HVA Seminar 2

8/13/2019 HVA Seminar 2

1/43

WEL COME TO

SEMINAR-II

ON

PRESENTED BY

NARENDRA NADONI

Sr. M.Sc. (Agri Econ)

PAL 0084

MAJOR ADVISOR

Dr. G.S. ANANTH


2/43

FLOW OF PRESENTATION

INTRODUCTION

HIGH VALUE AGRICULTURE GROWTH PATTERN IN INDIA

TRENDS AND COMPOSITION OF INDIAN AGRICULTURAL TRADE

FACTORS BEHIND GROWTH OF HIGH-VALUE AGRICULTURE

FOOD CONSUMPTION TRENDS AND DRIVERS

ENGEL MODEL OF FOOD CONSUMPTION AND EXPENDITURE

GROWTH IN FRESH FRUITS , VEGETABLES AND LIVESTOCK IN INDIA

SMALL FARMERS AND HIGH VALUE AGRICULTURE

POLICY IMPLICATION

CONCLUSION


3/43

INTRODUCTION

The contribution of agricultural sector to national Gross Domestic

Product has continued to decline over the years.

Agriculture remains a major source of employment.

There is a substantial change in pattern of production,

consumption and trade in agriculture.

Fig. 1: Share of agriculture In total GDP of India (1971-2010)

Source: : National Accounts Statistics 2010 CSO


4/43

There is shift in production and consumption from foodgrains

to high-value agricultural commodities.

This transformation of the sector has profound effects on the

nature of agriculture in India.

HVA create opportunities for farming community.

This transformation has been called a silent revolution,

inviting comparison with the Green Revolution of the 1960s

and 1970s.

Definition : Agricultural goods with a high economic value per

kilogram, per hectare, or per calorie, including fruits,

vegetables, meat, eggs, milk, and fish are called has High value

agricultural products.


5/43

HIGH VALUE AGRICULTURE GROWTH

PATTERNS

Throughout the country, major shifts in dietary patterns areoccurring, even in the consumption of basic staples towardsmore diversified diets.

To meet the changing demands, production systems are alsomoving towards high value crops.

The relative importance of foodgrains has declined during thepast two decades.

Due to shift in demand pattern towards high value crops, thefarmers are also responding to market signals and graduallyshifting production-mix to meet the growing demand for high-

value commodities


6/43

Particulars

(2009-10)

Share in value of output from agriculture (%) CAGR (%)

TE 1983-84 TE 1993-94 TE 2003-04 TE 2009-10 1980s 1990s 2000s

Foodgrains 31.3 30.6 26.0 24.7 3.0 1.8 2.4

Cereals 26.3 26.6 22.7 21.7 3.2 2.0 2.5

Pulses 5.0 4.0 3.3 3.0 1.7 0.5 2.2

Oilseeds 5.3 6.7 5.2 5.8 5.6 0.4 6.4

F & V 14.1 15.4 16.7 16.9 2.2 6.3 3.5

Livestock 20.6 23.9 25.9 26.1 4.6 3.7 3.8

Milk 12.7 15.4 17.4 17.4 5.2 4.3 3.6

Meat 3.4 4.4 4.5 4.5 5.2 2.6 3.9

Fisheries 2.7 3.9 4.6 4.4 6.0 4.7 2.9

Fibres 3.0 2.9 2.2 3.6 2.6 0.4 17.2

Cond & Sps 2.3 2.6 3.2 3.1 4.7 5.0 3.5

Crop Sector 62.7 56.8 52.8 52.6 2.5 3.0 3.5

HVA 37.3 43.2 47.2 47.4 3.9 4.6 3.6

Agil. & allied

sector

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.0 3.2 3.5

Table 1: All India Share and Growth Rates of Major Crops/groups

Source: CSO (2011)


7/43

Share in total cropped area (%) CAGR (%)

