92 0 2800 1,391 0 0 1992-93 202 3,300 2,247 666,600 453,975 1993-94 149 4,020 1,762 598,980 262,464 1994-95 148 4,020 1,433 594,960 212,054 1995-96 84 4,020 1,720 337,680 144,488 1996-97 65 4,020 2,070 261,300 134,524 1997-98 1 8,005 4,046 8,005 4,046 1998-99 2 8,080 4,196 16,159 8,392 Rice _ _ 1991-92 9 3770 1,315 33,930 11,831 1992-93 80 4370 1,429 349,600 114,296 1993-94 116 5370 1,647 622,920 191,029 1994-95 240 5370 940 1,288,800 225,504 1995-96 50 5370 1,495 268,500 74,740 1996-97 42 5370 2,371 225,540 99,590 1997-98 3 9,404 3,296 28,212 9,888 1998-99 9 10,760 4,748 96,840 42,734 Total Rice and Wheat 1991-92 9 33,930 11,831 1992-93 282 1,016,200 568,271 1993-94 265 1,221,900 453,492 1994-95 388 1,883,760 437,558 1995-96 134 606,180 219,228 1996-97 107 486,840 234,114 1997-98 4 36,217 13,934 1998-99 11 112,999 51,126 Note: Foodgrains were priced by FCI at the central issue price till 1997. Thereafter, it was priced at the economic cost. Consumer subsidy is estimated as the difference between economic cost and central issue price. Source: Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Annual Reports 1997-98 & 1998-99, Economic Survey, various issues. Annex Table A2.16: CARE: Commodity Donations, volume and estimated value, 1997/98 and 1998/99 FY 1997/98, mt FY 1998/99 mt State Plan Actual Plan Actual Andbra Pradesh 19,997 21,303 18,859 21,070 Bihar 20,180 13,419 20,180 12,730 Madhya Pradesh 21,250 20,467 21,250 22,494 Orissa 26,580 28,017 26,580 27,877 Rajasthan 14,668 15,576 14,668 15,730 Uttar Pradesh 15,339 11,358 17,497 17,090 West Bengal 27,855 26,633 26,192 24,347 Total (All India) 145,869 136,773 145,226 141,338 FY 1997/98, Rs million FY 1998/99, Rs million State Plan Actual Plan Actual Andhra Pradesh 395 421 378 422 Bihar 399 265 404 255 Madhya Pradesh 420 404 426 451 Orissa 525 553 533 558 Rajasthan 290 308 294 315 Uttar Pradesh 303 224 351 342 West Bengal 550 526 525 488 Total (All India) 2,881 2,701 2,909 2,832 Source: CARE New Delhi. - 29 - Annex Table A2.17: WFP Food Allocations, 1997-1998, mt 1997 Food Allocation (mt) 1998 Provisional Food Allocation (mt) State ICDS Food Security/ Rural Devti Total Food ICDS Food Security/ Rural DevV Total Food Forest Irrigation Allocation Forest Irrigation Allocation Assam 3,912 4,080 Bihar 3975 3900 Gujarat 5030 Kerala 7,670 8,000 Kamataka Na na Madhya Pradesh 7,516 11007 7,840 10800 Orissa 5198 5100 Rajasthan 9,779 5198 Na 10,200 Uttar Pradesh 9,472 5198 9,880 5100 na Total 38,349 35,606 4,264 78219 40,000 24,900 15,686 80,586 Source: WFP in India, December 1997, "Addressing the Silent Emergency", Office of WFP, New Delhi. Annex Table A2. 18: WFP Country Program-India, 1997-2001 Food Contribution Value of Food Contribution Activity 5 Year Plan Est. Annual 5 Year Plan Est. Annual Mt Mt $ million $million Food Supplementation 253,000 50,600 101.7 20.34 Food Security/Forestry 329,501 65,900 113.4 22.68 Rural Devt/lrrigation 117,499 23,500 39.3 7.86 Total 700,000 140,000 254.4 50.88 Source: WFP in India, December 1997, "Addressing the Silent Emergency", Office of WFP, New Delhi. Annex Table A2.19: WFP Contribution in Food, Volume and Value, 1989 to 1998 Year Food Aid Qty Value of Food Average __________ nmt Rs million $000 __$/mt 1989 84,600 652 39,109 462.28 1990 120,608 791 44,092 365.58 1991 98,426 1,115 45,472 461.99 1992 84,660 1,348 43,979 519.48 1993 76,528 824 26,280 343.40 1994 109,922 888 28,284 257.31 1995 75,202 775 23,155 307.90 1996 113,495 1,036 29,178 257.09 1997 78,219 885 23,818 304.50 1998 80,586 1,003 23,892 296.48 Source: WFP in India, December 1997, "Addressing the Silent Emergency", Office of WFP, New Delhi. Annex Table A2.20a: Estimated 1997/98 Value of WFP Food Allocation by State (l$304.50/mt), US $ State ICDS Food Security/ Rural Devt/ Total Food Forest Irrigation Assam 1,191,204 Bihar 1,210,388 Gujarat 1,531,635 Kerala 2,335,515 Kamataka Madhya Pradesh 2,288,622 3,351,632 Orissa 1,582,791 Rajasthan 2,977,706 1,582,791 Uttar Pradesh 2,884,224 1,582,791 Total 11,677,271 10,842,027 1,298,388 23,817,686 Source: WFP, New Delhi. - 30 - Annex Table A2.20b: Number of Beneficiaries supported by CARE and WFP and the Estimated Share of Food Aid Contribution in GSDP, 1997/98 % Share of CARE & WFP Value of Food Aid to Ave. Food Aid Transfer % Share Food Aid Beneficiaries in CARE ICDS 1997/98, per Beneficiary/ month Value in GSDP & WFP In Total ICDS Rs million State Percent WFP CARE Total Rs/person/mo Percent Andhra 54% 0 421 421 42.3 0.05% Pradesh Assam 35% 44 0 44 21.4 Bihar 48% 0 265 265 24.9 0.05% Kerala 43% 87 0 87 21.5 0.02% Madhya 57% 85 404 489 32.3 0.07% Pradesh Orissa 72% 0 553 553 39.5 0.19% Rajasthan 111 308 418 32.3 0.08% Uttar Pradesh 55% 107 224 332 19.6 0.03% West Bengal 73% 0 526 526 38.1 0.06% Total: 9 States 60% 434 2,701 3,135 31.5 Source: WFP New Delhi, CARE New Delhi. Annex Table A2.21: Estimated 1998/99 Value of WFP.Food Allocation by State (93,$296.48/mt), US$ State ICDS Food Security/ Rural DevtS Total Food Forest Irrigation Assam 1,209,638 Bihar 1,156,272 Gujarat Kerala 2,371,840 Kamataka Madhya Pradesh 2,324,403 3,201,984 Orissa 1,512,048 Rajasthan 3,024,096 Uttar Pradesh 2,929,222 1,512,048 Total 11,859,200 7,382,352 4,650,585 23,892,137 Source: WFP, New Delhi. - 31 - Annex Table A2.22: Central Government, Department of Women and Child Development Nutrition Expenditures, 1988/89 to 1998/99, Rs million current prices Rs million, current prices Category 88/89 89/90 | 90/91 91/92 | 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 | 97/98 98/99 1. ICDS 1,713.2 1,905.3 2,548.0 2,927.5 4,007.3 4,733.7 5,367.9 6,693.0 6,819.0 6,000.0 6,031.4 2. World Bank 2,145.0 3,319.5 Assisted ICDS 3. Training Program 200.0 400.0 under ICDS Subtotal ICDS 1,713.2 1,905.3 2,548.0 2,927.5 4,007.3 4,733.7 5,367.9 6,693.0 6,819.0 8,345.0 9,750.9 4. Day Care Centers 143.0 153.7 155.5 156.0 185.5 230.5 230.5 230.5 230.5 221.5 230.5 5. Balwadi Nutrition 36.7 36.7 36.7 36.7 46.7 86.1 97.2 97.2 97.2 55.4 61.7 Program 6. Supplementary 230.0 280.0 200.0 300.0 250.0 nutrition for additional beneficiaries 7. Other Nutrition 54.7 52.7 58.4 60.6 62.8 63.1 Programs Total 2,122.9 2,375.7 2,940.2 3,420.2 4,489.5 5,105.0 5,748.3 7,079.1 7,207.3 8,684.7 10,106.2 3. Comprehensive training program for ICDS functionaries, undertaken through the National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development and other centers. 4. Day Care Centers-Scheme aims to provide day care services to children below 5 years belonging to weaker sections of the society, whose family income does not exceed Rs 1800 per mo. The creches run under the scheme also provide health care, supplementary nutrition, medical check up and immunization etc to children whose parents are away at work sites or are incapacitated due to sickness and are unable to look after them. The scheme is implemented through the Central Social Welfare Board and with the help of Voluntary Organizations. 5. Balwadi Nutrition Program --The program is implemented through voluntary organizations with grants-in-aid from the Central Govemment. It covers above 225,000 children in the age group of 3-5 years attending Balwadis run through five National Level Organizations. Apart from nutritional supplementation, the scheme aims to provide social and emotional development of the children. From 1997-98, the scheme caters to areas not covered by ICDS. 6. Supplementary nutrition-Wheat based supplementary nutrition scheme was introduced Jan 1, 1986. The new program is meant to enlarge the scope of existing programs in tribal areas, urban slums, and backward rural areas This scheme was transferred to States/Uts from 1993/94 onwards 7. Schemes on Nutrition-Regular programs on nutrition aim at creating awareness at different levels. Nutrition education programs are organized for field functionaries amd the community by Community Food and Nutrition Extension Units of Food and Nutrition Bureau. Development and production of nutritious foods, food fortification, food analysis, and food standardization, and research and development are also conducted under the schemes. Source: Government of India Expenditure Budget, Volume 2, various issues. Annex Table A2. 