Agro Economic Research Centres (Aercs) and Units

Home , Baran district, Chittorgarh district, Sri Ganganagar district

ResearchResearch StudyStudy No.No. 142142

Impact of National Horticulture Mission Impact of the National Horticulture Mission Scheme Schemein Rajasthan in Rajasthan

Mrutyunjay Swain

Ramesh H. Patel

Manish Kant Ojha

Mrutyunjay Swain Ramesh H Patel Manish Kant Ojha

Agro-Economic Research Centre

Sardar Patel University Agro EconomicVallabh Vidyanagar Research - 388120, Centre Gujarat Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat SeptemberSeptember 2011 2011

Foreword

National Horticulture Mission (NHM), a centrally sponsored scheme, has been implemented in 2005-06 in India to promote holistic growth of the horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, root and tuber crops, mushroom, spices, flowers, medicinal and aromatic plants etc. The main objective of the Mission is to promote the horticulture sector through area based regionally differentiated cluster approach for development of horticultural crops having comparative advantage. The mission envisages an end- to-end approach covering production, post harvest management (PHM), primary processing and marketing for which, assistance is being provided to farmers, entrepreneurs, besides organizations in the public and private sector. Since the programme has entered in the sixth year, it is imperative to analyze the impact of the programme vis-à-vis objectives of the NHM scheme especially for the major focused crops in terms of area expansion, increase in production and productivity. As the focus is on cluster approach for holistic development of potential crops, it was necessary to undertake in-depth study in respect of selected crops taken up for development. It was, therefore, proposed to carry out crop based impact evaluation study in different states through the Agro Economic Research Centres (AERCs) and units. The Agro-Economic Research Centre, Vallabh Vidyanagar was entrusted to conduct the study in Rajasthan state.

Dr Mrutyunjay Swain, Research Officer at our Centre and his research team have done this excellent piece of research work. The work has been based on both primary and secondary data collected from four districts of Rajasthan state, namely, Banswara, Jaipur, Chittorgarh and Alwar covering 200 NHM beneficiary households. On the basis of survey findings, policy relevant suggestions have been made to bring about improvement in implementation of NHM. I am highly thankful to Dr M. Swain, Mr. Manish Kant Ojha and the research team for putting in lot of efforts to complete this excellent piece of work.

We were asked by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India to undertake this study. We are equally grateful to R. Viswanathan, Economic & Statistical Advisor, Directorate of Economics and Statistics; Mr. V. P. Ahuja, Additional Economic Advisor, Ministry of Agriculture; Mr. B. S. Bhandari, Advisor, Ministry of Agriculture; and Mr. B. Naik, Economic Officer, Ministry of Agriculture for their encouragement and unquantifiable help at every stage of study. I wish to thank Mr. Sita Ram Jat, Deputy Director (Horticulture), NHM Rajasthan, Prof. Parmod Kumar, ISEC, Bangalore who acted as a coordinator of the study and other agencies/ individuals who have provided valuable help / guidance in preparing this report. It is hoped that this report will be useful for those who are interested in horticultural development in our country.

Vallabh Vidyanagar Prof. R. H. Patel Director September 15, 2011 Agro Economic Research Centre Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidyanagar Gujarat, India

iii

Preface

India grows a wide variety of horticultural crops. Horticultural development in our country was given major emphasis from mid eighties onwards with a realization that diversification to horticultural crops is the major option for improving livelihood security of farming community with improved employment opportunities, better food and nutrition security and higher income through value addition. Government of India has launched several programmes through which area expansion, improvement in production and productivity of horticultural crops and increase in foreign exchange earnings through export have taken place. National Horticulture Mission (NHM) scheme is one such programme which was implemented in 2005-06 in 18 States and 3 Union Territories of India excluding the states covered under Horticulture Mission for North East and Himalayan States (HMNEH) to promote holistic growth of the horticulture sector. In Rajasthan, the NHM scheme is being implemented in 24 districts with cluster approach by the Rajasthan Horticulture Development Society through District Mission Committees involving farmers, societies, NGOs, grower associations, SHGs, state institutions etc. The study was undertaken to evaluate the performance of NHM scheme in the selected districts of Rajasthan covering the period from 2004-05 to 2008-09.

I am extremely thankful to our Director Dr. R. H. Patel for providing all out administrative and intellectual support for undertaking this study along with revising the draft and pointing out the areas of improvement. I am also thankful to our Honorary Advisor Dr. M. T. Pathak, former Honorary Director Dr. H. P. Trivedi, Deputy Director Dr. R. A. Dutta and Research Officer Mr. V. D. Shah for their stimulating discussions at different points of time which helped to enrich the study. I register my sincere thanks to Prof. Parmod Kumar, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore who, as a coordinator of the study, provided necessary intellectual support as and when required. I gratefully acknowledge the excellent support provided by Mr Sita Ram Jat, Deputy Director (Horticulture), NHM Rajasthan and all the Horticulture Department officials at different study districts for the smooth conduct of the study.

I appreciate the research team for their sincere effort and keen interest in undertaking the study. I thank Mr. Manish Kant Ojha for preparing the preliminary draft of some chapters based on primary data tables, besides contributing to data collection, data entry and tabulation. I thank Mr. Shreekant Sharma for preparing valuable notes on field observations during the field survey. I thank Dr. Shantilal Bhaiya, Field Officer and Ms. Kalpana Kapadia, Research Associate for their association during the initial stage of the project. I am thankful to Mr. Vinod Parmer for providing secretarial assistance, all administrative staff and other support staff for providing excellent support during the study. I am grateful to all the respondents for furnishing the required information in a spontaneous and friendly manner.

This study is a modest attempt to assess the impact of NHM scheme on expansion of area, production and productivity of selected horticultural crops and improvement in income and employment of farmers in Rajasthan which is one of the leading states promoting horticultural development. This study will be useful to agricultural scientists, economists, non- governmental organizations, policy makers and planners in understanding the performance of NHM, associated problems and the prospects for horticultural development in Rajasthan.

Mrutyunjay Swain Principal Investigator

Research Team

Activities Name Designation

Principal Investigator Dr. Mrutyunjay Swain Research Officer Co- Principal Investigator Dr. R. H. Patel Director

Drafting Dr. Mrutyunjay Swain Research Officer Dr. R. H. Patel Director Mr. Manish Kant Ojha Research Associate

Tabulation Mr. Manish Kant Ojha Research Associate

Data Entry Mr. Manish Kant Ojha Research Associate

Data Collection Mr. Manish Kant Ojha Research Associate Mr. Shreekant Sharma Research Associate Mr. Jashwant Singh Computer Operator

vii

viii

Table of Contents

Content Page No.

Foreword iii Preface v Research Team vii Table of Contents ix List of Tables xii List of Figures xv List of Annexure Tables xvi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Rationale of the study 1 1.2 Background of horticultural crops in the State 5 1.3 Main objectives of the Study 8 1.4 Data and methodology 8 1.5 An overview 11 1.6 Limitations of the study 12

Chapter 2: Area, Production and Productivity of Horticultural Crops 15 in the State

2.1 Status of horticultural crops in the state 15 2.2 Impact of NHM on growth of horticultural crops in the state 17 2.3 District wise growth of horticultural crops and impact of NHM 22 2.4 Growth of area and production of selected crops under NHM 27 2.5 District wise area and production growth of selected crops under NHM 33 2.6 Summary of the chapter 39

Chapter 3: Household characteristics, Cropping Pattern 43 and Production Structure

3.1. Socio-economic characteristics of the selected farmers 43 3.2. Characteristics of operational holdings 45 3.3 Nature of tenancy 46 3.4 Sources of irrigation 47 3.5 Sources and purpose of credit 48 3.6 Holdings of productive farm assets 52 3.7 Cropping pattern of sample farmers 54 3.8 Irrigated cropping pattern 56 3.9 Area under HYV and organic farming 54 3.10 Production, cost and returns by farm size 61 3.11 Summary of the chapter 63

Chapter 4: The Production Structure and Resource Use 66 under Horticultural Crops

4.1 Economics of production, cost and resource use in horticulture 66 4.2 Net returns from horticultural versus non horticultural crops 79 4.3 Use of human labour in horticultural versus non horticultural crops 81 4.4 Marketing channels of horticultural crops 86 4.5 On farm processing activities in horticultural crops 89 4.6 Summary of the chapter 89

Chapter 5: Impact of NHM on the Expansion of Horticultural Crops 93

5.1. Impact of NHM on area and yield of selected horticultural crops 93 5.2. Rejuvenation/protection, resource procurement through NHM 97 5.3 NHM reaching to the households with resource provision 99 5.4 Subsidy provision under NHM 101 5.5 Capacity building by NHM 106 5.6 Perception of households about NHM 108 5.7 Summary of the chapter 111 x

Chapter 6: Concluding Remarks and Policy Suggestions 115

6.1 Introduction 115 6.2 Summary of findings 115 6.3 Policy suggestions 125

References 134

Annexure Tables 136

Annexure Plates 153

Appendix I: Coordinator’s Comments on the Draft Report 158

Appendix II: Action Taken on Coordinator’s Comments on the Draft Report 159

List of Tables

Table Title Page No.

1.1 Distribution of sample farmers by locations, crops and castes 10

2.1 District wise geographical, cultivable and horticultural crop 16 area in Rajasthan (hectares) 2.2 Area and production of horticulture crops in Rajasthan 18 (TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09) 2.3 Growth rate in area and yield of horticulture crops 19 in Rajasthan (%) 2.4 Area and production of horticultural crops at district level 23 in Rajasthan ( TE 2004-05)) 2.5 Area and production of horticultural crops at district level 24 in Rajasthan ( TE 2008-09)2010) 2.6 Average annual growth rate in area and yield of horticulture 25 crops at district level in Rajasthan from TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09 2.7 Area and production of selected horticulture crops in Rajasthan 29 2.8 Growth rate in area and yield rate of selected horticulture crops 30 in Rajasthan (%) 2.9 Area and production of selected horticultural crops at district 35 Level in Rajasthan (TE 2004-05) 2.10 Area and production of selected horticultural crops at 36 district level in Rajasthan (TE 2008-09) 2.11 Average annual growth rate in area and yield of selected 37 horticulture crops at district level in Rajasthan from TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09 percent per annum

3.1 Demographic profile of the selected farmers (% of households) 44 3.2 Characteristics of operational holdings (acres per household) 46 3.3 Nature of tenancy in leasing-in land in acres 47

xii

3.4 Source of irrigation of net operated area in acres 47 3.5 Details of source of credit by the selected households 49 3.6 Details of purpose of credit by the selected households 51 (Rs per households) 3.7 Ownership of productive farm assets 53 3.8 Cropping pattern of sample farmers (area in acre per HH) 55 3.9 Cropwise distribution of irrigated area of sample farmers 57 3.10 Area under HYV crops (Area in acre per HH) 59 3.11 Area under organic farming (Area in acre per HH) 61 3.12 A Value of output, cost and net returns per households for 62 the 2008-09 – 58 aggregate of all crops (Rs/HH) 3.12 B Value of output, cost and net returns per acre for 63 the 2008-09 – 58 aggregate of all crops (Rs/HH)

4.1 Cost of cultivation, production and net returns per acre from 69 aonla crop 4.2 Cost of cultivation, production and net returns per acre from 72 papaya crop 4.3 Cost of cultivation, production and net returns per acre from 74 coriander crop 4.4 Cost of cultivation, production and net returns per acre from 77 mango crop 4.5 Net returns (gross value of output - total cost) from horticultural 80 and non-horticultural crops 4.6 Use of human labour in crop production (Man days per acre) 83 4.7 Use of human labour in all horticultural crops by 85 activities (man days per acre) 4.8 Marketing channels through which horticultural products 87 were sold by the selected households during 2008-09 (Qtls/HH)

5.1 Impact of NHM on area and yield of selected horticultural crops 94 5.2 Area rejuvenated/protected through NHM resource provision 97 (Acre/HH under rejuvenation)

xiii

5.3 Increase in area and productivity due to rejuvenation/protection 98 supported by the NHM 5.4 Sources of NHM resource procurement for all crops 99 during 2004-05 to 2009-10 (Percentage of households) 5.5 Promotional activities of NHM (No of HHs saying 'yes') 100 5.6 Details of Subsidy Provided by NHM 103 5.7 Sources of training/dissemination activity provided to the farmers 107 5.8 Perception of households about the NHM 110 (% of households saying 'yes')

xiv

List of Figures

Sr. No. Title Page No.

Figure 1.1 Agro-climate of Rajasthan state 5

Figure 1.2 The study region - four districts of Rajasthan state in India 9 Figure 2.1 Growth of area and production of horticultural crops in Rajasthan 20 Figure 2.2 Composition of horticultural crops in Rajasthan during 20 1980-81 and 2008-09 Figure 3.1 Distribution of borrowings excluding a major outlier 51 Figure 4.1 Output produced per acre of study crops in Rajasthan 78

Figure 4.2 Net returns per acre of study crops in Rajasthan 79

List of Annexure Tables

Annexure Title Page No. 1.1 Year wise physical and financial progress of NHM in Rajasthan 136 1.2 Component wise details of physical and financial progress 137 under NHM from 2005-06 to 2010-11 1.3 List of villages covered under the survey 138 2.1 Area and production of horticulture crops in Rajasthan 139 2.2 Area and production of horticultural crops at district level 140 in Rajasthan 2002-03 2.3 Area and production of horticultural crops at district 141 level in Rajasthan 2003-04 2.4 Area and production of horticultural crops at district level 142 in Rajasthan 2004-05 2.5 Area and production of horticultural crops at district level 143 in Rajasthan 2006-07 2.6 Area and production of horticultural crops at district level 144 in Rajasthan 2007-08 2.7 Area and production of horticultural crops at district level 145 in Rajasthan 2008-09 2.8 Area under selected horticulture crops in Rajasthan 146 2.9 Area and production of selected horticultural crops at district 147 level in Rajasthan (2002-03) 2.10 Area and production of selected horticultural crops at 148 district level in Rajasthan (2003-04) 2. 11 Area and production of selected horticultural crops at 149 district level in Rajasthan (2004-05) 2.12 Area and production of selected horticultural crops at 150 district level in Rajasthan (2006-07) 2.13 Area and production of selected horticultural crops at 151 district level in Rajasthan (2007-08) 2.14 Area and production of selected horticultural crops at 152 district level in Rajasthan (2008-09)

xvi

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Rationale of the Study Endowed with diverse soil and climate conditions, India produces a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, root and tuber crops, flowers, ornamental plants, medicinal and aromatic plants, spices, condiments, plantation crops and mushrooms. These crops form a significant part of total agricultural produce in the country. All horticulture crops put together covered nearly 208.76 million hectares area with an annual production of 223.09 million tonnes during 2009- 10 (NHB, 2010). Though these crops occupy about 10.7 per cent of the gross cropped area, they contribute over 30 per cent to the agricultural GDP and 37 per cent of total export of agricultural commodities in the country. The area and production of horticultural crops have increased considerably as compared to the situation a couple of decades ago. The area under horticulture crops has increased from 12.77 million ha in 1991-92 to 20.88 million ha in 2009-10 with the corresponding increase in production from 96.52 million tonnes to 223.1 million tonnes. Thus there has been an unparalleled increase in area and production during this period amounting to 63.5 and 131.1 per cent, respectively. So the horticulture sector is expected to play a major role in the overall development of agriculture in the country in the coming years. Furthermore, the Indian farmers are eager to find new avenues for diversifying their crops through interventions in horticulture. India has made significant strides in area expansion, overall increase in production and productivity of horticultural crops. The horticultural crops play a unique role in India‟s economy by improving the income of the rural people. Cultivation of these crops generates lot of employment opportunities for the rural population. The per capita consumption of fruits and vegetables has increased over the plan periods. As against the recommended dose of per capita consumption of 120 gm of fruits and 280 gm of vegetables the present availability of fruits is 97 gm and 195 gm of vegetables (GoI, 2007). However, due to increasing export of horticultural crops, the per capita availability of these crops has been further reduced. We are yet to produce adequate fruit and vegetable to satisfy the per capita supply of fruits and vegetables for the growing population. Overall there is huge potential for horticulture sector to grow to meet the rising demands in Indian market.

Horticultural crops occupy a significant place in human diet and provide required vitamins and minerals necessary for human growth. Fruits and vegetables are also rich source of vitamins, minerals, proteins, carbohydrates etc. Hence, these are considered as protective foods and assumed great importance as nutritional security of the people. Thus, cultivation of horticultural crops plays a vital role in the prosperity of a nation and is directly linked with the health and happiness of the people. Fruits and vegetables are not only used for domestic consumption and processing into various products such as pickles, preserves sauces, jam, jelly squash etc. but also substantial quantities are exported in fresh and processed form, bringing much-needed foreign exchange for the country. India with more than 71.5 million tonnes of fruits and 133.7 million tonnes of vegetables is the second largest producer of fruits and vegetables in the world next only to Brazil (for fruits) and China (for vegetables). India is the largest producer of fruits likes mango, banana, papaya, sapota, pomegranate and aonla (NHB, 2010). In terms of productivity of grapes, India ranks first in the world. India also ranks first in production of peas and okra. India ranks second in cultivation of vegetables like brinjal, cauliflower, cabbage, potato and onion. India is the largest producer, consumer and exporter of spices and spice products in the world. As a result of synergy between focused research, technological and policy initiatives, horticulture in India has become a sustainable and viable venture for the small and marginal farmers. Besides, the sector has also started attracting entrepreneurs for taking up horticulture as a commercial venture. A large number of programmes are in operation for further development sector in the country. The production, productivity and export of horticultural output have significantly increased over few decades in the country. The demand of horticultural produce is also on rise due to increasing population, changing food habits, realization of high nutritional value of horticultural crops and greater emphasis on value addition and export. Therefore, there is a great scope for the horticulture industry to grow and flourish in our country. The prospect of horticulture in our country vis-à-vis the need for attaining nutritional security and more profitable use of available land has brought about a significant change in the outlook of the growers. The need for great utilization of available wastelands against the background of dwindling water and energy resources has focused attention to dry, arid and semi-arid tracts and to horticultural crops that demand less water and other inputs besides being more remunerative than field crops. It is estimated that India has 51.97 million hectares of uncultivated lands and fallow lands which can be brought under horticultural crops without curtailing the area under food crops. The country has abundant

2 sunshine throughout year, surplus labour and widely varied agro-climatic conditions, which offer high potential for successful and profitable commercial horticulture. Thus Government of India has launched National Horticulture Mission (NHM) scheme to facilitate further development of horticultural crops in India and to ensure forward and backward linkages with the active participation of all the stakeholders. National Horticulture Mission (NHM) has been implemented in 2005-06 in 18 States and 3 Union Territories of India excluding the states covered under Horticulture Mission for North East and Himalayan States (HMNEH) to promote holistic growth of the horticulture sector covering fruits, vegetables, root & tuber crops, mushroom, spices, flowers, aromatic plants, cashew and cocoa. HMNEH is a separate Technology Mission restructured in 2002-03 for integrated development of horticulture in North Eastern States including Sikkim and the states of Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttaranchal. The major thrust areas under NHM and HMNEH are setting up and nurturing of nurseries for production of quality planting materials, area expansion, rejuvenation of old orchards, high density planting, canopy management, protected cultivation, organic farming, IPM, INM, creation of pack house / on farm handling, collection and storage unit, pre cooling unit, mobile pre cooling unit, cold storage units (construction / expansion / modernization), CA/MA storage units, refer vans, containers, primary / mobile / minimal processing unit, ripening chamber, evaporative / low energy cool chamber, preservation unit, low cost onion storage, and market infrastructure development etc. NHM is a centrally sponsored scheme in which Government of India provided 100 per cent assistance to the State Missions during Tenth Plan. With effect from the XI Plan (2007-08), the State Government is contributing 15 per cent of total outlay (GoI, 2010). The Scheme has been approved „in principle‟ for implementation up to the end of XI Five Year Plan. The main objectives of the Mission are:  To provide holistic growth of the horticulture sector through an area based regionally differentiated strategies which include research, technology promotion, extension, post harvest management, processing and marketing, in consonance with comparative advantage of each State/region and its diverse agro-climatic feature;  To enhance horticulture production, improve nutritional security and income support to farm households;  To establish convergence and synergy among multiple on-going and planned programmes for horticulture development;

 To promote, develop and disseminate technologies, through a seamless blend of traditional wisdom and modern scientific knowledge;  To create opportunities for employment generation for skilled and unskilled persons, especially unemployed youth. To achieve the above objectives, the mission adopted the following strategies:

 Ensure an end-to-end holistic approach covering production, post harvest management, processing and marketing to assure appropriate returns to growers/producers;  Promote R&D technologies for production, post-harvest management and processing;  Enhance acreage, coverage, and productivity through: (a) Diversification, from traditional crops to plantations, orchards, vineyards, flower and vegetable gardens; (b) Extension of appropriate technology to the farmers for high-tech horticulture cultivation and precision farming.  Assist setting up post harvest facilities such as pack house, ripening chamber, cold storages, Controlled Atmosphere (CA) storages etc, processing units for value addition and marketing infrastructure;  Adopt a coordinated approach and promotion of partnership, convergence and synergy among R&D, processing and marketing agencies in public as well as private sectors, at the National, Regional, State and sub-State levels;  Where appropriate and feasible, promote National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) model of cooperatives to ensure support and adequate returns to farmers;  Promote capacity-building and Human Resource Development at all levels.

The main objective of the Mission is to promote the holistic growth of the horticulture sector through area based regionally differentiated cluster approach for development of horticultural crops having comparative advantage. The mission envisages an end- to-end approach covering production, post harvest management (PHM), primary processing and marketing for which, assistance is being provided to farmers, entrepreneurs, besides organizations in the public and private sector. Since the programme has entered in the sixth year, there was a need to access and analyze the impact of the programme vis-à-vis objectives of the NHM scheme especially for the major focused crops in terms of area expansion, increase in production and productivity. Since the focus is on cluster approach for holistic

4 development of potential crops, it was necessary to undertake in-depth study in respect of selected crops taken up for development.

1.2 Background of Horticultural Crops in the State Rajasthan is the largest state of India constituting 10.4 per cent of total geographical area and 5.5 per cent of total population of India. About two-third population of the state are dependent on agriculture and allied activities for their livelihood. The three major canal irrigations, other than the vast area under arid and dry lands offer great production potential for horticulture. Area specific, economically viable and technically feasible horticulture development activities undertaken in the state during past few decades have contributed a lot to overall development of horticulture in the state. The state is divided into 7 divisions, 33 districts, which are further subdivided into 244 Tehsils, 249 Panchayat Samitis and 9,168 Gram Panchayats (GoR, 2009a). Out of these 33 districts, the programmes of National Horticulture Mission are being implemented in 24 districts of the State. The state has well identified 10 agro-climatic zones. The state is endowed with diverse soil and weather conditions comprising of several agro climatic situations, warm humid in south eastern parts to dry cool in western parts of the state. The diversity in climatic conditions of the state creates potentiality to develop certain belts of horticultural crops in the State. As stated in Figure Figure 1.1: Agro-climate of Rajasthan state 1.1, the arid zone of Rajasthan spread in 12 districts of Rajasthan occupied about 61 per cent of total area of Rajasthan. The semi-arid and humid regions account for about 16 per cent and 15 per cent of the total area of Rajasthan, while sub-humid region in Rajasthan constitutes about 8 per cent of total landmass. Rajasthan has varying topographic features though a major part of the state is dominated by parched and dry region. The extensive topography includes rocky terrain, rolling sand dunes, wetlands, barren tracts or land filled with thorny scrubs,

5 river-drained plains, plateaus, ravines and wooded regions. Five distinct specifications of soils viz., Aridiosols, alfisols, entisols, inceptisols and vertisols are found in the state. The diverse agro-ecological conditions prevailing in the state is amenable for growing horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers, root and tuber crops, medicinal and aromatic crops. Out of the net cultivated area of about 165 lakh hectares in Rajasthan, horticultural crops are grown in an area of about 10 lakh hectares with an annual production of about 14 lakh tonnes. The area and production of horticultural crops has shown fluctuating trend over last few years. The growth observed in horticultural production was 5.8 per cent from 2001-02 to 2003-04 and was 9.8 per cent from 2001-02 to 2003-04, which needs to increase to 10.87 per cent for doubling production (GoR, 2009b). The state is a leading producer of spices and has a substantial area under vegetable crops. The area under spices and vegetables has grown from 4.16 lakh hectares and 1.23 lakh hectares during 2004-05 to 5.37 lakh hectares and 1.26 lakh hectares respectively during 2008-09. The production of spices and vegetables has grown from 4.24 lakh tonnes and 6.14 lakh tonnes during 2004-05 to 5.36 lakh tonnes and 7.37 lakh tonnes respectively during 2008-09. Vegetables, spices and fruits constituted about 39.43 per cent, 28.68 per cent and 25.94 per cent of total horticultural production respectively in the state during 2008-09(Annexure 2.1). The state is one of the biggest producers of coriander, cumin, isabagol and fenugreek. The state also produces variety of other horticultural crops like oranges, kinnow, lime, aonla, chillies, garlic, ajowain, suwa, onion, tomato, pea, cucurbitaceous vegetable and medicinal & aromatic crops like sonamukhi, ashwangdha etc. providing surplus produce for processing and export (GoI, 2011). Rajasthan is having prominent position in production of seed spices in the country. Besides some other crops also have prime positions at production in the country. The state contributes about of 66.51 per cent of total coriander produced in India. About 33 per cent of country‟s cumin, 82 per cent of its fenugreek, 14 per cent of its garlic, 7 per cent of its mandarin, 6 per cent of its fennel, almost all its psyllium husk (isabgol), myrtle (henna) and ajwain are produced in Rajasthan. The state also produces best export quality kinnow and is becoming one of the largest producers of aonla. The diversity in climatic conditions in the state creates scope to develop following belts of horticultural crops in the state (GoI, 2011): • Mandarin-Warm humid areas of Jhalawar • Kinnow-Dry and cool climate of Ganganagar • Pomegranate-arid irrigated parts of State • Ber-Western parts of the State

• Aonla-Central semi arid parts • Papaya-Central parts of the state • Mango-Southern humid parts • Low volume high value spice cumin-Barmer, Jalore, Pali, Jodhpur, Nagaur, • Coriander-Kota, Baran, Jhalawar, Bundi, Chittorgarh • Fennel-Sirohi, Tonk • Garlic-Jodhpur, Chittorgarh, Baran, Jhalawar, Kota • Isabgol-Barmer, Jalore • Mehandi-Pali These crops along with flowers (Dutch rose, desi rose and gerbera) are the focus crops for the state those are being promoted with cluster approach near the existing infrastructure for pre and post harvest, market, processing and AEZ's having a minimum area of 50 ha in each district. The market linkages, returns to farmers, production advantage and export potential are the basis of selecting these crops as the focus crops for the state. The SWOT analysis of horticulture in Rajasthan conducted by Robo India (2005) reveals that the major advantageous factors for Rajasthan are favorable climate for production of quality seed spices, ber, mandarin, kinnow, pomegranate and aonla and available surplus in spices, onion and pea. However, some weaknesses for horticultural development in the state are lesser-availability of quality seeds of vegetable and spices and quality planting material of fruits, lack of water resources, poor post harvest management and marketing facilities like cold storage, pre-cooling and waxing centers, and processing units. The opportunities for the state are larger scope in area expansion of fruits – dry land agriculture, potential to increase production and export of seed spices, vast potential of medicinal and aromatic plants. However some major threat for the horticultural crops in Rajasthan are high cost of production, poor price stability and lack of remunerative prices to farmers and the problem of chronic diseases and frost. The National Horticulture Mission is being implemented from 2005-06 for holistic development of horticulture sector in the state. In Rajasthan, the NHM scheme is being implemented in 24 districts with cluster approach by the Rajasthan Horticulture Development Society through District Mission Committees involving farmers, societies, NGOs, grower associations, SHGs, state institutions etc. The districts of Rajasthan covered under the program includes Alwar, Ajmer, Banswara,Barmer, Baran, Bhilwara, Bundi, Chittorgarh, Dungarpur, Jaipur, Jalore, Jaisalmer, Jhalawar, Jhunjhunu, Jodhpur, Karauli, Kota, Nagaur, Pali, Sawai Madhopur, Sirohi, Sri Ganganagar, Tonk, and Udaipur. The focus crops

7 identified under NHM for Rajasthan state include aonla, mandarin, kinnow, ber, lemon, guava, bael, pomegranate, papaya, spices, flowers, medicinal and aromatic plants. The major activities being undertaken through NHM in the state are production and distribution of planting material, vegetable seed production, area expansion, rejuvenation of old and senile orchards, creation of community water resources, protected cultivation, IPM/INM, organic farming, pollination support through bee-keeping, development of post harvest management and marketing infrastructures and human resource development. The details of the year wise physical and financial progress of NHM in Rajasthan from 2005-06 to 2010-2011 has been presented in Annexure 1.1 and the component wise details of physical and financial progress under National Horticulture Mission (NHM) from 2005-06 to 2010-11 has been presented in Annexure 1.2.

1.3 Main Objectives of the Study The study will have the following objectives:

 To assess the impact in terms of increase in area, production and productivity of identified horticultural crops covered under NHM, keeping 2004-05 as the base year for the state of Rajasthan in general and for the identified crops/districts in particular.  To assess the extent to which the scheme has helped in creating employment opportunities and enhancement of income of the farmers.  To suggest measures for improving the implementation strategy of NHM in Rajasthan.

1.4 Data and Methodology This study covering selected districts of Rajasthan state is a part of a major project that covers 16 states of India to study the impact of NHM scheme on the expansion of area, production and productivity of identified horticultural crops and to assess the extent to which the scheme has helped in creating employment opportunities and enhancement of income of the farmers. For the state of Rajasthan, the study was conducted in four districts, viz., Alwar, Jaipur, Chittorgarh and Banswara as shown in Figure 1.2. The study covers the implementation of the NHM programme till 2008-09. Four selected crops considered for the detailed study were aonla in Jaipur district, coriander in Chittorgarh, mango in Banswara and papaya in Alwar and Banswara districts. (i) The assigned study has been based on intensive sample survey by the concerned officials/members of the study team and other concerned officials/State Government

representatives through participatory discussions and structural interviews/questionnaires by visits and personal interviews. (ii) Main reliance has been on primary data. The primary data included complete list of farmers with general background, details like category of farmers, land-holding, number of horticultural crops covered under NHM clusters, source of planting, area under these crops, source and type of irrigation system, quantity produced, its suitability for food processing and preservation etc., relative costs and economics of production of identified crops. As per the study design, from each districts, two villages were to be selected, keeping into account the cropping pattern in each of these districts taking one village near the periphery of district headquarters or accessible mandi/market and one village from a distant place to realize the effect of distance factor in the findings. We required to survey 50 NHM beneficiaries for each crop from two villages in the study districts. So a total of 200 NHM beneficiaries were to be covered under the Rajasthan study.

Figure1.2: The Study Region - Four districts of Rajasthan state in India

Rajasthan

India Figure 1: The Study Region - Four districts of Rajasthan state in India

R A J A S T H A N

Banswara Chittorgarh

However, preliminary investigation revealed that sufficient number of beneficiaries were not available in the earlier stipulated two villages of a district in Rajasthan since the NHM beneficiaries were very thinly distributed over different villages. Thus with the permission of Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India and Coordinating Centre, we had relaxed the number of villages restriction. So, a total of 200 households were selected from 77 villages of four allotted districts of Rajasthan as stated below in Table 1.1. Annexure 1.3 contains the list of all 77 villages covered under survey. The households were classified into four categories such as (1) Marginal Farmer (MF) having operational land holding size up to 2.5 acres, (2) Small Farmer (SF) having operational land holding size more than 2.5 acres but up to 5 acres, (3) Medium Farmer (MDF) having operational land holding size more than 5 acres but up to 10 acres and (4) Large Farmer (LF) having operational land holding size of more than 10 acres.

Table 1.1: Distribution of sample farmers by locations, crops and castes Sr. No. District Tehsil/Taluk Study crops No. of Caste wise distribution of sample farmers villages SC ST OBC General Total 1 Jaipur Amer Aonla 4 0 0 4 0 4 2 Jaipur Chomu Aonla 22 1 4 33 8 46 3 Chittorgarh Rawatbahata Coriander 9 1 0 27 0 28 4 Chittorgarh Begu Coriander 2 1 3 12 6 22 5 Banswara Gadhi Mango 10 0 13 2 3 18 6 Banswara Banswara Mango/Papaya 6 0 17 4 9 30 7 Banswara Ghatol Mango/Papaya 7 1 10 12 2 25 8 Alwar Umrain Papaya 5 0 6 0 0 6 9 Alwar Ramgadh Papaya 1 0 0 1 0 1 10 Alwar Mundawar Papaya 4 0 4 3 0 7 11 Alwar Alwar Papaya 1 0 0 3 0 3 12 Alwar Kishangarh Papaya 2 0 0 2 0 2 13 Alwar Kotkashim Papaya 1 0 2 0 0 2 14 Alwar Rajgadh Papaya 1 1 3 0 0 4 15 Alwar Tizara Papaya 1 0 0 1 0 1 16 Alwar Katumar Papaya 1 0 1 0 0 1 Total 77 5 63 104 28 200 (2.5) (31.5) (52.0) (14.0) (100.0) Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total number of farmers. Source: Field survey

Members of Growers Associations, Pradhan /Pramukh of village, block, district level and state level concerned functionaries were also interviewed. While selecting the sample, care was taken to represent all the section of the society such as small and marginal farmers,

SC/ST farmers and women folk, so that outreach of the programme to these sections is also reflected in the study. It may be noted from Table 1.1 that the majority of our sample households (52%) belonged to OBC category whereas about 31.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent households were STs and SCs respectively. Data were analyzed using simple statistical tools such as averages, percentages and growth rates.

1.5 An Overview

The findings of this study on the impact of NHM in Rajasthan have been presented in six chapters including Introduction. The introductory chapter discusses the premises, importance, objectives and methodology of the study. The 2nd chapter which is based on the secondary data analyses the performance and functioning of NHM in terms of the growth of area, production and yield of horticultural crops in the state of Rajasthan. The growth of area and production of different types of horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal & aromatic plants in the state from triennium ending (TE) 1980-81 to TE 2008-09 has been analyzed so as to identify the impact of NHM on the growth of horticulture in the state. The district level analysis has also been made on expansion of different types of horticultural crops in the state. The growth rates of area and production of different types of horticultural crops in various districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09 have been worked out so as to examine the district level impact of NHM on the growth of different types of horticultural crops. The similar kinds of temporal and spatial analysis have also been made on four selected horticultural crops, viz., aonla, papaya, coriander and mango in particular. The third chapter mainly deals with the socio economic characteristics, cropping pattern and production structure of 200 sample households. The cropping intensity, the nature of tenancy, sources of irrigation for various farmer categories, per household and per acre asset holdings of the sample farmers, the sources and purposes of credit for various farmer categories, the area under various horticultural crops, per household and per acre cost of cultivation, gross value of output and net returns from all crops by different farmer categories, the average family income generated by our sample farmers from various farm and non-farm activities have also been analyzed in this chapter. The fourth chapter discusses about the production, cost of cultivation and returns generated from cultivation of various horticultural crops in general and four selected horticultural crops, viz., aonla, papaya, coriander and mango in particular during the reference year 2008-09. The net returns from various horticultural and non-horticultural

11 crops generated by sample farmers of different categories were also compared and analyzed. Since the use of human labour was crucial in cultivation of various horticultural crops, this chapter also discusses the activity wise uses of human labour in cultivation of horticultural crops. This chapter also analyses about the processing of horticultural products and selling of output of selected horticultural crops through various marketing channels in the case of our four selected crops. The fifth chapter makes an assessment of overall impact of the NHM programme on the expansion of horticulture area and yield of selected horticultural crops (aonla, papaya, coriander and mango) during a period from 2004-05 to 2009-10. The attempt has also been made in this chapter to identify all possible constraints that negatively affected the effectiveness and outcomes of the programme. This chapter also analyses the expansion of area under rejuvenation/protection, resources procurement through NHM and the resulted increase in productivity in the case of selected horticultural crops. The performance of the Mission with respect to NHM resource procurement for our sample farmers during the period, the subsidy provisions for various activities under the Mission like provision of planting material, fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs and drip/sprinkler, establishing vermi compost units and model nursery etc. and the capacity building and human resources development through training, frontline demonstration, publicity and training of the trainers as an integral part of NHM programme have been examined in this chapter. The perceptions of the beneficiary farmers about their experiences in cultivating various horticultural crops with the help of NHM assistance, regarding the effects of NHM on the income levels of the farmers and about the performance of the various activities of the Mission have been assessed in this chapter. The suggestions of the farmers regarding the changes required so as to make NHM more effective have also been recorded in this chapter. The sixth chapter highlights the summary of findings of the study as discussed in the preceding chapters and contains some policy implications of the study. Some specific policy recommendations have been suggested for the overall improvement in implementation of NHM with a special focus on the study crops and districts of Rajasthan.