Crops TE 1983-84 TE 1993-94 TE 2009-10 1980s 1990s 2000s

Rice 22.81 22.94 22.62 0.6 0.78 -0.70

Wheat 13.24 13.20 14.24 0.36 1.40 1.30

Coarse

cereals

23.68 18.48 14.84 -1.49 -1.61 -2.14

Total

cereals

59.72 54.62 51.69 -0.29 -0.02 0.21

Pulses 13.36 12.56 12.08 0.09 -0.64 0.83

Foodgrains 73.09 67.18 63.78 -0.19 0.03 0.37

Oilseeds 9.77 14.80 14.34 3.02 -0.87 2.57

Sugarcane 1.97 2.12 2.48 1.35 1.91 1.29Fruits &

vegetables

2.91 3.82 5.10 3.38 2.5 5.3

Cotton 4.39 4.13 4.68 -0.97 2.18 3.12

Others 7.87 7.95 9.63 - - - - -

Table 2: All India Share and Growth Rates of Major Crops/ Groups

Source: Computed from Agricultural Statistics at a Glance.


8/43

State Level growth pattern

o

High value agriculture is a major contributor to the economyin many states.

o The share of livestock sector increased from 24.7 percent in

TE 1998-99 to 27.2 percent in the TE 2009-10 at all Indialevel.

o The high value agriculture (fruits & vegetables and livestock

sector) is the largest contributor to state economy in hill stateslike Himachal Pradesh (72.4%) and Jammu & Kashmir

T bl 3 Sh f f i bl d li k (%) i l l f


9/43

Fruits and veg livestock FV & livestock

States TE 1998-99 TE 2009-10 TE 1998-99 TE 2009-10 1998-99 2009-10

AP 10.3 14 22.7 34.3 33 48.3

Assam 26.1 22.9 17.8 20 43.9 42.9

Bihar+ JKh 24.6 32.3 30.5 33.8 55.1 66.1

Gujarat 11 11.8 23.9 23.9 34.9 35.7Haryana 3.3 6.5 31.2 31.2 34.5 37.7

HP 29.9 41.1 31.7 31.3 61.6 72.4

J & K 34 33.9 33.8 38.4 67.8 72.3

Karnataka 19.3 23.2 18.9 20.5 38.2 43.7

Kerala 14.8 22.1 28.2 22.3 43 4 44.4

M.P. +Chhattisgarh 5.2 9.9 22.4 26.9 27.6 36.8

Maharashtra 18.2 22.7 22.7 20.2 40.9 42.9

Orissa 33.6 40.5 9.6 14.8 43.2 55.3

Punjab 3.7 4.8 30.3 32.5 34 37.3

Rajasthan 1.5 1.4 30.5 35.8 32 37.2

Tamil Nadu 20.6 22.6 22.2 31 4 42.8 53.6

UP + UK 9.3 13 23.8 26.9 33.1 39.9

UP 9.3 12.4 23.8 26.8 33.1 39.2WB 25.3 35.5 26.3 22.9 51.6 58.4

Arunachal Pradesh 31.3 24.4 18 27.1 49.3 51.5

Manipur 23.7 29.5 26 27.7 49.7 57.2

Meghalaya 22.2 37.7 43.3 30.5 65.5 68.2

Mizoram 20.5 15.7 25.3 30.9 45.8 46.6

Sikkim 12.5 33.7 19.1 17.1 31.6 50.8

India 14.6 18.2 24.7 27.2 39.3 45.4

Table 3:Share of fruits vegetables and livestock sector (%) in total value of output

Source: CSO (2011)


10/43

TRENDS AND COMPOSITION OF INDIAN

AGRICULTURAL TRADE

The exports of agriculture and food products increased fromabout Rs. 29.7 thousand crore in 2001-02 to Rs. 89.5 thousand

crore in 2009-10.

The share of high-value agricultural products in totalagricultural exports has increased from about 16.4 per cent.

Agricultural imports have increased significantly from 16.3

thousand crore in 2001-02 to 59.4 thousand crore in 2009-10.