23: Government of India, Department of Women and Child Development Nutrition Expenditures, 1988/99 to 1997/98, Rs million 1,93/94 prices Rs million, 1993/94 prices Category 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 1. ICDS 2,805.0 2,880.2 3,471.7 3,477.9 4,385.1 4,733.7 4,894.6 5,617.8 5,302.9 4,413.7 2. World Bank Assisted 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,577.9 ICDS 3. Training Program under 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 147.1 ICDS Subtotal ICDS 2,805.0 2,880.2 3,471.7 3,477.9 4,385.1 4,733.7 4,894.6 5,617.8 5,302.9 6,138.7 4. Day Care Centers 234.1 232.3 211.9 185.3 203.0 230.5 210.2 193.5 179.3 162.9 5. Balwadi Nutrition 60.1 55.5 50.0 43.6 51.1 86.1 88.6 81.6 75.6 40.8 Program 6. Supplementary nutrition 376.6 423.3 272.5 356.4 273.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 for additional beneficiaries 7. Other Nutrition 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.7 48.1 49.0 47.1 46.2 Programs _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ Total 3,475.8 3,591.3 4,006.0 4,063.3 4,912.8 5,105.0 5,241.5 5,941.8 5,604.9 6,388.6 Source: Government of India Expenditure Budget, Volume 2, various issues. Annex Table A2.24 Number of ICDS beneficiaries, 000, 1985 to 1998 Item 1985 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total SNP Beneficiaries 6955 19493 21634 22036 22711 24029 Children SNP Beneficiaries 5724 16257 17793 18229 18937 20223 Mother SNP Beneficiaries 1231 3236 3841 3807 3774 3806 PSEBeneficiaries 3030 9350 10115 10514 11279 11489 Source: Annual Report for various years, Department of Women and Child Development, Govemment of India. - 32 - Annex Table A2.25: State Nutrition Expenditures in India, 1989/90 to 1998/99, Rs million, current prices State 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 197-98 198-99 _______ _____ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~RE BE Andhra Pradesh 110 103 160 207 218 257 318 293 460 542 Bihar 58 10 92 114 129 200 12 75 76 350 Gujarat# 316 306 746 460 511 607 827 831 1,047 890 Haryana 96 98 126 161 169 184 219 210 187 234 Karnataka# 627 692 774 293 251 372 576 754 770 804 Kerala 57 63 64 61 79 101 107 116 105 121 Madhya Pradesh # 98 108 158 222 269 283 464 562 798 779 Maharashtra# 316 464 548 541 621 1,189 1,042 1,612 1,607 1,803 Orissa# 113 116 131 193 246 227 393 457 605 566 Punjab 26 20 14 Rajasthan 140 145 172 210 289 314 367 425 476 636 Tamil Nadu# 1,308 1,804 337 593 715 1,155 999 1,143 3,337 4,314 West Bengal 19 26 49 53 41 58 85 104 104 165 Himachal Pradesh 32 24 19 22 22 40 44 61 62 82 14 States# 3,316 3,978 3,390 3,129 3,561 4,988 5,453 6,642 9,633 11,285 Uttar Pradesh na na na 84 221 252 458 418 na na All States exl. UP # 3,540 4,311 3,740 3,451 3,936 5,275 6,000 8,374 10,4617 12,194 All States incl. UP # na na na 3,535 4,158 5,527 6,458 8,792 na na Note: * Reported SNP expenditures only; #Mid-day meal expenditures were deducted from total State nutrition expenditures. na - not Available. Source: State Budgets. Annex Table A2.26: Mid-day Meals Program and Total Primary Education Expenditures of the Department of Education, Government of India Depar tment of Education Expenditures, Rs billion, current prices Category 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99RE 99/OOBE Mid-day meals 6.1 8.0 10.7 14.0 10.3 Total Elementary Education 14.4 15.7 22.7 27.4 30.3 % MDM/Total Primary Education 42% 51% 47% 51% 34% Category Department of Education Expenditures, Rs billion, 1997-98 prices Mid-daymeals 7.0 8.5 10.7 12.8 Total Elementary Education 16.5 16.6 22.7 25.0 Note: RE- revised estimate. BE - budgeted estimate. Source: Govemment of India, Expenditure Budget, Volume 2, various issues. Annex Table A2.27: Estimated National Nutritional Anemia Control and Vitamin A Prophylaxis Program, 1988/99 to 1998/99, Rs million, current prices Catego 88/89 89/90 1 90/91 91/92 92/93 | 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 Iron & Vit A Distribution 320.9 322.5 397.4 433.3 525.71 642.5 721.0 762.7 775.0 924.1 1,255.3| Note: Iron and Vit A program: estimated at 5% of budget of Dept of Family Welfare. Source: Govemment of India, Expenditure Budget, Volume 2, various issues. Annex Table A2.28: Estimated Quantity and Caloric Equivalent of Food Transfer per Household through Selected Food-Based Transfer Programs Estimated Food Transfer to Poor Household Grain Equivalent Calorie Equivalent' Food Security/Nutrition Program Kgs/month Calories/month TPDS 20 70,000 JGSY/EAS (I person)" 8.3 29,167 Mid-Day Meals (I child)2' 2.5 8,750 ICDS (I child & mother)3' 5.7 20,000 Total Grains 36.5 127,917 Notes: I/ Assumes I kg x 100 person days/12 months; 2/ Assumes: (3 kgs/month x 10 months)/12 months; 3/ Assumes (800 calories x 300 days)/12 months; 4/ Assumes 3,500 calories per kg of grain; 5/ Assumes an average of 5.7 persons per household (2.7 adults and 3 children under 12 years) equivalent to 4.4. consumer units per household (see Table A2.xx), 30 days per month, and programs working at 100% effectiveness. Source: Computed by author. - 33 - Annex Table A2.29: Average Household Composition in India, 1993/94 Rural Urban Population Characteristic Bottom 5%" Average Bottom 5%1/ Average Average Household Size 5.7 4.8 5.6 4.5 Average Number of Adults per Household 2.7 3.0 2.9 3.0 Average Number of Children per Household 3.0 1.8 2.7 1.5 Average Number of Consumer Units Per Household 4.4 4.5 1/ Applies to Bottom 5% of population according to consumption expenditures. Source: NSSO 50th Round, 5th Quinquennial Survey of Consumer Expenditures. Annex Table A2.30: Economic Cost and Consumer Price Subsidy Per Mt of Food ain Handled b FCI, Rs/mt Economnic Cost, Rs/mt 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 Rice 4970.4 5852.7 6651 6947.1 7682.2 8476.9 9404.0 10760.0 Wheat 3907.9 5041.0 5320.3 5511.7 5839.5 6401.6 8005.0 8079.5 Consumer Price Subsidy, Rs/mt 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 Rice 1314.6 1428.7 1646.8 939.6 1494.8 2371.2 3296.0 4748.2 Wheat 1391.1 2247.4 1761.5 1432.8 1720.1 2069.6 4046.3 4196.2 Source: Ministry of Finance, Economic Survey, various issues. - 34 - Chapter 3 Annex Tables and Figures I. Targeted Public Distribution System and Buffer Stocking Program Annex Table A3.1a: Average Quantity of Foodgrains Purchased by Rural Households Per Month from the PDS and Percentage Share of PDS and Purchased Grain in Total Household Grain Consumption in Major States, 1993/94 Quintile State Household Average Poorest 2nd 3rd 4th 5th State Ave Andhra Pradesh PDS grainsbought kg 13.83 12.21 11.14 9.47 6.69 10.66 . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ......... ..................iYW... ....? .. ..... .......... ........... ... -- -- -.--..---.. ..... % PDS Grains/Total Cons. 33% 25% 24% 19% 13% 22% % Open Mkt Grains/Total Cons 57% 56% 54% 52% 53% 54% Assam PDS grains bought kg 4.02 2.15 1.91 1.58 1.18 2.17 % PDS Grains/Total Cons. 7% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% ._____________ % Open Mkt Grains/Total Cons 60% 41% 34% 29% 33% 39% Bihar PDS grains bought? kg 0.18 0.14 0.11 0.36 0.06 0.17 % PDS Grains/Total Cons. 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% % Open Mkt Grains/Total Cons 71% 66% 59% 52% 48% 59% Gujarat PDS grains bought kg 3.20 3.06 2.87 2.43 1.66 2.64 %o PDS Grains/Total Cons. 22% 1i7% 14% 11% 9% 14o % Open Mkt Grains/Total Cons 64% 62% 66% 60% 59% 62% Haryana PDSgrainsbought, kg 0.03 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.19 0.18 % PDS Grains/Total Cons. 