1.6 Limitations of the Study

Followings are some of the limitations of undertaking the study in Rajasthan. Firstly, secondary data was not available for some crops for some years of the reference years that affected the comparative analysis of performance of horticultural crops. The secondary databases on horticultural crops were inadequate to conduct the longitudinal

12 study on performance of the horticulture sector in Rajasthan. We had to use data from different sources for different years due to unavailability of time series data at a single source. Since the data provided by different sources were found to vary a lot, the chance of producing misleading results from the analysis of these time series data cannot be denied. Secondly, our primary level data analysis is based on 200 sample households from four different districts of Rajasthan. The sample size is not enough to generalize the findings for the whole study districts or the state of Rajasthan. Thirdly, keeping in mind the time constraint in completing the work, the primary data collection was undertaken during summer when the people usually feel uneasy to sit for a long duration to answer to our field investigators. In some of the cases, the respondents were organized at premises of Gram Panchayat (GP) office, Horticulture Department Nurseries etc. for furnishing the relevant information. The presence of Horticulture Department officials during the interviews had also influenced the farmers in furnishing some special information on implementation and impacts of the Mission. In some cases, the respondents were too old or too young to express the exact information pertaining to the reference years. In some other cases, farmers could not devote sufficient time for the survey and some could not recall the required information pertaining to time series data on cost, production and productivity of horticultural crops. All these together have influenced the quality of primary data collected. Fourthly, our primary level data analysis is based on sample households from four different districts of Rajasthan cultivating four selected horticulture crops viz., aonla, papaya, coriander and mango. The districts were Jaipur for anola, Alwar and Banswara for papaya, Chittorgarh for coriander and Banswara for mango. For papaya crop, 27 sample farmers were surveyed from Alwar district and 23 farmers were surveyed from Banswara district. So two different kinds of results were emerged from two districts with respect to cost, production and returns from cultivation of papaya. Aggregating the results for 50 papaya growers sometimes resulted in illogical output. Fifthly, two of our study crops, i.e., mango and aonla were long duration crops. Our study covered the period of four years since implementation of NHM in 2005-06 up to 2008- 09 which was insufficient for these orchards to yield reasonable amount of output. So the impact of NHM on the productivity and net returns from the cultivation of these crops was not properly discernible. Sixthly, as stated earlier, the present study covering selected districts of Rajasthan state is a part of a major project that covers 16 states of India to study the impact of NHM scheme. As per the original study design, from each districts, two villages were to be

13 selected, keeping into account the cropping pattern in each of these districts taking one village near the periphery of district headquarters or accessible mandi/market and one village from a distant place to realize the effect of distance factor in the findings. However, preliminary investigation revealed that sufficient number of beneficiaries were not available in the earlier stipulated two villages of a district in Rajasthan since the NHM beneficiaries were very thinly distributed over different villages. Thus with the permission of Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, we had relaxed the number of villages restriction. A total of 200 households were selected from 77 villages of four allotted districts of Rajasthan. This may affect the uniformity of the study across 16 states of India.

Chapter 2 Area, Production and Productivity of Horticultural Crops in Rajasthan

2.1 Status of Horticultural Crops in the State Rajasthan with its huge geographical area of 342.699 lakh hectares has attained the status of being largest state of India (Table 2.1). The state represents 10.4 per cent of the total land mass with 5.5 per cent population of the country, but it has hardly 1 per cent of total national water resources. About 57 per cent of state‟s geographical area consists of desert which makes 61 per cent of the desert of India. The agriculture in Rajasthan is primarily rainfed. The rainfall is highly inadequate (average annual rainfall is 575 mm) and variable both in time (3 out of 5 years are drought year) and quantum (23.55 cm to 99.9 cm). The arid and semiarid areas constitute about two-third of total geographical area of the state and soils are sandy having low water holding capacity, high infiltration rate and shallow in depth in some areas (GoI, 2011). Due to scarcity of rainfall in arid and semi areas, there is limited availability of ground water. Despite heavy public investment on surface irrigation projects only 32 per cent of gross cropped area receives irrigation either by cannel or wells and 68 per cent area is rain fed. About 90 per cent of the rainfall is received during monsoon season. In addition to spatial variation there is much variation in yearly pattern of rainfall in the state.

As far as the scenario of horticulture in the state is concerned, it is full of potential as the diverse agro-climatic conditions are very much favoring growing of large number of horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal & aromatic plants throughout the year. It is only 1989, when separate Department of Horticulture came into existence with ultimate objective of harnessing the potential of horticulture in the state in a systematic and planned manner so as to increase the area, production and productivity of different horticultural crops and thereby to improve nutritional as well as economic status of people of state. As a result of concerted efforts of State Horticulture Department, the area under various horticultural crops has increased to about 9.23 lakh hectares against gross cropped area of 221 lakhs hectares during 2008-09 which comes to about 4.18 per cent of gross cropped area. This included 0.31 lakh hectares under fruit crops, 1.26 lakh hectares

15 under vegetable crops, 5.37 lakh hectares under spices crops, 0.033 lakh hectares under flowers and 2.26 lakh hectares area under medicinal and aromatic crops (Annexure 2.1).

Table 2.1 : District wise geographical, cultivable and horticultural crop area in Rajasthan (hectares) Sl. District Geographical area Cultivable area % Cultivable area Area under % Horticultural No. to geographical horticultural area to cultivable area crops area 2008-09 2004-05 TE 2008- TE 2004- TE 2008- TE 2004- TE 2008- TE 2004- TE 2008- TE 2004- 09 05 09 05 09 05 09 05 1 Ajmer 842352 842345 569490 569132 67.61 67.57 13746 11942 2.41 2.10 2 Alwar 783315 782899 550614 551270 70.29 70.41 16468 15035 2.99 2.73 3 Banswara 453612 506279 303609 308963 66.93 61.03 1507 1646 0.50 0.53 4 Baran 699461 699652 382377 382600 54.67 54.68 79654 66181 20.83 17.30 5 Barmer 2817332 2817332 2384275 2383619 84.63 84.61 105186 116943 4.41 4.91 6 Bharatpur 506731 507073 414130 414184 81.73 81.68 6695 6063 1.62 1.46 7 Bhilwara 1050673 1047441 641615 640819 61.07 61.18 8922 9604 1.39 1.50 8 Bikaner 3041189 3038215 2598173 2611658 85.43 85.96 8623 12109 0.33 0.46 9 Bundi 581938 581938 326338 326498 56.08 56.11 10037 11188 3.08 3.43 10 Chittorgarh 750761 1035704 555713 614572 74.02 59.34 38900 33269 7.00 5.41 11 Churu 1385898 1385898 1276034 1277162 92.07 92.15 4209 4864 0.33 0.38 12 Dausa 341406 340467 252469 252383 73.95 74.13 2751 2158 1.09 0.86 13 Dholpur 300913 300905 181066 181252 60.17 60.24 5999 4241 3.31 2.34 14 Dungarpur 385593 385593 194274 193209 50.38 50.11 872 859 0.45 0.44 15 Srigangangar 1093352 1093352 961683 962395 87.96 88.02 7793 5714 0.81 0.59 16 Hanumangarh 970359 970315 891598 891890 91.88 91.92 2321 1469 0.26 0.16 17 Jaipur 1105519 1105519 812528 817159 73.50 73.92 33973 32525 4.18 3.98 18 Jaisalmer 3839154 3839154 3195567 3221934 83.24 83.92 17763 25772 0.56 0.80 19 Jalore 1056602 1056602 863991 864909 81.77 81.86 89120 93299 10.31 10.79 20 Jhalawar 632235 632235 397568 398007 62.88 62.95 102319 77211 25.74 19.40 21 Jhunjhunu 591536 591538 474680 475782 80.25 80.43 8280 6088 1.74 1.28 22 Jodhpur 2256405 2256405 1901907 1902238 84.29 84.30 80568 60375 4.24 3.17 23 Karuali 504301 505217 229335 230514 45.48 45.63 1791 2872 0.78 1.25 24 Kota 521324 521133 314164 318445 60.26 61.11 52633 52484 16.75 16.48 25 Nagaur 1763821 1764380 1528133 1529364 86.64 86.68 64445 53632 4.22 3.51 26 Pali 1233079 1233079 857728 858100 69.56 69.59 55409 51938 6.46 6.05 27 Pratapgarh* 411736 NA 114564 NA 27.82 NA NA NA NA NA 28 Rajsamand 452938 455093 244554 244698 53.99 53.77 2986 1633 1.22 0.67 29 S.modhpur 497947 498075 325967 322857 65.46 64.82 4542 4125 1.39 1.28 30 Sikar 774244 774244 619787 620821 80.05 80.18 17128 19199 2.76 3.09 31 Sirohi 517947 517947 229067 229166 44.23 44.25 12206 7975 5.33 3.48 32 Tonk 717958 717958 572144 572764 79.69 79.78 7423 8917 1.30 1.56 33 Udaipur 1388255 1462105 457566 465393 32.96 31.83 4206 4150 0.92 0.89 State total 34269886 34266092 25584520 25633758 74.66 74.81 871539 805480 3.41 3.14 Notes: 1. *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. 2. Figures in etalics are for the study districts. Sources: (1) Agricultural Statistics of Rajasthan, Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES), Jaipur , Rajasthan, various issues; (2) Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Only for horticultural area)

It may be noted from Table 2.1 that the area under horticultural crops as a proportion of cultivable area was 3.14 per cent during triennium ending (TE) 2004-05, which has increased to 3.41 per cent during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan state. On absolute term, it has increased from 8,05,480 hectares during TE 2004-05 to 8,71,539 hectares during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan state as whole. On the other hand, the cultivable area has decreased from 256,

33,758 hectares during TE 2004-05 to 255, 84,520 hectares during TE 2008-09. The cultivable area as a proportion of total reported geographical area was 74.81 per cent during TE 2004-05, which has marginally decreased to 74.66 per cent during triennium ending 2008-09 in Rajasthan. The district-wise analysis of horticultural area in the state revealed that the horticultural area as a proportion of cultivable area was highest of 25.74 per cent in Jhalawar district and was lowest of 0.26 per cent in Hanumangarh district during TE 2008-09. Similarly, during TE 2004-05, the horticultural area as a proportion of cultivable area was also highest in Jhalawar district (19.4 %) and was also lowest in Hanumangarh district (0.16%). On absolute term, the horticultural area was also highest of 1, 05,186 hectares in Barmer district (4.41 %) and was also lowest of 872 hectares in Dungarpur district (0.45%) during TE 2008-09. Similarly, during TE 2004-05, the horticultural area was also highest in Barmer district (1, 16,943 ha) and was also lowest in Dungarpur district (859 ha).

2.2 Impact of NHM on Growth of Horticultural Crops in the State

Table 2.2 shows the area and production of various types of horticultural crops in Rajasthan from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-091. Table 2.3 shows the growth rates in area and production of various types of horticultural crops in Rajasthan from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09. It may be noted that the total area under all horticultural crops has increased from 3, 23,347 hectares during TE 1980-81 to 8,71,539 hectares during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan state as whole. The total production from all horticultural crops has increased from 184794 metric tonnes (MT) during TE 1980-81 to 18, 48,466 MT during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. Though the growth in area and production of horticultural crops followed similar pattern (Figure 2.1), the same in both the cases was not found to be steady. There were so many ups and downs in both area and production of horticultural crops during a period from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09. The decadal analysis of the physical performance of horticultural crops reveals that the first two decades, i.e., 1980-81 to 1990-91 and 1990-91 to 2000-01 have had remarkable growth in area and production of horticultural crops. The area under all horticultural crops has increased from 3, 23,347 hectares during TE 1980-81 to 4, 33,486 hectares during TE 1990-91 that has further increased to 6, 59,335 hectares during TE 2000-01 in Rajasthan state as whole. Similarly, the total production from all horticultural crops has increased from 1, 84,794 MT during TE 1980-81 to 5, 88,930 MT during TE 1990-91 that has further increased

1 Annexure 2.1 may be seen for the actual data on area and production of various types of horticultural crops in Rajasthan from 1980-81 to 2008-09. The actual data on district-wise area and production of different types of horticultural crops from 2002-03 to 2008-09 is shown in Annexures 2.2 to 2.7.

17 to 10,60,855 MT during TE 2000-01 and touched 18,48,466 MT during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan.

Table 2.2 :Area and production of horticulture crops in Rajasthan (TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09) (Area in hectares, production in metric tonnes) Sl.No. Year Fruits Vegetables Spices Flowers Medicinals Total Horti. Area Prod. Area Prod. Area Prod. Area Prod. Area Prod. Area Prod. 1 TE 1980-81 11777 NA 38660 64038 251911 118075 0 0 21000 2681 323347 184794 2 TE 81-82 12011 NA 40441 87782 220038 86122 0 0 19240 2549 291730 176453 3 TE 82-83 12216 NA 39291 110460 229129 73599 0 0 21696 2389 302331 186447 4 TE 83-84 10188 11629 41541 118514 245181 85531 0 0 30799 2398 327709 218073 5 TE 84-85 7764 22176 44078 122812 255507 82071 0 0 43723 2615 351071 229675 6 TE 85-86 5305 32911 47128 132072 252616 88658 0 0 50526 2807 355575 256448 7 TE 86-87 6183 33483 50661 147381 243946 122120 0 0 45806 2813 346595 305797 8 TE 87-88 6986 31406 51022 177552 286731 188622 0 0 41618 2552 386356 400132 9 TE 88-89 7319 27730 52136 209870 321751 236295 0 0 42863 2753 424069 476648 10 TE 89-90 11236 46339 50874 234326 333646 246820 0 0 53443 1896 449199 529381 11 TE 90-91 15713 72729 54091 261599 303857 253470 0 0 59826 1133 433486 588930 12 TE 91-92 20589 121097 58020 288356 281321 234402 0 0 62340 0 422270 643855 13 TE 92-93 21055 128994 60681 306293 320090 261686 331 1844 63642 0 465798 698817 14 TE 93-94 20968 177651 63445 327335 407143 275412 733 2203 68274 0 560563 782601 15 TE 94-95 20528 198758 64842 316330 433956 290995 733 2203 71689 0 591749 808286 16 TE 95-96 20156 239543 70317 334473 423132 284907 1066 1020 77914 17933 592586 877875 17 TE 96-97 20181 245092 75407 346155 403650 300965 1252 1407 98705 46163 599194 939783 18 TE 97-98 20345 267914 80230 359684 453042 356910 1925 2137 118827 74617 674370 1061263 19 TE 98-99 20613 267866 87995 372759 477302 382173 2029 2853 130732 83906 718671 1109557 20 TE 99-00 20421 259087 91919 387832 441526 361972 1814 2573 120648 76579 676329 1088044 21 TE 00-01 20536 239076 94667 401366 417511 342218 1847 2665 124775 75530 659335 1060855 22 TE 01-02 20985 226541 94877 413937 524486 428004 1701 2098 131410 78158 773458 1148739 23 TE 02-03 21647 209339 93733 377524 578956 439468 1829 1961 150807 83531 846972 1111823 24 TE 03-04 22525 203624 100375 422916 628379 537966 1772 1860 157289 92051 910340 1258418 25 TE 04-05 23154 222375 108047 483031 512767 473819 2255 1917 159257 88500 805480 1269642 26 TE 05-06 24191 298796 118037 618579 451476 460077 2756 2340 153633 85672 750093 1465464 27 TE 06-07 25629 359222 122237 714450 382127 360978 3016 2706 171823 77687 704833 1515044 28 TE 07-08 27349 461153 128986 794162 432692 395792 3026 3373 188246 82741 780299 1737222 29 TE 08-09 29069 483200 130539 792788 495405 473541 3142 4241 213385 94697 871539 1848466 Note: TE 1980-81 denotes the triennium avarage for the period 1978-79 to 1980-81. Sources: (1) Vital horticulture Statistics,1998-99, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (2) Rajasthan Horticulture Statistics 2002- (3) Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (for data from 2002-03 to 2008-09). (4) 50 Years of Agricultural Development in Rajasthan, Directorate of Agriculture, Jaipur [(from 1980-81 to 1982-83,for fruits), (from 1980-81 to 1994-95, for medicinals)].

As revealed by Table 2.3, the annual growth rate of area and yield of all horticultural crops was 4.47 per cent and 11.01 per cent respectively during the period of TE 1980-81 - TE 1990-91. While the annual growth rate of area of horticultural crops has further increased to 4.63 per cent during the period of TE 1990-91 - TE 2000-01, the annual growth rate of yield of horticultural crops has sharply declined to 0.74 per cent during the same period. The trend in growth of area and yield has just reversed during the next period, i.e., TE 2000-01 to TE 2008-09. While the annual growth rate of area of all horticultural crops has sharply decreased

18 to 0.64 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09 from 4.63 per cent during the preceding period of TE 1990-91 - TE 2000-01, the annual growth rate of yield of horticultural crops has sharply increased to 7.47 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09 from 0.74 per cent during the period from TE 1990-91 to TE 2000-01.

Table2.3 : Growth rate in area and yield of horticulture crops in Rajasthan (%) Sl. Period Fruits# Vegetables Spices Flowers$ Medicinals## Total Horti. No. Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield 1 1980-81 to 1990-91* 3.78 -6.35 4.00 7.19 3.55 14.93 NA NA 11.67 -8.71 4.47 11.01 (0.75) (-1.84) (6.94) (5.82) (2.66) (6.50) NA NA (4.27) (-2.53) (4.87) (9.46)

2 1990-91 to 2000-01* -0.28 8.09 5.46 -2.33 3.61 0.41 -2.60 3.57 9.51 -1.31 4.63 0.74 (-1.303) (3.16) (9.13) (-2.95) (1.91) (0.31) (-0.39) (0.68) (6.03) (-0.87) (3.20) (0.83) 3 2000-01 to 2008-09* 4.99 8.99 3.48 6.44 -2.14 -2.97 9.07 3.14 5.63 -3.95 0.64 7.47 (16.85) (3.48) (1.98) (5.08) (-0.66) (-0.46) (3.43) (0.81) (3.97) (-2.24) (0.29) (3.46) 4 2000-01 to 2004-05** 2.86 -1.33 6.14 4.29 -1.18 4.59 8.93 -7.83 0.99 -1.81 0.53 4.98 5 2004-05 to 2005-06** 3.26 21.12 -0.81 10.18 -8.83 -8.07 -4.81 -2.38 0.61 -6.34 -4.86 10.28

6 2004-05 to 2006-07** 4.90 10.03 0.01 8.31 -2.89 -2.96 -6.47 13.95 12.36 -10.34 1.62 4.08

7 2004-05 to 2007-08** 4.90 14.70 3.81 4.41 7.77 -2.27 0.23 14.02 7.14 -2.75 6.88 2.99 8 2004-05 to 2008-09** 5.00 7.69 0.43 3.20 5.10 -0.43 0.25 12.22 8.36 -2.41 5.10 1.01 Notes : (1)* The growth rate for the decennial period are based on semi log time trend and the figures in the parentheses are respective ' t' values. (2) ** Growth rates are based on annual averages. Annual Average Growth Rate = ((Ln(value year end) - Ln(value year begin)) / number of years) x 100. (3) # The growth rate for fruit area and yield has been calculated from 1983-84 to 1990-91 due to unavailability of data. (4) ## The growth rate for medicinals area and yield has been calculated from 1980-81 to 1988-89 and from 1995-96 to 2000-01 due to unavailability of data. (5) $ The growth rate for flower area and yield has been calculated from 1995-96 to 2000-01 due to unavailability of data.Sources: (1) Vital Horticulture Statistics,1998-99, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (2) Rajasthan Horticulture Statistics 2002-03,Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (3) Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (for data from 2002-03 to 2008-09) (4) 50 Years of Agricultural Development in Rajasthan, Directorate of Agriculture, Jaipur [(from 1980-81 to 1982- 83,for fruits), (from 1980-81 to 1994-95, for medicinals)] (5) Indian Horticultural Database-2010, National Horticulture Board, Department of Agriculturwe and Cooperation, Govt. of India

It may be noted that the annual average growth rate (AAGR) of area of horticultural crops has decreased to 0.53 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has further declined to -4.86 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06. However, there has been some revival of growth of area under horticultural crops thereafter. The annual average growth rate of area of horticultural crops has revived to 1.62 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07 and further to 6.88 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2007-08.

Figure 2.1. Growth of area and production of horticultural crops in Rajasthan

3500000

3000000

2500000

2000000

1500000

horticultural crops horticultural 1000000

500000 Area (ha) and production (MT) of (MT) production and (ha) Area

Total Horticultural Production Total Horticultural Area

Figure 2.2. Composition of horticultural crops in Rajasthan during 1980-81 and 208-09

Area under horticultural crops during Production of horticultural crops 1980-81 during 1980-81 Medicinals Fruits Fruits Flowers Flowers Medicinals 1% 0% 4% Vegetables 0% 0% 7% Vegetables 13% Spices Spices 33% 66% 76%

Area under horticultural crops during Production of horticultural crops 2008-09 during 2008-09 Fruits Medicinals Flowers Fruits Medicinals 3% 6% 0% 26% 25% Vegetables Spices 14% 29% Flowers 0%

Spices Vegetables 58% 39%

On the other hand, the annual average growth rate of yield of horticultural crops was 4.98 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has piercingly increased to 10.28 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06. It is disheartening to note that the average yield of all horticultural crops has continuously fallen thereafter to 4.08 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07 and further to 1.01 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2008-09. So far as the composition of horticultural crops is concerned, it may be noted from Figure 2.2 that the share of area and production of spices has declined from 76 per cent and 33 per cent in 1980-81 to 58 per cent and 29 per cent in 2008-09 respectively. On the other hand, the share of area and production of medicinal crops has sharply increased from 7 per cent and 1 per cent in 1980-81 to 25 per cent and 6 per cent in 2008-09 respectively. In the case of different kinds of horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal crops, the instability in growth of yield was much higher than the instability in growth of area under these crops. The annual growth rate of area under fruits has decreased to -0.28 per cent during the period from TE 1990-91 to TE 2000-01 from 3.78 per cent during the period from TE 1980-81 to TE 1990-91. However, the annual growth rate of area of fruit has sharply increased to 4.99 per cent during the period from TE 2000-01 to TE 2008-09. The annual average growth rate of area under fruits was 2.86 per cent during the period from TE 2000-01 to TE 2004-05 that has successively increased thereafter. It has increased to 4.9 per cent during the period from TE 2004-05 to TE 2006-07 and further to 5.00 per cent during the period from TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09. On the other hand, the annual average growth rate of yield of fruit crops was -1.33 per cent during the period from TE 2000-01 to TE 2004-05 that has penetratingly increased to 21.12 during the period from TE 2004-05 to TE 2005-06 and to 14.7 per cent during the period from TE 2004-05 to TE 2007-08. The growth rate of area and yield of vegetables was 4.0 per cent and 7.19 per cent respectively during the period from TE 1980-81 to TE 1990-91, which has changed to 3.48 per cent and 6.44 per cent respectively during the period from TE 2000-01 to TE 2008-09. The growth rate of area and yield of spices was 3.55 and 14.93 respectively during the period from TE 1980-81 to TE 1990-91, which has sharply declined to -2.14 per cent and -2.97 per cent respectively during the period from TE 2000-01 to TE 2008-09. The growth rate of area under medicinal crops has continuously declined from 11.67 per cent during the period of TE 1980-81 - TE 1990-91to 0.99 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09 while the growth rate of yield of medicinal crops was negative throughout the same period. Though the growth rate of area

21 under flowers has fallen on an average, the growth rate of yield of flowers has satisfactorily grown during the same period of TE 1980-81 - TE 1990-91to TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09.

2.3 District Wise Growth of Horticultural Crops and Impact of NHM The district-wise analysis of area and production of different types of horticultural crops for the periods TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09 is shown in Table 2.4 and Table 2.5 respectively, while the annual growth rates of area and yield of different types of horticultural crops in various districts of Rajasthan from the period TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09 is stated in Table 2.6. It may be noted that the area and production of all horticultural crops was 8,05,480 hectares and 12,69,641 MT respectively during TE 2004-05, which increased to 8,71,539 ha and 18,48,466 MT respectively during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan state. The annual growth rate of area and yield of all horticultural crops from TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09 was 1.97 per cent and 7.42 per cent respectively in Rajasthan state as whole (Table 2.6). The district-wise analysis of area and production of horticultural crops revealed that the horticultural area was highest in Barmer district (1, 16,943 hectares) and was lowest in Dungarpur district (859 hectares) during TE 2004-05(Table 2.4). The trend was similar during TE 2008-09 as such the total horticultural area was also highest of 1, 05,186 hectares in Barmer district and was also lowest of 872 hectares in Dungarpur district (Table 2.5). However, the production of horticultural crops was highest of 141625.8 MT in Jhalawar district, followed by 130499.5 MT in Kota district and 125966.8 MT in Baran district during TE 2004-05. The least amount of production of horticultural crops (1721.8 MT) was realized in Dungarpur district which also occupied last position in terms of area coverage under horticultural crops during TE 2004-05. Similarly, during TE 2008-09, the production of horticultural crops was also highest (283982.9 MT) in Jhalawar district followed by 176428.4 MT in Jodhpur district, 165224.2 MT in Sri Ganganagar district. The least amount of production of horticultural crops (1561.7 quintals) was also realized in Dungarpur district during TE 2008-09. As far as the growth rate of area and yield of horticultural crops in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that, between TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09, Rajsamund, Hanumangarh and Sirohi occupied first three positions with 15.1 per cent, 11.43 per cent and 10.64 per cent of annual growth in area under horticultural crops respectively. On the other hand, Sri Ganganagar, Bharatpur and Hanumangarh occupied first three positions with 43.44 per cent, 23.05 per cent and 16.20 per

22 cent of annual growth in production of horticultural crops respectively between the same periods (Table 2.6).

Table 2.4 : Area and production of horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan ( TE 2004-05) (Area in hectares, production in metric tonnes) Sl. District Fruits Vegetables Spices Flowers Medicinal & aromatic All horticultural No. Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod 1 Ajmer 469.6 132.6 3923.3 5914.0 6304.7 2742.0 1166.3 729.0 78.3 32.3 11942.3 9549.9 2 Alwar 433.4 3921.5 13287.3 75049.7 1304.0 1403.3 10.7 9.7 0.0 0.0 15035.4 80384.2 3 Banswara 640.5 7730.5 402.0 306.7 595.7 249.0 6.3 2.7 1.3 0.0 1645.9 8288.9 4 Baran 481.3 12275.1 1456.0 2957.3 63118.0 110618.7 14.0 13.3 1112.0 102.3 66181.3 125966.8 5 Barmer 87.9 428.7 472.7 585.0 80572.3 35701.3 0.0 0.0 35810.0 20297.0 116942.9 57012.0 6 Bharatpur 765.1 1245.8 4488.3 14438.7 714.0 2217.7 49.0 128.7 46.7 23.3 6063.1 18054.1 7 Bhilwara 747.0 4661.5 1566.3 3110.7 7050.3 5318.3 3.0 2.3 237.3 76.0 9604.0 13168.8 8 Bikaner 62.3 12.8 501.7 219.3 10146.0 4842.3 0.0 0.0 1399.3 417.3 12109.3 5491.8 9 Bundi 586.6 5287.5 3644.7 6929.0 6932.3 6770.0 16.3 19.0 8.0 12.3 11187.9 19017.9 10 Chittorgarh 1401.0 14623.9 1976.7 4415.0 23964.7 43300.3 26.0 59.7 5900.7 2439.0 33269.0 64837.9 11 Churu 0.0 0.0 213.3 267.7 4506.0 2716.3 0.0 0.0 145.0 84.3 4864.3 3068.3 12 Dausa 744.1 3660.0 1326.0 1649.3 85.0 71.3 2.7 2.7 0.3 0.3 2158.1 5383.6 13 Dholpur 918.8 10867.7 2562.3 12806.0 758.7 933.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 4240.8 24608.4 14 Dungarpur 402.4 421.1 239.3 1103.3 216.7 197.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 858.7 1721.8 15 Srigangangar 2900.1 14604.9 2598.3 6496.7 196.3 200.7 12.0 8.2 7.3 2.3 5714.1 21312.7 16 Hanumangarh 357.3 5950.3 975.0 1992.0 131.3 99.7 5.0 3.3 0.7 0.7 1469.3 8045.9 17 Jaipur 876.0 9089.6 23996.3 95050.3 7084.0 5955.0 552.3 602.3 16.3 3.3 32525.0 110700.6 18 Jaisalmer 85.9 102.5 115.5 501.3 14528.0 10947.0 0.0 0.0 11042.7 3445.0 25772.0 14995.8 19 Jalore 127.0 439.7 1717.0 6895.3 48279.3 11694.7 0.3 0.3 43175.7 32466.8 93299.3 51496.8 20 Jhalawar 6212.8 64330.1 1209.7 4228.3 67771.3 72369.7 6.7 11.3 2010.3 686.4 77210.8 141625.8 21 Jhunjhunu 65.7 99.5 1978.3 18583.7 4040.7 4081.7 0.0 0.0 3.3 1.8 6088.1 22766.7 22 Jodhpur 189.8 4475.2 10975.7 89595.0 41268.3 21601.7 86.7 57.7 7854.0 5790.7 60374.5 121520.2 23 Karuali 545.8 13032.8 1557.3 3314.3 768.0 871.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.3 2871.8 17219.8 24 Kota 641.6 17703.1 2194.3 30575.7 47229.0 80407.0 55.3 58.3 2363.3 1755.3 52483.6 130499.5 25 Nagaur 114.0 261.7 9292.0 35045.3 38472.3 15081.7 189.7 173.0 5563.7 3533.3 53631.6 54095.1 26 Pali 317.4 1176.0 1389.0 1373.3 8633.7 3981.3 11.3 6.0 41587.0 16833.3 51938.4 23370.0 27 Pratapgarh NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 28 Rajsamand 630.9 2773.9 304.7 434.3 665.0 311.0 16.7 11.3 15.3 40.3 1632.5 3570.9 29 S.modhpur 555.4 5456.0 1178.0 2830.7 2391.0 5302.7 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.7 4125.4 13590.0 30 Sikar 120.3 1031.9 6069.0 37200.7 12984.7 16348.0 11.7 0.0 13.3 16.3 19198.9 54596.9 31 Sirohi 318.3 1196.8 1986.0 2630.7 4978.0 2937.0 3.3 4.7 689.0 405.7 7974.6 7174.8 32 Tonk 172.5 409.5 3646.0 14366.3 5095.0 3195.3 0.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 8916.8 17971.2 33 Udaipur 1183.1 14973.4 804.7 2165.7 1982.3 1352.0 9.0 13.3 171.0 30.7 4150.1 18535.1 State total 23153.8 222375.5 108046.8 483031.2 512766.7 473818.7 2255.3 1916.8 159257.3 88499.7 805480.0 1269641.9 Notes: (1) *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. (2) Figures in italics are for the study districts. (3) 'Prod' stands for production. Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

In the case of different kinds of horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal crops, wide variability was observed in growth of production and area under these crops. In the case of fruit crops, the area coverage was highest of 6212.8 hectares in Jhalawar district and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in Churu district during TE 2004-05. Jhalawar district also occupied first position in terms of area under fruits with 7977.6 hectares during TE 2008-09. Among 33 districts of Rajasthan, the production of fruit crops in Jhalawar district was also highest of 64330.1 MT and 194804.7 MT during TE 2004-05 and

23 during TE 2008-09 respectively. As far as the growth in area and yield of fruit crops in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that the annual growth rate of area under fruits was highest of 23.2 per cent in Hanumangarh during the period between TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09, followed by 21.2 per cent in Nagaur and 12.7 per cent in Sri Ganganagar district. However, between the same periods, the annual growth rate of yield of fruit crops was highest of 38.02 per cent in Sri Ganganagar followed by 27.77 per cent in Bikaner and 27.62 per cent in Dausa district (Table 2.6).