Marine products, which constituted about 18.6 percent of total

agricultural exports in TE 2003-04, lost its share and

accounted from 9.4 percent of total agricultural exports in TE2009-10.


11/43

Years Import (Rs. Crores) Export (Rs. Crores)

2001-02 16398 29782

2002-03 19102 38564

2003-04 20552 40983

2004-05 21250 41054

2005-06 20498 46789

2006-07 30152 61061

2007-08 30298 79851

2008-09 38564 83246

2009-10 59485 89548

Table 4: Indian Export and import trend of agricultural commodities

Source: Economic survey 2010-11


12/43

Fig. 2: Trends in imports and exports of agricultural commodities and

share of HVA commodity exports in total agricultural export

Source: Economic Survey (2010-11 & earlier issues)

years


13/43

Fig. 3: Graph showing commodity composition (%) of agricultural export

Source: Economic Survey (2010-11 & earlier issues)

0

2

4

6

810

12

14

16

18

20

7.2 6.95.8 5.7 5.4 5.4

4.9 4.6 4.65.3

6.4

19.1

3.7

10.39.7

6.2

33.9

6.6

7.6 7.3

20

2003-04 2009-10


14/43

FACTORS BEHIND GROWTH OF HIGH-

VALUE AGRICULTURE1. Income growth:

Engels Law: states that as incomes rise, the share ofexpenditure allocated to food tends to decline.

Bennett's Law: states that as income rises, the share of the

food budget allocated to starchy staples declines relative to

more expensive sources of calories.

Years Percapita Income (Rs.) Percentage change

2004-05 24143

2005-06 27123 12.34

2006-07 31198 15.02

2007-08 35820 14.81

2008-09 40605 13.35

2009-10 46492 14.49

CAGR 14.12

Table 5: Percapita income in India from 2004 to 2009-10

Source :Central Statistical Organization


15/43

2. Demographic factors

Demography is not a major factor, but it also affect the growth

of high-value agriculture.

Urban population prefers more of HVA products as compared

to rural population

In demography urban population plays an important role in

increasing the demand for HVA products.

Year Population Change

(%)

Urban population

(million )

Urban

(%)Avg Annual Exp

Growth rate percent

1951 361088 6244 1.72

1961 439235 21.64 7894 1.79 1.961971 548160 24.79 10911 1.99 2.22

1981 683329 24.65 15946 2.33 2.2

1991 846421 23.86 21761 2.57 2.14

2001 1028737 21.53 28536 2.77 1.95

2011 1210193 17.63 38994 3.22 1.64

CAGR 22.86 36.71

Table 6: Decadal Urban and total population of India

Source: CSO, indiastat.com


16/43

3. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in HVA

Foreign investment in the food sector of developing countries

is rarely targeted at direct agricultural production.

The entrance of foreign companies into the agricultural sector

puts competitive pressure on local agribusiness companies.

Foreign direct investment can promotes the growth of high-

value agriculture in one of three ways

i. Link farmers in developing countries with high-value export

markets.

ii. FDI in the processing sector may create a new market for high-

value agricultural commodities.

iii. Foreign companies use their expertise and scale of operations to

reduce marketing margins in the processing and/or retail sector


17/43

Country Amount

(million Rs)

Switzerland2782.10

USA2743.28

Germany2569.88

Mauritius2251.56

Korea1229.30

France524.07

UAE 477.48Saudi Arabia

386.90

Total12940

Table 7: FDI in High value agricultural products in India 2008-09

Source: ministry of food processing, GOI

21.5

21.2

19.86

17.4

9.5

4.053.69 2.99

Switzerland

USA

Germany

Mauritius

Korea

France

UAE

Saudi Arabia

Fig. 4 : share of different country in FDI


18/43


19/43

5. Trade policy

o Liberalization of trade Policies to promote trade.

o The lowering of import barriers in developed countries has

probably facilitated the growth of high-value exports such as

fish and seafood products.