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% % Open Mkt Grains/Total Cons 91% 69% 54% 78% 68% 74% Karnataka PDS grins bought, g 4.32 3.91 3.38 3.39 3.50 3.70 % PDS Grains/Total Cons. 29% 16% 11% 9% 10% 13% % Open Mkt Grains/Total Cons 65% 60% 54% 57% 54% 57% Kerala PDS grains bought, kg 24.84 23.3 20.66 18.27 12.03 19.91 % PDS Grains/Total Cons. 59% 51% 49% 41% 29% 46% % Open Mkt Grains/Total Cons 37% 45% 44% 51% 54% 46% Madhya Pradesh PDSgrains bough kg 1.81 1.36 1.27 0.70 0.52 1.13 % PDS Grains/Total Cons. 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% % Open Mkt Grains/Total Cons 52% 49% 44% 47% 55% 49% Maharashtra PDS grains bought, k 117 1.85 2.14 2.15 1.96 1.85 %PDSGrains/TotalCons. 11% 12% 11% 10% 8% 10% % Open Mkt Grains/Total Cons 60% 58% 59% 56% 63% 59% Orissa PDS grains bought, g 1.69 0.55 0.38 0.69 0.16 0.69 % PDS Grains/Total Cons. 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% % Open Mkt Grains/Total Cons 64% 61% 52% 50% 45% 54% Punjab PDS grains bought, kg 0.03 0.12 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.07 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..... . ... . ....... . . ... .... . .. ............ .... .. . 1- ........... . ..... ..... . ...... .............. . .. ....... . ..........I ........... ....... .... ........ % PDS Grains/Total Cons. 0% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% % Open Mkt Grains/Total Cons 88% 81% 66% 50% 45% 72% Rajasthan PDS grains bought? k 0.29 0.14 0.10 0.17 0.10 0.16 - % PDS Grains/Total Cons. 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% % Open Mkt Grains/Total Cons 90% 90% 91% 92% 84% 90% Tamil Nadu PDS grains bought, kg 9.34 8.99 7.62 6.77 5.93 7.73 % PDS Grains/Total Cons. 25% 21% 17% 16% 14% 18% % Open Mkt Grains/Total Cons 60% 57% 57% 52% 58% 57% Uttar Pradesh PDS grains k 0 . 1.09 0.8 0.58 0.71 % PDS Grains/Total Cons. 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% % Open Mkt Grains/Total Cons 68% 57% 57% 50% 50% 57% West Bengal PDS grains bought, kg 0.45 0.71 0.86 0.43 0.31 0.55 % PBS Grains/Total Cons. i% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % Open Mkt Grains/Total Cons 72% 57% 54% 48% 39% 54% Note: Percentage shares do not include other sources of grains in total consumption, such as the Noon Meals Scheme and the Integrated Child Development Services program which distribute grains from free to households. Computed using NSSO 50Q round Quinquennial Survey of Consumer Expenditure. Source: Umali-Deininger and Deininger, 2000. - 36 - Annex Table A3.1b: Average Income Transfer Per Household Through the Public Distribution Systems by Quintile in Rural Areas in Major States and Poverty rates, 1994/95, Rs Per Month Rural Poverty PDS 1 Average Income Transfer by Quintile, Rs per Month State | 93/94 (%) Itemr' Poorest 2nd 3rd 4th 5 State Average Andhra Pradesh 15.9 All Food 41.1 37.4 34.8 31.1 24.6 33.8 _________Grains 37.8 33.3 30.6 25.8 18.2 29.1 Assam 44.9 All Food 12.3 10.1 10.0 8.7 8.9 10.0 Grains 6.3 3.2 2.7 0.8 1.1 2.8 Bihar 58.0 All Food 2.6 3.8 4.6 6.0 6.8 4.8 Grains 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.5 Gujarat 22.2 All Food 25.1 23.2 22.0 21.1 13.6 21.0 Grains 15.5 13.5 12.7 11.8 7.0 12.1 Haryana 28.3 All Food 7.5 9.0 8.7 16.5 7.4 9.8 Grains 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 Karnataka 30.1 All Food 21.1 20.2 17.9 18.6 20.6 33.8 Grains 16.5 15.0 12.7 13.2 14.0 29.1 Kerala 25.4 All Food 54.3 50.8 46.5 42.9 33.7 33.8 Grains 44.8 41.6 37.8 33.9 25.5 29.1 Madhya Pradesh 40.8 All Food 8.7 9.4 9.9 10.7 11.7 10.1 Grains 4.0 3.3 3.3 2.6 2.7 3.2 Maharashtra 37.9 All Food 10.8 14.8 15.8 16.2 15.5 14.6 Grains 6.0 9.0 9.4 9.8 8.3 8.5 Orissa 49.8 All Food 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.1 5.4 4.8 Grains 1.8 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.9 Punjab 11.7 All Food 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.2 5.0 6.0 Grains 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 Rajasthan 26.4 All Food 23.4 18.3 16.9 13.2 10.9 16.6 Grains 162 11.7 10.8 7.9 5.7 10.5 Tamil Nadu 33.0 All Food 37.3 38.8 35.6 34.3 34.5 36.1 Grains 33.5 34.0 30.3 28.7 27.9 30.9 Uttar Pradesh 42.3 All Food 3.2 4.9 6.3 6.0 5.9 5.3 Grains 0.9 1.6 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.7 West Bengal 41.2 All Food 5.7 7.3 7.3 7.0 7.2 6.9 Grains 1.1 1.4 1.5 0.9 0.8 1.1 All India 37.1 All Food 11.9 14.1 15.1 16.0 16.0 15.8 _ Grains 9.1 10.3 10.2 10.2 9.3 9.8 Note: I/Poverty rates measured by headcount index. 2/ All Food-different states offer a range of options and may include rice, wheat, sugar, edible oils, pulses or coarse grains. Grains-rice and wheat only. 3/ Income transfer = (Open market price -PDS price) x amount purchased from PDS. Computed using NSS 50'b round Quinquennial Survey of Consumer Expenditure. Source: Umali-Deininger and Deininger, 2000. Annex Table A3. 2: Average Transfer Per Month (Rupees) By Type Of Commodity in UP Commodity Per Capita Consumption Quintile | Poorest 2 3 4 5 Overall Rice 1.77 1.85 1.50 1.16 0.69 1.38 Wheat 3.34 3.58 2.99 1.68 1.32 2.58 Sugar 2.86 3.80 4.94 6.02 8.19 5.19 Kerosene 7.66 7.81 8.74 9.12 11.33 8.81 Source: Kriesel and Zaid, 1.999. - 37 - Annex Table A3.3: Allocation Of BPL Cards and Income Distribution In UP INCOME DISTRIBUTION*** Per Capita Consumption Quintile Poorest 2 3 4 5 < Rs 1,742 < Rs 2,279 < Rs 2,945 < Rs 4,330 > Rs 4,330 Overall Percentage of households having a BPL card: 44.3 37.1 31.8 25.6 10.8 29.9 Distribution of BPL card-holders: 29.5 25.0 21.3 16.9 7.3 100.0 Total Household Consumption Quintile Poorest 2 3 T._ • Rs 7,845 < Rs 11,577 < Rs 17,000 < Rs 25,811 > Rs 25,811 Overall Percentage of households having a BPL card: 38.7 42.0 36.1 21.9 11.7 29.9 Distribution of BPL card-holders: 25.2 28.1 24.1 14.8 7.8 100.0 Note: *** Consumption was used as a proxy for income. Rupee amounts for both per-capita and total household consumption are per annum. Source: Kriesel and Zaid, 1999. Annex Table A3.4: Rice Marketed Surplus, 000 mt, 1992/93-1997/98 State 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 % Marketed Surplus 92/93 Andhra Pradesh 6,392 7,143 6,930 6,734 7,982 6,357 74.7 Assam 825 840 827 848 832 846 25 Bihar 2,120 3,629 3,741 3,944 4,325 4,024 59.4 Haryana 1,762 1,940 2,100 1,742 2,323 2,400 94.3 Karnataka 2,205 2,365 2,354 2,247 2,386 2,477 74.3 Madhya Pradesh 2,477 2,719 2,947 2,663 2,708 2,047 45.6 Maharashtra 1,321 1,389 1,340 1,433 1,461 1,339 55.9 Orissa 2,764 3,394 3,259 3,194 2,277 3,183 51.3 Punjab 6,631 7,237 7,295 6,409 6,945 7,478 94.7 Tamil Nadu 3,649 3,753 4,205 2,941 3,228 3,921 55.6 Uttar Pradesh 6,577 6,984 7,090 7,088 8,051 8,321 68.4 West Bengal 4,799 4,953 5,005 4,862 5,168 5,414 40.9 All India 43,639 48,259 49,170 46,262 49,124 49,462 60.1 Note:: Marketed surplus estimated using Department of Economic and Statistics 1992/93 estimates of percentage of production marketed. Punjab estimates use NCAER marketed surplus percentage. Source: Production figures from Directorate of Economics and Statistics. Annex Table A3.5: FCI/State Rice Procurement as Percenta e of Marketed Surplus, 1992/93-197/98 State 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 Andhra Pradesh 52% 56% 58% 57% 57% 43% Assam 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Bihar 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Haryana 50% 64% 68% 40% 52% 47% Kamataka 5% 6% 2% 3% 3% 3% Madhya Pradesh 28% 30% 26% 26% 21% 46% Maharashtra 5% 6% 5% 3% 2% 2% Orissa 14% 11% 10% 14% 21% 15% Punjab 64% 65% 80% 54% 61% 80% Tamil Nadu 32% 15% 7% 3% 23% 29% Uttar Pradesh 18% 19% 10% 10% 11% 9% West Bengal 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% A]l India 28% 28% 28% 22% 26% 27% Source: FCI procurement data from Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution. - 38 - Annex Table A3.6: Wheat Marketed Surplus, 000 mt, 1992/93-197/98 State 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 % Marketed Surplus: 92/93 Andhra Pradesh _ Assam Bihar 1725 2178 2138 2119 2280 2080 50 Gujarat 586 400 846 484 576 710 43.1 Haryana 5156 5264 5317 5308 5697 5499 72.8 Himachal Pradesh 165 115 167 149 148 148 27.8 Karnataka Madhya Pradesh 2932 3755 4040 3700 4325 4077 55.5 Maharashtra Orissa Punjab 9066 9805 9926 9176 12221 9323 73.3 Rajasthan 2651 1782 2890 2829 3493 3451 51.5 Uttar Pradesh 11611 12202 13220 12784 14093 13500 58.6 West Bengal I All India 35127 36742 40381 38128 42581 40467 61.4 Note: Marketed surplus estimated using Department of Economic and Statistics 1992/93 estimates of percentage of production marketed. Punjab estimates use NCAER marketed surplus percentage. Source: Production figures from Directorate of Economics and Statistics. Annex Table A3.7: FCl/State Wheat Procurement as Percentage of Marketed Surplus. 