Table 2.5 : Area and production of horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan ( TE 2008-09) (Area in hectares, production in metric tonnes) Sl. District Fruits Vegetables Spices Flowers Medicinal & aromatic All horticultural No. Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod 1 Ajmer 613.0 79.9 5416.3 9058.3 6041.0 2103.7 1632.0 2407.3 43.3 14.3 13745.7 13663.6 2 Alwar 469.8 5077.9 14920.3 88670.7 1044.3 1545.7 27.3 30.0 6.0 4.0 16467.8 95328.2 3 Banswara 680.7 10080.1 418.3 188.7 390.0 142.3 12.0 4.0 6.0 1.3 1507.1 10416.5 4 Baran 501.1 12769.5 1498.3 5191.0 77231.7 107086.7 35.7 23.3 387.0 649.0 79653.8 125719.5 5 Barmer 143.9 319.0 402.3 460.3 57777.0 11079.7 0.0 0.0 46862.3 10157.0 105185.6 22016.0 6 Bharatpur 965.9 2454.4 5245.1 45913.0 478.3 1743.0 4.7 18.0 1.0 1.0 6695.0 50129.4 7 Bhilwara 1087.6 7933.9 1869.3 3837.3 5859.7 3931.3 8.7 9.7 96.7 23.0 8921.9 15735.3 8 Bikaner 88.0 55.0 331.0 324.0 4028.0 2684.0 0.0 0.0 4175.7 2082.7 8622.7 5145.6 9 Bundi 653.6 9391.0 3295.3 17001.3 6045.0 7324.7 36.3 141.0 6.7 4.3 10036.9 33862.4 10 Chittorgarh 1248.9 34651.0 2172.0 9722.0 30320.3 70384.0 59.0 185.9 5099.7 2652.3 38899.9 117595.1 11 Churu 17.3 0.0 225.7 322.0 3092.7 1749.0 0.0 0.0 873.3 318.3 4209.0 2389.3 12 Dausa 720.0 10687.9 1452.3 1933.3 563.3 244.0 15.7 20.3 0.0 0.0 2751.3 12885.6 13 Dholpur 771.0 9694.0 4768.7 44649.3 456.0 844.0 3.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 5999.0 55189.0 14 Dungarpur 460.3 473.7 200.7 909.0 208.7 178.3 2.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 871.6 1561.7 15 Srigangangar 5200.1 119814.6 2404.0 45044.0 137.0 361.0 27.7 2.7 24.3 2.0 7793.1 165224.2 16 Hanumangarh 1004.7 6736.7 1159.3 17382.7 142.0 172.7 10.3 4.7 5.0 2.0 2321.3 24298.7 17 Jaipur 928.5 9873.8 27505.0 86533.3 4779.7 4714.3 685.7 643.7 73.7 27.3 33972.5 101792.5 18 Jaisalmer 118.9 138.4 166.2 489.7 7186.7 843.3 0.0 0.0 10291.3 1880.9 17763.0 3352.4 19 Jalore 140.5 496.6 1581.7 4499.3 49107.7 16144.3 4.3 1.3 38285.3 10707.3 89119.5 31848.9 20 Jhalawar 7977.6 194804.7 1942.7 5491.0 90377.3 82084.0 13.7 25.0 2007.7 1578.3 102319.0 283982.9 21 Jhunjhunu 63.5 269.9 3040.0 34898.3 5172.7 6137.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 2.7 8279.9 41307.9 22 Jodhpur 175.0 258.8 15712.4 142525.0 39645.3 23581.0 105.0 119.7 24930.3 9943.9 80568.1 176428.4 23 Karuali 497.6 7753.1 989.3 2739.0 303.0 302.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 1.7 1791.0 10795.8 24 Kota 649.7 8255.8 2418.7 35646.7 45788.3 86535.7 99.7 185.7 3676.3 1978.1 52632.7 132601.9 25 Nagaur 259.0 594.3 13266.6 84662.0 19249.7 11006.3 232.3 303.3 31437.3 19227.3 64444.9 115793.3 26 Pali 324.6 144.6 1780.7 2339.7 10353.0 3761.7 25.7 19.3 42925.0 32545.7 55409.0 38810.9 27 Pratapgarh 596.0 0.0 176.0 501.0 5455.0 4679.0 0.0 0.0 2977.0 808.0 9204.0 5988.0 28 Rajsamand 690.1 7765.5 484.0 1290.3 1577.3 1392.7 15.3 21.3 219.7 157.7 2986.5 10627.5 29 S.modhpur 671.0 5133.3 1249.7 3783.0 2621.0 6722.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4541.7 15638.3 30 Sikar 154.3 452.6 7465.7 75935.0 9448.7 7949.0 6.3 5.3 53.0 77.0 17127.9 84419.0 31 Sirohi 325.2 1502.2 2517.7 3412.0 8526.0 5596.0 47.3 46.0 789.3 250.3 12205.6 10806.5 32 Tonk 160.9 334.8 3773.3 16009.0 3477.0 2312.3 7.3 5.7 4.0 0.7 7422.6 18662.5 33 Udaipur 1107.5 14473.2 807.7 1760.3 2158.0 1326.0 24.0 15.0 108.3 137.0 4205.5 17711.6 State total 29068.8 483200.0 130538.9 792787.7 495404.7 473541.3 3141.7 4240.6 213385.0 94696.4 871539.0 1848466.1 Notes: (1) *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. (2) Figures in etalics are for the study districts. (3) 'Prod' stands for production. Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

Table 2.6 : Average annual growth rate in area and yield of horticulture crops at district level in Rajasthan from TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09 Sl. District Annual growth rates (per cent)** No. Fruits Vegetables Spices Flowers Medicinal & All aromatic horticultural Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield 1 Ajmer 5.3 -19.32 8.06 2.60 -1.07 -5.56 8.40 21.47 -14.80 -5.54 3.52 5.44 2 Alwar 2.2 4.44 2.90 1.27 -5.55 7.97 23.52 4.79 N.A. N.A. 2.28 1.99 3 Banswara 4.3 5.11 1.00 -13.14 -10.59 -3.39 15.98 -5.84 37.60 N.A. -2.20 7.91 4 Baran 2.4 -0.02 0.72 13.35 5.05 -5.86 23.38 -9.39 -26.39 72.57 4.63 -4.68 5 Barmer 11.1 -19.72 -4.03 -1.96 -8.31 -20.94 N.A. N.A. 6.72 -24.03 -2.65 -21.14 6 Bharatpur 5.0 11.13 3.90 25.03 -10.01 3.99 -58.78 9.61 -96.08 17.33 2.48 23.05 7 Bhilwara 8.3 3.90 4.42 0.83 -4.62 -2.93 26.52 9.01 -22.45 -7.38 -1.84 6.29 8 Bikaner 10.0 27.77 -10.40 20.15 -23.10 8.34 N.A. N.A. 27.33 12.86 -8.49 6.86 9 Bundi 1.8 11.65 -2.52 24.96 -3.42 5.39 19.99 30.12 -4.56 -21.59 -2.71 17.14 10 Chittorgarh -0.1 24.44 2.36 17.38 5.88 6.26 20.49 7.92 -3.65 5.74 3.91 10.97 11 Churu N.A. N.A. 1.41 3.22 -9.41 -1.60 N.A. N.A. 44.89 -11.68 -3.62 -2.64 12 Dausa -0.2 27.62 2.28 1.70 47.28 -16.54 44.27 6.52 N.A. N.A. 6.07 15.75 13 Dholpur -4.1 1.53 15.53 15.69 -12.73 10.20 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 8.67 11.52 14 Dungarpur 3.4 -0.42 -4.41 -0.44 -0.94 -1.55 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 0.37 -2.81 15 Srigangangar 12.7 38.02 -1.94 50.35 -9.00 23.68 20.88 -48.86 29.99 -33.84 7.76 43.44 16 Hanumangarh 23.2 -22.74 4.33 49.83 1.95 11.79 18.15 -9.74 50.37 -22.91 11.43 16.20 17 Jaipur 1.7 0.61 3.41 -5.76 -9.84 4.00 5.41 -3.75 37.66 14.94 1.09 -3.19 18 Jaisalmer 9.5 -0.63 9.09 -9.67 -17.60 -46.49 N.A. N.A. -1.76 -13.37 -9.30 -28.15 19 Jalore 2.4 0.51 -2.05 -8.62 0.43 7.64 64.12 -29.47 -3.01 -24.73 -1.15 -10.87 20 Jhalawar 5.4 21.45 11.84 -5.31 7.20 -4.05 17.95 1.83 -0.03 20.85 7.04 10.35 21 Jhunjhunu -2.0 25.79 10.74 5.01 6.17 4.02 N.A. N.A. 2.38 6.98 7.69 7.21 22 Jodhpur -1.3 -69.23 8.97 2.64 -1.00 3.19 4.80 13.46 28.88 -15.36 7.21 2.11 23 Karuali -2.3 -10.67 -11.34 6.58 -23.25 -3.24 N.A. N.A. 0.00 5.58 -11.80 0.13 24 Kota 0.0 -19.38 2.43 1.40 -0.77 2.61 14.71 14.23 11.05 -8.06 0.07 0.33 25 Nagaur 21.1 -0.03 8.90 13.15 -17.31 9.44 5.07 8.97 43.29 -0.94 4.59 14.43 26 Pali -1.9 -52.96 6.21 7.11 4.54 -5.96 20.44 8.82 0.79 15.69 1.62 11.06 27 Pratapgarh* N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 28 Rajsamand 2.3 23.49 11.57 15.65 21.59 15.89 -2.08 17.90 66.55 -32.47 15.10 12.17 29 S.modhpur 4.0 -6.25 1.48 5.77 2.30 3.63 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 2.40 1.11 30 Sikar 6.5 -26.83 5.18 12.66 -7.95 -10.08 -15.27 N.A. 34.50 4.26 -2.85 13.75 31 Sirohi 1.2 5.14 5.93 0.57 13.45 2.66 66.33 -9.13 3.40 -15.47 10.64 -0.40 32 Tonk -1.1 -3.29 0.86 1.85 -9.55 1.47 59.95 N.A. 10.14 N.A. -4.59 5.53 33 Udaipur -0.9 0.80 0.09 -5.27 2.12 -2.61 24.52 -21.58 -11.41 48.83 0.33 -1.47 State total 5.0 13.71 4.73 7.66 -0.86 0.85 8.29 11.56 7.31 -5.62 1.97 7.42 Notes: (1) *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. (2) ** Growth rates are bases on annual averages. Annual Average Growth Rate = ((Ln(value year end) - Ln(value year begin)) / number of years) x 100. Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur.

In the case of vegetables, the area coverage was highest of 23996.3 hectares in Jaipur district and was lowest of 115.5 hectares in Jaisalmer district during TE 2004-05. The similar trend was also observed during TE 2008-09. The area under vegetables was highest of

27505.0 hectares in Jaipur district and was lowest of 166.2 hectares in Jaisalmer district during TE 2008-09. As far as the growth in area and yield of vegetables in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that the annual growth rate of area under vegetables was highest of 15.5 per cent in Dholpur district during the period between TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09, followed by 11.84 per cent in Jhalawar and 11.57 per cent in Rajsamund district. However, between the same periods, the annual growth rate of yield of vegetables was highest of 50.4 per cent in Sri Ganganagar followed by 49.83 per cent in Hanumangarh and 24.96 per cent in Bundi district. The annual growth rate of area and yield of vegetables was lowest of -11.3 per cent and -13.1 per cent in Karauli and Banswara districts respectively. As regards the growth of area, production and yield of spices in various districts of Rajasthan, it may be noted that Barmer district occupied first position in terms of area under spices with 80572.3 hectares during TE 2004-05, followed by Jhalawar (67771.3 ha) and Baran (63118.0 ha). However, during TE 2008-09, Jhalawar district occupied first position in terms of area under spices with 90377.3 hectares while Baran district shifted to second spot with 77231.7 hectares of spices. Among 33 districts of Rajasthan, the production of spices was highest of 110618.0 MT in Baran district and was lowest of 71.3 MT in Dausa district during TE 2004-05. During TE 2008-09, the production of spices was highest of 107086.7 MT in Baran district and was lowest of 137.0 MT in Sri Ganganagar district. As far as the growth in area and yield of spices in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that the annual growth rate of area under spices was highest of 47.3 per cent in Dausa district during the period between TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09, followed by 21.6 per cent in Rajsamund and 13.5 per cent in Sirohi district. However, between the same periods, the annual growth rate of production of spices was highest of 23.7 per cent in Sri Ganganagar followed by 15.9 per cent in Rajsamund and 11.8 per cent in Hanumangarh district. The annual growth rate of area and yield of spices was lowest of -23.3 per cent and -46.5 per cent in Karauli and Jaisalmer districts respectively. In the case of flowers, the area coverage was highest of 1166.3 hectares in Ajmer district and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in 8 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. The similar trend was also observed during TE 2008-09. The area under flowers was highest of 1632.0 hectares in Ajmer district and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in 7 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2008-09. The production of flowers was highest of 729.0 MT in Ajmer district and was lowest of 0.0 MT in 11 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. During TE 2008-09, the production of flowers was highest of 2407.3 MT in Ajmer district and was lowest of 0.0

MT in 8 districts of Rajasthan. As far as the growth in area and yield of flowers in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that the annual growth rate of area under vegetables was highest of 66.3 per cent in Sirohi district during the period between TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09, followed by 64.1 per cent in Jalore and 59.95 per cent in Tonk district. However, between the same periods, the annual growth rate of yield of flowers was highest of 30.1 per cent in Bundi followed by 21.5 per cent in Ajmer and 17.9 per cent in Rajsamund district. The annual growth rate of area and yield of flowers was lowest of -58.8 per cent and -48.9 per cent in Bharatpur and Sri Ganganagar districts respectively. As far as the growth of area, production and yield of medicinal and aromatic crops in various districts of Rajasthan is concerned, it may be noted that Jalore district occupied first position in terms of area under medicinal and aromatic crops with 43175.7 hectares during TE 2004-05, followed by 41587.0 hectares in Pali and 35810.0 hectares in Barmer. However, during TE 2008-09, Balmer district occupied first position in terms of area under medicinal and aromatic crops with 46862.3 hectares while Pali district maintained the second spot with 42925.0 hectares of medicinal and aromatic crops. Among 33 districts of Rajasthan, the production of medicinal and aromatic crops was also highest of 32466.8 MT in Jalore district and was lowest of 0.0 MT in 3 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. During TE 2008-09, the production of medicinal and aromatic crops was highest of 32545.7 MT in Pali district and was lowest of 0.0 MT in 4 districts of Rajasthan. The annual growth rate of area under medicinal and aromatic crops was highest of 66.6 per cent in Rajsamund district during the period between TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09, followed by 50.8 per cent in Hanumangarh and 37.7 per cent in Jaipur district. However, between the same periods, the annual growth rate of production of medicinal and aromatic crops was highest of 72.6 per cent in Baran followed by 48.8 per cent in Udaipur and 20.9 per cent in Jhalawar district. The annual growth rate of area and yield of medicinal and aromatic crops was lowest of -96.1 per cent and -33.8 per cent in Bharatpur and Sri Ganganagar districts respectively.

2.4 Growth of Area and Production of Selected Crops under NHM Table 2.7 shows the area and production of four selected horticultural crops in Rajasthan from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-092. Table 2.8 shows the growth rates in area and production of these selected horticultural crops in Rajasthan from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09. The growth

2 Annexure 2.8 may be referred for the actual data on area and production of four selected horticultural crops in Rajasthan from 1980-81 to 2008-09. The actual data on district-wise area and production of four selected horticultural crops from 2002-03 to 2008-09 is shown in Annexures 2.9 to 2.14.

27 in both area and production of selected horticultural crops was not found to be steady. There were so many ups and downs in both area and production of these horticultural crops during a period from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09. It may be noted that the total area under aonla has increased from 8 hectares during TE 1985-86 to 1611 hectares during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. The total production of aonla has also increased from 8 MT during TE 1985-86 to 12845 MT during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan (Table 2.7). Similarly, the total area under papaya has increased from 227 hectares during TE 1985-86 to 435 hectares during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. The total production of papaya has registered a sharp increase from 469 MT during TE 1985-86 to 10108 MT during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. In the case of coriander, the total area has increased from 62278 hectares during TE 1980-81 to 196396 hectares during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. The total production of coriander has also remarkably increased from 35567 MT during TE 1980-81 to 198267 MT during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. As regards the overall growth in area and production of mango in Rajasthan is concerned, the total area under mango has increased from 442 hectares during TE 1985-86 to 6231 hectares during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. The total production of mango has registered a sharp increase from 4026 MT during TE 1985-86 to 107152 MT during TE 2001-02 in Rajasthan. Thereafter, the total production of mango has decreased to 73995 MT during TE 2004-05 and again registered an increase to 88586 MT during TE 2008-09. The decadal analysis of the physical performance of these selected horticultural crops reveals that the area and production of aonla crop was only 30 hectares and 69 MT respectively during TE 1990-91, that have increased to 168 hectares and 1344 MT respectively during 2000-01. The area and production of papaya has increased from 265 hectares and 874 MT during TE 1990-91 to 427 hectares and 10548 MT during TE 2000-01 in Rajasthan. Similarly, the area and production of mango has increased from 4662 hectares and 22729 MT during TE 1990-91 to 6586 hectares and 96069 MT during TE 2000-01 in Rajasthan. It may be noted that the area and production of coriander has increased from 62278 hectares and 35567 MT during TE 1980-81 to 123629 hectares and 104986 MT during TE 1990-91 that has further increased to 155855 hectares and 157931 MT during TE 2000-01 in Rajasthan. The decadal analysis of the annual growth of the selected horticultural crops as stated in Table 2.8 reveals that the first two decades, i.e., 1980-81 to 1990-91 and 1990-91 to 2000- 01 have had remarkable growth in area and production of coriander crop. The growth in area under mango was noteworthy during 1980-81 to 1990-91, while the growth in production of mango was remarkable during 1990-91-2000-01. The growth of area and production of

28 papaya and aonla was much better during last two decades, i.e., 1990-91 to 2000-01 and 2000-01 to 2008-09. Particularly, the growth of area and production of aonla was outstanding during the second decade of our study, i.e., 1990-91 to 2000-01.

Table 2.7 : Area and production of selected horticulture crops in Rajasthan (Area in hectare and production in metric tonnes) Sl. No. Year Aonla Papaya Coriander Mango Area Prodn. Area Prodn. Area Prodn. Area Prodn. 1 TE 1980-81 NA NA NA NA 62278 35567 NA NA 2 TE 81-82 NA NA NA NA 70802 38700 NA NA 3 TE 82-83 NA NA NA NA 92210 54710 NA NA 4 TE 83-84 15 15 268 609 108393 61372 529 6842 5 TE 84-85 8 8 251 585 106933 52374 413 4489 6 TE 85-86 8 8 227 469 110154 40462 442 4026 7 TE 86-87 6 6 206 416 114964 56260 427 2308 8 TE 87-88 10 9 159 281 157161 51947 444 1971 9 TE 88-89 15 13 123 242 162105 73634 371 1240 10 TE 89-90 23 21 168 289 155850 63751 2355 10986 11 TE 90-91 30 69 265 874 123629 104986 4662 22729 12 TE 91-92 22 67 358 2703 115500 94955 6957 40425 13 TE 92-93 18 99 361 3313 128262 106107 7209 43303 14 TE 93-94 7 47 341 5314 136410 94366 7178 50634 15 TE 94-95 7 42 343 6688 140680 101086 7117 49459 16 TE 95-96 17 139 358 9700 138540 104479 7072 53477 17 TE 96-97 26 236 376 10816 138843 121008 7015 49314 18 TE 97-98 33 293 389 12735 175783 162019 6997 51922 19 TE 98-99 38 516 408 16032 195944 183100 6925 56465 20 TE 99-00 87 876 429 14401 184974 174100 6728 76692 21 TE 00-01 168 1344 427 10548 155855 157931 6586 96069 22 TE 01-02 278 1722 402 4563 158022 176054 6470 107152 23 TE 02-03 374 1878 381 3765 154077 174371 6452 93511 24 TE 03-04 458 2864 380 3549 186129 218931 6442 83529 25 TE 04-05 601 3770 375 4586 167353 197520 6413 73995 26 TE 05-06 802 5528 382 5974 175494 204075 6437 92251 27 TE 06-07 1095 7737 389 6813 138742 155745 6433 90772 28 TE 07-08 1397 10517 419 10358 160284 154532 6379 97747 29 TE 2008-09 1611 12845 435 10108 196396 198267 6231 88586 Sources: (1) Vital Horticulture Statistics,1998-99, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur; (2) Rajasthan Horticulture Statistics 2002-03,Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur. (3) Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (for data from 2002-03 to 2008-09). (4) 50 Years of Agricultural Development in Rajasthan, Directorate of Agriculture, Jaipur [(from 1980-81 to 1982-83,for fruits), (from 1980-81 to 1994-95, for medicinals)].

Table 2.8 : Growth rate in area and yield rate of selected horticulture crops in Rajasthan (%) Sl. No. Period Aonla Papaya Coriander Mango Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield 1 1980-81 to 1990-91* 20.41 12.93 1.05 5.24 5.66 1.62 45.74 -11.94 (2.907) (1.416) (0.108) (0.795) (2.223) (0.218) (2.310) (-2.125)

2 1990-91 to 2000-01* 41.82 23.16 2.06 32.09 2.78 3.39 -1.10 33.62 (3.311) (3.324) (2.859) (7.328) (1.373) (2.162) (-6.254) (3.282)

3 2000-01 to 2008-09* 27.93 5.86 2.15 13.83 3.31 -2.09 -0.69 0.08 (16.327) (1.669) (3.062) (2.884) (0.856) -(1.258) -(2.833) (0.029)

4 2000-01 to 2004-05** 22.56 0.31 -1.68 11.76 0.42 -0.02 -0.28 -9.92

5 2004-05 to 2005-06** 12.71 5.57 5.52 5.65 -4.06 -4.74 0.24 26.95

6 2004-05 to 2006-07** 17.56 9.62 4.07 -7.90 -4.11 1.10 0.26 5.09

7 2004-05 to 2007-08** 18.52 6.21 5.62 18.60 9.04 -9.58 -0.65 7.20

8 2004-05 to 2008-09** 14.53 6.46 4.38 -1.85 10.04 -0.50 -1.33 7.03 Notes :1. * The growth rate for the decennial period are based on semi log time trend and the fig. in the parentheses are respective ' t' values. 2.** Growth rates are bases on annual averages. Annual Average Growth Rate = ((Ln(value year end) - Ln(value year begin)) / number of years) x 100. 3.Begning year is the 1983-84 instead of 1980-81 for Anola, Papaya and Mango crops for period 1980-81 to 1990-91 due to data unavailability. 4.Due to data problem for 1984, 1993, 1994 and 2008 annual figure for Anola have been replaced by the respective TE values as proxies. Sources: (1) Vital Horticulture Statistics,1998-99, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur. (2) Rajasthan Horticulture Statistics 2002-03,Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur. (3) Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (for data from 2002- 03 to 2008-09). (4) 50 Years of Agricultural Development in Rajasthan, Directorate of Agriculture, Jaipur [(from 1980-81 to 1982-83,for fruits), (from 1980-81 to 1994-95, for medicinals)].

2.4.1 The Case of Aonla As far as the case of aonla is concerned, it may be noted that the annual growth rate of area and yield of aonla was 20.41 per cent and 12.93 per cent respectively during the period of TE 1980-81 - TE 1990-91. The annual growth rate of area and yield of aonla has further increased to 41.82 per cent and 23.16 per cent respectively during the period of TE 1990-91 - TE 2000-01. The trend in growth of area and yield of aonla has just reversed during the next period, i.e., TE 2000-01 to TE 2008-09. The annual growth rate of both area and yield of

30 aonla has declined to 27.93 per cent and 5.86 per cent respectively during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09. It may also be noted that the AAGR of area of aonla was 22.93 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has decreased to 12.71 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06. However, there has been revival of growth of area under aonla thereafter. The AAGR of area of aonla has increased to 17.56 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07 and further to 18.52 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2007-08. Thus there has been a marked improvement of area under aonla during 2006-07 and 2007-08. On the other hand, the annual average growth rate of yield of aonla was 0.31 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has sharply increased to 5.57 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06 and has further increased to 9.62 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07. It is disheartening to note that the yield of aonla has fallen thereafter to 6.21 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2007-08 and to 6.46 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2008-09.

2.4.2 The Case of Papaya As stated in Table 2.8, it may be seen that the annual growth rate of area and yield of papaya was 1.05 per cent and 5.24 per cent respectively during the period of TE 1980-81 - TE 1990- 91. While the annual growth rate of yield of papaya has sharply increased to 32.09 per cent during the period of TE 1990-91 - TE 2000-01, the annual growth rate of area of papaya has marginally increased to 2.06 per cent during the same period. The annual growth rate of yield of papaya has fallen to 13.83 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09 but the annual growth rate of area of papaya has registered further increase of 2.15 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09. It may also be noted that the annual average growth rate of area of papaya was -1.68 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has increased to 5.52 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06 and to 5.62 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2007-08. However, the annual average growth rate of area of papaya has declined to 4.38 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2008- 09. On the other hand, the annual average growth rate of yield of papaya was 11.76 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has decreased to 5.65 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06 and has further declined to -7.90 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07. It is notable that the yield of papaya has recovered to 18.60 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2007-08 and has fallen thereafter to - 1.85 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2008-09.

2.4.3 The Case of Coriander It may be noted that the annual growth rate of area and yield of coriander was 5.66 per cent and 1.62 per cent respectively during the period of TE 1980-81 - TE 1990-91. While the annual growth rate of yield of coriander has further increased to 3.39 per cent during the period of TE 1990-91 - TE 2000-01, the annual growth rate of area of coriander has declined to 2.78 per cent during the same period. The trend in growth of area and yield of coriander has just reversed during the next period, i.e., TE 2000-01 to TE 2008-09. While the annual growth rate of yield of coriander has sharply decreased to -2.09 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09 from 3.39 per cent during the preceding period of TE 1990-91 - TE 2000-01, the annual growth rate of area of coriander has increased to 3.31 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09 from 2.78 per cent during the period from TE 1990-91 to TE 2000-01. It may also be noted that the annual average growth rate (AAGR) of area of coriander has decreased to 0.42 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has further declined to -4.06 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06 and to -4.11 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07. However, there has been some revival of growth of area under coriander thereafter. The annual average growth rate of area of coriander has revived to 9.04 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2007-08 and further to 10.04 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2008-09. Thus there has been a marked improvement of area under coriander after 2007-08 during implementation of NHM. On the other hand, the annual average growth rate of yield of coriander was -0.28 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has decreased to -4.74 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06. It is noteworthy that the yield of coriander has slightly recovered to 1.1 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07 and has fallen thereafter to -9.58 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2007-08 and to -0.5 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2008-09.

2.4.4 The Case of Mango Considering the case of mango, it may be noted that the annual growth rate of area and yield of mango was 45.74 per cent and -11.94 per cent respectively during the period of TE 1980- 81 - TE 1990-91. While the annual growth rate of yield of mango has increased to 33.62 per cent during the period of TE 1990-91 - TE 2000-01, the annual growth rate of area of mango has declined to -1.1 per cent during the same period. The trend in growth of area and yield of mango has just reversed during the next period, i.e., TE 2000-01 to TE 2008-09. While the

32 annual growth rate of yield of mango has sharply decreased to 0.08 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09 from 33.62 per cent during the preceding period of TE 1990-91 - TE 2000-01, the annual growth rate of area of mango has slightly improved to -0.69 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09 from -1.1 per cent during the period from TE 1990-91 to TE 2000-01. It may also be noted that the annual average growth rate (AAGR) of area of mango was -0.28 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has increased to 0.24 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06 and has further increased to 0.26 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07. However, there has been reversal of growth of area under mango thereafter. The annual average growth rate of area of mango has declined to -0.65 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2007-08 and further to -1.33 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2008-09. Thus there has been a marked improvement of area under mango during 2005-06 and 2006-07 and deceleration of area under mango during the next two years of implementation of NHM, i.e., 2007-08 and 2008- 09. On the other hand, the annual average growth rate of yield of mango was -9.92 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has sharply increased to 26.95 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06. It is disheartening to note that the yield of mango has again fallen to 5.06 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07 and to 7.03 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2008-09.

2.5 District Wise Growth of Area & Production of Selected Crops under NHM The district-wise analysis of area and production of selected horticultural crops for the periods TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09 is shown in Table 2.9 and Table 2.10 respectively, while the annual growth rates of area and yield of four selected horticultural crops, viz., aonla, papaya, coriander and mango in various districts of Rajasthan from the period TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09 is stated in Table 2.11.

2.5.1 The Case of Aonla It may be noted that the total area and production of aonla in Rajasthan was 601.3 hectares and 3769.9 MT respectively during triennium ending (TE) 2004-05, which increased to 1610.8 hectares and 12844.7 MT respectively during TE 2008-09. The annual growth rate of area and yield of aonla from TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09 was 24.6 per cent and 5.5 per cent respectively in Rajasthan state as whole (Table 2.11). The district-wise analysis of area and production of aonla revealed that the area under aonla was highest in Ajmer

33 district (133.1 hectares) and was lowest of 0.0 hectare in 4 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. Similarly, the area under aonla was also highest (252.3 hectares) in Ajmer district and was lowest of 0.0 hectare in Dungarpur district of Rajasthan during TE 2008-09. However, the production of aonla was highest of 1444.7 MT in Jaipur district, followed by 595.4 MT in Sikar district during TE 2004-05. The least amount of production of aonla (0.0 MT) was also realized in the 4 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. On the other hand, during TE 2008-09, the production of aonla was highest of 3201.7 MT in Chittorgarh district, followed by 2462.7 MT and 1551.1 MT in Jaipur district and Hanumangarh district respectively. The least amount of production of aonla (0.0 MT) was realized in 2 districts (Churu and Pratapgarh) during TE 2008-09. As far as the growth rate of area and yield of aonla in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that, between TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09, Dholpur, Sirohi and Jhunjhunu occupied first three positions with 89.3 per cent, 81.3 per cent and 60.6 per cent of annual growth in area under aonla respectively. On the other hand, Dholpur, Bikaner and Chittorgarh occupied first three positions with 96.4 per cent, 67.5 per cent and 53.3 per cent of annual growth in yield of aonla respectively between the same periods.

2.5.2 The Case of Papaya Like other selected crops, wide variability was also observed among various districts of Rajasthan in terms of production and area under papaya during the reference years. In the case of papaya, the area coverage was highest of 49.5 hectares in Chittorgarh district and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in 5 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. Chittorgarh district also occupied first position in terms of area under papaya with 62.2 hectares during TE 2008-09. Among 33 districts of Rajasthan, the production of papaya in Chittorgarh district was also highest of 1647.8 MT and 4749.6 MT during TE 2004-05 and during TE 2008-09 respectively. No output of papaya was realized in 5 districts during TE 2004-05 and in 6 districts during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. As far as the growth in area and yield of papaya in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that the annual growth rate of area under papaya was highest of 24.1 per cent in Ajmer district during the period between TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09, followed by 22.4 per cent in Bundi and 21.2 per cent in Sirohi district. However, between the same periods, the annual growth rate of production of papaya was highest of 64.6 per cent in Alwar district followed by 50.2 per cent in Udaipur and 47.8per cent in Jhalawar district.

Table 2.9: Area and production of selected horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan (TE 2004-05) (Area in hectares, production in metric tonnes) Sl. No. District Aonla Papaya Coriander Mango Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod 1 Ajmer 133.1 25.8 0.8 5.2 73.0 83.3 78.6 27.2 2 Alwar 34.4 235.4 24.0 209.9 122.7 140.0 124.4 1533.6 3 Banswara 6.1 129.2 4.5 95.0 2.0 2.5 524.0 6992.1 4 Baran 12.3 67.1 20.8 302.1 58380.0 80296.0 213.4 9026.4 5 Barmer 0.0 0.0 1.9 33.1 1.5 1.5 2.9 12.7 6 Bharatpur 1.6 1.6 23.2 19.7 0.7 0.7 66.8 130.1 7 Bhilwara 23.5 137.3 24.2 143.0 92.7 106.0 434.5 2775.8 8 Bikaner 3.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 26.0 29.7 0.0 0.0 9 Bundi 6.2 6.2 11.0 146.1 5167.0 5457.7 163.0 1082.9 10 Chittorgarh 46.1 233.1 49.5 1647.8 1564.3 1068.7 736.8 7438.6 11 Churu 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 12 Dausa 20.4 40.7 26.0 256.8 8.3 9.7 548.0 1996.4 13 Dholpur 0.1 0.4 8.5 39.3 4.7 5.0 451.3 7400.7 14 Dungarpur 0.0 0.0 4.1 23.5 2.5 3.0 343.6 291.6 15 Srigangangar 13.7 16.6 0.0 0.0 8.0 8.3 45.6 1.8 16 Hanumangarh 13.0 90.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 17 Jaipur 97.7 1444.7 24.0 156.1 83.7 89.7 338.5 3311.5 18 Jaisalmer 25.1 15.9 0.0 0.0 266.7 303.0 0.8 4.7 19 Jalore 7.6 11.1 7.4 42.4 4.0 5.0 40.7 146.1 20 Jhalawar 3.3 12.2 22.9 110.6 61063.0 63012.0 326.9 2726.3 21 Jhunjhunu 0.1 0.5 3.8 31.5 2.0 1.5 24.1 8.6 22 Jodhpur 20.3 235.4 2.5 5.6 442.0 347.7 2.7 3.3 23 Karuali 1.4 4.4 35.4 763.5 28.7 31.0 307.9 7523.7 24 Kota 2.0 73.6 3.9 77.3 39410.0 45856.3 219.9 4162.7 25 Nagaur 50.8 105.4 2.0 2.7 139.0 171.0 3.3 0.8 26 Pali 26.8 174.3 3.4 13.7 6.7 8.0 5.1 16.7 27 Pratapgarh* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 28 Rajsamand 6.0 24.9 10.5 83.2 29.3 18.0 208.6 1649.4 29 S.modhpur 8.6 72.2 11.6 79.7 123.7 144.0 133.1 2068.3 30 Sikar 38.5 595.4 3.1 67.9 122.3 121.7 26.6 145.2 31 Sirohi 0.2 0.2 9.8 33.7 5.7 6.3 140.3 667.3 32 Tonk 0.0 0.0 8.8 12.4 119.3 134.3 68.2 96.6 33 Udaipur 13.6 15.8 27.3 184.9 52.3 57.0 833.9 12753.4 State Total 601.3 3769.9 374.8 4586.5 167353.3 197520.0 6413.3 73994.6 Notes: 1. *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. 2. Figures in Italic are for the study districts. 3. 'Prod' implies production of selected horticultural crops. Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur.

Table 2.10: Area and production of selected horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan (TE 2008-09) (Area in hectares, production in metric tonnes) Sl. No. District Aonla** Papaya** Coriander Mango** Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod 1 Ajmer 252.3 30.3 2.0 0.2 64.0 63.3 61.3 8.9 2 Alwar 142.9 1025.3 12.7 1444.8 41.7 40.3 64.1 906.4 3 Banswara 6.2 141.5 4.0 86.0 1.0 1.3 620.4 9380.7 4 Baran 44.6 235.1 22.0 244.6 72150.7 81948.0 193.5 9028.0 5 Barmer 3.7 10.0 1.7 13.1 0.7 0.7 2.9 3.1 6 Bharatpur 12.1 28.8 30.9 73.2 8.3 7.7 63.5 381.0 7 Bhilwara 163.8 621.4 38.7 361.1 12.3 12.0 397.7 3254.6 8 Bikaner 17.5 14.2 0.1 0.0 23.3 25.7 NA 0.0 9 Bundi 22.1 138.6 26.9 439.7 2354.7 2077.3 172.6 991.7 10 Chittorgarh 71.0 3201.7 62.2 4749.6 2537.7 2676.0 632.2 17789.4 11 Churu 1.0 0.0 NA 0.0 4.0 4.0 NA 0.0 12 Dausa 33.3 415.2 23.0 369.1 3.0 2.7 509.0 7345.7 13 Dholpur 2.7 56.8 7.6 37.4 4.3 4.3 425.5 6849.8 14 Dungarpur 0.0 0.0 5.6 24.4 0.7 0.7 384.0 328.0 15 Srigangangar 67.6 542.4 NA 0.0 7.7 7.7 28.9 328.8 16 Hanumangarh 65.7 1551.1 NA 0.0 0.7 0.7 NA 0.0 17 Jaipur 194.8 2462.7 23.9 169.9 51.0 52.7 348.6 3220.3 18 Jaisalmer 42.4 24.5 0.0 0.0 9.3 7.7 0.5 6.0 19 Jalore 21.9 43.8 13.9 60.6 4.7 4.3 38.5 166.3 20 Jhalawar 14.7 358.9 16.2 570.2 81555.0 66313.0 318.0 3928.5 21 Jhunjhunu 1.0 5.8 2.6 33.0 7.3 7.7 22.7 11.2 22 Jodhpur 34.7 28.1 2.7 6.2 238.3 239.7 1.5 0.0 23 Karuali 3.1 13.0 28.0 544.1 12.0 13.7 291.7 2904.5 24 Kota 16.3 478.6 4.5 51.0 37035.3 44487.3 179.1 2886.3 25 Nagaur 151.8 162.8 1.6 1.1 17.0 16.3 3.8 0.6 26 Pali 74.4 39.2 4.0 1.2 10.0 10.7 6.7 4.1 27 Pratapgarh* 0.5 0.0 24.3 0.0 5.0 6.0 445.8 0.0 28 Rajsamand 25.5 144.2 17.4 252.8 65.3 71.7 203.3 3487.3 29 S.modhpur 25.3 194.8 7.6 58.9 60.7 54.3 102.6 1425.7 30 Sikar 68.6 87.3 3.6 29.3 13.7 13.0 38.8 164.3 31 Sirohi 5.2 6.2 23.0 104.7 13.3 15.0 138.5 996.7 32 Tonk 26.8 128.6 4.7 5.7 24.3 23.3 53.7 21.4 33 Udaipur 6.9 26.8 35.7 1738.3 62.7 62.3 779.1 10610.5 State total 1610.8 12844.7 434.7 11469.9 196396.3 198267.0 6230.8 86429.6 Notes: 1.* Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. 2. Figures in Italic are for the study districts. 3. **Due to unavailability of district level data on production of aonla, mango and papaya in 2008-09 in Rajasthan, we have taken two years averages upto 2007-08 instead of TE 2008-09 for these crops. Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur.

Table 2.11 : Average annual growth rate in area and yield of selected horticulture crops at district level in Rajasthan from TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09 percent per annum

Sl. No District Annual growth rates (%) Aonla Papaya Coriander Mango Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield 1 Ajmer 16.0 -10.7 24.1 -105.5 -3.3 -3.6 -6.2 -22.6 2 Alwar 35.6 3.4 -15.9 64.6 -27.0 -4.1 -16.6 2.0 3 Banswara 0.5 1.7 -2.7 1.2 -17.3 1.6 4.2 0.2 4 Baran 32.1 -7.4 1.4 -7.8 5.3 -4.8 -2.4 2.2 5 Barmer NA NA -2.1 -20.8 -20.3 0.0 0.7 -36.0 6 Bharatpur 50.9 19.7 7.2 31.8 63.1 -2.1 -1.3 26.9 7 Bhilwara 48.5 -8.2 11.7 13.9 -50.4 -4.0 -2.2 5.9 8 Bikaner 44.1 67.5 NA NA -2.7 -0.9 NA NA 9 Bundi 31.9 46.9 22.4 5.2 -19.6 -4.5 1.4 -3.5 10 Chittorgarh 10.8 53.3 5.7 19.6 12.1 10.9 -3.8 22.1 11 Churu NA NA NA NA 0.0 0.0 NA NA 12 Dausa 12.2 45.7 -3.0 11.5 -25.5 -6.7 -1.8 33.6 13 Dholpur 89.3 96.4 -2.9 1.6 -1.9 -1.7 -1.5 -0.5 14 Dungarpur NA NA 7.5 -6.1 -33.0 -4.6 2.8 0.1 15 Srigangangar 40.0 43.5 NA NA -1.1 -1.0 -11.4 137.7 16 Hanumangarh 40.5 32.6 NA NA -10.1 0.0 NA NA 17 Jaipur 17.3 -3.0 -0.1 0.8 -12.4 -0.9 0.7 -2.2 18 Jaisalmer 13.1 -3.4 NA NA -83.8 -8.1 -14.0 19.9 19 Jalore 26.5 7.9 15.7 -4.9 3.9 -7.4 -1.4 4.7 20 Jhalawar 37.7 48.1 -8.6 47.8 7.2 -6.0 -0.7 9.7 21 Jhunjhunu 60.6 -3.9 -9.7 14.5 32.5 8.3 -1.5 8.3 22 Jodhpur 13.3 -64.9 1.6 -2.2 -15.4 6.1 -14.4 NA 23 Karuali 19.8 22.7 -5.9 -2.4 -21.8 1.3 -1.4 -23.4 24 Kota 52.1 5.8 3.9 -14.6 -1.6 0.8 -5.1 -4.6 25 Nagaur 27.4 -17.5 -5.8 -19.8 -52.5 -6.2 4.0 -9.8 26 Pali 25.5 -59.9 3.8 -68.6 10.1 -2.9 7.1 -22.9 27 Pratapgarh NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 28 Rajsamand 36.2 10.6 12.6 14.4 20.0 14.5 -0.6 19.6 29 S.modhpur 26.9 3.5 -10.5 1.5 -17.8 -6.6 -6.5 -2.6 30 Sikar 14.4 -62.7 3.7 -31.7 -54.8 -1.1 9.4 -6.0 31 Sirohi 81.3 16.5 21.2 2.1 21.4 0.2 -0.3 9.6 32 Tonk NA NA -15.9 -3.2 -39.8 -4.0 -6.0 -34.9 33 Udaipur -17.1 29.9 6.8 50.2 4.5 -2.3 -1.7 -3.7 State total 24.6 5.5 3.7 19.6 4.0 -3.9 -0.7 4.1 Notes: 1.*Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. 2. Figures in Italic are for the study districts. Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur.

