Food Systems

Food subsidies in India: Revisiting the estimates

There is a view that the fis­cal bur­den of food sub­si­dies in India is un­sus­tain­able. Yet pop­u­lar de­bate and dis­cus­sion around the costs of these food sub­si­dies, rel­a­tive to their ben­e­fits, are mis­lead­ing for two rea­sons. First, they typ­i­cally treat re­ported bud­getary sub­sidy es­ti­mates—i.e. the fis­cal cost to the gov­ern­ment of the dis­tri­b­u­tion of food via ra­tion shops—as equiv­a­lent to “trans­fers” to ben­e­fi­cia­ries. Sec­ondly, they tend to focus ex­clu­sively on con­sumers. In doing so, they ne­glect the two-part na­ture of the food dis­tri­b­u­tion sys­tem, which in­cludes pay­ments to farm­ers at the time of pro­cure­ment. This paper ex­am­ines ways of mea­sur­ing the costs and value of the food sub­sidy. We pre­sent es­ti­mates that com­bine the im­plicit value of ben­e­fits to con­sumers aris­ing from the re­duced price of grain sold to con­sumers via ra­tion shops, with im­plicit ben­e­fits to farm­ers, in terms of the price dif­fer­ence be­tween what farm­ers are paid by the gov­ern­ment and what they would have ob­tained in the open mar­ket. This ap­proach shows that each rupee of the “food sub­sidy” re­ported in gov­ern­ment ac­counts rep­re­sents a trans­fer worth Rs 1.29 to con­sumers and farm­ers, on av­er­age, over the pe­riod 2001–02 to 2022–23. That is, each rupee trans­ferred to these groups is as­so­ci­ated with a cost of Rs 0.79 to the gov­ern­ment.

Multi-stakeholder platforms for enabling agroecological transitions: Configurations and lessons from seven agroecological living landscapes

Agroecological transition (AET) of agrifood systems is a multidimensional process involving diverse stakeholders. Participatory innovation and co-creation of knowledge are also at the heart of agroecology. Deliberately designed Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) are collaborative spaces conducive to driving this type of collaboration and change. However, how these processes are operationalized is poorly documented. This study contributes to filling this gap by highlighting how MSPs can be important vehicles for enabling AETs. As part of the CGIAR Initiative on Agroecology, Agroecological Living Landscapes (ALLs) were set up as MSPs specifically focusing on co-creation of agroecological innovations. By examining different ALL configurations in seven countries, we analyze MSP attributes that can enable and shape AETs at different stages or “levels” of the transition pathway. We find that MSPs can advance different levels of the transition pathway simultaneously by working on multiple innovations involving various stakeholder coalitions. MSPs navigate complex environments, with diverse stakeholders playing multiple policy and non-policy roles to support AETs. The results also illustrate the intersection between MSP configuration and AET objectives, such as policy change, agroecology market support, and scaling adoption. Finally, we discuss the non-linear nature of AET pathways and political economy considerations for stakeholder engagement in MSPs.

Trade-offs and synergies in agroecosystem services with organic and integrated nutrient management in South Asian agri-food systems: Evidence from a meta-analysis