1992/93-197/98 States 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 Andhra Pradesh _ Assam Bihar Gujarat Haryana 27% 66% 57% 58% 36% 42% Himachal Pradesh Karnataka Madhya Pradesh 6% 2% 5% 0% 3% Maharashtra _ Orissa Punjab 50% 66% 73% 80% 46% 64% Rajasthan 1% 28% 16% 16% 7% 90/o Uttar Pradesh 4% 17% 11% 10% 2% 5% West Bengal I _I I All India 18% 35% 29% 32% 190/0 23% Source: FCI procuTement data from Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution. - 39 - Annex Table A3.8: Offtake of Foodgrains from Central Pool, million mt, 1989/90-1998199 RICE 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 194/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 (-- $) (P) (**l (** *l (* **) (* **) (P P (P) PDS/EC 6.26 6.80 8.96 7.72 6.73 5.44 6.62 7.92 2.48 APUBPLJRPDS 1.07 1.08 1.21 1.97 2.37 2.57 3.13 3.22 7.42 BPL 3.35 APL ______ 7.39 J.R.Y. 0.15 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.22 0.24 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.01 N.P./R.W. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 Open Sale 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.11 0.49 0.77 0.35 0.02 0.12 Paddy Sale 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 0.14 0.16 0.00 Hostel SC/ST/OBC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.21 0.12 0.02 0.00 Employment Generation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 Mid-Day-Meal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.58X 1.24 0.93 Export 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.00 1.49 0.05 0.00 0.00 Total 7.48 7.91 10.26 9.89 9.46 8.85 14.00 12.44 11.35 11.83 WHEAT PDS/EC 6.19 6.33 8.06 6.32 4.31 3.32 3.91 6.23 1.61 APLUBPL/RPDS 0.23 0.76 0.77 1.53 1.78 1.79 1.89 2.29 1.751 BPL 2.62 APL ____5.33 J.R.Y. 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.02 N.P./R.W. 0.26 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.15 0.01 0.03 Open Sale 0.00 1.24 0.88 0.02 2.87 5.13 6.44 3.67 0.00 0.53 Hostel SC/ST/OBC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Ernployment Generaton 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 M.F.I.L./F. Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.17 0.07 0.02 0.00 Mid-Day-Meal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.40 0.56 0.38 Export 0.01 0.22 0.73 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.44 0.00 0.00 Total 6.76 8.58 10.48 8.06 9.14 10.53 12.81 13.32 3.95 8.92 RICE & WHEAT PDS/EC 12.45 13.13 17.02 14.04 11.04 8.77 10.53 14.15 4.09 APL/BPLtRPDS 1.29 1.83 1.98 3.50 4.15 4.36 5.03 5.51 9.17 BPL 5.97 APL 12.72 J.R.Y. 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.26 0.38 0.39 0.13 0.11 0.00 0.03 N.P./R.W. 0.26 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.17 0.01 0.05 Open Sale 0.00 1.24 0.90 0.05 2.98 5.62 7.21 4.02 0.02 0.65 Paddy Sale 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 0.14 0.16 0.00 Hostel SC/ST/OBC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.22 0.12 0.02 0.00 Employment Generation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 M.F.I.L./F. Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.17 0.07 0.02 0.00 Mid-Day-Meal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.98 1.80 1.32 Export 0.02 0.23 0.78 0.05 0.04 0.00 1.57 0.49 0.00 0.00 Grand Total 14.24 16.49 20.74 17.96 18.61 19.38 26.80 25.76 15.30 20.75 Abbreviations: (APL) = Above Poverty Line (BPL) = Below Poverty Line (P) = Provisional (EC) = Economic Cost (PDS) = Public Distribution System (JRY) = Jawahar Rozgar Yojna (RPDS) = Revamped Public Distribution System (NEG) = Below 500 Tonnes (&) = Paddy sale 1995-96 - 19.85 Lakh Tonnes = RPDS discontinued from June 1997 (13.23 lakh Tones of Rice and 2.07 lakh Tonnes of Paddy sale (MFIL) = Modem Food Industries Limited in 1996-97 in Punjab (NP/RW) = Nutrition Programme/Relief Works (T) = Tender Sale (#) = RPDS Discontinued from May, 1997 (%) = RPDS Started from June, 1992 ($) = Figures of Relief Included in PDS from (**) = Lifted Against SC/ST/OBCs Hostel 19899-90 Onwards = Actual (Audited Figures) (@) = Against Export sale under OMSS Including 2000 MTs of Wheat in 1995-96 and 1000 MTs in 1996-97 as food aid Source: Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution. Annex Table A3.9: Domestic Su ply of Foodgrains in the Market: Rice and Wheat,000 mt, 1992/93-197/98 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 Marketed Surplus (A) 78766 85001 89551 84390 91705 89929 Net Exports (B) -1466.1 775.55 966.5 5538.3 1899.5 959 Change in Govt Stocks (C) 1600 7880 6250 -5980 -4410 1720 Domestic Market Supply (A+C-B) 78632 76345 82335 84832 94215 87250 - 40 - Annex Table A3.10: Findings of Recent Market Integration Studies of Rice and Wheat Markets in India Study Market Coverage Period Findings Palaskas & Hariss-White Rice, 3 markets, West Bengal 1988-90 Not integrated in short-run, more integrated in long run Puri, 1996 Rice, 14 wholesale markets &Wheat, 15 1985-95 Not integrated in short run, most nmarkets wholesale markets, All India integrated in long run Palaskas, Hamrris-White & Crowe, 1997 Rice, 9 markets in Tamil Nadu 1972-92 Not integrated in short run, long-run I___ _ _. I integration in some markets Baulch and Jairath 1998 JWheat, 7 markets, Rajasthan 1992-96 Not integrated in short run. II. Mid-Day Meals Program Annex TableA3.11: Proportion of Eligible Children Receiving MDM and Frequency of Receipt of Food Children in Primary Classes Households with Children Receiving Food-grains or Cooked Meals State Total Children Receiving MDM % Receiving MDM with Frequency of Number % of Total Number I per month tin 2 months 1in 34 months Less Often a) Food-grain Distribution Haryana 10,480 55% 3675 44% 30% 13% 13% Kamataka 2,736 67% 1428 67% 12% 20% 1% Madhya Pradesh 5,368 47% 1988 45% 16% 31% 8% Rajasthan 7,845 76% 3249 2% 28% 62% 9% Uttar Pradesh 6,389 76% 2922 5% 72% 12% 1% West Bengal 4,337 71% 2334 1% 2% 41% 56% Total 37,155 65% 15596 24% 30% 31% 15% b) Cooked Meals Everyday 1 per 2-3 days 1 per 4-7 day Less Often Gujarat 2,938 65% 1463 87% 7% 6% Orissa 3,984 78% 2016 68% 20% 4% 8% Total 6,922 72% 3479 75% 16% 2% 7% Source: ORG 1999. Annex Table A3.12: Gender-wise Coverage of NPNSPE State Gender-wise Cov rage of NPNSPE Boys Girls Total Enrolled Boys Total Enrolled Girls Receiving Enrolled ReceivingMDM Enrolled MDM No No % No No % Assam 2074 | - 1746 - Gujarat 1640 1095 67 1298 805 62 Haryana 5862 3098 53 4618 2629 57 Jammu 746 0 0 642 0 0 Kamataka 1448 951 66 1288 891 69 Madhya Pradesh 2940 1416 48 2428 1118 46 Orissa 2192 1644 75 1792 1472 82 Rajasthan 4471 3365 75 3374 2629 78 Uttar Pradesh 3698 2776 - 75 2691 2104 78 WestBengal 2338 1710 73 1999 1383 [ 69 Total 27409 16055 1 59 21876 13031 L 60 Source: ORG, 1999. - 41 - Annex Table A3.13a Coverage of NPNSPE by Household Income State Monthly Hous ehold Income (Rs.) Up to Rs. 1000 Rs. 1000-2000 Rs. 20 1-4000 Rs. 4000+ Total % Receiving. Total % Receiving. Total % Receiving. Total % Receiving. Children Meal Children Meal Children Meal Children Meal Assam 292 - 2624 - 698 - 206 - Gujarat 910 70 1079 65 505 59 444 60 Haryana 1382 64 3801 55 2975 57 2322 48 Jammu 20 - 445 - 257 - 666 - Kamataka 1617 68 772 67 238 63 109 66 Madhya Pradesh 2392 48 1968 48 559 43 449 45 Orissa 