2.5.3 The Case of Coriander As shown in Table 2.9, the total area and production of coriander in Rajasthan was 167353.3 hectares and 197520.0 MT respectively during TE 2004-05, which increased to 196396.3 hectares and 198267.0 MT respectively during TE 2008-09 (Table 2.9 and Table 2.10). The annual growth rate of area and yield of coriander from TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09 was 4.0 per cent and -3.9 per cent respectively in Rajasthan state as whole (Table 2.11). The district-wise analysis of area and production of coriander revealed that the area under coriander was highest in Jhalawar district (61063.0 hectares) and was lowest of 0.7 hectares in Bharatpur district of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. Similarly, the area under coriander was also highest (81555.0 hectares) in Jhalawar district and was lowest of 0.7 hectares each in Barmer, Dungarpur and Hanumangarh districts of Rajasthan during TE 2008-09. However, the production of coriander was highest of 80296.0 MT in Baran district, followed by 63012.0 MT in Jhalawar district during TE 2004-05. The least amount of production of coriander (0.7 MT) was also realized in Bharatpur district of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. On the other hand, during TE 2008-09, the production of coriander was highest of 81948.0 MT in Baran district, followed by 66313.0 MT and 44487.3 MT in Jhalawar district and Kota district respectively. The least amount of production of coriander (0.7 MT) was realized in 2 districts (Barmer and Dungarpur) during TE 2008-09. As far as the growth rate of area and yield of coriander in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that, between TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09, Bharatpur, Jhunjhunu and Sirohi occupied first three positions with 63.1 per cent, 32.5 per cent and 21.4 per cent of annual growth in area under coriander respectively. On the other hand, Rajsamund, Chittorgarh and Jhunjhunu occupied first three positions with 14.5 per cent, 10.9 per cent and 8.3 per cent of annual growth in yield of coriander respectively between the same periods.

2.5.4 The Case of Mango Considering the case of mango, it may be noted that the total area and production of mango in Rajasthan was 6413.3 hectares (ha) and 73994.6 MT respectively during triennium ending (TE) 2004-05. While the total area under mango decreased to 6230.8 ha during TE 2008-09, the total production of mango registered an increase to 86429.6 MT during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. The annual growth rate of area and yield of mango from TE 2004-05 to TE 2008- 09 was -0.7 per cent and 4.1 per cent respectively in Rajasthan. The district-wise analysis of area and production of mango revealed that the area under mango was highest in Ajmer district (833.9 ha) and was lowest of 0.0 ha in 2 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05.

Similarly, the area under mango was also highest (779.1 ha) in Udaipur district and was lowest of 0.0 ha in 3 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2008-09. On the other hand, the production of mango was highest of 12753.4 MT in Udaipur district, followed by 9026.4 MT in Baran district and 7438.6 MT in Chittorgarh district during TE 2004-05. The least amount of production of mango (0.0 MT) was also realized in the 3 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. During TE 2008-09, the production of mango was highest of 17789.4 MT in Chittorgarh district, followed by 10610.5 MT and 9380.7 MT in Udaipur district and Banswara district respectively. The least amount of production of mango (0.0 MT) was realized in 5 districts during TE 2008-09. As far as the growth rate of area and yield of mango in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that, between TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09, Sikar, Pali and Nagaur occupied first three positions with 9.4 per cent, 7.1 per cent and 4.0 per cent of annual growth in area under mango respectively. On the other hand, Sri Ganganagar, Dausa and Bharatpur occupied first three positions with 137.7 per cent, 33.6 per cent and 26.9 per cent of annual growth in production of mango respectively between the same periods. The lowest annual growth in area and production of mango between TE 2004- 05 and TE 2008-09 was -16.6 per cent and -36.0 per cent in Alwar and Barmer respectively.

2.6 Summary of the Chapter The status of area, production and yield of horticultural crops in the state of Rajasthan has been analyzed in this chapter. The growth of area and production of different types of horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal & aromatic plants in the state from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09 has been analyzed so as to identify the impact of NHM on the growth of horticulture in the state. The district level analysis has also been made on expansion of different types of horticultural crops in the state. The growth rates of area and production of different types of horticultural crops in various districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09 have been worked out so as to examine the district level impact of NHM on the growth of different types of horticultural crops. The similar kinds of temporal and spatial analysis have also been made on four selected horticultural crops, viz., aonla, papaya, coriander and mango in particular. As far as the status of area, production and yield of horticultural crops in the state of Rajasthan is concerned, the area under horticultural crops as a proportion of cultivable area was found to increase from 3.14 per cent during TE 2004-05 to 3.41 per cent during TE 2008-09. The total area under all horticultural crops has increased from 3, 23,347 hectares during TE 1980-81 to 8, 71,539 hectares during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. The total

39 production from all horticultural crops has increased from 1, 84,794 MT during TE 1980-81 to 18, 48,466 MT during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. The district-wise analysis of horticultural area in the state revealed that the horticultural area as a proportion of cultivable area was highest of 25.74 per cent in Jhalawar district and was lowest of 0.26 per cent in Hanumangarh district during TE 2008-09. As regards the growth of area and production of various types of horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal crops in Rajasthan from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09, it was observed that there were so many ups and downs in growth of both area and production of various types of horticultural crops during the period from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09. However, the instability in growth of yield was much higher than the instability in growth of area under these crops over the years. The share of area and production of spices has declined from 76 per cent and 33 per cent in 1980-81 to 58 per cent and 29 per cent in 2008-09 respectively. On the other hand, the share of area and production of medicinal crops has sharply increased from 7 per cent and 1 per cent in 1980-81 to 25 per cent and 6 per cent in 2008-09 respectively. The area under horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices and medicinal crops in Rajasthan during the period TE 1980-81 was 11777 hectares, 38660 hectares, 251911 hectares and 21000 hectares respectively. The production of various types of horticultural crops, viz., vegetables, spices and medicinal crops in Rajasthan during the period TE 1980-81 was 64088 MT, 118075 MT and 2681 MT respectively. The area under fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal crops in Rajasthan during the period TE 2008-09 was 29069 hectares, 130539 hectares, 495405 hectares, 3142 hectares and 213385 hectares respectively. The production of fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal crops in Rajasthan during the period TE 2008-09 was 483200 MT, 792788 MT, 473541 MT, 4241 MT, 94697 MT and 1848466 MT respectively. The annual growth rate of area and yield of all horticultural crops was 4.47 per cent and 11.01 per cent respectively between TE 1980- 81 and TE 1990-91. While the annual growth rate of area of horticultural crops has further increased to 4.63 per cent during the period of TE 1990-91 - TE 2000-01, the annual growth rate of yield of horticultural crops has declined to 0.74 per cent during the same period. The district-wise analysis of area and production of different types of horticultural crops for the periods TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09 reveals that the horticultural area was also highest of 1, 05,186 hectares in Barmer district and was also lowest of 872 hectares in Dungarpur district during TE 2008-09. The production of horticultural crops during the same period was highest (283982.9 MT) in Jhalawar district followed by 176428.4 MT in Jodhpur district, 165224.2 MT in Sri Ganganagar district. As far as the growth rate of area and yield

40 of horticultural crops in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that, between TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09, Rajsamund, Hanumangarh and Sirohi occupied first three positions with 15.1 per cent, 11.43 per cent and 10.64 per cent of annual growth in area under horticultural crops respectively. On the other hand, Sri Ganganagar, Bharatpur and Hanumangarh occupied first three positions with 43.44 per cent, 23.05 per cent and 16.20 per cent of annual growth in production of horticultural crops respectively between the same periods. The decadal analysis of the annual growth of four selected horticultural crops (aonla, papaya, coriander and mango) reveals that the first two decades, i.e., 1980-81 to 1990-91 and 1990-91 to 2000-01 have had remarkable growth in area and production of coriander crop. The growth in area under mango was noteworthy during 1980-81 to 1990-91, while the growth in production of mango was striking during 1990-91-2000-01. The growth of area and production of papaya and aonla was much better during last two decades, i.e., 1990-91 to 2000-01 and 2000-01 to 2008-09. Particularly, the growth of area and production of aonla was outstanding during the second decade of our study, i.e., 1990-91 to 2000-01. The area under aonla, papaya, coriander and mango in Rajasthan during the period TE 1985-86 was 8 hectares, 227 hectares, 110154 hectares and 442 hectares respectively. The production of aonla, papaya, coriander and mango during the same period was 8 MT, 469 MT, 40462 MT and 4026 MT respectively. The area under aonla, papaya, coriander and mango during the period TE 2008-09 was 1611 hectares, 435 hectares, 196396 hectares and 6231 hectares respectively. The production of aonla, papaya, coriander and mango during the same period was 12845 MT, 10108 MT, 198267 MT and 88586 MT respectively. The annual growth rate of area and yield of aonla was 27.93 per cent and 5.86 per cent respectively during the period from TE 2000-01 to TE 2008-09. The annual growth rate of area and yield of papaya was 2.15 per cent and 13.83 per cent respectively during the same period. The annual growth rate of area and yield of coriander was 3.31 per cent and -2.09 per cent respectively during the same period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09. The annual growth rate of area and yield of mango was -0.69 per cent and 0.08 per cent respectively during the same period. The district-wise analysis of area and production of selected four horticultural crops for the periods TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09 reveals that the area under aonla was highest in Ajmer district (133.1 hectares) and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in 4 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. Likewise, the area under aonla was also highest (252.3 hectares) in Ajmer district and was lowest of 0.0 ha in Dungarpur district of Rajasthan during TE 2008-

09. In the case of papaya, the area coverage was highest of 49.5 hectares in Chittorgarh district and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in 5 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. Chittorgarh district also occupied first position in terms of area under papaya with 62.2 hectares during TE 2008-09. The production of papaya in Chittorgarh district was also highest of 1647.8 MT and 4749.6 MT during TE 2004-05 and during TE 2008-09 respectively. No output of papaya was realized in 5 districts during TE 2004-05 and in 6 districts during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. As far as the district-wise analysis of area and production of coriander is concerned, the area under coriander was also highest (81555.0 hectares) in Jhalawar district and was lowest of 0.7 hectares each in Barmer, Dungarpur and Hanumangarh districts of Rajasthan during TE 2008-09. The production of coriander was highest of 81948.0 MT in Baran district, followed by 66313.0 MT and 44487.3 MT in Jhalawar district and Kota district respectively. The area under mango was also highest (779.1 hectares) in Udaipur district and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in 3 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2008-09. The production of mango was highest of 17789.4 MT in Chittorgarh district, followed by 10610.5 MT and 9380.7 MT in Udaipur district and Banswara district respectively during the same period.

Chapter III Household characteristics, Cropping Pattern and Production Structure

3.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Selected Farmers The National Horticulture Mission (NHM) was started in 2006 with a motive to promote holistic growth of orchards for fruits, vegetables, root and tuber crops, mushrooms, spices, flowers, aromatic plants, cashew and cocoa. The cultivation of horticultural crops involves higher cost of cultivation and generates higher returns to farmers compared to cultivation of cereals and other staple crops. The socio-economic characteristics of the farmers also have an important bearing on the decision to cultivate these cash crops. For example, the resource poor farmers normally don‟t prefer to go for horticultural crops because of scarcity of resources. They prefer to cultivate crops involving lower cost of production. On the other hand, the large farmers and richer farmers usually prefer to cultivate horticultural crops provided necessary provisions are available to them. Thus it is imperative to examine the characteristics of our sample farmers and their level of involvement in cultivation of horticultural crops. In addition to the socio economic characteristics, this chapter also discusses about the cropping pattern and production structure of 200 sample farmers covered under NHM in Rajasthan. Among the sample farmers, 44 were marginal farmers, 45 were small farmers, 57 were medium farmers and 54 were large farmers (Table 3.1). The average household (HH) size for entire sample was 7.47 persons. However, it is highest for large farmer category (8.50) and lowest for marginal category of farmers (6.11). The average number of earners per sample household was 2.93. It was highest in the case of marginal farmer category (3.45) and lowest in the case of large farmer category (2.73). Near about 39.2 per cent members were earning members in a sample family. The data given in Table 3.1 reveals that 52.68 per cent family members were male and 47.32 per cent were female. The proportion of female members was lowest (44.4%) in medium farmer category of households and was highest (50.93%) in marginal farmer category of households. It was good to find that about 67.47 per cent of all members of sample households belonged to „16-60 years‟ age group which considered as a productive age group. Only 7 per cent were aged above 60 years. In the large farmer category, the proportion

43 of members in the productive age group of 16-60 years was highest of 71.46. The proportion of members in the age group of less than 16 years was highest in marginal farmer category of households. All respondents of our sample households were heads of their households. Table 3.1: Demographic profile of the selected farmers (% of households) Characteristics Marginal Small Medium Large Total No of HH 44 45 57 54 200 Household size (numbers) 6.11 7.02 7.89 8.50 7.47 Average numbers of earners 3.45 2.87 2.92 2.73 2.93 Male 49.07 54.11 55.56 50.98 52.68 Gender (% of members) Female 50.93 45.89 44.44 49.02 47.32 <16 37.17 24.05 25.56 19.61 25.50 Age group of the members 16-60 59.11 68.99 67.33 71.46 67.47 (%) >60 3.72 6.96 7.11 8.93 7.03 Head 100 100 100 100 100 Identity of respondent (%) Others 0 0 0 0 0 Illiterate (> 6 yrs) 28.62 19.30 21.33 21.57 22.29 Up to primary 22.68 20.57 38.89 19.17 26.04 Education status of the Up to secondary 32.34 36.71 21.56 38.13 31.79 members (%) Up to graduate 7.06 15.51 11.11 13.07 11.91 Above graduate 1.49 3.80 2.67 3.49 2.95 SC 2.27 4.44 1.75 1.85 2.50 ST 84.09 31.11 12.28 12.96 32.50 Caste (% of households) OBC 13.64 42.22 71.93 66.67 51.00 General 0.00 22.22 14.04 18.52 14.00 Male 95.45 88.89 89.47 94.44 92.00 Decision maker (% of hh) Female 4.55 11.11 10.53 5.56 8.00 Farming 87.18 77.27 74.68 78.57 78.04 Main occupation (% of Self business 3.85 7.27 16.23 9.52 10.20 working memners) Salaried/pensioners 7.69 15.45 7.14 11.90 10.98 Wage earners 1.28 0.00 1.95 0.00 0.78 Involved in migration during year 2009 (% of 0.74 0.63 0.44 2.40 1.14 members) Note: HH stands for Households. Similarly, SC, ST and OBC represent Sehdule Caste, Sehedule Trribe and Other Backward Class respectively. Source: Field survey data

It may be seen that 22.29 percent members of sample households were illiterate and 69.74 per cent of them were literate from primary level to graduate level. About 57.83 percent members were educated from primary level to secondary level. The proportion of literate people in small farmer category was found to be highest of 80.70 per cent followed by

44 the same in medium farmer category (78.67%). The proportion of literate people in marginal farmer category was found to be lowest of 71.38 per cent. The cast composition of selected farmers as shown in Table 3.1 reveals that about 51 per cent sample households (HHs) belonged to OBC category, 32.50 percent HHs belonged to ST category, 2.50 percent HHs belonged to SC and remaining 14 per cent HHs belonged to general caste category. The farmer category wise analysis of caste composition reveals that about 84.09 percent HHs of marginal farmer category belonged to ST caste whereas 71.93 percent medium famer HHs belonged to OBC category. No HHs of marginal farmer category belonged to general caste. The data also reveals that the majority of decisions were taken by male farmers in the case of about 92 per cent of our sample HHs. Only 8 per cent sample HHs had females as decision makers. As far as the main occupation of the sample HHs is concerned, Table 3.1 shows that 78.04 per cent working members of sample HHs were engaged in farming, 10.20 per cent were engaged in self business, 10.98 per cent were salaried or pensioners and only 0.78 per cent were wage earners. On an Average, 15.45 per cent small farmers are salaried/pensioners and 16.23 per cent medium farmers were having their self business. The table also reveals that the migration as a means of occupation was adopted by only 1.14 percent members of sample HHs during 2008-09.

3.2 Characteristics of Operational Holdings The net sown area (NSA) and gross cropped area (GCA) of a sample household was found to be 8.85 acres and 16.76 acres respectively, which implies that the cropping intensity in the study area was 187 per cent. Thus the agricultural lands have been utilized in an effective manner by the sample farmers. It can be observed from Table 3.2 that almost entire net operated area (NOA) has been put under cultivation (i.e., 8.95 acre out of 9.01 acres) which is also same as the average size of land owned by a sample household. In the case of marginal farmer category, 1.86 acres out of 1.91 acres of NOA per household (HH) was owned land, whereas the owned land per HH in the case of small, medium and large farmers was 4.08 acres, 8.18 acres, and 19.69 acres respectively. It may be noted that the proportions of leased in land was very less in the case of our sample farmers. The proportions of leased out lands, cultivable waste lands and non-cultivable lands were nil in the case of the sample farmers. Among various categories of farmers, small farmers were found to cultivate their lands more

45 intensively as their cropping intensity was found to be highest of 227. The cropping intensity was found to be considerably at higher level (203) for medium farmers in our sample.

Table 3.2: Characteristics of operational holdings (acres per household) Farm size Owned Under Cultivable Non Leased- Leased - NOA NSA GCA Cropping land cultivation waste cultivable in out intensity (1) (1a) (1b) (1c) (2) (3) (1+2-3) Marginal 1.86 1.86 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 1.91 1.90 3.71 195 Small 4.08 4.08 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 4.15 4.15 9.40 227 Medium 8.18 8.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.18 8.18 16.64 203 Large 19.69 19.69 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 19.73 19.50 33.65 173 Total 8.95 8.95 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 9.01 8.95 16.76 187 Note: NOA implies Net Operated Aera; NSA implies Net Sown Area; GCA implies Gross Croped Area; Cropping Intensity= GCA/NSA×100 Source: Field survey data

3.3 Nature of Tenancy The tenancy contract, particularly share-cropping is the most popular form of tenancy contract. With this arrangement, a given fraction of output is paid as rent that makes the tenant, to some extent, to be insulated against output fluctuations, because he can share some of these fluctuations with his landlord. This is primarily an ex-ante risk management strategy used widely by the farmers to reduce their risk level in the drought prone areas. However, in our study area in Rajasthan, we found that the sample farmers preferred fixed rent in cash form of tenancy contract instead of share cropping. Table 3.3 shows the nature of tenancy in leased- in land in the study area. It may be seen that near about 0.06 acres per HH was leased in by the sample farmers and the entire leased in lands were leased in by the farmers in the form of fixed rent in cash. Small farmers acquired highest area of 0.07 acres of lease in land, followed by 0.05 acres by the marginal farmers and 0.03 acres by the large farmers.

Table 3.3: Nature of tenancy in leasing-in land in acres Farm size Share cropping Fixed rent in cash Fixed rent in Both cash and Against Others kind kind labour Marginal 0 (0.0) 0.05 (100.00) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Small 0 (0.0) 0.07 (100.00) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Medium 0 (0.0) 0.00 (100.00) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Large 0 (0.0) 0.03 (100.00) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) All farmers 0 (0.0) 0.06 (100.00) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Notes: Figures in parantheses are the percentages of total leasing in land. Source: Field survey data

3.4 Sources of Irrigation Production of most horticultural crops requires adequate water at critical growth stages. This makes supplemental irrigation a prerequisite for better profitability. Water quality and quantity are both important for healthy growth of horticultural crops. As revealed by Table 3.4 that about 8.26 acres out of 9.01 acres of NOA (91.6%) was irrigated through different sources by a sample farmer on an average. Among different farmer categories, large farmers were found to irrigate 18.43 acres out of 19.73 acres of NOA per HH (93.7%), followed by small farmers with 93.0 per cent of NOA as net irrigated area. As far as different sources of irrigation are concerned, highest of 76.07 per cent of total operated area of sample farmers was irrigated by tube wells run by electric and diesel out of which 65.91 per cent of NOA was irrigated by electric tube wells alone. Canal and tank and other source of irrigation are minor presence in the study area as their joint contribution is about 11.06 per cent in the case of our sample farmers. The irrigated area by only canals was 2.7 per cent of net operated area only. The canals as a source of irrigation was found to be used by the sample farmers in Banswara district only. Table 3.4: Source of irrigation of net operated area in acres Farm size Only canal Canal + Only electric Only diesel Tanks and Rainfed area Net Operated tubewell tubwell tubwell others Area (NOA) Marginal 0.14 (7.14) 0.00 (0.00) 0.67 (35.15) 0.53 (27.84) 0.10 (5.24) 0.47 (24.63) 1.91 (100.0) Small 0.08 (1.93) 0.00 (0.00) 3.02 (72.86) 0.42 (10.24) 0.33 (7.93) 0.29 (7.05) 4.15 (100.0) Medium 0.29 (3.60) 0.30 (3.72) 5.74 (70.17) 0.86 (10.46) 0.12 (1.46) 0.87 (10.59) 8.18 (100.0) Large 0.41 (2.09) 3.49 (17.70) 12.87 (65.25) 1.70 (8.62) 0.00 (0.00) 1.25 (6.34) 19.73 (100.0) All farmers 0.24 (2.70) 1.03 (11.42) 5.94 (65.91) 0.92 (10.16) 0.13 (1.44) 0.75 (8.36) 9.01 (100.0) Notes: Figures in parantheses are the percentages of total NOA. Source: Field survey data

The total rainfed area was 8.36 per cent in the case of all sample farmers which implies that about 91.6 per cent of NOA of sample farmers was irrigated from various sources. This is particularly because the selected farmers were beneficiaries of NHM and were having sufficient irrigated area so as to cultivate various cash crops. Though only 8.36 per cent land was rainfed on the whole, the proportion of rainfed area of marginal farmers was about one fourth of their total NOA. It was the highest of 24.03 per cent for marginal farmers where as the large farmers were having lowest rainfed area (6.34%).

3.5 Sources and Purpose of Credit Rural credit market in India is characterized by few distinctive features that the formal credit is readily available for elite class people such as large farmers who are trusted by the institutional lenders on the basis of their paying capacity, on the other hand, the access of poor marginal and small farmers to institutional credit is quite limited (Rao, 1980; Basu, 1983; Swain, 1986; Gupta and Shorf, 1987; Sarap, 1991; Jodhka, 1995). The inability to provide collateral such as land, jewellery, or house buildings as mortgage is the major hindrance for the marginal and small farmers in availing institutional credit. In most of the cases they don‟t possess such assets or lack valid documents to prove their ownership. Tenant farmers are also deprived of credit facilities from institutional sources, as the tenanted land is not legally accepted as mortgage by banks or cooperatives. So the poor marginal and small farmers are automatically screened out as potential beneficiaries of formal credit agencies (Swain, 2001; Swain and Swain, 2007). They not only suffer due to lack of their economic power, but also humiliated due to not having political influence. As a result, they fail to avail the benefits of a large numbers of developmental programmes those are specifically meant for them. Higher strata of the society are able to siphon off the resources originally meant for the poorer section. The only alternative left for the landless and marginal farmers is to repeatedly visit the moneylenders‟ doorstep to get the linked loans at exorbitant interest rates accepting large-scale exploitation. However, in the case of our sample farmers, the extent of dependence on informal sources of credit was very less. As revealed from Table 3.5, the loans availed by our sample farmers from traders/ money lenders/ landlord was only Rs 381.7 per HH, which is very less compared to loans availed from other sources. The lesser dependence on moneylenders is beneficial for the farmer community since they usually charge exorbitant rate of interest which varies from 24 per cent to 72 per cent per annum. Government programmes like Kisan Credit Card (KCC) and other institutional sources were the better and the major source of credit availed by our

48 sample farmers so far as the rate of interest is concerned. KCC scheme is very popular among the farmers because in this scheme farmers were benefited and utilized the credit for any kind of farming works with very lesser and fixed interest rate. The per-household credit from all sources for sample farmers was Rs 143740 out of which the credit amount from various institutional sources excluding government programmes was Rs 88034.4 (61.2%). It may also be noted that the major part of the total credit was borrowed from institutional sources such as banks i.e. commercial bank, co- operative bank and land development bank etc. The contribution of institutional sources to total credit for farming by marginal farmers, small farmers, medium farmers and large farmers was 63.1per cent, 35.6 per cent, 32.0 per cent and 72.1 per cent respectively. Large farmers have availed highest amount of institutional loans (Rs 370777.8 per HH), which is mainly because of the fact that one farmer of Jaipur district was given a loan of Rs 1.20 crore for construction of a rural godown. This has resulted in sharp jump in the amount of institutional loans taken by the sample large farmers.

Table 3.5: Details of source of credit by the selected households Farm size Institutional loan Commission Trad/ML/ Friends/ Govt. Others All soures by banks agents Landlord relatives programmes (Rs. per household) Marginal 9977.3 0.0 1750.0 0.0 4090.9 0.0 15818.2 Small 16844.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 30444.4 0.0 47288.9 Medium 33140.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 70403.3 0.0 103543.9 Large 267289.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 103488.1 0.0 370777.8 All farmers 88034.4 0.0 381.7 0.0 55323.9 0.0 143740.0 (Rs. per acre of NSA) Marginal 5248.7 0.0 920.6 0.0 2152.1 0.0 8321.4 Small 4060.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7338.7 0.0 11399.0 Medium 4050.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 8604.6 0.0 12654.9 Large 13710.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5308.3 0.0 19018.5 All farmers 9839.2 0.0 42.7 0.0 6183.3 0.0 16065.1 Notes: Trad=Traders, ML= Money lenders, NSA = Net sown area Source: Field survey data

So far as the distribution of credit per acre of NSA is concerned, the similar kind of pattern was also noticed. Marginal farmers availed an amount of Rs 5248.7 per acre from institutional banks and Rs 2152.1 through various government programmes. Only Rs 920.6 per acre was availed by them from local moneylenders, traders and landlords. All farmers taken together, the loan amount availed from these informal sources was as less as Rs 43.0 per acre of net sown area.

Small and medium farmers availed per acre loan amount of Rs 4060.4 and Rs 3947.4 respectively from various institutional sources. The farmers of these groups were successful in getting higher amount of loans from various government programmes also. Small and medium farmers availed per acre loan amount of Rs 7338.7 and Rs 8385.9 respectively from various government programmes whereas the marginal farmers got only Rs 2152.1 per acre from the same source. All farmers taken together, per acre loan of Rs 9924.8 was received by a sample farmer from various institutional sources and per acre loan of Rs 6237.1 was availed by a sample farmer from various government programmes. Among the institutional sources, State Bank of India, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Bank of Baroda, Rajasthan Gramin Bank and Punjab National Bank were major ones. Among the government programmes, Kisan Credit Card (KCC) issued through National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) and other commercial banks was the prominent one that benefitted the sample farmers most. Table 3.6 shows the utilization pattern of credit received by the sample farmers through various sources. All farmers taken together used the credit amount of Rs 137360 (95.6%) per household in various productive activities such as agriculture and allied activities. So far as the use of credit in various unproductive activities is concerned, a sample household used credit amount of Rs 2870, Rs 387 and Rs 2999 for daily consumption, social ceremonies and other unproductive uses respectively. Large farmers have used a big part of their credit (Rs 361155 per HH) in agricultural activities. The average amount of credit used in agricultural activities in the case of large farmer is found to be very high because of an outlier effect. A large farmer in Jaipur availed a loan amount of Rs 1.2 crores for building an agro-based go down. This substantial high amount pushed up the average spending of farmers in large farmer category. Once we ignore that major outlier of Rs 1.2 crores, the distribution of credit of sample farmers shows an increasing trend with the size of land holding (Figure 3.1) and the average amount of credit availed by a large farmer comes down to Rs 148556 from Rs 370778. Out of the total borrowings of Rs 370778 per HH, a household belonging to large farmers category used as large as Rs 9623 for daily consumption during the reference year. The selected marginal farmers have used credit amount of Rs 13614 and Rs 568 per HH in agriculture and animal husbandry respectively and about 89.65 per cent of total credit received by the marginal farmers was used in productive activities. Only 10.35 per cent of their credit was used in non-productive works like daily consumption, social ceremonies and others. Small, medium and large farmers used per HH credit amount of Rs 33956, Rs 102464 and Rs 361155 respectively for agricultural activities but they did not use the borrowed

50 amount for animal husbandry. Medium farmers have used highest amount of per HH credit of Rs 1053 for social ceremonies.

Figure 3.1. Distribution of borrowings (Rs per household) excluding a major outlier

800000

700000

600000

500000

400000

300000

200000 Loan amount in Rupees in amount Loan 100000

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Land holding size in acre

Table 3.6: Details of purpose of credit by the selected households(Rs per household)

Productive uses Non-productive uses Farm size Animal Daily Social Total Agriculture Others husbandry consumption ceremonies Marginal 13614 568 1114 409 114 15818

(86.06) (3.59) (7.04) (2.59) (0.72) (100.00) Small 33956 0 0 0 13333 47289

(71.80) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (28.20) (100.00) Medium 102464 0 0 1080 0 103544 (98.96) (0.00) (0.00) (1.04) (0.00) (100.00) Large 361155 0 9623 0 0 370778 (97.40) (0.00) (2.60) (0.00) (0.00) (100.00) All farmers 137360 124 2870 387 2999 143740 (95.56) (0.09) (2.00) (0.27) (2.09) (100.00) Note: Figures in parantheses are the percentages of total. Source: Field survey data

3.6 Holding of Productive Farm Assets Healthy level of holding of farm assets by the farmers helps them in proper technology adoption in agriculture and improvement in their production strategy which, in turn, helps to sustain the economic viability of agricultural and horticultural operations. Table 3.7 shows the ownership of productive farm assets by the sample HHs. The analysis has been carried out in two ways: (a) per household asset holdings and (b) asset holdings per acre of NSA.

3.6.1 Asset Holdings per Household It may be noted that the value of farm assets held by the marginal farmers was Rs 73470 per HH while that of small, medium and large farmers were Rs 213124, Rs 457572 and Rs 645250 respectively. The livestock was found to be a major component of total asset holdings for all categories of farmers. The value of total livestock contributed to the extent of 26 per cent to 48 per cent to the total asset value of different farmer categories. The value of total livestock for marginal farmers was 47.9 per cent of total asset value while for small, medium and large farmer categories, it was 36.2 per cent, 32.7 per cent and 27.0 per cent respectively. Thus the marginal farmers had proportionately more livestock in their total farm asset holdings. So livestock rearing was a major occupational source for marginal farmers and they were following the traditional method of cultivation with the help of these livestock while the medium and large farmers were depending more on agricultural tools and implements for their agricultural operations. Among these agricultural tools and implements, major ones were tractors, diesel and electric pump sets, trolley and harrows. It may be noted that, the second important asset holding by all farmers was tractor the value of which constituted about 34.8 per cent of the total value of productive assets. Marginal farmers were holding tractor of Rs 15909 (21.7%) per HH while that of small farmers, medium farmers and large farmers was of Rs 67778 (31.80 %), Rs 144825 (31.65 %) and Rs 253241 (39.25 %) per HH respectively. Electric pump set was also important asset for all size of farmers as it constituted about 8.1 per cent to 16.5 per cent of total productive assets for various farmer categories. The per HH value of electric pump set held by marginal farmers was Rs12091 whereas the same by small farmers, medium farmers and large farmers was Rs 23400, Rs 34456 and Rs 52407 respectively. The other assets like trolley, harrow, tiller, plank, threshing machine, diesel pump set, bullock cart, fodder chaffer, spray pump, storage bin, poultry sheds, dairy sheds and other assets constituted around 25.4 per cent for all farmers category. None of the farmers were having combine harvester machine and reaper in their asset holdings.

Table 3.7: Ownership of productive farm assets Rupees per household Rs per acre of NSA Farm assets Marginal Small Medium Large Total Marginal Small Medium Large Total

Tractor 15909 67778 144825 253241 128400 8369 16338 17700 12990 14351 Trolley 2727 10222 25579 43352 21895 1435 2464 3126 2224 2447 Harrow 455 2522 4965 10213 4840 239 608 607 524 541 Tiller 0 3478 6544 12389 5993 0 838 800 635 670 Plank 0 2544 5246 4185 3198 0 613 641 215 357 Threshing machine 0 5556 17193 33611 15225 0 1339 2101 1724 1702 Combine harvester 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other reaper (specify) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pumpset diesel 2250 4756 4772 4444 4125 1184 1146 583 228 461 Pumpset Electrictc 12091 23400 34456 52407 31895 6361 5641 4211 2688 3565 Bullock cart 2477 4222 4228 3519 3650 1303 1018 517 180 408 Fodder chaffer: (i)Manual 341 878 1868 1343 1168 179 212 228 69 130 (ii) Power driven 0 1178 1518 3185 1558 0 284 185 163 174 Spray pump 530 1418 3674 4074 2583 279 342 449 209 289 Storage bin 625 1502 2653 3880 2279 329 362 324 199 255 Poultry sheds 0 0 5263 2981 2305 0 0 643 153 258 Dairy sheds 886 6444 23965 19593 13765 466 1553 2929 1005 1538 Animals:(i) Cows 5943 15382 40281 52259 30359 3126 3708 4923 2681 3393 (ii) Buffaloes 15318 49111 90702 104815 68570 8058 11838 11085 5376 7664 (iii) Calves 4675 5689 13719 13593 9889 2459 1371 1677 697 1105 (iv) Goat 1811 1200 53 648 859 953 289 6 33 96 (v) Bullock 7432 5844 5018 2741 5120 3910 1409 613 141 572 (vi)Total livestock 35180 77227 149772 174056 114796 18507 18616 18305 8928 12830 Any other 0 0 21053 18778 11070 0 0 2573 963 1237 Total 73470 213124 457572 645250 368742 38650 51374 55923 33097 41213 Notes: Any other includes grading machines, matadoor, jeep etc.; NSA stands for net sown area Source: Field survey data

3.6.2 Asset Holdings per Acre of NSA Table 3.7 exhibits a clear picture about ownership of farm assets per acre of NSA of sample farmers of different farmer categories. Large farmers were found to have lowest value of farm assets of Rs 33097 per acre while marginal farmers, small farmers and medium farmers had a total asset value of Rs 38650, Rs 51374 and Rs 55923 per acre respectively. All farmers taken together, a household had farm assets of Rs 41213 per acre of NSA. Small farmers had highest value of total livestock of Rs 18616 per acre while marginal, medium, and large farmers had lower values of livestock of Rs 18507, Rs 18305 and Rs 8928 per acre respectively. So the small farmers earned more income from livestock per acre of net sown area compared to other categories of farmers. In terms of value of assets per acre, medium farmers had highest amount of asset values on tractor, trolley, plank, threshing machine, manual fodder chaffer, spray pump, poultry and dairy sheds, cows and calves compared to

53 other categories of farmers. Medium farmers had highest amount of asset values on other assets including grading machines, matador, jeep etc. All these helped the medium farmers to hold total farm assets of Rs 55923 per acre of NSA which was highest among various farmer categories.

3.7 Cropping Pattern of Sample Farmers Since our main objective is to analyze the effect of NHM in increasing area and productivity of horticultural crops, creating employment opportunities and enhancement of income of the farmers, it is pertinent to examine cropping pattern adopted by the sample households and particularly proportion of area devoted to different type of agricultural and horticultural crops. It is also worthwhile to examine and identify disparities in the cropping pattern among Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops. The cropping pattern of the sample household is presented in Table 3.8 that exhibits the area under different crops in acre and their percentage share to gross cropped area (GCA) per HH. The total GCA was 16.76 acre per HH for all farmers taken together whereas the large farmers had highest GCA of 33.65 acre per HH and marginal farmers had minimum GCA of 3.71 acres per HH. Medium and small farmer had 16.64 acres and 9.40 acres of GCA per HH respectively. Overall, the per-HH area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops cultivated by the sample farmers was 7.62 acres, 5.48 acres, and 3.67 acres respectively. In the case of marginal farmer category, the per-HH area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops was 1.61 acres, 1.24 acres and 0.86 acres respectively. The total GCA of a HH under small farmer category was 9.40, out of which, the area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops was 3.83 acres, 3.02 acres, and 2.55 acres respectively. In the case of medium farmer category, the per-HH area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops was 7.40 acres, 5.29 acres and 3.95 acres respectively. So far as the large farmer category is concerned, the per HH area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops was 15.89 acres, 11.17 acres and 6.60 acres respectively. Among various Kharif crops, maize was found to be an important crop cultivated by farmers of all categories and the share of maize in total GCA varied from 12 per cent to 27 per cent. The second important crop was bajra cultivated by farmers of all categories and the share of Bajra in total GCA varied from 7 per cent to 12 per cent. In the case of marginal farmer category, the total area under Kharif crops and Rabi crops was 76.94 per cent and the share of food grains, pulses and oilseeds was 66.83 per cent, 3.43 per cent and 3.19 per cent respectively.