Commodity Base year current projected

200405 201011 202021

Food grains 207.0 235.4 281.1

Milk and milk products 91.0 113.7 141.5

Egg (number billion) 44.1 60.8 81.4

Meat 6 8.3 10.9

Vegetables 90.6 108 127.2

Fresh fruits 52.9 67.3 86.2

Table 8: Demands for various high value food products ( Mt)

Source: State of Indian agriculture, National Academy of Agriculture Sciences, New Delhi


20/43

FOOD CONSUMPTION TRENDS AND

DRIVERS OF HVA

The marked rise in availability of food and rising income have

been accompanied by changes in the composition of diet.

Dietary change appears to follow a pattern involving two main

stages (Kearney, 2010).

1. Expansion effect.

2. Substitution.

Recent data reveals that the share of food in the total consumer

expenditure has fallen.


21/43

The average monthly per capita consumer expenditure

(MPCE) in 2009-10 stood at Rs. 1471.54 in urban and Rs.

772.36 in rural India.

The per capita total consumption expenditure in urban areas

was about 90 percent higher than that of the rural areas, while

in case of food expenditure it was about 44 percent higher.

Between 1987-88 and 2009-10, the highest increase in MPCE

was observed in non-food expenditure in both rural and urban

areas

In case of urban households, the highest increase in MPCE

was on vegetables (5.9 times), followed by beverages, etc. (5.4

times), fruits and eggs, fish and meat by over 5 times.


22/43

1987-88 1993-94 1999-00 2005-06 2009-10

RURAL

Cereals & their substitutes 41.54 68.40 108.11 106.72 124.56

Pulses & their products 6.27 10.70 18.50 20.02 23.70

Edible oils 7.88 12.50 18.16 25.46 33.29

Milk & milk products 13.63 26.70 42.56 50.94 60.18

Egg, fish & meat 5.11 9.40 16.14 24.31 26.31

Vegetables 8.23 17.00 28.98 37.88 48.53

Fruits & nuts 2.57 4.90 8.36 11.75 13.56

Fruits & Vegetables 6.18 11.70 20.38 26.10 33.60

Beverages, etc. 9.41 16.50 27.61 29.97 31.31

Total Food 100.8 (63.8) 177.8 (62.14) 288.80 (59.40) 333.15 (53.34) 395.04 (53.6)

Non-Food 57.28 108.3 197.36 291.38 341.03

Total expenditure 158.10 286.1 486.16 624.53 736.07

URBAN

Cereals & their substitutes 37.1 64.60 105.92 110.31 131.13

Pulses & their products 8.44 13.90 24.25 25.57 31.20

Edible oils 13.2 20.10 26.81 35.02 46.43

Milk & milk products 23.8 44.90 74.17 84.94 106.64

Egg, fish & meat 8.85 15.50 26.78 32.28 39.47

Vegetables 13.1 25.00 43.90 49.73 64.34

Fruits & nuts 6.27 12.20 20.68 25.52 31.02

Fruits & Vegetables 16.8 33.00 54.28 68.32 85.75

Beverages, etc. 12.0 21.10 34.05 36.13 38.63

Total Food 139.7 (56) 250.30 (53.9) 410.84 (48.05) 467.82 (39.93) 574.61 (40.7)

Non-Food 110.1 214.00 444.08 702.78 889.11

Total expenditure 249.9 464.30 854.92 1170.60 1463.72

Table 9: Changes in expenditure on food consumption(Rs./capita/month at current prices)

Source: Computed from NSS Report : Household Consumer Expenditure in India, 2010-11


23/43

Fig. 5: Changing Dietary Consumption Patterns (%) in India

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Cereals Milk Egg, fish &meat

F&V Beverages Total Food Non-Food

41.2

13.5

5.1

10.7

6.1

63.8

36.232

15.3

7.3

14.9

7.8

53.3

46.7

29.2

16.1

6.5

14.510.5

53.6

46.4

1987-88 2005-06 2009-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cereals Milk Egg, fish &

meat

F&V Beverages Total Food Non-Food

26.6

17.1

6.3

13.9 12

55.9

44.1

23.6

18.2

6.9

16.114.6

40

60

22.319.1

6.6

15.7 15.5

40.1

59.3

Source: NSSO (2011).

