The overall goal of FAO's Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System initiative is to identify and safeguard eco-friendly traditional farm practices, associated landscapes, agricultural biodiversity, and knowledge systems of local communities. The initiative aims to reduce food loss and waste, which is currently around 14% of total food production globally. A new online platform will serve as a gateway with information on measurement, reduction policies, alliances and examples of successful models to reduce food loss and waste across different regions and countries. Reducing food loss and waste can benefit food security, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lessen pressure on land and water resources, and promote economic growth.

1. POVERTY AND
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES II
PRESENTED BY:-
VISHAKHA VIJAYVARGIYA

2. Q. The FAO accords the status of ‘Globally Important Agricultural
Heritage System (GIAHS)’ to traditional agricultural systems. What is
the overall goal of this initiative?
 To provide modern technology, training in modern farming methods and financial
support to local communities of identified GIAHS so as to greatly enhance their
agricultural productivity.
 To identify and safeguard eco-friendly traditional farm practices and their associated
landscapers, agricultural biodiversity and knowledge systems of the local communities.
 To provide Geographical Indication status to all the varieties of agricultural produce in
such identified GIAHS.
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
(a) 1 and 3 only
(b) 2 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

3.  About the Platform
The Technical Platform on the Measurement and Reduction of Food Loss and Waste
together information on measurement, reduction, policies, alliances, actions and
of successful models applied to reduce food loss and waste across the globe.
The platform will contain information on measurement, reduction policies, alliances,
actions and examples of successful models applied to reduce food loss and waste.
The platform will be officially launched on the first International Day of Awareness of
Loss and Waste on 29 September 2020.
How will it work?
The platform is as a gateway to information on food loss and waste from various
resources, including the largest online collection of data on what food is lost and wasted.
Links to related portals from development partners are also provided.

4. Why need such a portal?
Food loss and waste is a sign of food systems in distress. Nutritious foods are the most perishable,
and hence, the most vulnerable to lose.
Not only food is being lost, but food safety and nutrition are being compromised as well.
At least 14 per cent of food is lost (food wastage and food loss together), valued at $400 billion
annually.
In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the food that is lost is associated with around 1.5 gigatonnes
of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Major losses are seen in roots tubers and oil-bearing crops (25 per cent), fruits and vegetables (22
per cent), and meat and animal products (12 per cent).
Reducing food loss and waste can bring about many benefits: more food available for the most
vulnerable; a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; less pressure on land and water resources;
increased productivity and economic growth.
Food loss vs food wastage
There is a difference between food wastage and food losses.
Food is wasted when it is discarded by consumers or is disposed of in retail due to its inability to
meet quality standards.
Food loss, on the other hand, occurs when it is spoilt or spilt before reaching the final product or
retail stage.
For example, dairy, meat, and fish can go bad in transit because of inadequate refrigerated
and cold storage facilities.

6. What is Social Mobility?
•Typically, inequalities are measured in income terms. And this
measure has been found inadequate.
•As the report states, “many situations exist where, despite high levels
of absolute income mobility, relative social mobility remains low.
•For example, in economies such as China and India, economic growth
can lift entire populations upward in terms of absolute income, but an
individual’s status in society relative to others remains the same”.
•The report states: “The notion of relative social mobility is more closely
related to the social and economic status of an individual relative to
their parents. I
•n a country with a society with perfect relative mobility, a child born in a
low-income family would have as much chance to earn a high income
as a child born to parents who earn a high income”.

7. The concept of social mobility is much broader than just looking at
income inequality. It encompasses several concerns such as:
•Intragenerational mobility: The ability for an individual to move
between socio-economic classes within their own lifetime.
•Intergenerational mobility: The ability for a family group to move up
or down the socio-economic ladder across the span of one or more
generations.
•Absolute income mobility: The ability for an individual to earn, in real
terms, as much as or more than their parents at the same age.
•Absolute educational mobility: The ability for an individual to attain
higher education levels than their parents.
•Relative income mobility: How much of an individual’s income is
determined by their parents’ income.
•Relative educational mobility: How much of an individual’s
educational attainment is determined by their parents’ educational
attainment.

8. Why does social mobility matter?
•How far an individual can move up in the society determines a lot
whether one is closer to the income “floor” (or poor) or “ceiling” (or rich).
•Social mobility levels, then, can help us understand both the speed –
that is, how long it takes for individuals at the bottom of the scale to
catch up with those at the top – and the intensity – that is, how many
steps it takes for an individual to move up the ladder in a given period –
of social mobility.
•Research also shows that countries with high levels of relative social
mobility—such as Finland, Norway or Denmark— exhibit lower levels of
income inequality.
•Conversely, countries with low relative social mobility—such as India,
South Africa or Brazil—also exhibit high levels of economic inequality.
•That’s why it matters for countries like India to increase social mobility.

