PROMOTING MILLETS FOR URBAN FOOD SECURITY: AN ANALYSIS OF MILLET
PORRIDGE VENDORS AND CONSUMERS IN MADURAI,
TAMIL NADU, INDIA PRESENTED AT THE INTERNATIONAL FOOD SECURITY
DIALOGUE 2014
“ENHANCING FOOD PRODUCTION, GENDER EQUITY AND NUTRITIONAL SECURITY IN A CHANGING
WORLD.”
Sponsored By: Hosted By:
Introduction
Food Insecurity in Urban India
Urban vs Rural PovertyPoverty has declined at a greater rate in rural IndiaUrban areas lag behind in poverty reductionSchemes tend to focus on rural areas
Urban Food InsecurityCompared with rural areas, urban India has a higher % of
total population that consumes less that recommended 1890 kcal/day
Food security schemes (whether production, distribution, or consumption related) see urban population simply as passive beneficiaries of cheap food grains
Informal Sector and Street Food Vendors
Informal Sector plays a major role providing urban poor (90%) with employment and livelihood opportunities Street food vendors, as a part of the informal sector, provide urban poor with food security and livelihoods (especially for poor women)While street foods have been portrayed as unhealthy and unhygienic, nutritious street food options do exist (ie. Millet Porridge)
RESMISA ProjectThe CIFSRF project, led by CMU & DHAN Foundation, aims to increase production, distribution, access, and daily consumption of small millets and pulses seeds in rainfed regions of India, Nepal and Sri Lanka.
An exploratory study of Street Food Industry in Madurai was initiated in order to explore urban channels for promoting consumption of small millets in the urban areas through informal channels
Field Site: Madurai, TN, India
Situating Madurai’s Millet Porridge Vendors
Objectives, Methods, and Classifications
Research Objectives
Research was conducted with four overlapping objectives:
(i)To understand the role of street vendors for enhancing consumption of nutritious RTE food among poor (including millet porridge)
(ii) To understand the socioeconomic profile of street food vendors
(iii) To understand the socio-economic profile of street food consumers and their preferences for food quality, nutrition, and hygiene
(iv) To explore rural and urban linkages between rural peasants and the informal food sector employing urban poor.
MethodsMixed Methods Exploratory Research
90 Semi-Standardized Vendor
Interviews
239 Consumer Surveys
Of which 169 consumed millet
porridge from vendors
Focus Group Discussions
Mapping Exercise
1. Porridge Vendor 2. Non-Porridge Push Cart
3. Hawker 4. Small Scale Restaurant
Classification of Street Food Vendors by Infrastructure Level and Products Sold
Classification of Street Food Vendors by Infrastructure Level and Products Sold
No infrastructure
Pushcart/ tricycle
Semi-permanent structure
All infrastructure
typesSelling millet
porridge– Porridge
vendors (37) – 37
Selling other
productsHawkers (21)
Non-porridge pushcart
vendors (13)
Curb-side food stalls (19) 53
All products 21 50 19 90
Findings
Socioeconomic Profile of VendorsHawkers Porridge
VendorsNon-porridge Pushcart Vendors
Curb-side Food Stalls
% illiterate 76 61 27 10
% low caste (SC, BC, OBC) 100 94 100 100
% migrant 14 43 15 42
% without bank account 71 83 38 22
% without motorized vehicle 90 81 69 42
% below poverty line (BPL card) 100 92 100 89
Products offered by Vendors
10 Popular Products Offered by Vendors
Idli
Dhosai
Pearl Millet Porridge*
Finger Millet Porridge*
Vada
Poori
Pongal
Paanaryam
Variety Rice
Chapati
Consumer Profile◦ Poor labourers,
informal sector workers, petty traders
◦ Majority have less than grade 11 education
◦ More than 1/3 were not fully literate
Street Food Preferences
◦ Street foods are purchased often, (on average once every 2 days) due to their convenience
◦ Millet porridge is only available from porridge vendors (not made at home)
◦ Millet porridge ◦ Favoured by day labourers because it kept them
full and gave them stamina to do their work◦ Favoured by diabetic patients
Consumers and Health
◦ Literature indicated that poor consumers are not concerned with health and hygiene
◦ On the contrary, poor consumers were concerned with the quality and hygiene of street foods
◦ Awareness of the nutritional benefits of millet consumption was high
◦ Household incidences of diabetes is high among consumers (treated with Finger Millet Porridge)
Lessons Learned
Lessons for Policy Makers◦ India’s food subsidy has grown more than 25 fold over the past
two decades: $0.62 billion (1992) to $16.67 billion (2012).
◦ This subsidy will be further increased one the National Food Security Act will be implemented: Estimates are 1.1 to 3% of GDP.
◦ Production, Distribution, and Consumption related schemes have not engaged the urban poor◦ Production schemes: Exclusively in rural areas◦ Distribution schemes: Problems with leakage and corruption◦ Consumption schemes: See the urban poor as passive beneficiaries
None of these schemes provide any employment opportunity for the urban poor
Engaging the Informal Sector in state run schemes
Amma Unavagam◦ Launched on February 24, 2013 (Jayalalithaa’s birthday).◦ Offer ready-to-eat cooked food at subsidized rates to urban
consumers at highly subsidized price.◦ 200 outlets in the greater Chennai: 200, 000 people per day. ◦ Adverse impacts on street vendors?
Street Food Voucher scheme?◦ Market based food subsidy for the urban poor◦ Vouchers to be used exclusively at street food vendors
Engaging street vendors in RTE food distribution schemes such as ICDS, Mid Day Meal programs.
Enabling Policy Environment◦ Current policy on health and safety standards of street food is drafted by
the Confederation of Indian Industry!
◦ Street Vending Act (2014): ◦ Licensing and Legitimacy◦ Greater voice for vendors?
Opportunities for food scientists improving the nutrition and quality of street foods Limited understanding of the street food vending environment Participatory approaches to link food scientists with vendors. Opportunities to improve nutrition and diversity
◦ Role for NGOs ◦ linking small farmers with urban consumers via street food vendors◦ capacity building for street vendors (micro credit, financial services)
Acknowledgements•Canadian International Food Security Research Fund (CIFSRF)
•International Development Research Center (IDRC)
•Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
•Development for Humane Action Foundation (DHAN)
•Esther Parameswari, Anwar Khan, and B. Gerard (translation)
Thanks!
Top Related