1841 78 1654 79 340 75 149 68 Rajasthan 2576 79 3853 77 860 70 556 65 Uttar Pradesh 2086 80 3300 76 583 70 420 70 West Bengal 2032 73 1653 70 405 72 247 66 Total 15148 69 21149 57 7420 53 5568 46 Source: ORG, 1999. Annex Table A3.13b: Castewise Coverage of NPNSPE State Castewise Coverage of NPNSPE SC S ST OBC General Total | ____ | Total % Total % Total | Children Rec. Meal Childre Rec. Meal Children Rer- Meal Children Rec. Meal n Assam 416 0 747 0 954 0 1703 0 Gujarat 495 68 419 73 675 69 1399 57 Haryana 2377 60 60 Neg 2861 62 5182 49 Jammu 613 - 26 Neg 68 - 681 Kamataka 580 70 354 70 1443 65 359 70 Madhya Pradesh 1029 57 334 47 3298 45 707 42 Orissa 1240 78 724 77 1728 79 291 78 Raiasthan 2029 78 1123 80 2765 75 1928 75 Uttar Pradesh 1968 81 30 Neg 2933 78 1458 69 West Bengal 1329 73 730 71 201 72 2077 70 Total 12076 L 65 4547 59 16926 62 15785 51 Note: * Total Children refers to those enrolled in Primary Classes in a particular caste. Neg refers to low population of a particular caste category. Source: ORG, 1999. Annex Table A3.14: Proportion of Enrolled Students Receiving Foodgrains for 1997-98 State % of Enrolled Students Receiving Food rains _ Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr I May Haryana 14 88 88 86 73 83 92 76 58 29 44J 29 Karnataka 79 74 81 81 57 81 81 79 79 73 24 0 Madhya Pradesh 0 15 25 63 64 63 60 72 56 50 34 31 Raiasthan 0 62 68 71 64 66 63 62 60 59 421 26 Uttar Pradesh 1 66 70 73 72 74 74 72 70 64 56 2 WestBengal 5 0 4 37 10 34 14 34 20 19 21 16 Total 13 54 58 57 63 63 64 64 56 49 37 14 Note: The NPNSPE was not functioning during 1997-1998 in Assam and Jammu. This figures are calculated from the School Checklist. Source: ORG, 1999. - 42 - Annex Table A3. 15: Quantity of Foodgrains Received by Children State Total Proportion of Children Receiving (Per Month) Children < I Kg 1-2 Kg 2-3 Kg 3 Kg 3+ Kg Receiving MDM Haryana 5727 3 51 21 L 25 Kamataka 1842 - - 1 97 2 Madhya Pradesh 2534 2 10 34 50 4 Rajasthan 5994 - - 3 96 1 Uttar Pradesh 4880 - - 4 96 West Bengal 3093 28 22 26 13 11 Total Children 24070 6 16 12 64 2 (Household Survey) I I I I Source: ORG, 1999. Annex Table A3.16: Procedures Adopted for Distribution In Case of Shortage of Foodgrains State Total Teachers Reporting % Teachers Reporting Teachers Receipt of Right Quantity Equal Distribute amongst Others Total Teacher Number Distribution the remainder on (Teachers among all receipt of fresh supply Reporting Receipt l_______ _____ ______ ______ children of less quantity) Haryana j 32 5 16 56 37 7 27 Kamataka 30 12 41 50 44 6 18 Madhya Pradesh 60 14 23 65 28 7 46 Rajasthan 48 9 18 44 44 12 39 Uttar Pradesh 63 21 34 55 38 7 42 West Bengal 30 5 17 76 24 - 25 Total Teachers 263 76 29 60 38 2 Source: ORG, 1999. Annex Table A3.17: Availability of Storage Facilities for Foodgrains Total Teachers % Teachers Reporting Storaee in State Classroom Panchayat House Head Master Store room Others Haryana 31 48 3 7 35 7 Rajasthan 40 75 8 15 2 Uttar Pradesh 61 5 - 2 93* West Bengal 30 43 - 7 - 50 Total 162 38 1 4 11 46 Gujarat 32 22 - 12 19 47 Orissa 48 44 | 21 | 4 31 |Total 80 36 | 17 10 37 Grand Total 182 1 50 1 1 12 14 23 Note: * In PDS shop Source: ORG, 1999. Annex Table A3.18: Parent's Opinion on Quality and Quantity of Foodgrains/Meals (Parents Whose Children Received Foodgrains/Cooked Meals) [State Total parents % Stating Quantity As % Stating Quality As L l |Adequaate Good Average Poor Assam I - - - - - Gujarat 214 28 72 33 57 10 Haryana 96 21 79 24 33 43 Jummu I - - - - - Kamataka 129 23 77 35 62 3 Madhya Pradesh 128 30 70 36 29 35 Orissa 219 67 33 25 43 32 Rajasthan 147 2 98 16 32 52 Uttar Pradesh 241 35 65 34 54 12 West Bengal 269 j 22 78 1 27 40 1 _33_____1 Total 1443 29 71 29 45 26 Source: ORG, 1999. -43 - Annex Table A3.19. Involvement of Children in Distribution of Cooked Meals States Total Children No & % Students Rt orting Involvement N _ _% Gujarat 95 26 27 Orissa 137 57 42 Total Children 232 83 36 Source: ORG, 1999. Annex Table A3.20: Type of Involvement of Children In Cooked Meals Particulars % Students Reporting Involvement Gujarat Orissa Total Fetching Firewood 54 72 66 Cleaning the grains 42 35 37 Cooking - 21 16 Distributing cooked meal to the childrean 39 4 14 Moving the grains to stage - - Any other 5 1 3 Total Students 26 57 83 Source: ORG, 1999. Annex Table A3.21. Awareness Regarding Eligibility Criteria to Receive Foodgrain/Meals State Total Parents % Parents Citing Criteria As Children with All Children in Children Present Don't Know 80% Attendance Primary Classes on Day of Distribution Where Foodgrains Currently not Distributed Assam 320 10 77 13 Janumu 65 - 74 - 26 Where Foodgrains bein F Distributed Haryana 234 13 86 1 - Karnataka 276 28 35 3 33 Madhya Pradesh 430 13 87 - - Rajasthan 300 34 49 5 12 Uttar Pradesh 548 12 79 6 3 West Bengal 320 14 68 4 14 Total j 2108 20 69 4 7 Where Cooked Meals are Distributed Gujarat l 283 - [ 87 3 13 Orissa l 388 72 17 | 11 Total l 671 1 82 11 __6 Source: ORG, 1999. -44 - Annex Table A3.22: Number of Sample Households Covered by NPNSPE State HHs with Children in Proportion of Households Where Primary Classes All Children Receive Some Children None of the Children MDM Receive MDM Receive MDM Assam 2589 - 100 Gujarat 1925 36 40 24 Haryana 6025 32 29 39 Jamrnu 803 - 100 Kamataka 1983 40 32 28 Madhya Pradesh 3107 35 29 36 Orissa 2724 44 30 26 Rajasthan 4391 35 39 26 Uttar Pradesh 3845 40 36 24 West Bengal 3287 48 23 29 Total (No. of HHs Where 30679 37 31 32 Children go to Primary Classes Total (Excl Assam & Jammu) 27287 43 1 31 _ 26 Source: ORG, 1999. Annex Table A3.23: Number and Percentage of Schools Providing Different School Incentives State Total Schools Number and Percentage of Schools Providin (No.) Free Textbooks Mid Day Meals Free Stationery Free Uniform Scholarship Free Bag Assam 32 100 94 - - - Gujarat 31 100 100 7 58 97 ! Haryana 32 91 97 81 88 97 - Jammu 17 88 100 18 100 100 36 Kamataka 32 97 100 19 94 94 41 Madhya Pradesh 61 86 100 2 31 63 - Orissa 48 100 100 6 8 6 2 Rajasthan 49 96 100 15 2 29 5 Uttar Pradesh 63 98 95 2 2 79 2 West Bengal 29 97 97 14 100 4 4 Total 394 81 98 14 38 55 6 Source: ORG, 1999. Annex Table A3.24:Number of incentives Being Provided in Sample Schools State Total Schools rcentage of Schools Providing Incentives (Nos.) (No.) I Incentive 2 Incentives 3 Incentives 4 Incentives 4+ Incentives Assam 32 6 94 - - - Gujarat 31 - - 39 58 3 Haryana 32 3 3 3 l 16 75 Jammu 17 - - 6 59 35 Kamataka 32 - 3 6 47 44 Madhya Pradesh 61 12 19 48 22 - Orissa 48 - 88 6 4 2 Rajasthan 49 16 55 18 10 - Uttar Pradesh 63 17 80 3 - West Bengal 29 3 - 83 10 3 Total 394 8 41 21 18 12 Source: ORG, 1999. - 45 - III. Food for Work Programs Annex Table A3.25a: Results of Some Micro-studies on Composition, Employment and Wages of the EGS Workers Survey % Belonging % of small % SC & ST person-days EGS Contribution Studies period to landless & marginal population employed wage rate to total income HHS farmers PEO 1976-78 24 40 N/A 25 2.93 N/A ISST 1979 51 30 N/A 157 2.75 N/A Dandekar 1979-80 45 42 42 160 3.6 65 Deshpande,V 1976-77 31 31 31 50 2 N/A GoM 1981 52 41 41 N/A N/A N/A RDC 1983-84 38 40 40 170 N/A N/A Deshpande S.K. 1983-84 N/A N/A N/A 23 5.5 21 Acharya & 1985-86 34 46 46 54 5.3 31 Panwalkar Datar 1985-86 35 47 47 105 7.8 36 Sathe, M.D. 1987-88 21 58 50* N/A N/A N/A Note: * Including other backward castes (OBCs). Source: Comnplete source and citations in Mahendra Dev (1995), Modified from Acharya (1990). Annex Table A3.25b: Labor attendance under the EGS, by year and month, 1000 days, 1985/86 to 1990/91 Month 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 April 731 686 957 535 534 331 May 820 765 940 532 532 347 June 748 740 769 333 332 297 July 515 621 523 174 173 148 August 475 523 411 129 129 114 September 587 482 357 80 110 90 October 549 420 227 85 97 84 November 505 374 266 90 96 75 December 696 494 361 151 123 104 January 649 601 446 182 186 190 February 639 739 472 238 246 247 March 668 1,061 493 309 307 253 Source: Data provided by Government of Maharashtra, Provisional Planning Department, cited in Dev, 1995. - 46 - Annex Table A3. 