Table 3.8: Cropping pattern of sample farmers (area in acre per HH) Marginal Small Medium Large Total Kharif crops during 2008 Bajra 0.28 (7.67) 1.06 (11.27) 1.95 (11.71) 3.28 (9.75) 1.74 (10.39) Groundnut 0.03 (0.77) 0.30 (3.18) 1.33 (7.97) 2.93 (8.70) 1.24 (7.41) Guar 0.04 (1.15) 0.45 (4.84) 0.71 (4.26) 1.24 (3.68) 0.65 (3.87) Maize 1.00 (27.10) 1.62 (17.24) 2.09 (12.54) 4.38 (13.02) 2.36 (14.11) Soyabean 0.05 (1.47) 0.08 (0.81) 0.84 (5.06) 2.85 (8.47) 1.04 (6.20) Tur 0.02 (0.61) 0.02 (0.19) 0.00 (0.00) 0.09 (0.28) 0.03 (0.20) Rice 0.06 (1.64) 0.12 (1.27) 0.16 (0.97) 0.26 (0.77) 0.16 (0.93) Urad 0.03 (0.74) 0.09 (0.99) 0.11 (0.68) 0.18 (0.53) 0.11 (0.64) Cotton 0.09 (2.33) 0.02 (0.19) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.22) 0.04 (0.26) Jowar 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.47) 0.08 (0.46) 0.17 (0.52) 0.08 (0.47) Sesamum 0.00 (0.00) 0.03 (0.30) 0.13 (0.80) 0.24 (0.72) 0.11 (0.66) Sugarcane 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.19 (0.55) 0.05 (0.30) Total Kharif 1.61 (43.48) 3.83 (40.76) 7.40 (44.46) 15.89 (47.21) 7.62 (45.44) Rabi crops during 2008 Wheat 1.05 (28.21) 2.20 (23.39) 3.41 (20.47) 6.43 (19.10) 3.43 (20.48) Gram 0.08 (2.08) 0.23 (2.42) 0.58 (3.47) 1.43 (4.25) 0.62 (3.69) Mustard 0.04 (0.96) 0.36 (3.87) 0.86 (5.18) 2.15 (6.40) 0.92 (5.47) Maize 0.08 (2.21) 0.04 (0.38) 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.11) 0.04 (0.21) Barley 0.00 (0.00) 0.19 (2.07) 0.45 (2.69) 1.12 (3.34) 0.47 (2.83) Total Rabi 1.24 (33.46) 3.02 (32.13) 5.29 (31.80) 11.17 (33.19) 5.48 (32.68) Horticultural crops during 2008-09 Aonla 0.11 (2.84) 0.90 (9.57) 1.03 (6.17) 1.13 (3.36) 0.82 (4.91) Brinjal 0.00 (0.12) 0.04 (0.39) 0.04 (0.22) 0.03 (0.10) 0.03 (0.17) Chilli 0.04 (1.10) 0.07 (0.70) 0.10 (0.58) 0.11 (0.32) 0.08 (0.48) Mango 0.36 (9.60) 0.46 (4.94) 0.58 (3.47) 0.89 (2.66) 0.59 (3.51) Onion 0.03 (0.78) 0.04 (0.44) 0.10 (0.57) 0.10 (0.30) 0.07 (0.42) Papaya 0.31 (8.38) 0.29 (3.05) 0.22 (1.32) 0.38 (1.13) 0.30 (1.78) Tomato 0.02 (0.47) 0.08 (0.89) 0.13 (0.79) 0.10 (0.31) 0.09 (0.53) Ber 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.15) 0.00 (0.00) 0.02 (0.07) 0.01 (0.06) Bael 0.00 (0.00) 0.06 (0.59) 0.03 (0.17) 0.12 (0.34) 0.05 (0.31) Coriander 0.00 (0.00) 0.43 (4.58) 1.11 (6.65) 2.62 (7.77) 1.12 (6.68) Garlic 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.44) 0.15 (0.92) 0.17 (0.52) 0.10 (0.60) Guava 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.15) 0.15 (0.92) 0.05 (0.14) 0.06 (0.35) Gunda/ Lisoda 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.15) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.02) Isabgoal 0.00 (0.00) 0.06 (0.67) 0.09 (0.53) 0.21 (0.62) 0.10 (0.57) Mosambi 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.41) 0.00 (0.00) 0.03 (0.09) 0.02 (0.10) Anar 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.11 (0.63) 0.32 (0.94) 0.12 (0.69) Cucumber 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.07) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.02) Fenugreek 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.05 (0.33) 0.05 (0.14) 0.03 (0.17) Lemon 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.40) 0.05 (0.14) 0.03 (0.19) Cauliflowar 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.05 (0.14) 0.01 (0.07) Kinnow 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.12 (0.35) 0.03 (0.19) Lady finger 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.03) 0.00 (0.02) Water melon 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.05 (0.14) 0.01 (0.07) Total 0.86 (23.30) 2.55 (27.11) 3.95 (23.74) 6.60 (19.60) 3.67 (21.89) horticultural Gross cropped 3.71 (100.0) 9.40 (100.0) 16.64 (100.0) 33.65 (100.0) 16.76 (100.0) area Note: Figures in parantheses are percentages of GCA of respective farmer category. Source: Field survey data.

The farmers of small farmer category cultivated Kharif crops and Rabi crops in 72.69 per cent of GCA and the share of food grains, pulses and oilseed was 56.10 per cent, 3.61 per cent and 8.15 percent respectively. In the case of medium farmer category, the total area under Kharif crops and Rabi crops was 76.26 per cent and the share of food grains, pulses and oilseeds was 48.85 per cent, 19.01 per cent and 4.15 per cent respectively. So far as large farmer category is concerned, the total area under Kharif crops and Rabi crops was 80.40 per cent and the share of food grains, pulses and oilseed was 46.61 per cent, 24.29 per cent and 5.05 per cent respectively. It may be noted that the medium and large category farmers have cultivated more area under commercial crops like oilseed and pulses compared to marginal and small farmers. The area under horticulture crop for all selected farmer categories ranged between 19 per cent and 27 per cent of GCA. The marginal farmers devoted more area under Mango and Papaya crops consisting about 9.60 per cent and 8.38 per cent of total horticulture area respectively. The small and medium category of farmers devoted more area under Aonla, Mango and Coriander crops while large farmers grew Coriander crop to the maximum extent because this crop had a very good marketing channel in the region and was fetching good profit for the farmers. The total area under horticultural crop in all categories was 3.67 acre per HH (21.89 per cent of GCA). Our four study crops aonla, papaya, mango and coriander were cultivated by the sample farmers in 0.82 acres, 0.30 acres, 0.59 acres and 1.12 acres per HH respectively. These data also reveals that medium farmers and large farmers were keenly interested in growing short duration crops like coriander, isabgol and garlic.

3.8 Irrigated Cropping Pattern As shown in Table 3.9, out of 16.76 acres of GCA per HH, 16.20 acres constituting about 96.6 per cent was irrigated in the case of sample farmers. Similarly, out of 8.95 acres of NSA per HH, about 8.26 acres constituting about 92.3 per cent was irrigated in the case of our sample farmers. It may be seen that about 7.11 acres (93.4%) of total Kharif area and 5.42 acres (98.9%) of total Rabi area were irrigated whereas about 3.67 acres (100.0%) of total horticultural area was irrigated during the reference year 2008-09. Thus the irrigation coverage in the case of our sample farmers was quite good. Since these sample farmers had taken up horticultural crops under NHM for which irrigation facility was essential, their overall irrigation coverage per HH was much more than that of average farmers of Rajasthan state in general.

Table 3.9 : Cropwise distribution of irrigated area (acre per HH) of sample farmers Crops Marginal Small Medium Large Total Kharif crops during 2008 Bajra 0.28 (100.00) 1.06 (100.00) 1.95 (100.00) 3.13 (95.41) 1.70 (97.67) Groundnut 0.03 (100.00) 0.30 (100.00) 1.29 (97.52) 2.69 (91.70) 1.17 (93.96) Guar 0.04 (100.00) 0.45 (100.00) 0.63 (88.54) 1.24 (100.00) 0.62 (96.43) Maize 0.82 (81.45) 1.42 (87.82) 1.84 (88.23) 3.75 (85.48) 2.04 (86.16) Soyabean 0.05 (100.00) 0.06 (81.76) 0.80 (95.00) 2.85 (100.00) 1.02 (98.54) Tur 0.00 (20.00) 0.02 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.09 (100.00) 0.03 (88.24) Rice 0.06 (100.00) 0.12 (100.00) 0.16 (100.00) 0.26 (100.00) 0.16 (100.00) Urad 0.03 (100.00) 0.09 (100.00) 0.07 (62.79) 0.18 (100.00) 0.10 (88.82) Cotton 0.08 (94.74) 0.02 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (100.00) 0.04 (97.67) Jowar 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (100.00) 0.08 (100.00) 0.17 (100.00) 0.08 (100.00) Sesamum 0.00 (0.00) 0.03 (100.00) 0.12 (91.80) 0.24 (100.00) 0.11 (97.16) Sugarcane 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.19 (100.00) 0.05 (100.00) Total Kharif 1.40 (87.03) 3.62 (94.48) 6.94 (93.85) 14.86 (93.52) 7.11 (93.42) Rabi crops during 2008 Wheat 0.97 (93.04) 2.10 (95.32) 3.41 (100.00) 6.43 (100.00) 3.39 (98.86) Gram 0.08 (100.00) 0.23 (100.00) 0.58 (100.00) 1.43 (100.00) 0.62 (100.00) Mustard 0.04 (100.16) 0.31 (84.71) 0.83 (96.18) 2.15 (100.00) 0.89 (97.61) Maize 0.08 (100.00) 0.04 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (100.00) 0.04 (100.00) Barley 0.00 (0.00) 0.19 (100.00) 0.45 (100.00) 1.12 (100.00) 0.47 (100.00) Total Rabi 1.17 (94.14) 2.86 (94.75) 5.26 (99.38) 11.17 (100.00) 5.42 (98.89) Horticultural crops during 2008-09 Aonla 0.11 (100.00) 0.90 (100.00) 1.03 (100.00) 1.13 (100.00) 0.82 (100.00) Brinjal 0.00 (100.00) 0.04 (100.00) 0.04 (100.00) 0.03 (100.00) 0.03 (100.00) Chilli 0.04 (100.00) 0.07 (100.00) 0.10 (100.00) 0.11 (100.00) 0.08 (100.00) Mango 0.36 (100.00) 0.46 (100.00) 0.58 (100.00) 0.89 (100.00) 0.59 (100.00) Onion 0.03 (100.00) 0.04 (100.00) 0.10 (100.00) 0.10 (100.00) 0.07 (100.00) Papaya 0.31 (100.00) 0.29 (100.00) 0.22 (100.00) 0.38 (100.00) 0.30 (100.00) Tomato 0.02 (100.00) 0.08 (100.00) 0.13 (100.00) 0.10 (100.00) 0.09 (100.00) Ber 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.02 (100.00) 0.01 (100.00) Bael 0.00 (0.00) 0.06 (100.00) 0.03 (100.00) 0.12 (100.00) 0.05 (100.00) Coriander 0.00 (0.00) 0.43 (100.00) 1.11 (100.00) 2.62 (100.00) 1.12 (100.00) Garlic 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (100.00) 0.15 (100.00) 0.17 (100.00) 0.10 (100.00) Guava 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (100.00) 0.15 (100.00) 0.05 (100.00) 0.06 (100.00) Gunda/ Lisoda 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.003 (100.00) Isabgoal 0.00 (0.00) 0.06 (100.00) 0.09 (100.00) 0.21 (100.00) 0.10 (100.00) Mosambi 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.03 (100.00) 0.02 (100.00) Anar 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.11 (100.00) 0.32 (100.00) 0.12 (100.00) Cucumber 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (100.00) Fenugreek 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.05 (100.00) 0.05 (100.00) 0.03 (100.00) Lemon 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (100.00) 0.05 (100.00) 0.03 (100.00) Cauliflowar 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.05 (100.00) 0.01 (100.00) Kinnow 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.12 (100.00) 0.03 (100.00) Lady finger 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (100.00) 0.00 (100.00) Water melon 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.05 (100.00) 0.01 (100.00) Total 0.86 (100.00) 2.55 (100.00) 3.95 (100.00) 6.60 (100.00) 3.67 (100.00) Horticultural GIA* 3.42 (92.4) 9.03 (96.1) 16.16 (97.1) 32.62 (96.9) 16.20 (96.6) NIA** 1.44 (75.7) 3.86 (93.0) 7.32 (89.4) 18.48 (94.8) 8.26 (92.3) Notes: (1)Figures in parantheses are percentage of irrigated area to sown area under respective crop. (2) *GIA stands for gross irrigated area. Figures in parantheses are percentage of irrigated area to GCA. (3) **NIA stands for net irrigated area. Figures in parantheses are percentage of irrigated area to NSA. Source: Field survey data. 57

In the case of marginal farmer category, the per-HH irrigated area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops was 1.40 acres (87.0%), 1.17 acres (94.1%) and 0.86 acres (100.0 %) respectively. The gross irrigated area (GIA) and net irrigated area (NIA) of a HH under small farmer category was 9.03 acres and 3.86 acres respectively. For this category, out of 9.03 acres of GIA, the irrigated area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops was 3.62 acres, 2.86 acres, and 2.55 acres respectively. In the case of medium farmer category, the per-HH irrigated area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops was 6.94 acres, 5.26 acres and 3.95 acres respectively. So far as the large farmer category is concerned, the per HH irrigated area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops was 14.86 acres, 11.17 acres and 6.60 acres respectively. Among various Kharif crops, the share of irrigated maize (2.04 acres) and bajra (1.70 acres) in total GIA was found to be more than that of other crops. Among Rabi crops, the irrigated area under wheat was 3.39 acres out of 5.42 acres. The irrigated area under all horticultural crops was 3.67 acre per HH which implies that entire area under horticultural crops was irrigated from different sources. So also our four study crops aonla, papaya, mango and coriander were fully irrigated.

3.9 Area under HYV and Organic Farming Table 3.10 shows that the area under high yielding variety (HYV) crops in acre per HH of our sample farmers. The table reveals that the total area under HYV crops was 15.50 acres per HH for all farmers taken together. The total area under HYV crops was about 92.47 per cent of GCA of a sample farmer. In the case of marginal farmer category, the total area under HYV crops during Kharif season was 1.24 acres out of 1.61 acres which implies that 77.01 per cent of total Kharif area of marginal farmers was cultivated with HYV crops. During Rabi season, marginal farmers cultivated 1.11 acres of area under HYV out of 1.24 acres. So far as cultivation of horticulture crop is concerned, marginal farmers cultivated the same in 0.84 acres out of 0.85 acres. Small farmers have cultivated HYV crops in 3.17 acres out of 3.83 acres during Kharif season and in 2.86 acres out of 3.02 acres during Rabi season. They have cultivated the total area of 2.42 acres of horticultural crops under HYV. The total area under HYV crops in the case of small farmers was 89.9 percent of their GCA of 9.4 acres per HH.

Table 3.10: Area under HYV crops (Area in acre per HH) Marginal Small Medium Large Total Kharif crops during 2008 Bajra 0.28 (7.67) 1.06 (11.27) 1.95 (11.73) 3.12 (9.26) 1.70 (10.14) Groundnut 0.03 (0.77) 0.28 (3.03) 1.32 (7.91) 2.93 (8.70) 1.24 (7.37) Guar 0.04 (1.15) 0.23 (2.44) 0.42 (2.52) 0.87 (2.58) 0.41 (2.47) Maize 0.72 (19.38) 1.37 (14.55) 2.04 (12.25) 4.31 (12.80) 2.21 (13.19) Soyabean 0.03 (0.74) 0.08 (0.81) 0.80 (4.81) 2.85 (8.47) 1.02 (6.09) Tur 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.09 (0.28) 0.03 (0.15) Rice 0.05 (1.40) 0.09 (0.99) 0.14 (0.85) 0.26 (0.77) 0.14 (0.85) Urad 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.43) 0.00 (0.00) 0.18 (0.53) 0.06 (0.34) Cotton 0.09 (2.33) 0.02 (0.19) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.22) 0.04 (0.26) Jowar 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.03 (0.10) 0.01 (0.06) Sesamum 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.10 (0.59) 0.09 (0.28) 0.05 (0.32) Sugarcane 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.19 (0.55) 0.05 (0.30) Total Kharif 1.24 (33.42) 3.17 (33.70) 6.76 (40.64) 14.99 (44.55) 6.96 (41.53) Rabi crops during 2008 Wheat 1.00 (27.10) 2.11 (22.44) 3.40 (20.41) 6.29 (18.69) 3.36 (20.06) Gram 0.00 (0.12) 0.16 (1.67) 0.29 (1.76) 0.93 (2.77) 0.37 (2.22) Mustard 0.04 (0.96) 0.36 (3.87) 0.86 (5.18) 2.01 (5.98) 0.88 (5.24) Maize 0.06 (1.72) 0.04 (0.38) 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.11) 0.03 (0.19) Barley 0.00 (0.00) 0.19 (2.07) 0.43 (2.60) 1.01 (2.99) 0.44 (2.62) Total Rabi 1.11 (29.90) 2.86 (30.42) 4.98 (29.94) 10.28 (30.55) 5.08 (30.33) Horticultural crops during 2008-09 Aonla 0.11 (2.84) 0.90 (9.57) 1.03 (6.17) 1.13 (3.36) 0.82 (4.91) Brinjal 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.09) 0.04 (0.22) 0.03 (0.10) 0.02 (0.13) Chilli 0.03 (0.86) 0.07 (0.70) 0.10 (0.58) 0.11 (0.32) 0.08 (0.47) Mango 0.36 (9.60) 0.46 (4.94) 0.58 (3.47) 0.89 (2.66) 0.59 (3.51) Onion 0.01 (0.40) 0.04 (0.44) 0.06 (0.38) 0.10 (0.30) 0.06 (0.34) Papaya 0.31 (8.38) 0.29 (3.04) 0.22 (1.32) 0.38 (1.13) 0.30 (1.78) Tomato 0.02 (0.47) 0.08 (0.89) 0.13 (0.79) 0.10 (0.31) 0.09 (0.53) Ber 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.15) 0.00 (0.00) 0.02 (0.07) 0.01 (0.06) Bael 0.00 (0.00) 0.06 (0.59) 0.03 (0.17) 0.12 (0.34) 0.05 (0.31) Coriander 0.00 (0.00) 0.43 (4.58) 1.11 (6.65) 2.62 (7.77) 1.12 (6.68) Garlic 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.07) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.02) Guava 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.15) 0.15 (0.92) 0.05 (0.14) 0.06 (0.35) Gunda/ Lisoda 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) Isabgoal 0.00 (0.00) 0.02 (0.22) 0.00 (0.00) 0.02 (0.07) 0.01 (0.07) Mosambi 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.41) 0.00 (0.00) 0.03 (0.09) 0.02 (0.10) Anar 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.11 (0.63) 0.32 (0.94) 0.12 (0.69) Cucumber 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) Fenugreek 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.26) 0.03 (0.10) 0.02 (0.13) Lemon 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.40) 0.05 (0.14) 0.03 (0.19) Cauliflowar 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.05 (0.14) 0.01 (0.07) Kinnow 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.12 (0.35) 0.03 (0.19) Lady finger 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.03) 0.00 (0.02) Water melon 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.05 (0.14) 0.01 (0.07) Total 0.84 (22.55) 2.42 (25.78) 3.67 (22.02) 6.23 (18.50) 3.45 (20.61) horticultural crops Gross cropped 3.18 (85.87) 8.45 (89.90) 15.41 (92.61) 31.50 (93.59) 15.50 (92.47) area (all HYV crops) Gross cropped 3.71 (100.0) 9.40 (100.0) 16.64 (100.0) 33.65 (100.0) 16.76 (100.0) area (all crops)

Note: Figures in parantheses are percentages of GCA of respective farmer category. Source: Field survey data.

Medium farmers have cultivated HYV crops in 6.76 acres out of 7.4 acres during Kharif season and in 4.98 acres out of 5.29 acres during Rabi season. They have cultivated the total area of 3.67 acres of horticultural crops under HYV out of 3.95 acres of total horticultural area of a medium farmer. The total area under HYV crops in the case of medium farmers was 92.61 percent of their GCA. In the case of large farmers, the area cultivated under HYV crops was 14.99 acres out of 15.89 acres during Kharif season and was 10.28 acres out of 11.17 acres during Rabi season. They have cultivated the total area of 6.23 acres of horticultural crops under HYV while the total area under horticultural crops under both HYV and local varieties was 6.6 acres per HH. The per HH area under HYV crops in the case of large farmers was 31.5 acres (93.6%) out of 33.65 acres of GCA. It may also be noted that the HYV varieties of gram and urad crops were cultivated in 0.37 acres and 0.06 acres respectively, while the total area under these two crops was 0.62 acres and 0.11 acres respectively. Among horticultural crops, coriander and aonla were cultivated in 1.12 acres and 0.82 acres respectively which were 100 per cent of their respective total area. All farmers used different types of HYV seeds with a purpose of getting higher yield and higher returns. Table 3.11 shows the area under organic farming for different farmer categories. The table shows that only one farmer of large farmer category in Banswara district has cultivated Mango with organic fertilizer while rest of 199 farmers used chemical fertilizer in cultivating different crops. Thus, the area under organic farming was nil for all categories of farmers except large farmers. The total area under organic farming was only 5.6 acres which was cultivated by only one farmer. Thus the average area under organic farming per HH was only 0.10 acres in the case of large farmer category and 0.03 acres in the case of all farmers taken together. In other words, only 0.31 per cent of total GCA of large farmers and 0.17 per cent of GCA of all farmers were under organic farming.

Table 3.11: Area under organic farming (Area in acre per HH) Marginal Small Medium Large Total Kharif crops during 2008 Total Kharif 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rabi crops during 2008 Total Rabi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Horticultural crops during 2008-09 Mango* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 (0.31) 0.03 (0.17) Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 (0.31) 0.03 (0.17) horticultural crops Gross cropped 3.71 9.40 16.64 33.65 (100.0) 16.76 (100.0) area Notes: Figures in parantheses are percentage of GCA of respective farmer category. * Only one farmer cultivated mango of 5.64 acres under organic farming. Source:Field survey data.

3.10 Production, Costs and Returns by Farm Size Horticultural crops normally generate higher returns compared to other agricultural crops like paddy, wheat etc. These crops are of high value and cultivation of these crops results in greater potential for per-acre returns and production costs than traditional agricultural crops. Because of their perishable nature, most horticultural crops need special post-harvest handling. Their limited storage life requires products to become extensively involved in the marketing process. Since the cultivation of these horticultural crops requires more care and attention, the cost of cultivation of these crops is also higher compared to cultivation of other agricultural crops. Table 3.12A and Table 3.12B show the production structure, value of output, cost and net returns from aggregate of all crops including the horticultural crops during the reference year 2008-09. The analysis has been carried out in two ways: (a) per- household production, cost and returns and (b) per-acre production, cost and returns. The per- acre analysis of production, costs and returns has been further analyzed in terms of per-acre of NSA and per-acre of GCA.

3.10.1 Per-Household Production, Costs and Returns The gross value of annual output across all size groups of farmers was Rs 347821 per household (HH), while the total cost of cultivation of all crops including material cost and labour cost was Rs 184988 per HH. Thus the net return from cultivation of all types of crops was Rs 162833 per HH. The maximum annual net return from cultivation of agricultural crops was earned by large farmers which was Rs 323789 per HH whereas the marginal, small

61 and medium farmers generated farm business income of Rs 26769, Rs.72835 and Rs. 187406 per HH respectively.

Table 3.12A: Value of output, cost and net returns per household for the 2008-09 – aggregate of all crops (Rs/HH) Farmer Value of output Material Labour Total cost of Net returns Non- farm Total income category (main + byproduct) Cost Cost production (Farm income Marginal 68939 24085 18084 42169 business26769 17915 44684 Small 174281 65843 35604 101447 72835 103491 176326 Medium 364894 115316 62170 177486 187406 132193 319599 Large 701654 242422 135441 377863 323789 164185 487974 Total 347821 118642 66347 184988 162833 109232 272065 Note: Labour cost includes the imputed value of family labour Source: Field survey data

The total cost consisted of material cost and labour cost. Table 3.12A also shows that the material cost was more than the labour cost for all size groups of farmers. The per-HH material cost and labour cost ratio was in the ratio of 64.1: 35.9 in the case of all farmers taken together. Non-farm income generated by all farmer categories taken together ranged between Rs 17915 and Rs 164185 per HH. Small farmers have gained maximum non-farm income in percentage term (56.61 per cent) while the income generated from non-farm activities by medium farmers, marginal farmers and large farmers was 42.06 per cent, 36.64 per cent and 32.44 per cent of total household income respectively. The average family income generated by our sample farmers from various farm and non-farm activities was Rs 272065 per HH. Large farmers earned highest total household income of Rs 487974 per HH followed by medium farmers (Rs 319599), small farmers (Rs 176326) and marginal farmers (Rs 44684).

3.10.2 Per-Acre Production, Costs and Returns When we analyze the per-acre value of crop output, cost of production and net return instead of per-HH values, we get entirely different kind of scenario. The net return from all crops was highest for medium farmers (Rs 11261 per acre of GCA and Rs 22904 per acre of NSA). The large farmers, small farmers and marginal farmers had earned Rs 9621, Rs 7750 and Rs 7223 of net farm income per acre of their gross cropped area respectively. Similarly, the large farmers, small farmers and marginal farmers had earned Rs 16608, Rs 17557 and Rs 14082 of net farm income per acre of their NSA respectively (Table 3.12B). The medium farmers have obtained highest total value of output of Rs 44596 per acre of NSA whereas the large farmers, marginal farmers and small farmers have obtained crop output of Rs 35990, Rs 36266 and Rs 42011 per acre of NSA respectively. Small farmers

62 have spent highest amount of material cost of Rs 15871 per acre of NSA whereas the large farmers have spent minimum amount of material cost of Rs 12435 for all crops cultivated. The average labour cost incurred by all farmers was Rs 7415 per acre of NSA. However, it was the marginal farmers who spent maximum amount of Rs 9514 per acre of NSA towards the labour cost. In the case of large farmers, the amount of labour cost was lowest of Rs 6947 per acre of NSA. However, it is noteworthy that the major part of labour cost in the case of marginal farmers and small farmers was on account of their family members who were engaged in the agricultural activities on their own lands.

Table 3.12B: Value of output, cost and net returns per acre for the 2008-09 – aggregate of all crops (Rs/Acre) Farmer Value of output Material Cost Labour Cost Total cost of Net returns (Farm category (main + byproduct) production business income) Per acre Per acre Per acre Per acre Per acre Per acre Per acre Per acre Per acre Per acre of of NSA of GCA of NSA of GCA of NSA of GCA of NSA of GCA of NSA GCA Marginal 36266 18601 12670 6499 9514 4880 22184 11378 14082 7223 Small 42011 18544 15871 7006 8582 3788 24454 10794 17557 7750 Medium 44596 21925 14094 6929 7598 3736 21692 10664 22904 11261 Large 35990 20849 12435 7203 6947 4024 19382 11228 16608 9621 Total 38874 20753 13260 7079 7415 3959 20675 11038 18199 9716 Notes: Labour cost includes the imputed value of family labour; NSA stands for net sown area and GCA stands for gross cropped area. Source: Field survey data

The total cost of production in case of all farmers category was Rs 20675 per acre of NSA and Rs 11038 per acre of GCA. The small farmers spent highest amount of total cost of Rs 24454 per acre of NSA whereas the large farmers spent lowest amount of total cost of Rs 19382 per acre. The net returns from crop production in the case of all farmers category was Rs 18199 per acre of NSA and Rs 9716 per acre of GCA. The medium farmers could generate highest amount of net returns of Rs 22904 per acre of NSA followed by small farmers (Rs 17557), large farmers (Rs 16608) and marginal farmers (Rs 14082).

3.11 Summary of the Chapter This chapter is mainly deals with the socio economic characteristics, cropping pattern and production structure of 200 sample households. The cropping intensity, the nature of tenancy, sources of irrigation for various farmer categories, per household and per acre asset holdings of the sample farmers, the sources and purposes of credit for various farmer categories, the area under various horticultural crops, per household and per acre cost of cultivation, gross value of output and net returns from all crops by different farmer categories, the average

63 family income generated by our sample farmers from various farm and non-farm activities have been analyzed in this chapter. Among the sample farmers, 44 were marginal farmers, 45 were small farmers, 57 were medium farmers and 54 were large farmers. The average household (HH) size for entire sample was 7.47 persons. The average number of earners in a sample household was 2.93. It was good to find that about 67.5 per cent of all members of sample households belonged to 16-60 years age group which considered as a productive age group. Only 7.0 per cent were aged above 60 years. All respondents of our sample households were heads of their households. About 22.3 percent members of sample households were illiterate and 69.7 per cent of them were literate from primary level to graduate level. As far as the cast composition of selected farmers is concerned, about 51 per cent sample households (HHs) belonged to OBC category, 32.5 percent HHs belonged to ST category, 2.5 percent HHs belonged to SC and remaining 14 per cent HHs belonged to general caste category. The majority of decisions were taken by male members in the case of about 92 per cent of our sample HHs. As far as the main occupation of the sample HHs is concerned, about 78.8 per cent of working members of sample HHs were engaged in farming, 10.2 per cent were engaged in self business, 10.98 per cent were salaried or pensioners and only 0.78 per cent were wage earners. The net sown area (NSA), net operated area (NOA) and gross cropped area (GCA) of sample households was found to be 8.95 acres, 9.01 acres and 16.76 acres per HH respectively and the cropping intensity in the study area was 187 per cent. As regards the nature of tenancy in leased- in land in the study area, near about 0.06 acres per HH was found to be leased in by the sample farmers and the entire leased in lands were leased in by the farmers in the form of fixed rent in cash. The total rainfed area was 8.36 per cent in the case of all sample farmers which implies that about 91.6 per cent of NOA of sample farmers was irrigated from various sources, mainly through tube wells run by electric and diesel. This is particularly because the selected farmers were beneficiaries of NHM and were having sufficient irrigated area so as to cultivate various cash crops. The per-household credit from all sources for sample farmers was Rs 143740 out of which the credit amount from various institutional sources excluding government programmes was Rs 88034.4 (61.2%). The contribution of institutional sources to total credit for farming by marginal farmers, small farmers, medium farmers and large farmers was 63.1per cent, 35.6 per cent, 32.0 per cent and 72.1 per cent respectively. All farmers taken together, per acre loan of Rs 9924.8 was received by a sample farmer from various institutional sources and per acre loan of Rs 6237.1

64 was availed by a sample farmer from various government programmes. All farmers taken together used the credit amount of Rs 137360 (95.6%) per household in various productive activities such as agriculture and allied activities. The value of farm asset holdings of marginal farmers was Rs 73470 per HH while that of small, medium and large farmers were Rs 213124, Rs 457572 and Rs 645250 respectively. All farmers taken together, a household had farm assets of Rs 41213 per acre of NSA. The livestock was found to be a major component of total asset holdings for all categories of farmers. The per-HH area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops cultivated by the sample farmers was 7.62 acres, 5.48 acres, and 3.67 acres respectively. The total area under HYV was 15.50 acre per HH and its share in GCA was 92.47 per cent for all farmers category. Among various Kharif crops, maize was found to be an important crop cultivated by farmers of all categories and the share of maize in total GCA varied from 12.5 per cent to 27.1 per cent. The total area under horticulture crop in all categories was 3.67 acres per HH (21.89 per cent of GCA). The area under horticulture crop for all selected farmer categories ranged between 19.6 per cent and 27.1 per cent of GCA. Our four study crops aonla, papaya, mango and coriander were cultivated by the sample farmers in 0.82 acres, 0.30 acres, 0.59 acres and 1.12 acres per HH respectively. Out of 16.76 acres of GCA per HH, 16.20 acres constituting about 96.6 per cent was irrigated in the case of sample farmers. Similarly, out of 8.95 acres of NSA per HH, about 8.26 acres constituting about 92.3 per cent was irrigated in the case of our sample farmers. About 7.11 acres (93.4%) of total Kharif area and 5.42 acres (98.9%) of total Rabi area were irrigated whereas about 3.67 acres (96.6%) of total horticultural area was irrigated during the reference year 2008-09. The area under organic farming was nil for all categories of farmers except large farmers. The total area under organic farming was only 5.6 acres which was cultivated by only one farmer. Thus the average area under organic farming per HH was only 0.10 acres in the case of large farmer category and 0.03 acres in the case of all farmers taken together. The gross value of output across all size groups of farmers was Rs 347821 per household (HH), while the total cost of cultivation of all crops including material cost and labour cost was Rs 184988 per HH. Thus the net return from cultivation of all types of crops was Rs 162833 per HH. The material cost was more than the labour cost for all size groups of farmers. The per-HH material cost and labour cost ratio was in the ratio of 64.1: 35.9 in the case of all farmers taken together. The average family income generated by our sample farmers from various farm and non-farm activities was Rs 272065 per HH.

Chapter 4 The Production Structure and Resource Use under Horticulture Crops

4.1 Economics of Production, Cost and Resource Use in Horticulture The horticulture sector encompasses a wide range of crops namely fruit crops, vegetables crops, potato and tuber crops, ornamental crops, medicinal and aromatic crops, spices and plantation crops. New introductions like mushroom, bamboo and bee keeping further expanded the scope of horticulture. The increase in horticultural production requires availability of adequate resource base, quality planting materials and necessary infrastructure. Inadequate availability of plant material and other resources is one of the major impediments for healthy growth in area, production and productivity of horticultural crops. Massive area expansion under improved varieties, replanting, planting in marginal and arid areas, etc. require a huge demand for quality planting material and a sound supporting infrastructure. In this chapter, an analysis has been made on availability of different planting materials, cost incurred by different categories of sample farmers on different types of inputs and the production and revenue generated by them from the cultivation of selected horticultural crops for which they had received the assistance from NHM. Economics of production, cost and resources use in cultivation of horticultural crops has been presented in Table 4.1 to Table 4.4 for four selected crops, viz., aonla, papaya, coriander and mango. As already indicated in the methodology section, the data on economics of cultivation of these four crops were collected from different districts of Rajasthan, i.e., Jaipur for aonla, Alwar and Banswara for papaya, Chittorgarh for coriander and Banswara for mango for the reference year 2008-09. For all these study crops, the variable costs and fixed costs have been computed separately. The fixed cost including preparatory tillage, planting material, supporting material etc. is amortized into the life span of the study crops. The following annual amortization method is used for calculating annual value of fixed cost (Subrahmanyam and Mohandoss, 1982; Gondalia and Patel, 2007): i A = P ------1 - (1 + i) - n

Where, A = Annual sum (in Rs) P = Present sum (in Rs) i = the interest rate or discount rate (10%) n = Economic life period of study plants (no. of years) The annual amortization of cost was computed from the investment made on long and medium duration study crops (aonla, mango and papaya) from plantation year up to the reference year 2008-09, assuming that the rate of interest to be 10 per cent. It was also assumed that the expected economic life of aonla, mango and papaya was 35 years, 40 years and 3 years respectively. Thus, annual amortization cost was worked out using the compounding cost formula and by adding it to the variable cost for estimating the annual total cost of cultivation of these study crops of respective farm groups. The annual net return was calculated by deducting the total cost from total revenue generated per annum. The crop wise analysis of economics of cultivation of the selected horticultural crops has been made in the following sections.