Rural (%)

URBAN (%)


24/43

ENGEL MODEL OF FOOD

CONSUMPTION AND EXPENDITURE

while food demand is expected to increase with income, thefood share of total budget is expected to decline as incomeincreases.

Rising income and improved access to greater variety of foodis expected to change the food consumption patterns.

Indian households tend to consume more high value productshas their incomes rise, while their consumption of traditional

staple grains remains stable or declines.

Food is necessity that accounts for about half of totalconsumption expenditure of poor households, but share offood spending declines as households gain more income.


25/43

Source : Computed from NSS Household Consumer Expenditure in India 2007-08

Fig. 6: Importance of food expenditure and HVA expenditure


26/43

The Engel curve expressed as the relationship between

household expenditure on an item and household income.

Log-log inverse function is used for estimation.

Consumer response to changes in factors affecting demand is

measured by elasticity.

i. Income elasticity

ii. Price elasticity

Poor households exhibit a greater responsiveness, as given by

the expenditure elasticity, to change in expenditure levels

compared with high-expenditure households.

For all income levels, households indicate comparatively lower

income elasticities for staple products than for high-value

products in both rural and urban areas.


27/43

Table 10: Expenditure shares and expenditure elasticity of food

sub-categories in rural households

Source: Computed from NSS Report : Household Consumer Expenditure in India, 1999-00 &2007-08

Low

income

middle

income

High

income

All

classes

Low

income

middle

income

High

income

All classes elasticity

Budget share (%) Elasticity 2007-08 1999-00

Cereals 43.0 34.3 24.1 30.7 0.47 0.30 0.14 0.25 0.29

Milk & milk

products

6.2 12.1 19.7 14.9 3.01 1.93 0.88 1.57 1.20

Egg, fish &

meat

4.7 6.0 7.6 6.5 1.61 1.23 0.85 1.10 0.97

Fruits &

Vegetables

14.9 14.6 14.6 14.6 0.90 0.77 0.64 0.72 0.65

Vegetables 13.7 12.7 10.9 12.0 0.81 0.60 0.39 0.53 0.43

Fruits 1.2 1.9 3.7 2.6 2.15 1.75 1.36 1.62 1.59

Total Food 60.9 57.8 44.1 52.3 1.00 0.80 0.61 0.74 0.71


28/43

Table 11: Expenditure shares and expenditure elasticity of food

sub-categories in urban households

Source: Computed from NSS Report : Household Consumer Expenditure in India, 1999-00 & 2007-08

Low

income

middle

income

High

income

All

classes

Low

income

middle

income

High

income

All classes

Budget share (%) Elasticity 2007-08 1999-00

Cereals 33.1 25.1 16.3 22.4 0.38 0.25 0.16 0.22 0.25

Milk & milk

products

11.4 17.6 20.8 18.3 1.77 1.07 0.54 0.55 0.53

Egg, fish &

meat

6.4 7.2 6.5 6.8 1.19 0.72 0.38 0.88 0.81

Fruits &

Vegetables

14.7 15.1 15.5 15.2 0.88 0.60 0.57 0.65 0.61

Vegetables 12.7 11.9 9.6 11.0 0.78 0.52 0.33 0.44 0.40

Fruits 2.0 3.2 5.9 4.2 1.69 1.30 1.02 1.19 1.03

Total Food 56.4 47.6 30.4 39.5 0.81 0.66 0.56 0.62 0.57

GROWTH IN FRESH FRUITS AND


29/43

GROWTH IN FRESH FRUITS AND

VEGETABLES IN INDIA

1. Fruits production:

The production of fruits during 2010-11 was about 75.8

million tones.

It is interesting to note that area expansion has been a major

contributor to increased production.

Variability in area and production of fruits was higher in

2000s than 1990s.