26a: Employment Assurance Scheme, Indicators of Progress, 1999-2000, 000 workdays (as of January 10, 2000) Total Total Ach as % Share of Weaker Sections State/UT Months'/ Target Achievement of Target SC % ST % SC+ST % Women % Landless % Andhra Pradesh 10 30160 10347 34.31 4138 40% 2125 21% 6263 61% 3232 31% 2900 28% Arunachalpradesh 10 700 1692 241.71 0 0% 1692 100% 1692 100% 582 34% 0 0% Assam 11 13500 7807 57.83 1694 22% 2274 29% 3968 51% 674 9% 2635 34% Bihar 11 64500 17761 27.54 7609 43% 2583 15% 10192 57% 4772 27% 11272 63% Goa 10_ 0 62 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 27 44% 0 0% Gujarat 10 6000 2358 39.3 429 18% 11951 51% 1624 69% 746 32% 1039 44% Haryana 10 3300 393 11.91 2321 59% 0 0% 232 59% 86 22% 386 98% Himachal Pradesh 11 1600 1523 95.19 608 40% 218 14% 826 54% 66 4% 1 0% Jammu &Kashmir 9 2600 666 25.62 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Kamataka 1 19500 9842 50.47 2616 27% 1141 12% 3757 38% 2888 29%A 3906 40% Kerala 11 6700 2819 42.07 780 28% 245 9% 1025 36% 903 32% 3035 108% Madhya Pradesh 10 41900 12063 28.79 3010 25% 4756 39% 7766 64% 4263 35% 3850 32% Maharashtra 11 57200 6731 11.77 1839 27% 1350 20%/ 3189 47% 2420 36% 2165 32% Manipur_ 8 800 445 55.63 5 1% 386 87% 391 88% 225 51% III 25% Meghalaya 10 1000 571 57.1 0 0% 571 100% 571 100% 298 52% 106 19% Mizoramn 11 200 248 124 0 0% 248 100% 248 100% 85 34% 0 0% Nagaland 0 900 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 Orissa 10 33500 6819 20.36 2116 31% 2542 37% 4658 68% 1959 29% 1398 21% Punjab 11 1400 1170 83.57 720 62% 0 0% 720 62% 37 3 % 694 59% Rajasthan 8 17800 3319 18.65 1041 31% 1005 30% 2046 62% 1255 38% 417 13% Sikkim 10 200 169 84.5 50 30% 61 36% III 66% 50 30% 13 8% Tamil Nadu 10 22700 6704 29.53 2929 44% 218 3% 3147 47% 2305 34% 6417 96% Tripura 10 1690 1123 66.45 238 21% 561 50% 799 71% 334 30% 252 22% Uttar Pradesh 10 59300 12965 21.86 6482 50% 64 0% 6546 50% 1714 13%° 2002 15% West Bengal 10 21500 5512 25.64 2061 37% 798 14% 2859 52% 1267 23%1 3417 62% AllIndia 11 408950 113171 27.67 38615 34% 24056 21% 62671 55% 30206 27%1 46022 41% Note: 1/ Month for which data received from States. Source: Department of Rural Development. -47 - Annex Table A3.26b: Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojana, Indicators of Progress, 1999-2000, 000 workdays (as of January 10, 2000) Total Total Ach as % Share of Weaker Sections_ State/UT Monthsl/ Target Achievement Of Target SC % ST % SC+ST % Women % Landless % Andhra Pradesh 8 0 3471 979 280/% 369 11% 1348 39%/o 1213 35% 1997 58% Arunachal Pradesh 10 0 104 0 0% 104 100% 104 100% 34 33% 0 0% Assam 8 0 5449 1217 22% 1459 27% 2676 490/o 414 8% 1632 300/o Bihar 9 0 16055 6452 40% 3057 190/0 9509 590/o 4367 27% 8560 53% Goa 10 _0 88 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 38 43% 0 0% Gujarat 10 0 1030 125 12% 509 490/o 634 62% 252 24% 351 34% Haryana 10 0 748 446 600% 0 0% 446 600/o 154 21% 718 96% Himachal Pradesh 10 0 587 233 400/o 90 15% 323 55% 20 3% 0 0% Jammu & Kashmir 9 0 263 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Karnataka 10 0 7328 2104 290/o 788 11% 2892 390/o 2074 28% 2939 40% Kerala 10 0 1363 394 290/o 35 3% 429 31%1 378 28% 131 10% Madhya Pradesh 10 0 13586 3049 22% 5697 42% 8746 64% 4434 33% 4543 33% Maharashtra 10 0 9863 2563 26% 2528 26% 5091 52% 3557 36% 3265 33% Manipur 0 0 ___ 54 3_ _ 3 6% _ 28 52% 31 57% 8 15% 0 0% Meghalaya 8 0 276 0 0% 276 100% 87 32% 87 32% 25 9% Mizoram 10 0 100 0 0% 100 100% 40 400/o 40 400/o 0 0% Nagaland 0 0 203 0 0% 203 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Orissa 10 0 6369 1902 300/o 2402 38% 4304 68%1 2142 34% 1145 18% Punjab 10 0 415 305 73%_ 0 0% 305 73% 14 3% 366 88%/c Rajasthan 8 0 2692 1005 37% 729 27% 1734 64% 920 34% 359 13% Sikkim 10 0 78 17 22% 32 41% 49 63% 20 26% 0 0% Tamil Nadu 10 0 6251 2923 47% 176 3% 3099 50Go% 2185 35% 3627 58% Tripura 10 0 908 209 23% 468 52%/c 677 75% 288 32% 300 33% Uttar Pradesh 10 0 108701 5247 48% 94 I % 5341 490/o 1806 17% 2152 200/o West Bengal 101 0 38981 ___ 15411 _400/. 444 11% 19851 51%1 662 17% 18871 480% All India 10 0 92055 _ 30714 33% 19591 21%1 50305 55% 25107 27% 33998 37% Note: 1/ Month for which data received from States. Source: Department of Rural Development. - 48 - Annex Table 3.26c: Estimated Average Wage Rate Per Day under JGSY and EAS and Minimum Wage Rate for Unskilled Agricultural Workers, 1999-2000 Minimum JGSY EAS Wage Actual Total Expen Est. Ave Actual Total Expen Est. Ave Rate Manday Center and State Wage Rate Manday Center and Wage Rate s s State State/UT Rs/day Months* Million Rs million Rs/day Months* million Rs million Rs/day Andhra Pradesh 30-36.50 8 3.47 241.8 70 10 10.3 813.3 79 Arunachal Pradesh 21-23 10 0.10 8.9 86 10 1.7 95.8 57 Assam 56.70 11 7.8 409.9 53 Bihar 27.30 9 16.06 1,493.0 93 11 17.8 1476.1 83 Goa 46 10 0.09 8.6 98 10 0.1 5.8 93 GujaTat 34 10 1.03 132.2 128 11 290.1 Haryana 64.12 10 0.75 111.3 149 10 0.4 65.7 167 Himachal Pradesh 45.75 10 0.59 45.2 77 11 1.5 132.7 87 Jammu & Kashmir 30 9 0.26 18.9 72 9 0.7 53.9 81 Kamataka 26 10 7.33 375.8 51 11 9.8 475.4 48 Kerala 40.20 10 1.36 126.3 93 11 2.8 292.5 104 Madhya Pradesh 38.50 10 13.59 947.9 70 10 12.1 894.1 74 Maharashtra 20-29 10 9.86 602.3 61 11 6.7 410.7 61 Manipur 44.65 8 0.4 35.4 79 Meghalaya 35 8 0.28 18.1 66 1 0 0.6 35.5 62 Mizoram 45 1 0 0.10 6.9 69 11 0.2 13.2 53 Orissa 30 10 6.37 332.5 52 10 6.8 420.2 62 Punjab 60.62 10 0.42 56.3 136 11 1.2 159.1 136 Rajasthan 44 8 2.69 178.0 66 8 3.3 231.5 70 Sikkim 10 0.08 5.7 74 10 0.2 13.2 78 Tamil Nadu 29 1 10 6.25 524.0 84 10 6.7 535.5 80 Tripura 32 10 0.91 L 56.4 62 10 1.1 74.9 67 UttarPradesh 4749 10 10.87 928.8 85 10 13.0 1128.8 87 West Bengal 45.22 10 3.90 422.9 109 10 5.5 555.8 101 JAIl India l 92.06 6,955.6 76 113.2 8625.9 76 Source: EAS and JRY figures: Department of Rural Development, Statements of Physical and Financial Progress, as of January 2000; Minimum Wage Rates: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 1999, "Agricultural Statistics at a Glance". Annex Table A3.27: Percentage of JRY Workers Willing to Take Foodgrains as Part of Wages, 1993-94. % Willing to Accept Foodgrains State/UT as part of Wages Andhra Pradesh 80% Arunachal Pradesh 0% Assam 90% Bihar 54% Goa 2% Gujarat 45% Haryana 31% Himachal Pradesh 6% Jammu & Kashmir 85% Karnataka 92% Kerala 18% Madhya Pradesh 72% Maharashtra 66% Manipur 7% Meghalaya 23% Mizoram 100% Nagaland 1% Orissa 51% Punjab 0% Rajasthan 80% Sikkim 52% Tamil Nadu 58% Tripura 99% Uttar Pradesh 24% West Bengal 37% All India 52% Total Sample 23,174 Source: 1993/94- Evaluation of JRY, Second Round June 93-May 94, Department of Rural Development, Govemment of India. -49 - IV. Integrated Child Development Services Program Annex Table A3.28: State-wise ICDS Projects operationalized and coverage, as of March 31, 1998 Si. No. States No of Operational No of Anganwadis SNP Cover ge: March 1998 ICDS Projects in operational Children Mothers ICDS I Andhra Pradesh 209 34764 1263875 282204 2 Arunachal Pradesh 45 3341 79355 17423 3 Assam 107 12795 480081 16426 4 Bihar 323 42975 1646973 192375 5 Goa 11 1334 29684 8174 6 Gujarat 203 38897 937300 181245 7 Haryana 114 13977 900072 190169 8 Himachal Pradesh 72 8935 154774 30821 9 Jammu and Kashmir 113 12116 184522 42214 10 Karnataka 185 39100 2297438 375002 11 Kerala 120 20123 642856 135348 12 Madhya Pradesh 355 41879 1905324 317737 13 Maharashtra 271 49571 1924304 397169 14 Manipur 32 4015 48257 10656 15 Meghalaya 30 2438 64533 4640 16 Mizoram 21 1487 67854 16432 17 Nagaland 41 3066 160194 34108 18 Orissa 279 31364 1383378 238079 19 Punjab 110 11971 292569 57932 20 Rajasthan 191 29006 889407 179343 21 Sikkim 5 620 14963 2750 22 Tamil Nadu 432 55263 506571 41263 