4.1.1 The Case of Aonla Crop Table 4.1 presents the cost of cultivation, production and net returns from cultivation of aonla crop for different categories of sample farmers. Among the sample farmers cultivating aonla crop, 4 were marginal farmers, 13 were small farmers, 18 were medium farmers and 15 were large farmers. It may be seen that the average area covered under aonla crop was 3.3 acres per household. Among different categories of farmers, large farmers cultivated aonla in highest area of 4.08 acres per household (HH), followed by medium farmers (3.25 acres) and small farmers (3.11 acres). Marginal farmers cultivated aonla in 1.16 acres of land per household. As discussed earlier, total cost of cultivation has been divided into two parts: fixed cost and variable cost. Further the variable cost has been divided into two parts: (1) material cost and (2) labour cost. The labour cost component of both variable cost and fixed cost included the imputed value of family labour which was valued at the prevailing wage rate for unskilled labour. The total cost of cultivating aonla crop in the case of all farmers category was Rs 20899 per acre, out of which, the total variable cost was Rs 18584 per acre (88.9%) and total fixed cost was Rs 2316 per acre. Out of this total fixed cost, Rs 2093 (10.0%) was spent towards the material component and only Rs 223 (1.1%) was spent towards the labour component. The total annual per-acre cost of cultivation of aonla was found to be highest of

Rs 22694 for marginal farmers and lowest of Rs 19697 for large farmers. The per-acre cost of cultivation of aonla was comparatively less for large farmers because of use of better agricultural tools and implements. Since the marginal farmers resorted to more labour works, the average variable cost was more for them. The per-acre variable cost of cultivation of aonla for marginal farmers was Rs 21812 (96.1%). It may be noted that the variable labour cost alone was Rs 5917 (26.1%) per acre in the case of marginal farmers. The marginal farmers spent Rs 1070 per acre towards preparatory tillage whereas the large farmers spent only Rs 899 (4.6%) per acre for the same. Besides the variable labour cost, the shares of manure and fertilizer, irrigation and plant protection in the total variable cost were prominent ones. These three components accounted for about 45.1 per cent to 48.8 per cent of total variable cost for different farmer categories. Marginal farmers spent Rs 6692 for manure and fertilizer, Rs 1438 for irrigation and Rs 2539 for plant protection. So a total of Rs 10669 (48.91%) was spent by marginal farmers per acre towards the above-said three cost components. On the other hand, only Rs 8146 was spent by large farmers on the same front that accounted for about 47.1 per cent of total variable cost and 32.04 percent of total cost of cultivation of aonla. Repair, maintenance and depreciation cost was found to be another important component of variable cost in cultivation of aonla crop. Medium farmers spent highest amount of Rs 2749 (12.7%) towards repair, maintenance and depreciation cost whereas the marginal farmers, small farmers and large farmers spent Rs 1982, Rs 2268 and Rs 1917 towards repair and maintenance cost. On an average, Rs 2200 (10.5%) was spent per acre by all categories of farmers towards the repair and maintenance cost of cultivating aonla. Harvesting and collection cost was nil in the case of marginal, small and medium farmers. Very little amount (Rs 12) was spent by the large farmers for collecting aonla crop from the fields. This was mainly because of the fact that the majority of farmers did not get enough output to collect during the reference year. Aonla being a long duration crop needed more time for output to come. Topping/pruning activity cost was also nil in case of all categories of farmers.

Table 4.1: Cost of cultivation, production and net returns per acre from aonla crop (Rs per acre) Farm size Marginal Small Medium Large All farmers Average area planted (acres) 1.16 3.11 3.25 4.08 3.30 1070 895 1146 899 982 Preparatory tillage (4.72) (4.20) (5.28) (4.56) (4.70) 6692 4300 6106 5324 5331 Manure & fertilizer (29.49) (20.19) (28.12) (27.03) (25.51) 80 216 225 212 213 Transplanting & gap filling (0.35) (1.01) (1.04) (1.08) (1.02) 1438 1265 1316 937 1165 Irrigation, canal, electricity and diesel (6.34) (5.94) (6.06) (4.76) (5.58) 778 721 339 383 477 Weeding and Inter cultural operations (3.43) (3.38) (1.56) (1.95) (2.28) 0 0 0 0 0 Topping / pruning (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 2539 2660 2279 1886 2248 Plant protection, pesticides etc. (11.19) (12.49) (10.49) (9.57) (10.76) 1982 2268 2749 1917 2200 Repair, maintenance and depreciation@ (8.74) (10.65) (12.66) (9.73) (10.53) 0 0 0 12 4 Harvesting and collection (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.06) (0.02) 735 378 548 473 479 Grading, storage, transport, packing (3.24) (1.78) (2.52) (2.40) (2.29) 0 0 0 0 0 Market/mandi fee etc. (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 580 356 429 841 698 Interest on working capital# (2.56) (1.67) (1.98) (4.27) (3.34) 5917 5190 4746 4415 4786 Variable labour cost (26.07) (24.37) (21.85) (22.41) (22.90) 21812 18248 19884 17298 18584 Total variable cost (96.11) (85.67) (91.57) (87.82) (88.92) Fixed cost including planting 799 2784 1651 2155 2093 Material cost material, field preparation cost, (3.52) (13.07) (7.60) (10.94) (10.01) supporting material and irrigation 83 268 180 244 223 Labour cost setup ## (0.37) (1.26) (0.83) (1.24) (1.06) 22694 21300 21715 19697 20899 Total cost (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Total revenue 15027 14983 18428 13770 15622 Total revenue - total cost -7667 -6317 -3287 -5927 -5277 Total revenue - total variable cost -6785 -3265 -1457 -3528 -2961 Output produced per acre (quintals) 11.70 10.36 12.57 10.88 11.34 Notes: All variable cost items consist of two components: (i) Bearing period cost - that is already during the reference period (i.e., 2008-09) (ii) Cost during the plantation year/gestation period - that has been brought into the 2008-09 prices from the year of plantation/gestation. @ Repair, maintenance and depreciation is 10% discounted value of agricultural assets holdings including tractor & implements and tubewell motor etc. that is divided in proportionate to each crop sown during the year. # Interest on working capital is interest paid on the loans/borrowing divided in proportionate to each crop sown during the year. ## Fixed cost has been amortised with 10 per cent discount rate. Source: Field survey data

Fixed cost including planting material, field preparation cost, supporting material and irrigation setup was divided into two components out of which, one was material cost and another was labour cost. All farmers category spent on an average Rs 2093 (10.9%) and Rs 223 (1.1%) towards the material cost component and labour cost component of total fixed cost involved in cultivating aonla crop respectively. Small farmers spent highest amount of Rs 2784 (13.1%) towards the material cost whereas the marginal farmers spent only Rs 799 (3.5%) towards the same. Marginal farmers spent very less amount towards the fixed cost because they planted aonla crop mostly in unirrigated or semi irrigated condition. On an average, about 11.34 quintals of output of aonla was realized from an acre of land by sample farmers. As far as the gross and net revenues generated from the cultivation of aonla crop is concerned, it may be noted that the per-acre total revenue generated was highest (Rs18428) in the case of medium farmers and was the lowest (Rs13770) in the case of large farmers. Since the total revenue was less than the total cost in case of all categories of farmers, the per-acre net return was found to be negative in all cases. On an average, about Rs 5277 was the net loss (total cost less total revenue) per acre of aonla during the reference year 2008-09. The main reason of getting negative returns was that the aonla crop was a long duration crop and the majority of our sample farmers had planted aonla for last three to four years. During the early stages, the annual investment was high but the output was nil or very low and the revenue generated was very less. Therefore, net annual returns were very low. However, majority expressed that the net return would be positive in near future because yield rate was remarkable in case of all categories of farmers. Some aonla growers were worried about low production due to frost and low temperature during winter season that resulted in late bearing of fruits and small sized fruits.

4.1.2 The Case of Papaya Crop Table 4.2 presents the cost of cultivation, production and net returns from cultivation of papaya crop for different categories of sample farmers. Among the sample farmers cultivating papaya crop, 21 were marginal farmers, 13 were small farmers, 8 were medium farmers and 8 were large farmers. It may be seen that the average area covered under papaya crop was 1.19 acres per household (HH). Among different categories of farmers, large farmers cultivated papaya in highest area of 2.57 acres per HH, followed by medium farmers (1.56 acres) and small farmers (0.99 acres). Marginal farmers cultivated papaya in 0.65 acres of land per household.

The total cost of cultivating papaya crop in the case of all farmers category was Rs 28560 per acre, out of which, the total variable cost was Rs 18786 per acre (65.8%) and total fixed cost was Rs 7400 per acre (25.9%). The total per-acre cost of cultivation was found to be highest of Rs 34999 for medium farmers and lowest (Rs 19425) for marginal farmers. The per-acre variable cost of cultivation of papaya for medium and large farmers was Rs 21914 (62.6%) and Rs 20703 (59.8%) respectively. It may be noted that the variable labour cost alone was Rs 4382 (17.48%) per acre in the case of marginal farmers. As stated earlier, total variable cost of cultivating papaya crop was Rs 18786 (65.8%) per acre. Among different kinds of variable cost, manure and fertilizers, irrigation, plant protection, and repair and maintenance cost were four important cost components that were spent by sample farmers on cultivation of papaya. These four components accounted for about 56.5 per cent to 65.1 per cent of total variable cost for different farmer categories. Large farmers spent highest amount of Rs 13479.9 (65.1% of total variable cost) per acre on these four important cost components. Marginal farmers spent lowest amount of Rs 8757.6 (56.52% of total variable cost) on these four important cost components. Marginal farmers spent Rs 3366 for manure and fertilizer, Rs 2070 for irrigation, Rs 1339 for plant protection and Rs 1982 on repair and maintenance per acre of cultivating papaya. On the other hand, large farmers spent Rs 7117 for manure and fertilizer, Rs 2472 for irrigation, Rs 1974 for plant protection and Rs 1917 on repair and maintenance. Medium farmers spent Rs 3852 for manure and fertilizer, Rs 4317 for irrigation, Rs 1716 for plant protection and Rs 2749 on repair and maintenance per acre of cultivating papaya. On an average, Rs 11214.9 (59.7% of total variable cost) was spent per acre of cultivating papaya by all farmers category towards these four important cost components. The production of papaya was 72.3 quintals per acre on an average for the sample farmers. The production of papaya varied from as lowest as 46.1 quintals per acre in the case of marginal farmers to the highest of 103.8 quintals per acre in the case of small farmers. It is noteworthy that all categories of farmers have gained positive returns from cultivation of papaya. The per-acre total revenue generated was highest (Rs 60321) in the case of medium farmers and was the lowest (Rs 33514) in the case of marginal farmers. Since the total revenue was more than the total cost in case of all categories of farmers, the net return was found to be positive in all cases.

Table 4.2: Cost of cultivation, production and net returns per acre from papaya crop (Rs per acre) Farm size Marginal Small Medium Large Total Average area planted (acres) 0.65 0.99 1.56 2.57 1.19 713 819 1128 1007 919 Preparatory tillage (3.67) (3.70) (3.22) (2.91) (3.22) 3366 3039 3852 7117 4636 Manure and fertilizer (17.33) (13.72) (11.01) (20.55) (16.23) 571 536 584 635 587 Transplanting and gap filling (2.94) (2.42) (1.67) (1.83) (2.06) 2070 2637 4317 2472 2790 Irrigation, canal, electricity and diesel (10.66) (11.91) (12.33) (7.14) (9.77) 0 0 0 0 0 Weeding and Inter cultural operations (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 0 0 0 0 0 Topping / pruning (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 1339 1173 1716 1974 1589 Plant protection, pesticides etc. (6.89) (5.30) (4.90) (5.70) (5.56) 1982 2268 2749 1917 2200 Repair, maintenance and depreciation@ (10.21) (10.24) (7.86) (5.53) (7.70) 0 0 0 0 0 Harvesting and collection (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 490 1150 1206 1009 957 Grading, storage, transport, packing (2.52) (5.19) (3.45) (2.91) (3.35) 0 0 0 0 0 Market/mandi fee etc. (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 580 356 429 841 698 Interest on working capital# (2.99) (1.61) (1.23) (2.43) (2.45) 4382 4056 5933 3731 4410 Variable labour cost (22.56) (18.31) (16.95) (10.77) (15.44) 15494 16033 21914 20703 18786 Total variable cost (79.76) (72.40) (62.61) (59.76) (65.78) 1537 4066 10715 11370 7400 Fixed cost including planting material, Material cost field preparation cost, supporting (7.91) (18.36) (30.61) (32.82) (25.91) material and irrigation setup 2394 2045 2370 2568 2374 Labour cost (Amortized over the life time)## (12.33) (9.23) (6.77) (7.41) (8.31) 19425 22144 34999 34640 28560 Total cost (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Total revenue 33514 44637 60321 49486 46791 Total revenue - total cost 14088 22492 25322 14846 18232 Total revenue - total variable cost 18020 28604 38407 28783 28005 Output produced per acre (quintals) 46.08 103.78 76.96 66.74 72.30 Notes: All variable cost items consist of two components: (i) Bearing period cost - that is already during the reference period (i.e., 2008-09) (ii) Cost during the plantation year/gestation period - that has been brought into the 2008-09 prices from the year of plantation/gestation. @ Repair, maintenance and depreciation is 10% discounted value of agricultural assets holdings including tractor & implements and tubewell motor etc. that is divided in proportionate to each crop sown during the year. # Interest on working capital is interest paid on the loans/borrowing divided in proportionate to each crop sown during the year. ## Fixed cost has been amortised with 10 per cent discount rate. Source: Field survey data

The per-acre net annual revenue generated was also highest (Rs 25322) in the case of medium farmers and was the lowest (Rs 14088) in the case of marginal farmers. The per-acre net revenue generated was Rs 18232 for all farmers category. The main reason of getting positive net returns from cultivation of papaya was that the life span of papaya crop was near about three years and the maximum production was realized by the sample farmers by the reference year 2008-09 which was not possible in the case of long-duration crops like aonla and mango.

4.1.3 The Case of Coriander Crop Coriander is a short duration crop that takes about three to four months to get maturity. The analysis on the cost of cultivation, output and returns from cultivation of coriander has been based on the reference year 2008-09 data. The selected farmers of coriander crop belonged to small, medium and large farmers. Not a single farmer was from marginal farmer category for study. Among the sample farmers cultivating coriander crop, 7 were small farmers, 19 were medium farmers and 24 were large farmers. It may be seen from Table 4.3 that the average area covered under coriander crop was 4.48 acres per household. Among different categories of farmers, large farmers cultivated coriander in highest area of 5.89 acres per household (HH), followed by medium farmers (3.32 acres) and small farmers (2.77 acres). The total variable cost of coriander ranged from 74.35 per cent to 78.02 per cent of total cost for different farmer categories except marginal farmers those in our sample did not cultivate coriander. The average total variable cost was Rs 8902 per acre whereas the medium farmers spent highest amount of Rs 9095 (78.02%) towards the variable cost and the small farmers spent lowest variable cost of Rs 8508 (77.59 %) per acre. Among different kinds of variable cost, variable labour cost, manure and fertilizers and repair and maintenance cost were three major cost components that were spent by the sample farmers on cultivation of coriander. These three components accounted for about 69.0 per cent to 72.4 per cent of total variable cost and for about 51.3 per cent to 56.4 per cent of total cost incurred by different farmer categories. Medium farmers spent highest amount of Rs 6577 (72.3% of total variable cost) per acre on these three major cost components. Small farmers spent lowest amount of Rs 6162 (72.4% of total variable cost) on these three major cost components. Small farmers spent Rs 1863 towards manure and fertilizer, Rs 2268 on repair and maintenance and Rs 2031 on variable labour cost per acre of cultivation of coriander.

Table 4.3: Cost of cultivation, production and net returns per acre from coriander crop (Rs per acre) Farm size Marginal Small Medium Large Total Average area planted (acres) 0 2.77 3.32 5.89 4.48 0 524 564 536 543 Preparatory tillage (0.00) (4.78) (4.84) (4.52) (4.61) 0 1863 1811 2271 2106 Manure and fertilizer (0.00) (16.99) (15.54) (19.15) (17.91) 0 0 0 0 0 Transplanting and gap filling (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 0 625 603 573 586 Irrigation, canal, electricity and diesel (0.00) (5.70) (5.17) (4.83) (4.98) 0 10 32 29 28 Weeding and Inter cultural operations (0.00) (0.09) (0.27) (0.24) (0.24) 0 0 0 0 0 Topping / pruning (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 0 428 467 433 442 Plant protection, pesticides etc. (0.00) (3.91) (4.01) (3.65) (3.76) 0 2268 2749 1917 2200 Repair, maintenance and depreciation@ (0.00) (20.68) (23.58) (16.17) (18.71) 0 0 3 1 2 Harvesting and collection (0.00) (0.00) (0.03) (0.01) (0.02) 0 403 420 320 355 Grading, storage, transport, packing (0.00) (3.67) (3.60) (2.70) (3.02) 0 0 0 0 0 Market/mandi fee etc. (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 0 356 429 841 698 Interest on working capital# (0.00) (3.25) (3.68) (7.09) (5.94) 0 2031 2016 1897 1942 Variable labour cost (0.00) (18.52) (17.29) (16.00) (16.52) 0 8508 9095 8817 8902 Total variable cost (0.00) (77.59) (78.02) (74.35) (75.71) Fixed cost including planting 0 1636 2109 2561 2353 Material cost material, field preparation cost, (0.00) (14.92) (18.09) (21.59) (20.01) supporting material and irrigation 0 821 454 481 503 Labour cost setup ## (0.00) (7.48) (3.89) (4.06) (4.28) 0 10964 11658 11860 11759 Total cost (0.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Total revenue 0 17280 19021 16365 17193 Total revenue - total cost 0 6316 7363 4505 5434 Total revenue - total variable cost 0 8772 9926 7547 8291 Output produced per acre (quintals) 0.00 5.63 6.13 5.68 5.80 Notes: All variable cost items consist of two components: (i) Bearing period cost - that is already during the reference period (i.e., 2008-09) (ii) Cost during the plantation year/gestation period - that has been brought into the 2008-09 prices from the year of plantation/gestation. @ Repair, maintenance and depreciation is 10% discounted value of agricultural assets holdings including tractor & implements and tubewell motor etc. that is divided in proportionate to each crop sown during the year. # Interest on working capital is interest paid on the loans/borrowing divided in proportionate to each crop sown during ## Fixed cost has been amortised with 10 per cent discount rate. Source: Field survey data

On the other hand, large farmers spent Rs 2271 for manure and fertilizer, Rs 1917 on repair and maintenance and Rs 1897 on variable labour cost per acre of cultivation of coriander. Medium farmers spent Rs 1811 for manure and fertilizer, Rs 2749 on repair and maintenance and Rs 2016 on variable labour cost. On an average, all farmers category spent Rs 2106 towards manure and fertilizer, Rs 2200 on repair and maintenance and Rs 1942 on variable labour cost per acre of cultivation of coriander. For all farmers category, a total of Rs 6248 (70.2% of total variable cost) was spent per acre of cultivating coriander towards these three major cost components. Total variable cost of cultivating coriander was Rs 8902 (75.7% of total cost) per acre for all farmers category. So the total fixed cost (Rs 2856) accounted for about 24.3 per cent of total cost of cultivating coriander in an acre of land. The total fixed cost per acre was highest (Rs 3042) in the case of large farmers and lowest (Rs 2457) in the case of small farmers. The total cost of cultivating coriander crop in the case of all farmers category was Rs 11759 per acre. The total per-acre cost of cultivation was found highest (Rs 11860) for large farmers and lowest (Rs 10964) for small farmers. The net output produced by all farmers was 5.80 quintals per acre on an average during the reference year 2008-09. The production of coriander varied from as lowest as 5.63 quintals per acre in the case of small farmers to the highest of 6.13 quintals per acre in the case of medium farmers. Similar to the case of papaya, all categories of farmers have gained positive returns from cultivation of coriander. The per-acre total revenue generated was highest (Rs 19021) in the case of medium farmers and was the lowest (Rs 16365) in the case of large farmers. Since the total revenue was more than the total cost in case of all categories of farmers, the net return was found to be positive in all cases. The per-acre net revenue generated was also highest (Rs 7363) in the case of medium farmers and was the lowest (Rs 4505) in the case of large farmers. The per-acre net revenue generated from coriander was, on an average, Rs 5434 in the case of all farmers.

4.1.4 The Case of Mango Crop Table 4.4 presents the cost of cultivation, production and net returns from cultivation of mango crop for different categories of sample farmers who belonged to Banswara district of Rajasthan. Among the sample farmers cultivating aonla crop, 19 were marginal farmers, 12 were small farmers, 12 were medium farmers and 7 were large farmers. It may be seen that the average area covered under mango crop was 2.36 acres per household. Among different categories of farmers, large farmers cultivated mango in highest area of 6.90 acres per

75 household (HH), followed by medium farmers (2.74 acres) and small farmers (1.74 acres). Marginal farmers cultivated mango in 0.82 acres of land per household. The total cost of cultivating mango crop in the case of all farmers category was Rs 15612 per acre, out of which, the total variable cost was Rs 13218 per acre (84.7%) and total fixed cost was Rs 2395 per acre. Out of this total fixed cost, Rs 2127 (13.6%) was spent towards the material component and Rs 268 (1.7%) was spent towards the labour component. The total per-acre cost of cultivation of mango was found to be highest (Rs 19895) for large farmers and was lowest (Rs 9233) for marginal farmers. The per-acre variable cost of cultivation of mango was also highest (Rs 16694) in the case of large farmers category and was lowest (Rs 8820) for marginal farmers category. It may be noted that the variable labour cost alone was Rs 2077 (22.5%) per acre in the case of marginal farmers and was Rs 3401 (17.1%) per acre in the case of large farmers. The marginal farmers spent only Rs109 per acre towards preparatory tillage whereas the large farmers spent Rs 654 per acre towards preparatory tillage. Besides the variable labour cost, the shares of manure and fertilizer, irrigation, plant protection and maintenance expenses in the total variable cost were major ones. These four components accounted for about 56.95 per cent to 67.77 per cent of total variable cost for different farmer categories cultivating mango. Among different farmer categories, large farmers spent highest amount of Rs 9507 on these four components whereas the marginal farmers spent minimum of Rs 5659 on these four components. Large farmers spent Rs 3379 for manure and fertilizer, Rs 1917 towards repair, maintenance and depreciation expenses, Rs 2058 for irrigation and Rs 2153 for plant protection. On the other hand, marginal farmers spent Rs 1696 for manure and fertilizer, Rs 1982 towards repair, maintenance and depreciation expenses, Rs 1006 for irrigation and Rs 974 for plant protection. On the whole, a sample farmer spent Rs 2884 for manure and fertilizer, Rs 2200 towards the repair, maintenance and depreciation expenses, Rs 1515 for irrigation and Rs 1503 for plant protection. Harvesting and collection cost was nil in case of all categories of farmers. This was mainly because of the fact that the majority of farmers did not get enough output to collect during the reference year. Mango being a long duration crop needed more time for output to come. Topping/pruning activity cost was also nil in case of all categories of farmers.

Table 4.4: Cost of cultivation, production and net returns per acre from mango crop (Rs per acre) Farm size Marginal Small Medium Large Total Average area planted (acres) 0.82 1.74 2.74 6.90 2.36 Preparatory tillage 109 622 305 654 478 (1.18) (5.03) (2.16) (3.29) (3.06) Manure & fertilizer 1696 2505 2964 3379 2884 (18.37) (20.27) (20.93) (16.98) (18.48) Transplanting & gap filling 291 116 120 274 205 (3.15) (0.94) (0.85) (1.38) (1.31) Irrigation, canal, electricity and diesel 1006 1238 1136 2058 1515 (10.90) (10.02) (8.02) (10.34) (9.70) Weeding and Inter cultural operations 0 809 635 1899 1100 (0.00) (6.55) (4.48) (9.54) (7.04) Topping / pruning 0 0 0 0 0 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Plant protection, pesticides etc. 974 1825 597 2153 1503 (10.55) (14.76) (4.22) (10.82) (9.63) Repair, maintenance and depreciation@ 1982 2268 2749 1917 2200 (21.47) (18.35) (19.41) (9.64) (14.09) Harvesting and collection 0 0 0 0 0 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Grading, storage, transport, packing 105 160 444 118 215 (1.14) (1.29) (3.14) (0.59) (1.38) Market/mandi fee etc. 0 0 0 0 0 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Interest on working capital# 580 356 429 841 698 (6.28) (2.88) (3.03) (4.23) (4.47) Variable labour cost 2077 1664 1618 3401 2418 (22.49) (13.46) (11.42) (17.09) (15.49) Total variable cost 8820 11563 10999 16694 13218 (95.53) (93.56) (77.64) (83.91) (84.66) Fixed cost including planting material, Material 151 545 2946 2893 2127 field preparation cost, supporting cost (1.64) (4.41) (20.80) (14.54) (13.62) material and irrigation setup ## Labour 262 252 221 308 268 cost (2.83) (2.04) (1.56) (1.55) (1.71) Total cost 9233 12359 14166 19895 15612 (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Total revenue 0 0 40219 9296 15056 Total revenue - total cost -9233 -12359 26053 -10599 -556 Total revenue - total variable cost -8820 -11563 29220 -7398 1838 Output produced per acre (quintals) 0.00 0.00 15.94 1.51 4.78 Notes: All variable cost items consist of two components: (i) Bearing period cost - that is already during the reference period (i.e., 2008-09) (ii) Cost during the plantation year/gestation period - that has been brought into the 2008-09 prices from the year of plantation/gestation. @ Repair, maintenance and depreciation is 10% discounted value of agricultural assets holdings including tractor & implements and tubewell motor etc. that is divided in proportionate to each crop sown during the year. # Interest on working capital is interest paid on the loans/borrowing divided in proportionate to each crop sown ##during Fixed the cost year. has been amortised with 10 per cent discount rate. Source: Field survey data

Total fixed cost including planting material, field preparation cost, supporting material and irrigation setup was divided into two components out of which, one was material cost and another was labour cost. On an average, all farmers category spent Rs 6326 towards fixed cost out of which, Rs 2127 (13.6%) and Rs 268 (1.7%) were spent as part of the material cost and labour cost respectively. Medium farmers spent highest amount of Rs 2946 (20.8%) towards the material cost whereas the marginal farmers spent only Rs 151 (1.6%) towards the same. As far as the gross and net revenues generated from the cultivation of mango crop is concerned, it may be noted that the per-acre total revenue generated was highest (Rs 40219) in the case of medium farmers and was nil in the case of marginal and small farmers. Since the total revenue was less than the total cost in case of all categories of farmers except medium farmers, the per-acre net return was found to be negative in all cases except the medium farmer category. The per acre annual net return generated by the medium farmers was Rs 26053 per acre per HH because few medium farmers cultivated mango since last fifteen years and few of their mango orchards were rejuvenated in 2008-09. The main reason of getting negative returns by other farmer categories was that mango crop was a long duration crop. However, the majority of our sample farmers had planted mango for last four to five years. Therefore, yield, revenue and the net returns were very low. However, majority expressed that the net return would be positive by next six to seven years. Figure 4.1. Output produced per acre of study crops in Rajasthan

90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0

Output (quintals/acre Output 20.0 10.0 0.0 Marginal Small Medium Large All farmers Farm size

Aonla mango papaya coriander

Figure 4.2. Net returns per acre of study crops in Rajasthan

30000.0 25000.0 20000.0 15000.0 10000.0 5000.0 0.0

Net returns (Rs/acre)returns Net Marginal Small Medium Large All farmers -5000.0 -10000.0 -15000.0 Farm size

Aonla mango papaya coriander

Only because, the long duration crops like mango and aonla did not reach fruit bearing stage, the output and net returns were negligible (see Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2). On the other hand the shorter duration crops like coriander and papaya yielded very good results in terms of output and net returns. Thus, the cultivation of horticultural crops has a promising future in Rajasthan.

4.2 Net Returns from Horticultural Versus Non-Horticultural Crops Table 4.5 presents net returns from various horticultural and non-horticultural crops generated by sample farmers of different categories during 2008-09. As mentioned earlier, our sample consists of 44 marginal farmers, 45 small farmers, 57 medium farmers and 54 large farmers. It may be noted that the net returns of kharif crops for all farmers category was Rs 9661 per acre. Among different farmer categories, medium farmers accrued highest net return of Rs 10337 from kharif crops and marginal farmers accumulated lowest net return of Rs 8042 per acre. The net return from rabi crops was Rs 11860 per acre and the medium farmers, large farmers, small farmers and marginal farmers generated Rs 12672, Rs12027, Rs10564 and Rs 8752 per acre respectively from rabi crops. The net return from rabi crops was higher than kharif crops because kharif crops mainly depended upon monsoon while rabi crops were provided irrigation facility.

Table 4.5: Net returns (gross value of output - total cost) from horticultural and non horticultural crops (All HHs) (Rs per acre) Marginal Small Medium Large Total Kharif crops during 2008 Bajra 13332 10943 10810 9430 10217 Groundnut 7200 12757 11917 11133 11440 Guar 12793 14228 11931 11555 12112 Maize 2837 5365 11206 8392 8114 Soyabean 10625 12137 4513 7908 7225 Tur 6750 8750 0 24000 19669 Rice 10634 13340 7653 13936 11698 Urad 7167 10036 13837 13818 12712 Cotton 46263 1250 0 10000 25209 Jowar 0 9000 6971 6933 7206 Sesamum 0 4000 4656 5029 4841 Sugarcane 0 0 0 19500 19500 Total Kharif 8042 9063 10337 9583 9661 Rabi crops during 2008 Wheat 9137 11127 13860 13802 13120 Gram 5118 3771 12154 8710 9117 Mustard 13205 10349 9396 9021 9276 Maize 5333 8375 0 17500 9389 Barley 0 12949 10609 11673 11504 Total Rabi 8752 10564 12672 12027 11860 Horticultural crops during 2008-09 Aonla -7667 -6322 -3280 -5939 -5273 Brinjal 6750 2064 12099 4053 6459 Chilli 28800 24888 30528 32998 30181 Mango -9233 -12359 26053 -10599 -556 Onion 45535 33378 50246 56884 50098 Papaya 14088 22492 25320 14840 18229 Tomato 8066 26992 14200 17826 17812 Ber 0 30240 0 66180 54200 Bael 0 -6840 -9262 -5166 -6211 Coriander 0 6316 7363 4505 5434 Garlic 0 49667 55115 54457 54296 Guava 0 9200 3126 -6180 1486 Gunda/ Lisoda 0 51120 0 0 51120 Isabgoal 0 6737 7040 10432 8997 Mosambi 0 -6029 0 13375 3239 Anar 0 0 -7152 12740 7562 Cucumber 0 0 -3840 0 -3840 Fenugreek 0 0 7051 15098 10628 Lemon 0 0 -7099 44048 13360 Cauliflowar 0 0 0 42054 42054 Kinnow 0 0 0 8688 8688 Lady finger 0 0 0 11920 11920 Water melon 0 0 0 48152 48152 Total horticultural 3460 2441 11099 5638 6627 crops Average net returns 7223 7750 11261 9621 9716 per acre of GCA Average net returns 14082 17557 22904 16608 18199 per acre of NSA Note: NSA stands for net sown area and GCA stands for gross cropped area. Source: Field survey data

The average net returns from foodgrains (bajra, maize, rice, jowar, wheat, and barley), pulses (tur, urad and gram) and oilseeds (groundnut, soyabean, sesamum and mustard) were Rs 10178, Rs 13833 and Rs 8195 per acre respectively. Large farmers generated highest per- acre net returns of Rs 11666, Rs 15509 and Rs 27176 from cereals, pulses and total foodgrains respectively. Small farmers got highest net returns of Rs 9810 from oilseeds. The average net return from horticulture crops was Rs 6627 per acre. The small farmers accrued lowest net returns (Rs 244) while marginal farmers got little higher amount of net return of only Rs 3460 per acre from cultivation of various horticultural crops. The medium farmers generated highest per-acre net return of Rs 11099 from various horticultural crops. The average net return from horticultural crops was lower than that from non- horticultural crops due to low production and early stages of long duration crops. However, the farmers expected that they would get good output by next few years. Among horticultural crops, short duration crops like chilly, onion, garlic, tomato and vegetables fetched good returns and many farmers were very much interested in growing these crops. However, the long duration crops like aonla and mango generated negative net returns or net loss of Rs 5273 and Rs 556 respectively. It may be seen that the other selected horticultural crops like papaya and coriander fetched positive net returns of Rs 18229 and Rs 5434 respectively. It was encouraging to note that, after implementation of National Horticulture Mission scheme in Rajasthan, many farmers showed keen interest in cultivation of horticultural crops with the expectation of generating good returns. The aggregate net returns from all crops (kharif, rabi and horticultural) was Rs 18199 per acre of NSA and Rs 9716 per acre of GCA. The marginal farmers, small farmers, medium farmers and large farmers generated net return of Rs 14082, Rs 17557, Rs 22904 and Rs 16608 per acre of NSA respectively. It may also be noted that the net return per acre generated by marginal and small farmers was much lower that of medium and large farmers. The average net return for different farmer categories would further increase once the long duration crops cultivated under NHM scheme like aonla, mango, anar, bael and citrus etc. start giving output by the next few years.

4.3 Use of Human Labour in Horticultural Versus Non-Horticultural Crops As discussed earlier, the variable labour cost was a major component of total cost involved in cultivation of various horticultural crops. Table 4.6 and 4.7 present the extent of use of human labour in cultivation of various horticultural and non-horticultural crops. Table 4.6 shows the crop wise use of human labour and Table 4.7 shows the activity wise use of human

81 labour for various farmer categories in our sample. In both the cases, man days are calculated by total labour cost is divided by the wage rate prevailing in the village.

4.3.1 Crop Wise Use of Human Labour It may be noted that about 30.5 human-days was required for an acre of kharif crops on an average. Among different farmer categories, marginal farmers used highest man-days of 33.5 per acre whereas the small farmers required lowest of 26.2 man-days per acre of kharif crops (Table 4.6). In case of rabi crops, on an average, 34.1 man-days were required for an acre of land. The large farmers needed highest of 35.5 man-days and small farmers used minimum of 30.5 man-days per acre of various rabi crops. It is also revealed that about 33.1 man-days were used for an acre of various types of cereals, 41.0 man-days were used for an acre of various types of pulses and 23.6 man-days were used for an acre of various types of oilseeds. The large farmers used highest number of 35.3 man-days and 24.8 man-days for an acre of foodgrains and oilseeds respectively. The small farmers used highest of 51.2 man-days for an acre of different types of pulses. The marginal farmers used lowest of 23.8, 15.2, 39.0 and 19.4 number of man-days for an acre of cereals, pulses, oilseeds and total foodgrains respectively. As far as the use of human labour in various horticultural crops is concerned, an average of 39.8 man-days was required per acre of horticultural crops. The marginal farmers used highest of 72.2 man-days while the medium farmers used lowest of 36.3 man-days per acre of various horticultural crops. The horticultural crops were more labour intensive compared to non-horticultural crops for which the average man-days required for an acre of horticultural crops was higher than that of non-horticultural crops. Considering the cases of our study crops, it was found that, an average of 54.6 man- days was required for an acre of aonla. The small farmers used highest of 63.4 man-days whereas the medium farmers required a lowest of 49.7 man-days per acre of aonla. In the case of mango, about 42.0 man-days were used per acre on an average. The large farmers utilized a highest of 53.5 man-days while the medium farmers used a minimum of 31.5 man- days for an acre of mango during the reference year. In the case of papaya, about 93.2 man- days were used per acre on an average which was the highest among all crops cultivated by the sample farmers. Marginal farmers used highest of 119.4 man-days for papaya while a lowest of 76.2 man days was required by small farmers for the same.

Table 4.6: Use of human labour in crop production (man days per acre) Farm size -> Marginal Small Medium Large Total Kharif crops during 2008 Bajra 37.0 35.2 33.7 30.7 32.5 Groundnut 33.3 30.1 34.0 33.0 33.2 Guar 22.6 23.6 21.5 21.2 21.7 Maize 30.7 19.0 31.1 37.3 32.3 Soyabean 23.4 23.7 13.6 25.4 22.6 Tur 11.7 93.8 0.0 66.7 61.8 Rice 28.0 27.1 35.7 45.8 38.1 Urad 24.3 38.7 15.5 35.5 29.5 Cotton 79.2 10.4 0.0 20.8 45.6 Jowar 0.0 29.2 18.1 16.0 18.3 Sesamum 0.0 20.0 16.4 20.3 18.9 Sugarcane 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 75.0 Total kharif 33.5 26.2 28.8 31.9 30.5 Rabi crops during 2008 Wheat 35.1 33.7 36.5 41.6 38.6 Gram 9.6 21.0 37.7 31.8 31.8 Mustard 20.8 17.7 18.6 20.4 19.7 Maize 35.9 44.3 0.0 41.7 39.4 Barley 0.0 27.7 30.5 33.9 32.4 Total rabi 33.2 30.5 33.2 35.5 34.1 Horticultural crops during 2008-09 Aonla 55.9 63.4 49.7 53.3 54.6 Brinjal 16.7 29.0 52.1 35.1 38.8 Chilli 51.6 42.6 45.7 44.3 45.3 Mango 38.6 34.4 31.5 53.5 42.0 Onion 55.7 20.3 40.8 36.7 37.8 Papaya 119.4 76.2 97.0 84.1 93.2 Tomato 65.2 50.3 47.2 46.4 48.4 Ber 0.0 18.7 0.0 45.0 36.2 Bael 0.0 11.8 20.9 12.5 13.7 Coriander 0.0 23.8 20.6 19.8 20.4 Garlic 0.0 24.2 30.9 35.3 32.3 Guava 0.0 36.7 10.7 13.7 12.7 Gunda/ Lisoda 0.0 46.0 0.0 0.0 46.0 Isabgoal 0.0 14.1 20.4 23.0 21.0 Mosambi 0.0 17.9 0.0 49.0 32.7 Anar 0.0 0.0 19.6 22.4 21.7 Cucumber 0.0 0.0 51.3 0.0 51.3 Fenugreek 0.0 0.0 28.3 30.3 29.1 Lemon 0.0 0.0 14.1 22.0 17.3 Cauliflowar 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.3 57.3 Kinnow 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 37.0 Lady finger 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.3 37.3 Water melon 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.2 34.2 Total horticultural 72.2 46.5 36.3 36.5 39.8 crops Average (all crops) 42.3 33.1 32.0 34.0 33.7 Source: Field survey data

Similarly, for the coriander crop, an average of 20.4 man-days was spent per acre. The small farmers used highest of 23.8 man-days whereas the large farmers used a minimum of 19.8 man-days per acre of cultivation of coriander. It was also observed that the long duration crops required more labour days per annum compared to the short duration crops. However, the annual requirement of human labour declined after few years in case of these long duration crops.