Area and production shows a positive trend with CAGR of

4.40 and 4.48 per cent respectively.

Table 12: Area production and productivity of fresh fruits in India


30/43

Table 12: Area production and productivity of fresh fruits in India

Year Area ('000 ha) Production ('000) Productivity (Tons/ha)

1991-92 2874 28632 10

1992-93 3206 32955 10.3

1993-94 3184 37255 11.7

1994-95 3246 38603 11.9

1995-96 3357 41507 12.4

1996-97 3580 40458 11.3

1997-98 3702 43263 11.7

1998-99 3727 44042 11.8

1999-00 3797 45496 12

2000-01 3869 43138 11.1

2001-02 4010 43001 10.7

2002-03 3788 45203 11.9

2003-04 4661 45942 9.9

2004-05 5049 50867 10.1

2005-06 5324 55356 10.42006-07 5554 59563 10.7

2007-08 5857 65587 11.2

2008-09 6101 68466 11.2

2009-10 6329 71516 11.3

2010-11 6625 75825 NA

CAGR 4.40 4.28 -0.19Source: indiastat.com

Fi 7 P d ti (%) f f it i I di b t t


31/43

0

10

20

30

40 36.9

20.1

12.4

4.93.2 3 2.7 1.9 1.7 1.3 0.7

11.211.5

37.2

14.9

1.53.3 4.4

1.4 1.42.4 2 1.2

18.9

Production (%) Area (%)

Fig. 8: Chart showing percent share of different fruits to total area

Source: Indian Horticulture Database, National Horticulture Board, MoA

16.9

15.6

11.1

8.98.7

6.2

5

4.1

3.7

3.2

2.3 2.2

2.2

9.8

APMaharastraTNGujaratKarnatakaU.P

BiharWBKeralaM.PAssamOrissaJ&kOthers

Fig. 7: Production (%) of fruits in India by states


32/43

2.Vegetable production:

o With increase in the demand for vegetables the production of

vegetables has seen a substantial increase in the recent years.

o Productivity growth is better than fruits productivity withaverage per annum growth of 1.7 percent since 1991-92.

o Uttar Pradesh was the largest producer of vegetables in Indiawith share of 16.2 percent in national production in the TE2011.

o Potato is most widely grown vegetable in the country both interms of acreage and production.

o Area and production of vegetables witnessed an increasing

trend with CAGR of 2.75 and 4.47 per cent respectively

Table 13: Area production and productivity of vegetables


33/43

year Area ('000 ha) Production ('000) productivity (MT/ha)

1991-92 5593 58532 10.5

1992-93 5045 63806 12.6

1993-94 4876 65787 13.5

1994-95 5013 67286 13.4

1995-96 5335 71594 13.4

1996-97 5515 75074 13.6

1997-98 5607 72683 13

1998-99 5873 87536 14.9

1999-00 5991 90823 15.2

2000-01 6250 93849 15

2001-02 6156 88622 14.4

2002-03 6092 84815 13.9

2003-04 6082 88334 14.5

2004-05 6744 101246 15

2005-06 7213 111399 15.42006-07 7581 114993 15.2

2007-08 7848 128449 16.4

2008-09 7981 129077 16.2

2009-10 7985 133738 16.7

2010-11 8217 137687

CAGR 2.75 4.47 1.65

Table 13: Area, production, and productivity of vegetables

Source : indiastat.com


34/43

4

4.9

6.5 5.5

5.7

16.2

13.3

16.1

2.7

3.4 6.6

4.35.5

2.9 2.5 APMaharastra

TN

Gujarat

Karnataka

U.PBihar

WB

Kerala

Assam

Orissa

Others

MP

Haryana

punjab

Fig. 9 Production (%) of vegetables in India by states

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

25.924.3

10.28.6

7.6 7.35 4.7

3.42.3

0.9

22.8

30.3

107.4 7.2

3.4 3.7 45.3

4.2

1.6

production (%) Area(%)

Source: National Horticulture Board, MoA

Fig. 10: Production of vegetables in India by states


35/43

3. Livestock production (including fishery)

India ranks first in the world in milk production.