23 Tripura 31 3429 75114 9321 24 Uttar Pradesh 560 76236 2093992 487828 25 West Bengal 294 47861 1369927 198490 26 A & Nlslands 5 429 13552 4639 27 Chandigarh 3 341 13200 3950 28 D & NHaveli 1 152 300707 55127 29 Daman & Diu 2 95 12560 3781 30 Delhi 29 4099 5491 1233 31 Lakshadweep 1 73 3446 1032 32 Pondicherry 5 819 35448 10710 33 Total 4200 592571 19797701 3547621 Source: (a) ICDS Monitoring Cell (Status Report of ICDS as on March 1998) and (b) Annual Report-1998-99, DoW &CD (1999). -50 - Table A3.29a: Availability, Completeness and Reliability of Records in Anganwadi Centers (%) Records AP Bihar MP Orissa Rajasthan| UP WB Total A. Registers available at AWC N= 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 630 1. Children 97 94 92 96 93 80 100 93 2. Growth Monitoring 96 88 71 97 92 68 81 85 3. Pregnant Women N= 56 52 64 54 70 75 60 431 70 48 56 61 61 44 85 60 4. Nursing Mothers N= 86 89 90 89 87 89 89 619 Si 73 93 99 92 62 96 85 B. Mother's response matches with AWW register N= 754 459 465 517 327 158 741 3421 1. Sex of the child 89 89 95 69 82 87 95 87 2. Date of birth of the child 44 56 66 23 25 56 7 36 3. Receipt of food by children 72 74 73 60 71 60 66 69 from AWW in past 7 days C. Overreporting by AWW of Food Receipt by Chldren* N= 629 399 286 405 269 108 572 2668 26 21 40 44 25 41 38 33 D. Receipt of food from AWC in past 7 days 1. Pregnantwomen N= 38 16 12 15 17 11 34 143 68 81 25 60 77 64 79 69 2. Nursing mothers N= 175 126 139 274 85 55 193 1046 87 84 60 81 87 69 78 79 E. Home based record matches with AWW register N= 1440 440 1444 1473 1447 1440 1445 10129 1. UIP/lmm. Card available 42 32 18 49 17 25 64 35 2. UIP matches with AWW 26 20 19 23 19 17 16 20 registers for immunization l_I_I_I_I_I Source: CARE-India, Integrated Nutrition and Health Program, Baseline Survey Report Consolidated for 7 States, April 1997. Report prepared by Foundation of Research in Health Systems, Ahmedabad. Annex Table A3.29b: Some Indicators of Activities for Improvement of Women's Nutrition and Health* Indicators AP Bihar MP Orissa Rajasthan UP WB Total INHP Goal" 1. Prenant Women Received _ (a) At least 3 Antenatal check-ups 89 28 29 59 31 27 62 46 75 (b) At least 3 home visits 64 18 21 36 18 12 25 28 70 O Received IFA tablets =>100 16 9 4 26 7 2 25 13 70 d Consumed IFA tablets =>100 12 6 3 18 3 1 18 9 70 2. Received supplementary food I II (a). Pregnant Women 56 39 25 45 29 27 48 38 70 (b) Nursing Women 52 37 18 35 20 24 43 33 70 3. Consumed supplementary (without sha ing) 1. Pregnant Women 16 7 11 11 5 10 8 11 70 2. Lactating Women 12 6 7 7 3 7 7 7 70 3. Received 2 doses of TT191 54 50 69 53 57 82 64 80 1/ INHP Goal to be achieved by the end of yri.e. 2001 (CARE-India, INHP document, December 1995) Source: CARE-India, Integrated Nutrition and Health Program, Baseline Survey Report Consolidated for 7 States, April 1997. Report prepared by Foundation of Research in Health Systems, Ahmedabad. - 51 - Table A3.30: Adequacy of stocks of supplies at Anganwadi Centers & Sub-Centers (at least for 2 months) (%) Items AP Bihar MP Orissa Rajasthan UP WB AWC N= 89 90 90 90 83 73 90 A. Supplies 1. Food items a. Corn soya blend (CSB) 30 11 24 18 22 0 13 b. Salad oil 16 3 26 13 7 0 9 2. IFA tablets a. Large tablets 8 2 4 0 21 1 0 b. Small tablets 32 13 13 6 33 6 7 3. ORS packets 17 3 14 4 16 4 24 4. Cotrimoxazole tablets 46 56 14 0 64 15 54 5. Vitamin A bottles 10 27 14 6 21 3 2 6. Oral contraceptive pills 2 7 1 0 13 0 2 7. Condom packets 0 0 6 I 27 4 4 8. Safe delivery kits 71 9 0 1 68 0 0 Subeenter N= 39 59 63 64 43 65 63 B. Supplies 1. Fever medicines (Paracetamol) - - - - - - - 2. Anti-malaria drug (Chloroquine a. High risk area 5 0 3 0 28 0 3 b. Low risk area 5 5 16 3 42 0 9 3. Antibiotics (Cotrimoxazole) 28 19 46 17 74 25 38 4. Deworming medicines - - - - - - - 5. IFA tablets a. large 33 22 33 22 74 46 36 b. snall 31 3 33 25 58 43 38 6. ORS packets 28 29 35 6 72 22 34 7. Condom packets 8 42 79 69 74 25 58 8. Oral contraceptive pills 31 3 33 25 58 43 38 9. IUD 26 46 52 72 48 45 10. Safe delivery kit 0 2 6 0 51 12 3 Note: Norms of CSSM, NMEP and NIPCCD have been used to arrive at adequacy of stock of various supplies. Instead CSB and Salad Oil, RTE is provided. Source: CARE-India, Integrated Nutrition and Health Program, Baseline Survey Report Consolidated for 7 States, April 1997. Report prepared by Foundation of Research in Health Systems, Ahmedabad. Annex Table A3.31: Percentage of Children Receiving Vitamin A Supplementation Vitamin A AP Bihar MP Orissa Rajathan UP West Bengal Total A. Children who received Vitamin A 1. 6 to 12 months N= 524 577 484 498 525 545 518 3671 a. one dose 12 1 1 10 3 3 II 6 2. 13 to 18 months N= 330 293 305 334 310 292 302 2166 a. one dose 23 1 2 26 13 8 22 14 b. two doses 5 0 0 1 1 1 4 2 3. 18 to 23 months N= 232 201 212 188 216 244 275 1568 a. one dose 27 3 2 22 10 7 27 14 b. two doses 6 1 1 2 1 I 7 3 c. three doses 3 0 1 1 0 1 4 2 Source: CARE-India, Integrated Nutrition and Health Program, Baseline Survey Report Consolidated for 7 States, April 1997. Report prepared by Foundation of Research in Health Systems, Ahmedabad. - 52 - Annex Table A3.32a: Some Indicators of Adoption of Desired Child Caring Behaviors under ICDS Indicators AP IBihar MP Orissa Rajasthan IUP WB Total INHP i;oal' 1. Children under I year: Exclusively breastfed for the first four 61% 7% 36% 60% 5% 2% 32% 29% 60% months 2. Children 6-9 months old received 60% 58% 46% 26% 40% 56% 7O%/o 46% 70% breast milk and solid/mushy food 3. Children under 6-23 months Received supplemental food 57% 50% 24% 38% 37% 32% 43% 40% 65% 4. Children receiving vitamin A supplementation (a) 6-12 months age I dose 12% I E1% 1% 10% 3% 3% 11% | 6% 60% (b) 13-18 months age 2 doses 5% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 4% 2% 60% (c) 19-24 months age 3 doses 3% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 4% 2% 60% 5. Children between 12-23 months: Fully immunized 46 i5 23 39 26 27 37 30 85' 6. Management of Diarrhea (a) Gave additional liquids _6 4 6 t 3 16 16 9 70 (b) Continued breast milk 91 97 96 96 93 93 94 94 70 (c) Continued Food 43 36 62 37 52 51 53 46 70 (d) Use ORS 27 10 15 14 10 7 13 14 70 (e) Sought medical care 87 51 56 56 1 61 70 61 63 70 7. Management of Acute Respiratory Infection (a) Continued to give breastmilk 94 97 96 96 88 92 97 95 70 (b) Continued to give food 54 33 57 43 67 50 60 49 70 (c) Sought medical care 59 28 55 58 53 53 51 45 70 l/** INHP Goal to be achieved by the end of 5th year i.e. 2001 (CARE-India, INHP document, December 1995) Source: CARE-India, Integrated Nutrition and Health Program, Baseline Survey Report Consolidated for 7 States, April 1997. Report prepared by Foundation of Research in Health Systems, Ahmedabad. Annex Table A3.32b: Percentage Utilization of AWW, ANM, PHC, Private Doctor for Children under 2 Utilization AP Bihar MP Orissa Rajathan UP West Bengal Total N= 1440 1440 1444 1473 1447 1440 1445 10129 A. A WW visited home in the last one month 53 40 27 37 33 21 30 34 B. Mothers receiving advicefrom AWW (%)I 42 39 1 0 1 5 2 1 16 1 9 23 C. Utilizationfor children N= 489 616 273 564 283 492 472 3189 vwith diarrahoea 1. AWW(%) 19 10 6 5 7 6 6 9 2. ANM/Nurse(%) 8 4 4 4 8 0 1 4 3. PHC/Govt. Hospital (%) 5 5 12 16 28 13 8 11 4. Private Doctor/Hospital (%) 55 32 35 | 31 18 51 46 39 | TD. Utilizationfor children N= 286 347 105 453 58 132 434 1815 who had ARI 1. AWW (%) 9 4 7 1 2 2 1 2 2. ANM/Nurse (%) 4 0 2 1 0 2 1 I 3. PHC/Govt. Hospital(%) 7 4 12 24 31 7 2 10 4. Private Doctor/Hospital (%) 39 20 34 32 21 42 47 32 Source: CARE-India, Integrated Nutrition and Health Program, Baseline Survey Report Consolidated for 7 States, April 1997. Report prepared by Foundation of Research in Health Systems, Ahmedabad. Annex Table A3. 