9. How is social mobility calculated?
The WEF’s Global Social Mobility Index assesses the 82
economies on “10 pillars” spread across the following five key
dimensions of social mobility:
1.Health;
2.Education (access, quality and equity, lifelong learning);
3.Technology;
4.Work (opportunities, wages, conditions);
5.Protection and Institutions (social protection and inclusive
institutions).

10. Rethink poverty — and policy
There should be seismic changes in the way Indians (including the Union government) think
about absolute poverty and its alleviation, macro-growth policies and micro policies, especially
those on agriculture.
First rethink: We are not a poor country any more, not with just 4.5 per cent of the
population classified as poor .
Second rethink: We have always considered food consumption as the ultimate criterion of
poverty. Time has come to dismantle this ecosystem — an ecosystem that is biased against
the poor farmer, against climate change mitigation and also against efficient use of water
and energy.
Third rethink: 4.5 per cent of the population as poor is not right, does not sound right, and isn’t
right. The rethink has to be about defining poverty in relative, not absolute terms.
Fifth rethink: We should recognise that that the country has a messed up and archaic
agricultural policy, one that was not even fit for the earlier poor economy times.

11. New Approach
1.Basic income programme
•The new approach towards poverty alleviation should involve targeted income transfers.
•Under a targeted basic income programme, which is a top-up scheme, the government
transfers the poverty gap (difference between per capita consumption of the household and
the poverty line faced by the household) into the bank account of the poor.
•The cost of such a programme is likely to be between Rs 2.5 and 3 trillion and it will ensure nobody
has a consumption below the poverty line.
•India’s current expense on poverty alleviation programmes is approximately Rs 3.4 trillion and the
cost to make one person non-poor through the PDS in 2011-12 was Rs 24,000.
•The same for MGNREGA was Rs 40,500.
•Therefore, assuming perfect targeting, a basic income programme is likely to cost
substantially less that the current policies and it will ensure that the poverty rate is reduced
to zero based on the higher poverty line.
Benefits of direct benefit transfer
•The direct benefit transfer mechanism of the government has been able to resolve targeting
problems for a bulk of the 430 government schemes and subsidies.
•The current PM-Kisan programme that provides income support to approximately 14 crore
farmers is an example of how, through DBT, the government can provide direct income
support as its focal policy towards poverty alleviation.
•Such a policy is likely to help the government in rationalising and consolidating its poverty reduction
programmes, thereby freeing up resources for other sectors in the economy.

12. 2.Tax Reforms
• The government should focus on bringing more people under the tax net at the higher
income brackets.
•Our recommendation towards achieving the same would be to reduce both corporate income
tax rate and the highest personal income tax rate to a flat 25 per cent.
•Therefore, to improve revenue realisation from direct taxes, the government should focus
on improving compliance by reducing the highest slabs of the tax rate.
3. Investment Reforms
•The Indian economy requires adequate investments in critical areas such as road, railways
and water.
•Therefore, the government needs to rationalise its expenditure and tax rates to ensure
reallocation of resources.
Conclusion
Our pace of poverty reduction has improved over the last five years. We can augment this through
a targeted basic income policy and free up resources for other sectors of the economy. Times
have changed and so should our policies towards poverty alleviation.

13. Rural vs Urban: the better poverty alleviator
1.Current pattern of Urbanisation: Taking place on the fringe of cities-
unplanned and outside the purview of city codes and bylaws, imposes high
costs
2.Urban population growth effects on poverty: Consumption linkages, rural
non-agricultural employment, remittances, rural land/labour ratios, rural land
prices and consumer prices
3.Rural transformation effects on poverty reduction: Modernisation of
agriculture reduces rural poverty and overall poverty
4.This is possible through greater demand for chemical fertilisers, pesticides,
machine services, processed seeds or fuels, which promote non-agricultural
production
5.Higher incomes in rural areas promote demand for processed foods
produced mainly in urban areas and generate employment

14. 6.Decrease in food prices results in better food security and overall poverty
reduction
7.Reduction of food prices lowers the real product wage in the non-
agricultural sector, raising profitability and investment
8.As a country grows and shifts from the low income to the middle income
category, the nature of agriculture typically changes from subsistence-
oriented farming to more commercialised and market farming
9.It then has a closer linkage with the non-agricultural sector
10.Rural transformation possible through easier access to new technology,
credit and market
11.Strengthening of extension services, rural infrastructure and skill
formation will not only raise productivity and living standards but also curb
rural-urban migration

15. 1.Suresh Tendulkar panel: Those spending at least Rs 27 in rural and Rs
33 in urban areas daily in 2011-12 were identified as being above the
poverty line
2.Led to a public outcry as these numbers were considered unrealistic and
too low
3.C Rangarajan panel: Set up to review the line, raised the limit to Rs 32
and Rs 47 for rural and urban areas, respectively
4.However, the report, submitted in 2014, wasn’t accepted by the Modi
government