Chapter 8: In conclusion: rural households of Assam require continuous food based interventions provides a commentary on the role and significance of food based welfare
6.2 SOURCES OF AVAILABILITY OF RICE FOR CONSUMPTION IN THE STUDY VILLAGES
124
sources in rural Assam. It is also clear that the cost of purchase of rice by the lowest income households in Assam is very high (Rs 89.8) as compared to that of national average (Rs.33).
Table 6. 2 Quantity and value of average monthly household consumption of rice, from PDS and from other sources MPCE Quantity consumed (kg) Value (Rs.) of consumption
Assam PDS Other source Total PDS Other source Total
1 16.6 42 59 89.8 670 760
2 13.2 50 64 96 806 902
3 8.5 55 63 63.3 910 973
4 7.5 51 63 55.9 939 995
5 6.9 56 63 56.2 942 998
6 5.2 55 61 49 925 974
7 5.3 57 63 42.1 1004 1045
8 5.5 51 57 46 885 931
9 1.5 58 60 14.5 1009 1023
10 1.1 55 56 10.9 986 997
All Classes 6.8 54 60 50.1 914 964
MPCE PDS Other source Total PDS Other source Total
1 11.1 24.0 35.1 33.0 340.1 373
2 8.3 24.9 33.3 28.3 367.3 395
3 7.7 22.9 30.6 26.0 350.5 376
4 6.9 23.5 30.5 23.0 369.9 392
5 6.8 22.5 29.3 22.3 363.3 385
6 6.5 21.8 28.4 23.6 361.3 384
7 6.1 21.4 27.6 22.5 364.4 386
8 5.4 19.7 25.1 20.9 351.4 372
9 5.2 19.2 24.5 18.7 361.6 380
10 3.8 16.9 20.7 15.9 345.2 361
All Classes 6.5 21.3 27.9 22.8 357.2 379
Source: NSS 66th round
6.2 SOURCES OF AVAILABILITY OF RICE FOR CONSUMPTION IN THE STUDY
from open market and equal percentage of households consumes rice from a combined source of FPS and open market. About 24 per cent of the households consume only home produce rice. None of the households consumes from a combined source of FPSs and home production which means that those households who consumes entirely from PDS do not have home grown stock of food. However, in Kumargaon village, majority of the households i.e. above 33 per cent of households consumes from combined source of FPS and open market. Unlike Chaudhurirchar village, in Kumargaon village a large proportion of households consumes from combined source of FPSs and home production (26.7 per cent).
The households which entirely depend on PDS are 4.4 per cent, about 18 per cent of households consume only from home production and about 16 per cent of households consume rice entirely from open market.
Table 6.3 Household consumption of rice from different sources in the study villages
Chaudhurirchar Kumargaon
Sources Number Per cent Number Per cent
Only from FPS 4 7.8 2 4.4
Only from home produce23 12 23.5 8 17.8
Only from open market 17 33.3 7 15.6
From FPS and home
production 0 0 12 26.7
FPS and open market 17 33.3 15 33.3
Home production and open
market 1 2 0 0
From all 3 sources 0 0 1 2.2
Source: Survey data, 2015
Table 6.4 further shows share of monthly consumption of rice coming from different sources by the types of ration cards in the studied villages. In Chaudhurirchar village, APL households, 43 per cent of monthly consumption of rice is from open market and 57 per
23Household consumption of home produce rice is for the month preceding the month of survey. The marginal farm holding households also could have consumed home produced rice because crops were harvested early due to early monsoon and flood during that year. Most of the household can have home produced rice because for only 3 to 4 months and very few household could consume home produced rice throughout the year (survey data, 2015).
126
cent of monthly consumption of rice is from home production. These households did not get any rice from FPSs. This is similar for MMASY households, though major share of rice consumed by MMASY households comes from open market. 75 per cent of total rice consumed by the MMASY households comes from open market where, 25 per cent of total rice consumed by these households is from home production. The households without any ration cards have to rely completely on open market. The exceptional households are BPL and AAY households. FPSs play a major role providing basic cereal to these households.
While FPSs quota cannot fulfill the entire monthly requirement of rice of the households, the additional need of the households are fulfilled by the open market. Very few proportions come from the home produced source. Both BPL and AAY households does not consume any home produced rice.
Table 6.4Average share of rice consumed by households by type of ration cards in the studied villages Chaudhurirchar
AAY BPL APL MMASY No cards
FPS, in per cent 74 55 0 0 0
Home production, in per
cent 0 0 57 25 20
Open market, in per cent 26 45 43 75 60
Kumargaon
FPS, in per cent 68 58 5 0 0
Home production, in per
cent 15 19 60 40 45
Open market, in per cent 17 23 35 60 55
Source: Survey data, 2015
This picture is slightly different for Kumargaon village. The APL households get 5 per cent of monthly consumed rice from FPSs, 35 per cent from open market and 60 per cent from home produced. Similarly the BPL and AAY households consume rice from all three sources but these households consumed much lesser amount of home produced rice compare to other households. BPL households consume 58 per cent of rice from FPSs, 23
per cent from open market and 19 per cent from home production. Unlike Chaudhurirchar village, the AAY households of Kumargaon village, consumes comparatively a larger proportion of rice out of home production. AAY household consumes 68 per cent of rice from FPSs, 17 per cent of rice from open market and 15 per cent of rice from home production. The other two types of households i.e. MMASY households and households without having any type of ration cards, consumed rice from open market and home production. MMASY households consume major share of rice from open market whereas card-less households consume major share out of home production. MMASY households consume 60 per cent of rice from open market and 40 per cent of rice from home production. Card-less households consume 55 per cent of rice from open market and 45 per cent of rice from home production. Thus, the BPL and AAY households rely mostly on TPDS for their monthly consumption of rice compared to other households.
Table 6.5 shows that average per capita per month consumption of rice from TPDS is 8.6 kg for AAY households and 8.07 kg for BPL households in Chaudhurirchar village. Average per capita consumption of rice is 10.7 kg from home production and 6.7 kg from open market by the APL households and 6.2 kg from home production and 7.2 kg from open Table 6.5 Average rice (in kg) consumed per capita in the Chaudhurirchar and Kumargaon revenue village
Chaudhurirchar
Sources AAY BPL APL MMASY No cards
From FPS 8.6 8.07 0 0 0
From home production 0 0 10.7 6.2 2
From open market 3.4 5.1 6.7 7.2 12
Kumargaon
From FPS 8.5 9.2 1.2 2.2 3.6
From home production 2.4 4.2 8.6 3.84 5.1
From open market 2.5 3.4 3.6 9.02 7.2
Source: Survey data, 2015
128
market by MMASY households. Households without any cards consume 12 kg from open market and 2 kg from home production.
In Kumargaon village, the AAY households consume 8.5 kg rice per capita per month from TPDS and BPL households consume 9.2 kg from TPDS. Monthly TPDS consumption was 1.2 kg by APL households, whereas MMASY households had 2.2 kg (not from MMASY cards but from APL card by ‗multiple cardholder ‗households) and no cardholder household had 3.6 kg (this consumption was met by borrowing BPL card) from TPDS.
Thus, TPDS rice is mainly available to AAY and BPL households. Other households consume rice from open market and out of home produce. In Kumargaon village the other cardholder households consumes very few proportion of rice from TPDS as compared to that of Chaudhurirchar village.
6.3 UTILISATION OF TPDS RICE: WELFARE COSTS BORNE BY THE