33: Percentage of AWW who Weighed the Child Correctly and Discussed Nutritional Grade ( Items ¢ AP Bihar MP Orissa Rajasthan UP WB Total |Number of Angawandi Workers | 89 90 90 90 83 73 90 605 |A. AWW who weigh child correctly 1. Calibrated the scale before weighing 60 90 62 87 58 43 32 62 2. Recorded the weight correctly 94 91 76 87 81 48 33 73 B. Plotted "Weight by age" correctly 93 90 68 80 41 37 27 63 C. Nutritional Grade correctly assigned 88 91 69 84 37 33 28 63 ID. Discussed Nutritional grade with the mother 39 92 | 46 54 | 5t 40 1 20 | 49 Source: CARE-India, Integrated Nutrition and Health Program, Baseline Survey Report Consolidated for 7 States, April 1997. Report prepared by Foundation of Research in Health Systems, Ahmedabad. - 53 - Annex Table A3.34: Percentage of AWW and ANW With Correct Knowledge Regarding Health Practices Knowledge regarding health practices AP Bihar MP Orissa Rajasthan UP WB Total Number of Angawandi Workers 89 90 90 90 83 73 90 605 1. Child age for measles 96 84 90 94 77 82 82 87 2. hncreasing breast milk production 73 94 27 82 75 85 89 75 3. Promotion ofbreastfeeding 12 1 3 - 7 3 10 6 4. Prom. Of complementary feeding 91 97 97 86 80 92 99 92 5. IFA promotionn and side effects 71 84 43 86 55 32 72 65 6. Women's eligibility for food at AWC 99 96 96 98 88 92 97 95 7. IUD use and Anaemia 33 70 17 40 22 34 16 33 8. Management of child <2 with dehydration 75 93 80 91 78 89 73 84 9. Management of child <2 with ARI 82 94 89 96 76 93 93 89 Source: CARE-India, Integrated Nutrition and Health Program, Baseline Survey Report Consolidated for 7 States, April 1997. Report prepared by Foundation of Research in Health Systems, Ahmedabad. Annex Table A3.35: Adoption of Complementary Feeding Practices in Children Between 12-23 Months Complementary Feeding Practice AP Bihar MP Orissa Rajasthan UP WB Total N= 622 637 579 577 608 624 638 4285 A. Complementary feeding received during 41 97 75 50 99 99 76 77 first four months B. Types of feeding N= 253 615 435 286 600 615 487 3291 1. Water 15 63 79 62 74 78 72 68 2. Liquids 100 97 85 79 100 100 100 100 3. Baby formula (lactogen etc) 14 4 1 32 1 1 18 8 4. Semi solid or other solid food 4 2 7 S 2 3 11 5 C. In children breastfed (age in months) N= 622 637 579 577 608 624 638 4285 1. Age at which fluids were given a. 0 - 3 37 93 73 88 58 98 50 1 79 b.4 - 6 43 3 24 9 26 2 35 15 c.7 - 9 15 0 2 2 9 0 13 __4 d. 10-11 4 1 1 0 S 0 2 | I 2. Age at which semi-solid or solid food was given a.0-3 5 5 30 - 52 1 9 3 23 b. 4-6 _42 46 28 16 13 23 1 35 26 c.7 -9 36 26 28 18 30 39 - 46 29 d. l0- 11 17 10 12 13 42 24 15 18 D. Children received breast milk and solid 60 58 46 26 40 56 - 70 46 mushy food ata 6-9months _ _ Source: CARE-India, Integrated Nutrition and Health Program, Baseline Survey Report Consolidated for 7 States, April 1997. Report prepared by Foundation of Research in Health Systems, Ahmedabad. - 54 - Annex Table A3.36: Percentage of Women Adopting of Desired Breast Feeding Practices Breast feeding practices AP Bihar MP Orissa Rajasthan UP WB Total A. Breastfed within Ist N= 763 779 853 870 837 800 787 5689 3 days including 3rd day 89 67 88 85 90 65 92 82 B. Time of first breast feed in children 100 16 9 4 26 7 2 25 13 70 (d)ConsumedIFAtablets=>100 121 6 3 18 3 1 18 91 70 (e) Received suplementary food lI_lll __ 1. Pregnant Women 56 39 25 45 29 27 48 38 70 2. Lactating Women 52 37 18 35 20 24 43 33 70 (f) Consumed supplementary (without sharing) | l_l__l_ 1.PregnantWomen 16 7 1 1 11 5 10 8 Il 70 2. Lactating Women 1 2 6 7 7 3 7 7 7 -70 (g) Received 2 doses ofTT 911 54, 50 69 53 47 82 64 80 * Coverage under each indicator as per Base Line Survey ** INHP Goal to be achieved by the end of 5th year i.e. 2001 (CARE-India, INHP document, December 1995) Source: CARE-India, Integrated Nutrition and Health Program, Baseline Survey Report Consolidated for 7 States, April 1997. Report prepared by Foundation of Research in Health Systems, Ahmedabad. -57 - Annex Table A3.42: Key Indicators for Project Implementation of the World Bank-Assisted ICDS and Second TINP Projects Andhra Pradesh Orissa Tamil Nadu I. Key Implementation Indicators in Estimated (%) Actual (%) Estimated (%) Actual (%) Estimated Actual SAR/President's Report (SAR target) (1996 MTS) (SAR target) (1996 MTS) (SAR target) (1997 MTS) Impact Indicators 1. Reduce severe malnutrition (Grade III & IV) 50% 46% 50% 44% 50% 21% among children 6-36 months by . 11. Increase proportion of children 6-36 months in 25% 31% 25% 0.4% 500/s 3% normal and Grade I status by Ill. Reduction in IMR 70/1000 66/1000 100/1000 95/1000 55/1000 54/1000** IV. Reduction in incidence of low birth weight by 30% 23% 20% 23% 5 00/ 23% Process Indicators I. Early registration of pregnant women 50 38 50 29 50 73 2. Total registration of pregnant women 80 79 80 71 80 90 3. Obsterical and nutritional risk assessment of 100 79 100 61 those re istered 4. Tetanus toxoid immunization of pregnant women 90 86 80 71 80 89 5. Consumption of iron and folic acid tablets for at 60 8 60 15 60 10 least 12 weeks by pregnant women 6. Administration of post-partum vitamin A to 80 NA 80 NA 100 14 attended deliveries 7. Food supplementation for at least 20 (16 wks for 80 28* 60 26* 60 45 TN) weeks to registered lactating women with jmalnutrition in pregnancy r8. Food supplementation for at least 16 weeks of 90 27* 90 23* 90 30 !registered lactating women with malnutrition in pregnancy _______ 9. Immunization (UIP-6) of children 90 26 85 21 100 88 10. Vitamin A megadose (100,000-200,000 i.u.) 80 8 80 8 90 46 semi-annually to children 6-36 months 11. Regular growth monitoring (>9 times a year) of 80 1 80 2 90 69 children 0-3 years 12. Supplementation of monitored children 0-3 90 41* 90 42* 100 58 years with grade II-IV malnutrition 13. Completed referral of severely malnourished 80 NA 80 NA children (grade Ill and IV) or non-responding children 0-3 years to VHN/= PWF and PHC __ ___ 14. Quarterly growth monitoring, weighing and 80 17 60 25 charting of children 3-5 years (>3 times of year) 15. Referral of severely malnourished children 3-5 90 NA 90 NA years of age to MPWF/PHC 16. Administration of vitamin A megadose semi- 80 NA 70 7 annually to children 3-5 years of age 17. Pre-school attendance (>80% of working days) 80 53 60 43 70 47 18. Routine deparasitization of monitored children 90 NA 80 NA in heavily infected communities as determined by parasite surveys 19. Household use of oral rehydration in the last 60 33 50 32 60 82 incidence of diarrhea in the target group 20. Treatment of pneumonia by MPWF/AWW with 30 5 20 10 co-trimaxazole in cases of acute respiratory infection (ARI) 21. Additional feeds of local weaning food initiated 60 47 50 48 50 35 by 6 months in infants 22. Provision of 4 additional weaning feeds/day by 9 60 NA 50 NA months in infants 23. Active women's working groups (>9 meetings a 80 NA 70 NA 80 79 year) I_I Note: SAR - Staff Appraisal Report, MTS-Mid-term survey. Source: World Bank, 1998, India Integrated Child Development Services Implementation Completion Report, Report No. 17756, Health and Population Unit World Bank, 1998, India Second Tamil Nadu Integrated Nutrition Project Implementation Completion Report, Report No. 17755, Health, Population and Nutrition Unit. - 58 - Figure A3.1: Volume of TPDS Foodgrain Allocation in Various States, Average of 1994/95 to 1996/97 (Pre-TPDS) and 1998/99 (Post TPDS) 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 m 0.5 =- 0.0 p <~~~~ < w*Ave:94/95-96/97 * 98/99 Source: Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution. Annex Figure A3.2: FCI Wheat Procurement Price and Procurement and Distribution Costs, 1976/77 to 1998/99, Rs/mt, constant 1998/99 prices 700- 500 650 450 o 600 400 > a~~~~~~~ j550 - 350 t *500 300 &450 -250~ 2~400 200 s 0 ~~~~~a 350 150 e 300 ID,O,,, , ,, ,, 100 t- 0 cn (D 0) CN U) 0 CD 0D CD co 0) a 0) (0) a) R n0 I rl- co co co0) 0) o Proc. Price --- Proc & [Distrn Cost Note: Costs exclude procurement price. Source: Food Corporation of India Annual Report, various issues, Swaminathan 1999.