The per capita availability of milk has also increased from 112 gramsper day in 1968-69 to 281 grams in 2010-11.

The egg production during 2010-11 was 63020 million in numbers.

The fisheries sector contributed 0.7 per cent of total GDP at factor cost.

We are first in cattle, buffalo and goat in the world, housing16.10, 56.50

and 16.50 per cent, respectively, of worldspopulation.

In sheep and poultry, we are 5th in the world.

The contribution of livestock sector to agriculture has also increasedfrom 19.8% in 1991 to 25% in 2009-10.


36/43

Years Milk (mt) Eggs

(million no.)

Wool

(million Kgs)

Fish (Lt) Meat (mt)

2000-01 80.6 36632 48.4 5656 1.9

2001-02 84.4 38729 49.5 5956 1.9

2002-03 86.2 39823 50.5 6200 2.1

2003-04 88.1 40403 48.5 6399 2.1

2004-05 98.5 45201 44.6 6304 2.2

2005-06 97.1 46235 44.9 6572 2.3

2006-07 100.9 50663 45.1 6869 2.3

2007-08 104.8 53581 44 7127 3.7

2008-09 108.6 55395 42.9 7608 3.8

2009-10 112.5 59844 43.2 7850 4

2010-11 121.84 63020 42.9 8290 4.83

Table 14: Production of major livestock products and fish in India

Source : Department of animal husbandry, dairy and fishery, 2010-11

SMALL FARMERS AND HIGH VALUE


37/43

SMALL FARMERS AND HIGH VALUE

AGRICULTURE

The share of small and marginal farmers has increased from

69.7 percent in 1970-71 to about 83 percent in 2009-10 and

they cultivate nearly 41 percent of the arable land.

Less than 1 percent of the farmers have operational land

holding above 10 ha and account for 11.8 percent of the total

cultivated land.

The average farm size in the country has declined from 2.3 ha

in 1970-71 to 1.3 ha in 2009-10.

This reduction in farm size has been higher in case of medium

and large farmers


38/43

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1970-70 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2009-10

69.75 73.6478.24 80.98 82.9

16.8116.21

15.5416.21 15.96

13.44 10.156.22

2.81 1.14

>4 ha

2-4 ha


39/43

Smallholders' strength is their larger endowment of familylabour.

Small farmers control 61% of the area under vegetables and52% under fruits, as compared to their share of 44% in thetotal operated area.

There are evidences of small farms being more efficient than

large farms.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

sheep and goat dairy animals vegetables fruit area operated area

77.8

72.7

61

51.9

44.2

Fig. 12: Share of smallholders in horticulture area and in animal population

Source: GOI (2011)

%


40/43

POLICY IMPLICATION

Supported by markets and adequate infrastructure.

Need to increase investment in public infrastructure and

processing and to promote institutions.

The financial and insurance institutions should increasingly

focus on high-value agricultural projects.

Appropriate quality testing and certification procedures will

have to be put in place.


41/43

Setting up of a Livestock and Poultry development board with

required autonomy to oversee, monitor, and fund research and

developmental programme is desirable.

Mariculture technologies need to be adopted with due

consideration to the prevalent conditions, suitable species and

market demands.

It is necessary to equip the existing fish landing centers and

harbors with proper facilities.

Different models of domestic markets with suitable cold

chains must be developed.

CONCLUSION


42/43

CONCLUSION

HVA can be looked as means to ensure food & nutrition security

as well as higher profitability.

This shift in dietary patterns across states and income classes is

also observed.

Trade in high-value products is increasing.

For all income levels, households indicate comparatively lower

income elasticities for staple products than the HVA products.

The share of high-value commodities/products in total food

consumption has been increasing.

Rising demand for high-value commodities


43/43

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lohith-n-reddy
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

HVA Seminar 2

Documents