4.3.2 Activity Wise Uses of Human Labour Table 4.7 presents activity wise uses of human labour in horticultural crops. The man days are calculated by dividing the total labour cost by the prevailing wage rate during the year during which the cost was incurred. It may be seen that, an average of 39.8 man days per acre was used per acre of horticultural crops. The marginal farmers used highest human labour of 72.2 man-days per acre whereas the medium farmers used a minimum of 36.3 man-days per acre of various horticultural crops. As far as the use of human labour in various recurring activities is concerned, it was found that about 27.3 man-days were used, on an average, for various recurring activities undertaken per acre of horticultural crops. The marginal farmers used highest of 36.1 man days while large farmers used a minimum of 26.3 man days for recurring activities. Among various recurring activities, as high as 9.5 man-days were used per acre in weeding and inter- cultural operations by the sample farmers. About 9.8 man days were used by large farmers while as low as 8.9 man-days were used by marginal farmers for recurring activities. The number of human-days required for topping and pruning activity was only 0.4 man-days per acre, which implies that the majority of horticultural crops in the selected districts did not require topping and pruning. Thus the use of human labour was very less for these activities. Among other recurring activities, plant protection and pesticides, harvesting of output and manure and fertilization application were major ones that required more human labour. The plant protection through fencing, harvesting of output and manure and fertilization application needed 4.3 man-days, 4.0 man-days and 3.4 man-days respectively for cultivation of horticultural crops in an acre of land.

Table 4.7: Use of human labour in all horticultural crops by activities (man days per acre) Farm Size -> Marginal Small Medium Large Total

(A) Recurring activities undertaken every year# Preparatory tillage 3.7 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.8 Manure & fertilizer 6.4 4.2 3.3 2.9 3.4 Transplanting & gap filling 1.7 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.2 Irrigation, electricity and diesel 4.0 2.3 1.6 1.4 1.7 Weeding and inter cultural operations 8.9 9.9 9.0 9.8 9.5 Topping / pruning 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.4 Plant protection, pesticides etc. 4.0 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.3 Harvesting and collection 3.1 3.1 4.6 4.1 4.0 Grading, storage, transport, packing 4.4 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.8 Miscellaneous -1. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub total of recurring activities 36.1 28.7 26.7 26.3 27.3

(B) Fixed activities undertaken during the plantation year ## (a) Planting material like seedling, nursery etc 2.8 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.4 (b) Field preparation - digging, pit making, fencing etc 33.2 16.4 8.3 8.9 11.1 (c) Supporting material - bamboo, iron angles, etc 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (d) Laying down of permanent irrigation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (e) Any other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub total of fixed activities 36.0 17.9 9.7 10.2 12.5 Gross total 72.2 46.5 36.3 36.5 39.8 Notes: # Mandays are calculated by dividing the labour cost by the prevailing wage rate during the year in which cost was incurred. For example, for the bearing period, wage rate is for 2008-09 but for gestation period wage rate is during the gestation year. ## Mandays are calculated, dividing labour cost by the prevailing wage rate during the year of plantation. Source: Field survey data

Regarding use of human labour in fixed activities for horticultural crops, it may be seen that, among various fixed activities, the field preparation like digging, pit making and fencing etc. consumed highest of 11.1man-days per acre by an average sample farmer. The marginal farmers used highest of 33.2 man-days while the medium farmers used minimum of 8.3 man days field preparation activities. On the other hand, only about 1.4 man-days were used for planting material like seedling, nursery etc. The marginal farmers used highest of 2.8 man-days whereas the medium and large farmers used minimum of 1.3 man days each for planting seedling, nursery etc. On the whole, it was found that about 12.5 man-days were used, on an average, for various fixed activities undertaken per acre of horticultural crops. The marginal farmers used highest of 36.0 man days while medium farmers used a minimum of 9.7 man days for various fixed activities.

4.4 Marketing Channels of Horticultural Crops In horticultural farming, where prices are rarely regulated, financial viability depends as much upon business and marketing skills as on the farmer's technical expertise. It is high- value crops which are often a crucial component of viable small farms. If farmers are to increase production, more attention needs to be paid to the fact that their output must be marketed at a rewarding price. Proper marketing facilities wound not only provide good amount of cash income to farmers but also encourage further developments in both production and processing of the horticultural crops. Table 4.8 shows the selling of output of selected horticultural crops, viz., aonla, papaya, coriander and mango through various marketing channels.

4.4.1 The Case of Aonla Crop The analysis of marketing of aonla through different channels revealed that about 36.06 quintals of aonla per household(HH) was sold through various marketing channels out of which, 54.52 per cent was sold in wholesale market, 38.27 per cent was sold by pre arranged contract and 7.21 percent was sold through intermediaries. Among various farmer categories, the large farmers sold highest amount of output of 40.67 quintals per HH, out of which 59.02 per cent was sold in wholesale market and 40.98 per cent was sold through pre arranged contract. The small farmers sold 36.15 quintals of mango per HH, out of which 57.45 per cent was sold in wholesale market and 42.55 per cent was sold through pre arranged contract. The medium farmers sold 35.44 quintals of mango per HH, out of which 42.01 per cent was sold in wholesale market, 37.62 per cent was sold through pre arranged contract and 20.38 per cent was sold through intermediaries.

4.4.2 The Case of Papaya Crop The total papaya production of 73.14 quintals/HH was marketed through various channels out of which as high as 62.65% was sold in the wholesale market. However, about 21.06 per cent of total papaya output was sold on pre-arranged contract and 13.40 per cent of total papaya output was sold through intermediaries at farm gate. Only 2.90 per cent of total papaya output was sold in the nearby local market.

Table 4.8: Marketing channels through which horticultural products were sold by the selected households during 2008-09 (Qtls/HH) Wholesale market Local market Village directly Coop-erative Govt agencies Intermediaries at Merchant or Others Aggregate farm gate pre arranged Aonla Contract Marginal 21.25 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 21.25 (100.00) Small 20.77 (57.45) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 15.38 (42.55) 0.00 (0.00) 36.15 (100.00) Medium 14.89 (42.01) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 7.22 (20.38) 13.33 (37.62) 0.00 (0.00) 35.44 (100.00) Large 24.00 (59.02) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 16.67 (40.98) 0.00 (0.00) 40.67 (100.00) Total 19.66 (54.52) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 2.60 (7.21) 13.80 (38.27) 0.00 (0.00) 36.06 (100.00) Papaya Marginal 28.14 (90.92) 2.81 (9.08) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 30.95 (100.00) Small 49.62 (61.31) 3.62 (4.47) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 27.69 (34.22) 0.00 (0.00) 80.92 (100.00) Medium 46.88 (42.86) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 31.25 (28.57) 31.25 (28.57) 0.00 (0.00) 109.38 (100.00) Large 85.00 (62.96) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 30.00 (22.22) 20.00 (14.81) 0.00 (0.00) 135.00 (100.00) Total 45.82 (62.65) 2.12 (2.90) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 9.80 (13.40) 15.40 (21.06) 0.00 (0.00) 73.14 (100.00) Coriander Marginal NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Small 15.57 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 15.57 (100.00) Medium 19.58 (96.12) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.79 (3.88) 0.00 (0.00) 20.37 (100.00) Large 33.21 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 33.21 (100.00) Total 25.56 (98.84) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.30 (1.16) 0.00 (0.00) 25.86 (100.00) Mango Marginal 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) Small 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) Medium 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 14.83 (82.60) 3.13 (17.40) 0.00 (0.00) 17.96 (100.00) Large 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 100.00 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 100.00 (100.00) Total 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 3.56 (19.44) 14.75 (80.56) 0.00 (0.00) 18.31 (100.00) Note: Figures in parantheses are the percentage of total output of respective crops sold. Source: Field survey data

Among various farmer categories, the large farmers sold highest amount of output of 135.00 quintals per HH, out of which 62.96 per cent was sold in wholesale market, 14.81 per cent was sold through pre-arranged contract and 22.22 per cent was sold through intermediaries. The medium farmers sold 109.38 quintals of papaya per HH, out of which 42.86 per cent was sold in wholesale market and 28.57 per cent each was sold through pre arranged contract and intermediaries. The small farmers sold 80.92 quintals of papaya per HH, out of which 61.31 per cent was sold in the wholesale market, 34.22 per cent was sold through pre arranged contract and 4.47 per cent was sold at local markets. A major part of marginal farmers was also sold in wholesale markets.

4.4.3 The Case of Coriander Crop The total coriander production of 25.86 quintals/HH was marketed through various channels out of which as high as 98.84 per cent was sold in the wholesale market. Remaining 1.16 per cent of total coriander output was sold on pre-arranged contract. Among various farmer categories, the large farmers sold highest amount of output of 33.21 quintals per HH and this entire amount of output was sold in the wholesale market. The medium farmers sold 20.37 quintals of coriander per HH, out of which 96.12 per cent was sold in the wholesale market and remaining 3.88 per cent was sold through pre arranged contract. The small farmers sold 15.57 quintals of coriander per HH and this entire amount of output was sold in the wholesale market. The marginal farmers did not cultivate coriander at all.

4.4.4 The Case of Mango Crop Mango being a long-duration crop did not provide much yield to the farmers those who planted mango through NHM during last 4 to 5 years. On an average, about 18.31 quintals of mango per HH was marketed through various channels out of which 80.56 per cent was sold on pre-arranged contract and 19.44 per cent was sold through intermediaries at farm gate. Among various farmer categories, the large farmers sold highest amount of output of 100 quintals per HH and this entire amount of output was sold on pre-arranged contract. Medium farmers sold 17.96 quintals per HH out of which 17.4 per cent was sold on pre-arranged contract and 82.6 per cent was sold through intermediaries at farm gate. Marginal and small farmers did not sale any quantity because they did not get any production by the reference year 2008-09.

4.5 On Farm Processing Activities on Horticultural Crops Employment generation, reduction of postharvest losses and enhancing of household food security are some of the reasons why small holder farmers process their horticultural crops. The horticultural production provides extra income to rural poor, when the produce is marketed locally or processed and transported to urban areas located at distance places and international markets. There are so many methods of processing followed by the farmers. The most widely practised method of fruit and vegetables processing is the direct sun drying or boiling followed by sun drying. Fruits and vegetables are also processed into high value products like juice, wine, puree, jam and jelly. The processing of horticultural crops not only increases the income and employment of the farmers, but also reduces the post harvest losses. The magnitude of postharvest losses of fresh fruits and vegetables is calculated to be 5 to 25 per cent in developing countries (Madakadje et al., 2004). As per the NHM Operational Guidelines (GoI, 2010), the processing of horticultural produce and value addition is an important activity. While primary / minimal processing units will be promoted under NHM, large scale processing units will be promoted by Ministry of Food Processing Industries (MFPI), out of their ongoing Schemes. However, it was unfortunate to find that none of the sample households in our study areas cultivating allotted four selected horticultural crops were involved in processing activity supported by NHM. However, some sample farmers were involved in processing of other crops.

4.6 Summary of the Chapter This chapter discussed about the production, cost of cultivation and returns generated from cultivation of various horticultural crops in general and four selected horticultural crops, viz., aonla, papaya, coriander and mango in particular during the reference year 2008-09. The net returns from various horticultural and non-horticultural crops generated by the sample farmers of different categories were also compared and analyzed. Since the use of human labour was crucial in cultivation of various horticultural crops, this chapter also discussed the activity wise uses of human labour in cultivation of horticultural crops. This chapter also analyzed about the processing of horticultural products and selling of output of selected horticultural crops through various marketing channels in the case of our four selected crops. As far as the economics of production of selected horticultural crops is concerned, it was found that only the cultivation coriander and papaya could generate reasonable amount of annual net returns for the sample farmers. The long duration crops like aonla and mango did not reach to fruit bearing stage in the case of majority of NHM beneficiary farmers. Thus

89 the net average returns were not very impressive in the case of these two long duration sample crops. In the case of aonla, the average total cost of cultivation for all farmers category was Rs 20899 per acre, out of which, the total variable cost was Rs 18584 per acre (88.9%) and total fixed cost was Rs 2316 per acre. Out of this total fixed cost, Rs 2093 (10.0%) was spent towards the material component and only Rs 223 (1.1%) was spent towards the labour component. On an average, about 11.34 quintals of output of aonla was realized from an acre of land by sample farmers. The per-acre total revenue generated was highest (Rs18428) in the case of medium farmers and was the lowest (Rs13770) in the case of large farmers. Since the total revenue was less than the total cost in case of all categories of farmers, the per-acre net return was found to be negative in all cases. On an average, about Rs 5277 was the net loss from an acre of aonla during the reference year 2008-09. Some aonla growers were also worried about the low production due to frost and low temperature during winter season that resulted in late bearing of fruits and small sized fruits. The analysis on economics of cultivation of mango crops also resulted in similar kind of results with a net loss of Rs 556 per acre. Only medium category of farmers could generate a net positive return of Rs 26053 from an acre of mango by the reference year 2008-09 since some of them had availed NHM assistance for renovating their existing mango orchards. The main reason of getting negative returns from long duration crops like aonla and mango was that the majority of our sample farmers had planted these two crops for last three to four years. During the early stages, the annual investment was high but the output was nil or very low and the revenue generated was very less. Therefore, net annual returns were very low. However, majority expressed that the net return would be positive in near future. So far as the economics of cultivation of shorter duration crops like coriander and papaya is concerned, the sample farmers had generated the net positive returns from both the crops. The total cost of cultivating papaya crop in the case of all farmers category was Rs 28560 per acre, out of which, the total variable cost was Rs 18786 per acre (65.8%) and total fixed cost was Rs 7400 per acre (25.9%). The production of papaya was 72.3 quintals per acre on an average for the sample farmers. The production of papaya varied from as lowest as 46.1 quintals per acre in the case of marginal farmers to the highest of 103.8 quintals per acre in the case of small farmers. The per-acre net revenue generated was Rs 18232 for all farmers category. The main reason of getting positive net returns from cultivation of papaya was that the life span of papaya crop was near about three years and the maximum production was realized by the sample farmers by the reference year 2008-09. Similarly, the per-acre net revenue generated from an acre of coriander was, on an average, Rs 5434 in the case of all

90 farmers. The net output produced by all farmers was 5.80 quintals per acre of coriander. The total cost of cultivating coriander crop in the case of all farmers category was Rs 11759 per acre. The analysis on the net returns from various horticultural and non-horticultural crops generated by sample farmers of different categories during 2008-09 reveals that the net returns of kharif crops for all farmers category was Rs 9661 per acre. The net return from rabi crops was Rs 11860 per acre which was higher than that from kharif crops because kharif crops mainly depended upon monsoon while rabi crops were provided irrigation facility. However, the average net return from horticulture crops was Rs 6627 per acre which was lower than the both kharif and rabi averages. The aggregate net returns from all crops (kharif, rabi and horticultural) was Rs 18199 per acre of NSA and Rs 9716 per acre of GCA. The marginal farmers, small farmers, medium farmers and large farmers generated net return of Rs 14082, Rs 17557, Rs 22904 and Rs 16608 per acre of NSA respectively. It is expected that the average net return from horticultural crops would further increase once the long duration crops cultivated under NHM scheme like aonla, mango, anar, bael and citrus etc. start giving output by the next few years. So far as the use of human labour is concerned, it may be noted that about 30.5 human-days was required for an acre of kharif crops on an average, while various horticultural crops required an average of 39.8 man-days per acre. The horticultural crops were more labour intensive compared to non-horticultural crops for which the average man- days required for an acre of horticultural crops was higher than that of non-horticultural crops. Considering the cases of our study crops, it was found that, an average of 54.6 man- days was required for an acre of aonla. In the case of mango, papaya and coriander, about 42.0 man-days, 93.2 man-days and 20.4 man-days were used per acre respectively. As regards the activity wise uses of human labour in horticultural crops, out of an average of 39.8 man days per acre per acre of horticultural crops, only about 27.3 man-days were used for various recurring activities and about 12.5 man-days were used for various fixed activities undertaken per acre of horticultural crops. The analysis on the selling of output of selected horticultural crops, viz., aonla, papaya, coriander and mango through various marketing channels reveals that, wholesale market and pre-arranged selling were the major marketing channels for the sample farmers. In the case of papaya, out of total selling of 73.14 quintals/HH through various channels, as high as 62.65 per cent was sold in the wholesale market. In the case of coriander and aonla, respectively 98.84 per cent and 54.52 per cent were sold in the wholesale market. However,

91 the case of mango was an exception. On an average, about 18.31 quintals of mango per HH was marketed through various channels out of which 80.56 per cent was sold on pre-arranged contract and 19.44 per cent was sold through intermediaries at farm gate. As regards the on- farm processing activities using the selected horticultural crops, it was unfortunate to find that none of the sample households in our study areas cultivating allotted four selected horticultural crops were involved in processing activity supported by NHM. However, some sample farmers were involved in processing of other crops.

Chapter 5 Impact of NHM on the Expansion of Horticultural Crops

5.1 Impact of NHM on Area and Yield of Selected Horticultural Crops National Horticulture Mission (NHM) was implemented during 2004-05 in all the states and union territories of India except the north eastern states to promote holistic growth of horticulture covering fruits, vegetables, root and fiber crops, mushroom, spices, flowers, aromatic plants, cashew and cocoa. As mentioned earlier, our study covers four sample crops namely aonla, papaya, coriander and mango in four districts of Rajasthan. Since NHM scheme is being implemented in various states including Rajasthan, it is imperative to look in depth at the effectiveness and relevance with respect to various components of the scheme and to make qualitative and quantitative assessment of the various agro-economic impacts using farm level data collected from sample households for the reference year 2008-09. There are several components of NHM programme. The major components are area expansion under horticultural crops through establishment of new gardens and rejuvenation of old and senile orchards, plantation infrastructure and development-nurseries, tissue culture labs, integrated pest management/integrated nutrient management, protected cultivation, organic farming, pollination support through bee keeping, creation of water sources, mechanization, capacity building and human resources development, post harvest management, marketing, and primary processing of horticultural crops. This chapter particularly assesses the overall impact of the NHM programme on the expansion of horticulture area and yield and attempts to identify all possible constraints that negatively affected the effectiveness and outcomes of the programme. Table 5.1 shows the impact of NHM on area and yield of selected horticultural crops during a period from 2004-05 to 2009-10.

5.1.1 The Case of Aonla Crop It may be seen from the table that, the overall area under aonla has increased from nil during 2004-05 to 3.3 acres per household (HH) in 2008-09 and thereafter has reduced to 2.75 acres in 2009-10. On the other hand, the yield of aonla has consistently increased from nil in 2004- 05 to 25.2 quintals per acre in 2009-10 in the case of selected 50 farmers. On an average, 0.16 acres was cultivated with aonla crop by the sample farmers during 2005-06 whereas the small and large farmers cultivated aonla in 0.35 acres and 0.23 acres of land respectively during the same year. During the next year, i.e., 2006-07, an average of 1.11 acres of land was cultivated

93 with aonla. The medium farmers cultivated highest of 1.36 acres of aonla whereas the marginal farmers cultivated a lowest of 0.63 acres of aonla. During 2007-08, an average of 2.13 acres of aonla was cultivated with the average yield of 1.17 quintal per acre. Only the small farmers gained yield of 3.66 quintal per acre. In the year 2008-09, an average of 3.30 acres of aonla was cultivated with the average yield of 10.70 quintals per acre in the case of all farmers category. Surprisingly, the marginal farmers were the main gainers during the year with the highest yield of 18.36 quintals per acre whereas the large farmers got a lowest yield of 9.98 quintals per acre. All farmers of different categories were benefited to some extent with some output of aonla during 2008-09.

Table 5.1: Impact of NHM on area and yield of selected horticultural crops (all households) Area cultivated in acres per household Yield rate obtained quintals per acre Year Marginal Small Medium Large Total Marginal Small Medium Large Total Anola 2004-05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2005-06 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.23 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2006-07 0.63 1.19 1.36 0.88 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2007-08 0.91 2.63 1.89 2.31 2.13 0.00 3.66 0.00 0.00 1.17 2008-09 1.16 3.11 3.25 4.08 3.30 18.36 11.61 10.22 9.98 10.70 2009-10 1.16 2.96 2.42 3.41 2.75 20.52 20.42 32.64 22.88 25.20 Papaya 2004-05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2005-06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2006-07 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2007-08 0.14 0.38 1.12 0.70 0.45 0.00 0.00 11.19 0.00 4.43 2008-09 0.65 0.99 1.56 2.57 1.19 47.55 81.68 70.07 52.49 61.35 2009-10 0.79 1.00 1.24 2.37 1.17 53.20 165.70 154.47 101.98 111.21 Coriander 2004-05 0.00 0.58 0.69 1.67 1.14 0.00 3.94 5.68 5.13 5.17 2005-06 0.00 0.76 0.69 1.64 1.16 0.00 4.89 6.21 5.03 5.28 2006-07 0.00 0.63 2.25 3.35 2.55 0.00 5.37 6.11 4.76 5.24 2007-08 0.00 1.16 2.25 3.44 2.67 0.00 5.54 6.14 5.44 5.67 2008-09 0.00 2.77 3.32 5.89 4.48 0.00 5.63 6.13 5.68 5.80 2009-10 0.00 1.70 1.78 5.21 3.41 0.00 5.73 6.46 5.57 5.76 Mango 2004-05 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 64.00 0.00 64.00 2005-06 0.00 0.00 0.21 1.29 0.23 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 15.65 2006-07 0.00 0.00 0.21 2.37 0.38 0.00 0.00 68.00 0.00 8.90 2007-08 0.00 1.13 0.48 2.94 0.80 0.00 0.00 35.09 0.00 5.03 2008-09 0.82 1.74 2.74 6.90 2.36 0.00 0.00 15.94 1.51 4.78 2009-10 0.85 1.74 2.74 6.90 2.36 0.00 0.00 9.11 2.64 3.62 Source: Field survey data

Except marginal farmers category, all other categories experienced the fall in area under aonla from 208-09 to 2009-10. In the case of large farmers, the area under aonla has decreased from 4.08 acres per HH in 2008-09 to 3.41 acres per HH in 2009-10. In the case of

94 all farmers category, the total area under aonla has decreased from 3.3 acres per HH during 2008-9 to 2.75 acres per HH during 2009-10. This was particularly due to the fact that the extent of availability of marketing facilities for selling aonla was not satisfactory in the study district Jaipur. On the other hand, though an international mandi for aonla was built by the Marketing Board Jaipur (Govt. of Rajasthan) sponsored by Agricultural and Processed Food Products Exports Development Authority (APEDA) since last three to four years, it was not made operational. Because of absence of adequate marketing arrangements, aonla growers were helpless and were forced to sell their output at very low price. Cold and frost was also a major problem in the district that caused poor growth of plants. During the reference year 2008-09, the frost level was at peak which led to poor growth of aonla plants in the region. As the prices fetched for aonla was also below the reasonable level for past few years, the farmers hacked the trees from their field out of their frustration.

5.1.2 The Case of Papaya Crop Relative to aonla and mango, papaya crop is a shorter duration crop that lasts mostly for 3 years. During 2004-05 and 2005-06, there was not a single sample farmer cultivating papaya crop. Considering the case of all farmers, the area under papaya has increased from 0.03 acres per HH in 2006-07 to 1.19 acres per HH in 2008-09 and has then decreased to 1.17 acres per HH in 2009-10. On the other hand, the yield of papaya has successively increased from 4.43 quintals per acre in 2006-07 to 111.21 quintals per acre in 2009-10. During 2006-07, among different farmer categories, only medium farmers cultivated papaya in 0.16 acres per HH and got nil output. During 2007-08, about 0.45 acres per HH was cultivated under papaya by the sample farmers and about 4.43 quintals per acre of output was produced by all farmers. The highest area and yield was found in the case of medium farmers, which was 1.12 acres per HH and 11.19 quintals per acre respectively. During the next year, i.e., 2008-09, the area under papaya was expanded with increased yield of 61.35 quintals per acre in the case of all farmers. The area under papaya was highest for large farmers (2.57 acres/HH) whereas the output was highest for small farmers (81.68 quintals/acre) during 2008-09. Similarly, the area under papaya was also highest for large farmers (2.37 acres/HH) during 2009-10 whereas the output was highest for small farmers (165.7 quintals/acre) during the same year.

5.1.3 The Case of Coriander Crop The average area cultivated under coriander crop during a period of six years, i.e., 2004-05 to 2009-10 was 2.57 acres per HH and the average yield during the same period was 5.49

95 quintals per acre. Among various farmer categories, medium farmers cultivated coriander in highest average annual area of 3.53 acre per HH followed by the large farmers (2.57 acres/HH) during the same period of six years. However, the highest average annual yield during the period was 6.12 quintals per acre, which was accrued by the medium farmers. On the other hand, the small farmers cultivated coriander in lowest area of 1.26 acres per HH and also got lowest yield of 5.18 quintals per acre during the period from 2004-05 to 2009-10. Among the sample coriander cultivators, no one belonged to marginal farmers category. Considering the case of all farmers, it may be noted that the area under coriander has successively increased from 1.14 acres per HH in 2004-05 to 4.48 acres per HH in 2008-09. It has declined thereafter to 3.41 acres per HH in 2009-10. Some farmers expressed that government supplied CS-6 variety of coriander which was not a good variety as compared to local traditional varieties. The traditional variety of coriander yielded more output and good quality of produce as compared to the varieties provided by the Horticulture Department and other governmental sources. Another reason of reduced area under coriander crop was the lack of interest of the farmers in the study district Chittorgarh. The farmers in the districts were more interested to cultivate isabgul and garlic since these crops generated good returns since years.

5.1.4 The Case of Mango Crop The average area under mango was only 0.05 acres per HH during 2004-05 which has increased successively to 2.36 acres per HH during 2009-10. On the other hand, the average yield has successively declined from 64 quintals per acre in 2004-05 to 4.78 quintals per acre in 2008-09 and further to 3.62 quintals per acre in 2009-10. During 2005-06 and 2006-07, the medium and large farmers cultivated mango but only medium farmers got some output of 70 quintals per acre. During 2008-09 and 2009-10, the area cultivated under mango crop was 2.36 acres per HH and the highest area under mango of 6.90 acres/HH was cultivated by the large farmers whereas the lowest area of 0.835 acres/HH was cultivated by the marginal farmers. It may be noted that marginal and small farmers did not get any output since they have started mango plantation only from 2008-09. In the case of medium farmers, though the area under mango did not increase from 2008-09 to 2009-10, the yield declined significantly from 15.94 quintals/acre in 2008-09 to 9.11 quintals/acre in 2009-10. However, in the case of large farmers, though the area under mango (6.9 acres/HH) did not increase in 2009-10 from 2008-09, the yield has sharply increased from 1.51 quintals/acre in 2008-09 to 2.64 quintals/acre in 2009-10.

5.2 Rejuvenation/Protection, Resource Procurement through NHM Table 5.2 and Table 5.3 show the area under rejuvenation/protection, resources procurement through NHM and the resulted increase in productivity due to rejuvenation/protection. No cases of rejuvenation are found in the case of aonla, papaya and coriander. Four farmers were found in the case of mango who were involved in rejuvenation/protection through NHM. The average area under rejuvenation of mango was 0.20 acres per HH. Among various farmer categories, only medium and large farmers rejuvenated 0.42 acres and 0.71 acres per HH respectively (Table 5.2). The rejuvenation activities under NHM in the study districts were not performed well for the selected crops. The sample farmers expressed that they were not aware about the rules and mandatory conditions for rejuvenation of horticultural crops. The horticulture supervisors were also not well trained in convincing the farmers to use these provisions of NHM for their benefits.

Table 5.2: Area rejuvenated/protected through NHM resource provision (Acre/HH under rejuvenation) Year Area for which certified inputs procured Area for which non-certified inputs procured Marginal Small Medium Large Total Margina Small Medium Large Total l Anola 2004-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2006-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2008-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Papaya 2004-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2006-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2008-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coriander 2004-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2006-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2008-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mango 2004-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2006-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2008-09 0 0 0.42 0.71 0.20 0 0 0 0 0 2009-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Field Survey data

Table 5.3 shows the extent of increase in area and productivity of selected horticultural crops due to rejuvenation/protection supported by the NHM. It may be seen that about 8 per cent farmers cultivating mango were supported for rejuvenation/protection. All these farmers belonged to medium farmer and large farmer categories. The area rejuvenated/protected under NHM by medium and large farmers was 0.42 acres/HH and 0.71 acres/HH respectively. Medium and large farmers rejuvenated/protected 48 trees and 56 trees per acre respectively. On an average, about 52 trees per acre were rejuvenated or protected in the case of all sample mango growing farmers. As a result of rejuvenation, the productivity has increased by 20 quintals per acre and 25 quintal per acre in the case of medium and large farmers respectively. The average increase in productivity as a result of rejuvenation was 22.50 quintals per acre. Table 5.3: Increase in area and productivity due to rejuvenation/protection supported by the NHM Sl. No. Details of the items and crops Marginal Small Medium Large Total Name of the crops for which rejuvenation or protection support was provided under NHM (% of households) 1 Mango 0 0 4.00 4.00 8.00 2 Anola 0 0 0 0 0 3 Papaya 0 0 0 0 0 4 Corriander 0 0 0 0 0 Area expansion by rejuvenation/ protection (acres per household per crop) 1 Mango 0 0 0 0 0 2 Anola 0 0 0 0 0 3 Papaya 0 0 0 0 0 4 Corriander 0 0 0 0 0 Existing area rejuvenated /protected under the Mission (acres per household per crop) 1 Mango 0 0 0.42 0.71 0.20 2 Anola 0 0 0 0 0 3 Papaya 0 0 0 0 0 4 Corriander 0 0 0 0 0 Number of trees per acre rejuvenated /protected 1 Mango 0 0 48.00 56.00 52.00 2 Anola 0 0 0 0 0 3 Papaya 0 0 0 0 0 4 Corriander 0 0 0 0 0 Productivity enhancement as a result of rejuvenation (quintals per acre) 1 Mango 0 0 20.00 25.00 22.50 2 Anola 0 0 0 0 0 3 Papaya 0 0 0 0 0 4 Corriander 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Field survey data

5.3 NHM Reaching to the Households with Resource Provision The Mission envisages coverage of large areas under improved varieties of horticultural crops. As per the NHM guidelines (GoI, 2010), the assistance for cultivation will be for a maximum area of 4 ha per beneficiary, spread over a period of three years in ratio of 60:20:20 in first, second and third year depending upon type of crop and survival of plants. Assistance for second year will be subject to 75% survival of the new gardens and for the third year assistance will be subject to 90% survival of plants. Cost of raising new plantations will vary from crop to crop depending on nature of crops (perennial/non-perennial) and number of plants per hectare. As per the guidelines, the assistance amount will be provided on the account of the expenditure on planting material and cost of inputs including that for INM/IPM etc. Accordingly, the assistance was provided to our sample farmers cultivating aonla, mango, papaya and coriander. Table 5.4 shows the sources of NMH resource procurement for our sample farmers during the period from 2004-05 to 2009-10. It may be noted that about 75 per cent of total NHM resource procurement by our sample farmers was through Department of Horticulture. The private nursery provided 15 per cent whereas the private shops provided 10 per cent of total NHM resource procurement by the beneficiary farmers. Among different farmer categories, the small farmers received highest of 80 per cent of total NHM resource procurement through the Department of Horticulture, followed by the medium farmers (77.19%) and the large farmers (74.07%). In the case of marginal farmers, about 68.18 per cent of total NHM resource procurement was from the Department of Horticulture while the private nursery and private shops were the sources of 15.91 per cent of total NHM resource procurement each. Table 5.4: Sources of NHM resource procurement for all crops during 2004-05 to 2009-10 (Percentage of households) Others Department of Private Fellow Through contract (private horticulture nursery farmers farming shops) Marginal 68.18 15.91 0.00 0.00 15.91 Small 80.00 11.11 0.00 0.00 8.89 Medium 77.19 17.54 0.00 0.00 5.26 Large 74.07 14.81 0.00 0.00 11.11 Landless 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 75.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 Source: Field survey data

Table 5.5: Promotional activities of NHM (No of HHs saying 'Yes') Farmer categories Description Marginal Small Medium Large Total Making available good quality planting 42 44 56 54 196 material like nursery (95.45) (97.78) (98.25) (100.00) (98.00) Rejuvenation with improved cultivars 0 0 2 2 4 (0.00) (0.00) (3.51) (3.70) (2.00) Upgrading the existing tissue culture unit 0 0 0 0 0 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Mother stock block maintenance under poly 0 0 0 1 1 cover to protect from adverse weather conditions (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.85) (0.50)

Raising root stock seedlings under net house 0 0 0 1 1 conditions (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.85) (0.50) Polyhouse with ventilation, insect proof 1 16 40 44 101 netting, fogging and sprinkler irrigation (2.27) (35.56) (70.18) (81.48) (50.50) Pump house to provide sufficient irrigation 0 0 1 0 1 with/without storage tank, community tank (0.00) (0.00) (1.75) (0.00) (0.50)

Soil sterilization-steam sterilization system 0 0 0 0 0 with boilers (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Establishment of new garden or seed 15 20 26 20 81 production (34.09) (44.44) (45.61) (37.04) (40.50) Protected cultivation like green house, shade 0 0 0 1 1 net, plastic tunnel etc (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.85) (0.50) Precision farming implements, e.g., 0 0 0 0 0 computer, GPS, GIS, sensors and application control (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Promotion of integrated nutrient management 35 38 56 53 182 or integrated pest management (79.55) (84.44) (98.25) (98.15) (91.00) Help provided for organic farming (vermi 0 0 3 3 6 compost unit, certification etc.) (0.00) (0.00) (5.26) (5.56) (3.00) Post harvest management like pack house, 0 0 0 0 0 storage unit, mobile processing unit etc (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Training and capacity building 37 36 44 44 161 (84.09) (80.00) (77.19) (81.48) (80.50) Total 44 45 57 54 200 (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of HHs saying ' Yes'. Source: Field survey data

Farmers were also benefitted though various promotional activities undertaken through NHM. Table 5.5 shows the proportion of sample farmers benefitted through these promotional activities. The majority of sample farmers were benefitted by few of these activities. About 98 percent farmers said that they made use of available good quality

100 planting material like nursery through NHM. About 50.5 per cent farmers were found to use polyhouse with ventilation, insect proof netting, fogging and sprinkler irrigation. Only 2.27 per cent of marginal framers and 35.56 per cent of small farmers were associated with these activities.As high as 91 per cent farmers said that they used and promoted integrated nutrient management (INM) or integrated pest management (IPM). Also 40.5 per cent farmers said that they established new garden or seed production unit with the use of NHM assistance. On an average, about 80.5 per cent farmers said that they actively participated in the training and capacity building programmes facilitated through NHM. However, there were so many other activities and provisions under NHM that could not benefit the sample farmers. None of the farmers were associated with upgrading the existing tissue culture unit, soil sterilization and steam sterilization system with boilers, precision farming implements, e.g., computer, GIP, GIS, sensors and application control. Not a single farmer was found to use the modernized post harvest management system like pack house, storage unit, mobile processing unit etc. It may be noted that only one farmer said that he adopted the protected cultivation like green house, shade net, plastic tunnel etc. Only one medium farmer was found to use the pump house to provide sufficient irrigation with/without storage tank, community tank. Only 3 percent farmers said that they started the vermi compost unit and only one farmer was found to adopt organic farming. Only 2 per cent farmers have rejuvenated orchard with improved cultivars. Only 4 farmers cultivating mango were found to rejuvenate their mango orchards. Only one farmer said that he did mother stock block maintenance under poly cover to protect from adverse weather. Only one farmer said he raised root stock seedlings under net house condition. Thus there is huge scope for expanding these activities among farmers. However, it was true that some farmers did not fulfill eligibility criteria to avail some of the facilities provided under NHM.

5.4 Subsidy Provision under NHM Table 5.6 shows the details of subsidy provided under NHM. This table has five parts. They are (a) crops/ items for which subsidy provided (% of households), (b) details of activities for which subsidy was provided (% of households), (c) amount of aggregate investment (Rs per household), (d) amount of subsidy provided by NHM (Rs per HH) and (e) subsidy as a percentage of investment (%).

101

5.4.1 Crop-wise Distribution of Farmers Availing Subsidy

Among 200 sample farmers who received subsidy under NHM, 50 farmers each cultivated aonla, papaya, coriander and mango. In the case of farmers availing subsidy for aonla, 4 were marginal farmers (8%), 13 were small farmers (26%), 18 were medium farmers (36%) and 15 were large farmers (30%). Among farmers availing subsidy for papaya, 21 were marginal farmers (42%), 13 were small farmers (26%), 8 were medium farmers (16%) and 8 were large farmers (16%). Among farmers availing subsidy for coriander, 7 were small farmers (14%), 19 were medium farmers (38%) and 24 were large farmers (48%). Among farmers availing subsidy for mango, 19 were marginal farmers (38%), 12 were small farmers (24%), 7 were medium farmers (14%) and 7 were large farmers (14%).

5.4.2 Details of Activities and Items for which Subsidy was provided

It may be seen from Table 5.6 that planting material, fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs and drip/sprinkler were the major items for which subsidy was provided to the beneficiary farmers. Few farmers have also received subsidy for the activities like establishing vermi compost units and model nursery. All farmers cultivating each of selected crops received subsidy for planting material, fertilizer pesticides and other inputs. Among the sample farmers, about 68 per cent aonla growers, 22 per cent of papaya growers, 34 per cent of mango growers and 64 per cent of coriander growers were subsidized for drip/sprinkler. Only one farmer cultivating papaya crop got subsidy for establishing vermi compost unit while 3 other farmers cultivating coriander and 2 farmers cultivating mango crop also got subsidy for establishing vermi compost unit. Only one model nursery was established by a large farmer for papaya crop with subsidy from NHM. As farmers revealed that there was lack of awareness among farmers regarding different provision under NHM. Had they known all these provision, they would have applied for availing the subsidies on these activities.

5.4.3 Amount of Aggregate Investment

The total aggregate investment for planting material was highest of Rs 10239 per HH in the case of aonla crop and was lowest of Rs 3401 per HH in the case of papaya crop. The aggregate investment on fertilizer, pesticide and other inputs was highest of Rs 23891 per HH in the case of aonla crop. The aggregate investment on fertilizer, pesticide and other inputs in the case of papaya, coriander and mango was Rs 7935, Rs 19298 and Rs 18399 per HH respectively. Large farmers in the case of all crops invested highest amount on fertilizer, pesticide and other inputs.

102

Table 5.6: Details of Subsidy Provided by NHM Sl. No. Details of the items Marginal Small Medium Large Total (A) Crop-wise distribution of farmers availing subsidy 1 Anola 4 (8.0) 13 (26.0) 18 (36.0) 15 (30.0) 50 (100.0) 2 Papaya 21 (42.0) 13 (26.0) 8 (16.0) 8 (16.0) 50 (100.0) 3 Corriander 0 (0.0) 7 (14.0) 19 (38.0) 24 (48.0) 50 (100.0) 4 Mango 19 (38.0) 12 (24.0) 12 (24.0) 7 (14.0) 50 (100.0) (B) Details of activities for which subsidy was provided (No. of households) 1 Anola Planting Mat. 4 (8.0) 13 (26.0) 18 (36.0) 15 (30.0) 50 (100.0) 2 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs 4 (8.0) 13 (26.0) 18 (36.0) 15 (30.0) 50 (100.0) 3 Drip/Spriklar 1 (2.0) 8 (16.0) 14 (28.0) 11 (22.0) 34 (68.0) 4 Varmi Compost 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 5 Model Nursury 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 6 Papaya Planting Mat. 21 (42.0) 13 (26.0) 8 (16.0) 8 (16.0) 50 (100.0) 7 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs 21 (42.0) 13 (26.0) 8 (16.0) 8 (16.0) 50 (100.0) 8 Drip/Spriklar 0 (0.0) 2 (4.0) 5 (10.0) 4 (8.0) 11 (22.0) 9 Varmi Compost 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.0) 1 (2.0) 10 Model Nursury 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.0) 1 (2.0) 11 Corriander Planting Mat. 0 (0.0) 7 (14.0) 19 (38.0) 24 (48.0) 50 (100.0) 12 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs 0 (0.0) 7 (14.0) 19 (38.0) 24 (48.0) 50 (100.0) 13 Drip/Spriklar 0 (0.0) 2 (4.0) 13 (26.0) 17 (34.0) 32 (64.0) 14 Varmi Compost 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (4.0) 1 (2.0) 3 (6.0) 15 Model Nursury 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 16 Mango Planting Mat. 19 (38.0) 12 (24.0) 12 (24.0) 7 (14.0) 50 (100.0) 17 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs 19 (38.0) 12 (24.0) 12 (24.0) 7 (14.0) 50 (100.0) 18 Drip/Spriklar 0 (0.0) 3 (6.0) 7 (14.0) 7 (14.0) 17 (34.0) 19 Varmi Compost 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.0) 1 (2.0) 2 (4.0) 20 Model Nursury 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) (C) Amount of aggregate investment (Rs per household) 1 Anola Planting Mat. 4163 11204 8700 12870 10239 2 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs 9713 26142 20300 30030 23891 3 Drip/Spriklar 4800 58846 30056 55091 38624 4 Varmi Compost 0 0 0 0 0 5 Model Nursury 0 0 0 0 0 6 Papaya Planting Mat. 1821 3423 5419 5494 3401 7 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs 4249 7988 12644 12819 7935 8 Drip/Spriklar 0 4423 27375 33375 10870 9 Varmi Compost 0 0 0 7500 1200 10 Model Nursury 0 0 0 75000 12000 11 Corriander Planting Mat. 0 3631 5527 11796 8271 12 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs 0 8472 12897 27523 19298 13 Drip/Spriklar 0 21429 45526 99688 68150 14 Varmi Compost 0 0 6316 2500 3600 15 Model Nursury 0 0 0 0 0 16 Mango Planting Mat. 2907 6345 10135 20181 7885 17 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs 6784 14805 23648 47090 18399 18 Drip/Spriklar 0 7250 59750 124857 33560 19 Varmi Compost 0 0 5000 8571 1200 20 Model Nursury 0 0 0 0 0

103

Table 5.6 Continued. (D) Amount of subsidy provided by NHM (Rs per household) Marginal Small Medium Large Total 1 Anola Planting Mat. 2875 7612 6524 9124 7295 2 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs 6708 17760 15223 21290 17022 3 Drip/Spriklar 3360 41192 21039 2827 19401 4 Varmi Compost 0 0 0 0 0 5 Model Nursury 0 0 0 0 0 6 Papaya Planting Mat. 1217 2397 3945 3952 2398 7 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs 2840 5593 9204 9220 5595 8 Drip/Spriklar 0 3096 19875 23288 7711 9 Varmi Compost 0 0 0 3750 600 10 Model Nursury 0 0 0 37500 6000 11 Corriander Planting Mat. 0 1720 2935 5603 4046 12 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs 0 4013 6848 13074 9440 13 Drip/Spriklar 0 15714 32113 70052 48028 14 Varmi Compost 0 0 3158 1250 1800 15 Model Nursury 0 0 0 0 0 16 Mango Planting Mat. 1453 4639 8474 15120 5816 17 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs 3391 10824 18228 35280 13200 18 Drip/Spriklar 0 5208 41825 87400 23524 19 Varmi Compost 0 0 2500 4286 1200 20 Model Nursury 0 0 0 0 0 (E) Subsidy as a percentage of investment (%) 1 Anola Planting Mat. 69.1 67.9 75.0 70.9 71.2 2 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs 69.1 67.9 75.0 70.9 71.2 3 Drip/Spriklar 70.0 70.0 70.0 5.1 50.2 4 Varmi Compost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 Model Nursury 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 Papaya Planting Mat. 66.8 70.0 72.8 71.9 70.5 7 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs 66.8 70.0 72.8 71.9 70.5 8 Drip/Spriklar 0.0 70.0 72.6 69.8 0.0 9 Varmi Compost 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 10 Model Nursury 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 11 Corriander Planting Mat. 0.0 47.4 53.1 47.5 48.9 12 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs 0.0 47.4 53.1 47.5 48.9 13 Drip/Spriklar 0.0 73.3 70.5 70.3 70.5 14 Varmi Compost 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 15 Model Nursury 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 Mango Planting Mat. 50.0 73.1 83.6 74.9 73.8 17 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs 50.0 73.1 77.1 74.9 71.7 18 Drip/Spriklar 0.0 71.8 70.0 70.0 70.1 19 Varmi Compost 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 20 Model Nursury 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total. Source: Field survey data

Coriander crop farmers invested highest aggregate amount of Rs 68150 on drip/sprinkler while papaya growers invested lowest amount of Rs 10870 per HH. Coriander crop growers invested highest aggregate amount of Rs 3600 per HH on vermi compost unit

104 whereas the mango and papaya growers spent lowest aggregate amount of Rs 1200 per HH each on the same. Papaya growers have invested Rs 12000 per HH on model nursery also. Thus the volume of investments on so many provisions of NHM was grossly inadequate for a holistic growth of horticulture sector. There is need of more awareness generation and better monitoring of the programme so as to encourage the farmers to invest more on many other provisions of NHM.

5.4.4 Amount of Subsidy provided by NHM

The amount of subsidy provided by NHM for planting material was highest of Rs 7295 per HH for aonla crop and was lowest of Rs 2398 for papaya crop. The amount of subsidy provided through NHM for fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs was maximum of Rs 17022 per HH for aonla crop whereas the papaya farmers received minimum amount of Rs 5595 per HH for the same. Coriander growers received highest subsidy amount of Rs 48028 and Rs 1800 per HH for drip/sprinkler and vermi compost unit respectively. On the other hand, papaya growers received minimum subsidy of Rs 7711 and Rs 600 per HH respectively. The papaya growers also received subsidy of Rs 6000 per HH for establishing the model nursery.

5.4.5 Subsidy as a Percentage of Investment

The farmers cultivating aonla received subsidy amount of 71.2 percent of investment for each of the planting material and fertilizer pesticides and other inputs. Medium farmers got highest of 75 percent subsidy for each of these activities whereas the small farmers received minimum of 67.9 percent subsidy for each of these activities. On an average, the farmers cultivating aonla received 50.2 percent subsidy for drip/sprinkler. The farmers cultivating papaya received 70.5 per cent subsidy for each of the planting material and fertilizer pesticides and other inputs. All papaya growers received the subsidy of 70.9 per cent for drip/sprinkler. Large farmers cultivating papaya received the subsidy of 50 per cent for each of vermi compost unit and model nursery. The farmers cultivating coriander received the subsidy of 48.9 per cent for each of the planting material and fertilizer pesticides and other inputs, which was the lowest than that for the farmers cultivating other study crops. On an average, a coriander grower received 70.5 percent subsidy for drip/sprinkler. On an average, medium and large farmers cultivating coriander received the subsidy of 50 per cent each for establishing vermi compost unit. The farmers cultivating mango received the subsidy of 73.8 per cent for planting material and 71.7 percent for fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs. Mango growers also received 50

105 percent subsidy for establishing vermi compost unit and 70.1 per cent subsidy for drip/sprinkler.

5.5 Capacity Building by NHM Capacity building and human resources development through training, frontline demonstration, publicity and training of the trainers is an integral part of NHM programme. Under this component, the beneficiary farmers and extension personnel were imparted training at different places at regular interval. Our sample farmers also availed this facility under NHM programme to learn about the adoption of modern techniques in horticulture. Table 5.7 shows the different aspects of training and dissemination facility provided to the sample farmers. It may be noted that the training was provided to the sample farmers through various sources on an average of 1.62 times per HH per year. The medium farmers participated in training and dissemination activities for the highest of 1.86 times per HH per year while the marginal farmers participated in training and dissemination activities for the lowest of 1.34 times per HH per year. State Horticulture Department and Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) were found to arrange more number of trainings of 0.65 and 0.61 times per HH per year respectively whereas the Cooperatives/ Local Bodies and Non Government Organizations (NGOs) arranged less number of the training and dissemination activities of 0.01 times per HH per year each. As far as the number of days of training per HH per year is concerned, the same table also shows that, on an average, the training sessions arranged for about 2.82 days per HH per year through different agencies. The large farmers have attended maximum of 3.89 days of training per HH per year whereas small farmers attended minimum of 1.73 days of training per HH per year through different agencies. State horticulture department and Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) imparted training sessions of 1.06 days per HH per year and 0.97 days per HH per year respectively. On the other hand, as low as 0.04 days of training per HH per year and 0.01 days of training per HH per year training were imparted through cooperatives/ local bodies and non government organizations (NGOs) respectively. It may also be noted that about 26 per cent training sessions were organized within village or nearby village through different agencies out of which the State Horticulture Department and Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) organized 14.50 per cent and 9.50 per cent training sessions respectively. Among the farmer categories, medium farmers participated in about 29.82 per cent training sessions whereas only 17.78 per cent training sessions were attended by small farmers in their villages or their nearby villages.

106

Table 5.7: Sources of training/dissemination activity provided to the farmers Farmer categories Details of training Marginal Small Medium Large Total (A) Frequency of the training provided during the year (No. per household per year) State Horticulture Department 0.52 0.78 0.65 0.65 0.65 State Agricultural University / Colleges 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.03 Krishi Vigyan Kendras 0.77 0.62 0.54 0.52 0.61 Kisan Call Centre 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.04 Cooperatives / Local Bodies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 Input Dealers / Private Company 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Representatives Special Research Stations set up by the 0.00 0.16 0.21 0.24 0.16 Government Non Government Organisations (NGOs) 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 Any other 0.05 0.02 0.32 0.07 0.13 All sources 1.34 1.64 1.86 1.56 1.62 (B) Average number of days per household during the year State Horticulture Department 0.70 0.96 1.09 1.41 1.06 State Agricultural University / Colleges 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.05 Krishi Vigyan Kendras 1.73 0.11 1.04 0.98 0.97 Kisan Call Centre 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.05 Cooperatives / Local Bodies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.04 Input Dealers / Private Company 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Representatives Special Research Stations set up by the 0.00 0.47 0.44 0.67 0.41 Government Non Government Organisations (NGOs) 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 Any other 0.07 0.16 0.28 0.43 0.25 All sources 2.50 1.73 2.89 3.89 2.82 (C) Training sessions organized within village or nearby village (% of households) State Horticulture Department 9.09 17.78 12.28 18.52 14.50 State Agricultural University / Colleges 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Krishi Vigyan Kendras 15.91 0.00 12.28 9.26 9.50 Kisan Call Centre 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cooperatives / Local Bodies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Input Dealers / Private Company 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Representatives Special Research Stations set up by the 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Government Non Government Organisations (NGOs) 0.00 0.00 1.75 0.00 0.50 Any other 2.27 0.00 3.51 0.00 1.50 All sources 27.27 17.78 29.82 27.78 26.00

107

Table 5.7 Continued. (D) Training sessions organized within town/district or state capital (% of households) State Horticulture Department 22.73 20.00 22.81 20.37 21.50 State Agricultural University / Colleges 0.00 0.00 7.02 3.70 3.00 Krishi Vigyan Kendras 43.18 6.67 26.32 29.63 26.50 Kisan Call Centre 0.00 2.22 3.51 1.85 2.00 Cooperatives / Local Bodies 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.85 0.50 Input Dealers / Private Company Representatives 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Research Stations set up by the 0.00 15.56 15.79 20.37 13.50 Government Non Government Organisations (NGOs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Any other 0.00 2.22 5.26 7.41 4.00 All sources 65.91 46.67 80.70 85.19 71.00 Source: Field survey data

Majority of farmers did not prefer to attend the training sessions within their village or nearby village because attending training sessions at their district headquarters or state capital was more remunerative for them. Thus, it may be noted that about 71 percent training sessions were organized at town/district headquarters or state capital. About 85.19 per cent of such training sessions were attended by the large farmers while only 46.67 per cent of such training sessions were attended by the small farmers. State Horticulture Department and Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) organized as high as 21.50 per cent and 26.50 per cent training sessions within town/districts or state capital respectively. Special Research Stations also organized training sessions within town/districts or state capital. About 15.56 per cent, 15.79 per cent, and 20.37 per cent training sessions were attended by the small farmers, medium farmers and large farmers respectively. Kisan Call Centre and cooperatives/ local bodies have also organized 2.00 per cent and 0.50 per cent training sessions respectively within town/districts or state capital.

5.6 Perceptions of Households about NHM The perceptions of the beneficiary farmers about their experiences in cultivating various horticultural crops with the help of NHM assistance are very helpful in reviewing the performance of the Mission. Table 5.8 shows various perceptions of households about the performance of NHM in the study districts of Rajasthan. About 96 per cent of all sample farmers said that NHM helped them by providing seedling/nursery for increasing the area under horticultural crops. While on an average 93.5 per cent of all farmers expressed that NHM helped them by providing material inputs for increasing the area under horticultural crops, only 39 percent of marginal farmers expressed that NHM helped them by providing

108 material inputs for increasing the area under horticultural crops. So far as capacity building provisions of NHM is concerned, on an average 74 per cent of all farmers expressed that NHM helped them by providing training to the farmers. On the other hand only 33 per cent of marginal farmers expressed that NHM helped them by providing training to the farmers. About 92.5 per cent of all farmers were of opinion that financial assistance through NHM was a good point. About 63 per cent of all farmers also opined that building infrastructure and capacity building measures such as awareness camps, training etc. were beneficial provisions of NHM. On an average, about 63.5 per cent of all farmers said that the subsidy provision of NHM programme was a very good point. As high as 94.0 per cent of all farmers expressed that NHM helped in increasing the employment opportunities for the farmers through expansion of area under horticultural crops. About 53.5 per cent of all farmers expressed that NHM increased employment opportunities for the farmers and agricultural labourers by providing subsidy to those who diversified their crops from field crops to horticultural crops. Only 1.5 per cent of all farmers opined that NHM did not increase employment in any way. Regarding the effects of NHM on the income levels of the farmers, about 34.5 per cent of all farmers revealed that their income has increased up to 20 per cent after adopting horticultural crops. About 11.5 per cent of all farmers said that their income has increased by 20 to 40 per cent after adopting horticultural crops while only 7.14 per cent of marginal farmers said that their income has increased by 20 to 40 per cent after adopting horticultural crops. As less as 2 per cent of all sample farmers experienced increase in income of 40-60 per cent after adopting horticultural crops. It was unfortunate that about 51.5 per cent of all farmers revealed that their income has not increased yet though they have adopted horticultural crops through NHM. On an average, about 98 per cent of all farmers expressed that the farmers in their villages were aware about the NHM since they were benefited through the subsidies provided through NHM. Nearly about 71 per cent farmers expressed that the farmers in their villages were aware about the NHM since they actively participated in the training programmes provided through the Mission. On an average, 51 per cent farmers expressed that the farmers in their villages were aware about the NHM since they have were benefitted through infrastructural building up by NHM. About 48 per cent of all sample farmers revealed that the farmers in their villages were aware about the NHM since they have been able to raise their area under horticultural crops with the help of NHM.

109

Table 5.8: Perception of households about the NHM (% of households saying yes) Farmer category Details of training Marginal Small Medium Large Total (A) How NHM has helped you to increase your area under horticultural crops? By providing seedling/nursery 86.36 97.78 98.25 100.00 96.00 By providing material inputs 39.00 88.89 96.49 98.15 93.50 By capacity building (providing training) 33.00 62.22 71.93 85.19 74.00 By providing processing facilities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 By providing market for our end product 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 By providing procurement facility 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (B) What are the good points in the policy towards NHM? Financial assistance 72.73 95.56 98.25 100.00 92.50 Building infrastructure 40.91 68.89 64.91 74.07 63.00 Capacity Building (awareness camps / 56.82 55.56 59.65 77.78 63.00 training etc) Subsidy provision 81.82 55.56 54.39 64.81 63.50 Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (C) Do you think NHM has increased employment opportunities for the farmers and agricultural labourers? How? By increasing area under horticultural crops 97.73 93.33 89.47 96.30 94.00 that are manually operated By establishing horticultural processing units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in the local areas By providing subsidy to those who have diversified their crops from field to 36.36 46.67 63.16 62.96 53.50 horticultural crops No NHM has not increased employment in 4.55 0.00 1.75 0.00 1.50 any way (D) Do you think your income has grown up after adopting horticultural crops with the help of NHM? If yes, how much? less than 20 % 21.43 31.11 44.07 37.04 34.50 20 to 40 % 7.14 8.89 6.78 22.22 11.50 40 to 60 % 2.38 2.22 1.69 1.85 2.00 60 to 100 % 0.00 0.00 1.69 0.00 0.50 No increase at all 69.05 57.78 45.76 38.89 51.50 (E) Are farmers in your village aware about the National Horticulture Mission? How? They have actively benefited from the 93.18 100.00 98.25 100.00 98.00 subsidies provided by the NHM They actively participate in the training 54.55 57.78 77.19 88.89 71.00 programmes provided by the NHM They have benefited from the infrastructural 27.27 57.78 52.63 62.96 51.00 building up being done by the NHM They have been able to raise their area under 31.82 40.00 52.63 62.96 48.00 horticultural crops with the help of NHM No they stand aloof and completely unaware 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 about the activities of NHM

110

Table 5.8 Continued. Farmer category Details of training Marginal Small Medium Large Total (F) What changes do you suggest to make NHM more effective? Mention. Subsidy provision for fencing 47.73 26.67 29.82 31.48 33.50 More subsidy amount 34.09 44.44 43.86 46.30 42.50 Provision for planting material 15.91 15.56 15.79 27.78 19.00 Processing facilities 45.45 55.56 50.88 46.30 49.50 Cold wind and frost resistant variety 18.18 13.33 14.04 14.81 15.00 availability Increase powar supply 40.91 42.22 38.60 37.04 39.50 Assured marketing 45.45 48.89 52.63 59.26 52.00 Good market condition for Anola 0.00 4.44 10.53 9.26 6.50 Rivision of cost estimate required 22.73 33.33 29.82 29.63 29.00 Single phase connection for NHM 72.73 77.78 78.95 77.78 77.00 Source: Field survey data

Regarding the changes required so as to make NHM more effective, about 33.5 per cent farmers suggested that subsidy provision for fencing should be incorporated in NHM programme. About 42.5 per cent of all farmers suggested that more subsidy amount should be given to the beneficiary farmers through the Mission keeping in view the inflationary price rise. Only 19 per cent farmers suggested that planting material should be available in time. On an average, 49.5 per cent farmers suggested that processing facilities should be provided and necessary infrastructures should be developed in their villages or nearby villages. Nearly 15 per cent farmers suggested that cold wind and frost resistant varieties of seedlings should be made available through the Mission, especially in the case of fruits and spices. About 39.5 per cent of all farmers suggested that increasing the power supply by the electricity board was necessary for promoting horticultural crops in their region. About 52 per cent of farmers suggested that assured marketing for horticultural crop was very essential generating reasonable returns from the sale of output of horticultural crops. About 29 percent farmers suggested that NHM should revise the cost estimate of horticultural crop for deciding about subsidy provisions for different activities under the Mission. As high as 77 per cent of all farmers suggested that single phase electricity connection for farmers would reduce their electricity bills.

5. 7 Summary of the Chapter This chapter deals with the assessment of overall impact of the NHM programme on the expansion of horticulture area and yield and to identify all possible constraints that negatively affected the effectiveness and outcomes of the programme. While analyzing the impact of

111

NHM on area and yield of selected horticultural crops (aonla, papaya, coriander and mango) during a period from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it was found that the extent of expansion of area under these crops was impressive but the overall increase in yield was not satisfactory in case of crops like coriander and mango. In the case of mango crop, the yield rate actually declined from 64 quintals per acre in 2004-05 to 3.62 quintals per acre in 2009-10. In the case of coriander, the average yield stagnated around 5.49 quintals per acre during a period of six years, i.e., 2004-05 to 2009-10. Though the variability of coriander yield was lowest among the study crops, the growth rate of coriander yield was also lowest. The growth rate of yield in the case of aonla and papaya was phenomenal compared to that of mango and coriander. It was noticed that the area under the selected horticultural crops grew tremendously from 2004-05 to 2008-09 but started falling during 2009-10 because of lack of expansion of marketing facilities, pests and weather related risks. As far as the area under rejuvenation/protection, resources procurement through NHM and the resulted increase in productivity is concerned, no cases of rejuvenation are found in the case of aonla, papaya and coriander. Four farmers were found in the case of mango who were involved in rejuvenation activities through NHM. The average area under rejuvenation of mango was 0.20 acres per HH. Only about 8 per cent sample farmers cultivating mango were supported for rejuvenation/protection. The average increase in productivity as a result of rejuvenation was 22.50 quintals per acre of mango. The rejuvenation activities under NHM in the study districts were not performed well for the selected crops. As regards the sources of NMH resource procurement for our sample farmers during the period from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it was found that about 75 per cent of total NHM resource procurement by our sample farmers was through Department of Horticulture. The private nursery provided 15 per cent whereas the private shops provided 10 per cent of total NHM resource procurement by the beneficiary farmers. The majority of sample farmers were benefitted though various promotional activities undertaken through NHM. About 98 percent farmers said that they made use of available good quality planting material like nursery through NHM. About 50.5 per cent farmers were found to use poly-house with ventilation, insect proof netting, fogging and sprinkler irrigation. As high as 91 per cent farmers said that they used and promoted integrated nutrient management (INM) or integrated pest management (IPM). Also 40.5 per cent farmers said that they established new garden or seed production unit with the use of NHM assistance. However, there were so many other activities and provisions under NHM that could not benefit the sample farmers. None of the farmers were associated with upgrading the existing tissue culture unit, soil sterilization and

112 steam sterilization system with boilers, precision farming implements, e.g., computer, GIP, GIS, sensors and application control. Not a single farmer was found to use the modernized post harvest management system like pack house, storage unit, mobile processing unit etc. Thus there is huge scope for expanding these activities among farmers. However, it was true that some farmers did not fulfill eligibility criteria to avail some of the facilities provided under NHM. The planting material, fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs and drip/sprinkler were the major items for which subsidy was provided to the beneficiary farmers. Few farmers have also received subsidy for the activities like establishing vermi compost units and model nursery. The amount of subsidy provided by NHM for planting material was highest of Rs 7295 per HH for aonla crop and was lowest of Rs 2398 for papaya crop. The amount of subsidy provided through NHM for fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs was maximum of Rs 17022 per HH for aonla crop whereas the papaya farmers received minimum amount of subsidy of Rs 5595 per HH for the same. The total aggregate investment for planting material was highest of Rs 10239 per HH in the case of aonla crop and was lowest of Rs 3401 per HH in the case of papaya crop. The aggregate investment on fertilizer, pesticide and other inputs was highest of Rs 23891 per HH in the case of aonla crop. The aggregate investment on fertilizer, pesticide and other inputs in the case of papaya, coriander and mango was Rs 7935, Rs 19298 and Rs 18399 per HH respectively. However, the volume of investments on so many provisions of NHM was grossly inadequate for a holistic growth of horticulture sector. The farmers cultivating aonla received subsidy amount of 71.2 percent of investment for each of the planting material and fertilizer pesticides and other inputs. On an average, the farmers cultivating aonla received 50.2 percent subsidy for drip/sprinkler. There is need of more awareness generation and better monitoring of the programme so as to encourage the farmers to invest more on many other provisions of NHM. Capacity building and human resources development through training, frontline demonstration, publicity and training of the trainers is an integral part of NHM programme. It was found that the training was provided to the sample farmers through various sources on an average of 1.62 times per HH per year. On an average, the training sessions arranged for about 2.82 days per HH per year through different agencies. State Horticulture Department and Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) were found to arrange more number of trainings of 0.65 and 0.61 times per HH per year respectively whereas the Cooperatives/ Local Bodies and Non Government Organizations (NGOs) arranged less number of the training and dissemination activities of 0.01 times per HH per year each. It was noticed that about 26 per

113 cent training sessions were organized within village or nearby village through different agencies out of which the State Horticulture Department and Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) organized 14.5 per cent and 9.5 per cent training sessions respectively. The perceptions of the beneficiary farmers about their experiences in cultivating various horticultural crops with the help of NHM assistance are very helpful in reviewing the performance of the Mission. About 96 per cent of all sample farmers said that NHM helped them by providing seedling/nursery for increasing the area under horticultural crops. On an average, 93.5 per cent of all farmers expressed that NHM helped them by providing material inputs for increasing the area under horticultural crops. About 92.5 per cent of all farmers were of opinion that financial assistance through NHM was a good point. About 63 per cent of all farmers also opined that building infrastructure and capacity building measures such as awareness camps, training etc. were beneficial provisions of NHM. Regarding the effects of NHM on the income levels of the farmers, about 34.5 per cent of all farmers revealed that their income has increased up to 20 per cent after adopting horticultural crops. It was unfortunate that about 51.5 per cent of all farmers revealed that their income has not increased yet though they have adopted horticultural crops through NHM. On an average, about 98 per cent of all farmers expressed that the farmers in their villages were aware about the NHM since they were benefited through the subsidies provided through NHM. Regarding the changes required so as to make NHM more effective, about 33.5 per cent farmers suggested that subsidy provision for fencing should be incorporated in NHM programme. About 42.5 per cent of all farmers suggested that more subsidy amount should be given to the beneficiary farmers through the Mission keeping in view the inflationary price rise. Also about 49.5 per cent farmers suggested that processing facilities should be provided and necessary infrastructures should be developed in their villages or nearby villages. As high as 77 per cent of all farmers suggested that single phase electricity connection for farmers would reduce their electricity bills.

114

Chapter 6 Concluding Remarks and Policy Suggestions

6.1 Introduction This chapter consists of two sections. The first section highlights the summary of findings of the study as discussed in the preceding chapters and the second section contains some policy implications of the study. In this section, specific policy recommendations are suggested for the overall improvement in implementation of NHM with a special focus on the study crops and districts of Rajasthan.

6.2 Summary of Findings

6.2.1 Objectives, Data and Methodology This study was conducted to assess the impact in terms of increase in area, production and productivity of identified horticultural crops covered under NHM, keeping 2004-05 as the base year for the state of Rajasthan in general and for the identified crops/districts in particular; to assess the extent to which the scheme has helped in creating employment opportunities and enhancement of income of the farmers and to suggest measures for improving the implementation strategy of NHM in Rajasthan. The present study covering selected districts of Rajasthan state is a part of a major project that covers 16 states of India to study the impact of NHM scheme. For the state of Rajasthan, the study was conducted in four districts, viz., Alwar, Jaipur, Chittorgarh and Banswara. The study covers the implementation of the NHM programme from 2005-06 to 2008-09. A total of 200 households were selected from 77 villages of four allotted districts of Rajasthan. Members of Growers Associations, Pradhan /Pramukh of village, block, district level and state level concerned functionaries were also interviewed. While selecting the sample, care was taken to represent all the section of the society such as small and marginal farmers, SC/ST farmers and women folk, so that outreach of the programme to these sections is also reflected in the study. Data were analyzed using simple statistical tools such as averages, percentages and growth rates.

6.2.2 Area, Production and Productivity of Horticultural Crops in the State As far as the status of area, production and yield of horticultural crops in the state of Rajasthan is concerned, the area under horticultural crops as a proportion of cultivable area

115 was found to increase from 3.14 per cent during triennium ending (TE) 2004-05 to 3.41 per cent during TE 2008-09. The total area under all horticultural crops has increased from 3, 23,347 hectares during TE 1980-81 to 8, 71,539 hectares during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. The total production from all horticultural crops has increased from 1, 84,794 MT during TE 1980-81 to 18, 48,466 MT during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. The district-wise analysis of horticultural area in the state revealed that the horticultural area as a proportion of cultivable area was highest of 25.74 per cent in Jhalawar district and was lowest of 0.26 per cent in Hanumangarh district during TE 2008-09. As regards the growth of area and production of various types of horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal crops in Rajasthan from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09, it was observed that there were so many ups and downs in growth of both area and production of various types of horticultural crops during the period from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09. However, the instability in growth of yield was much higher than the instability in growth of area under these crops over the years. The share of area and production of spices has declined from 76 per cent and 33 per cent in 1980-81 to 58 per cent and 29 per cent in 2008-09 respectively. On the other hand, the share of area and production of medicinal crops has sharply increased from 7 per cent and 1 per cent in 1980-81 to 25 per cent and 6 per cent in 2008-09 respectively. The area under horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices and medicinal crops in Rajasthan during the period TE 1980-81 was 11777 hectares, 38660 hectares, 251911 hectares and 21000 hectares respectively. The production of various types of horticultural crops, viz., vegetables, spices and medicinal crops in Rajasthan during the period TE 1980-81 was 64088 MT, 118075 MT and 2681 MT respectively. The area under fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal crops in Rajasthan during the period TE 2008-09 was 29069 hectares, 130539 hectares, 495405 hectares, 3142 hectares and 213385 hectares respectively. The production of fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal crops in Rajasthan during the period TE 2008-09 was 483200 MT, 792788 MT, 473541 MT, 4241 MT, 94697 MT and 1848466 MT respectively. The annual growth rate of area and yield of all horticultural crops was 4.47 per cent and 11.01 per cent respectively between TE 1980- 81 and TE 1990-91. While the annual growth rate of area of horticultural crops has further increased to 4.63 per cent during the period of TE 1990-91 - TE 2000-01, the annual growth rate of yield of horticultural crops has declined to 0.74 per cent during the same period. The district-wise analysis of area and production of different types of horticultural crops for the periods TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09 reveals that the horticultural area was also highest of 1, 05,186 hectares in Barmer district and was also lowest of 872 hectares in

116

Dungarpur district during TE 2008-09. The production of horticultural crops during the same period was highest (283982.9 MT) in Jhalawar district followed by 176428.4 MT in Jodhpur district, 165224.2 MT in Sri Ganganagar district. As far as the growth rate of area and yield of horticultural crops in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that, between TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09, Rajsamund, Hanumangarh and Sirohi occupied first three positions with 15.1 per cent, 11.43 per cent and 10.64 per cent of annual growth in area under horticultural crops respectively. On the other hand, Sri Ganganagar, Bharatpur and Hanumangarh occupied first three positions with 43.44 per cent, 23.05 per cent and 16.20 per cent of annual growth in production of horticultural crops respectively between the same periods. The decadal analysis of the annual growth of four selected horticultural crops (aonla, papaya, coriander and mango) reveals that the first two decades, i.e., 1980-81 to 1990-91 and 1990-91 to 2000-01 have had remarkable growth in area and production of coriander crop. The growth in area under mango was noteworthy during 1980-81 to 1990-91, while the growth in production of mango was striking during 1990-91-2000-01. The growth of area and production of papaya and aonla was much better during last two decades, i.e., 1990-91 to 2000-01 and 2000-01 to 2008-09. Particularly, the growth of area and production of aonla was outstanding during the second decade of our study, i.e., 1990-91 to 2000-01. The area under aonla, papaya, coriander and mango in Rajasthan during the period TE 1985-86 was 8 hectares, 227 hectares, 110154 hectares and 442 hectares respectively. The production of aonla, papaya, coriander and mango during the same period was 8 MT, 469 MT, 40462 MT and 4026 MT respectively. The area under aonla, papaya, coriander and mango during the period TE 2008-09 was 1611 hectares, 435 hectares, 196396 hectares and 6231 hectares respectively. The production of aonla, papaya, coriander and mango during the same period was 12845 MT, 10108 MT, 198267 MT and 88586 MT respectively. The annual growth rate of area and yield of aonla was 27.93 per cent and 5.86 per cent respectively during the period from TE 2000-01 to TE 2008-09. The annual growth rate of area and yield of papaya was 2.15 per cent and 13.83 per cent respectively during the same period. The annual growth rate of area and yield of coriander was 3.31 per cent and -2.09 per cent respectively during the same period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09. The annual growth rate of area and yield of mango was -0.69 per cent and 0.08 per cent respectively during the same period. The district-wise analysis of area and production of selected four horticultural crops for the periods TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09 reveals that the area under aonla was highest in

117

Ajmer district (133.1 hectares) and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in 4 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. Likewise, the area under aonla was also highest (252.3 hectares) in Ajmer district and was lowest of 0.0 ha in Dungarpur district of Rajasthan during TE 2008- 09. In the case of papaya, the area coverage was highest of 49.5 hectares in Chittorgarh district and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in 5 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. Chittorgarh district also occupied first position in terms of area under papaya with 62.2 hectares during TE 2008-09. The production of papaya in Chittorgarh district was also highest of 1647.8 MT and 4749.6 MT during TE 2004-05 and during TE 2008-09 respectively. No output of papaya was realized in 5 districts during TE 2004-05 and in 6 districts during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. As far as the district-wise analysis of area and production of coriander is concerned, the area under coriander was also highest (81555.0 hectares) in Jhalawar district and was lowest of 0.7 hectares each in Barmer, Dungarpur and Hanumangarh districts of Rajasthan during TE 2008-09. The production of coriander was highest of 81948.0 MT in Baran district, followed by 66313.0 MT and 44487.3 MT in Jhalawar district and Kota district respectively. The area under mango was also highest (779.1 hectares) in Udaipur district and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in 3 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2008-09. The production of mango was highest of 17789.4 MT in Chittorgarh district, followed by 10610.5 MT and 9380.7 MT in Udaipur district and Banswara district respectively during the same period.

6.2.3 Household characteristics, Cropping Pattern and Production Structure Among the sample farmers, 44 were marginal farmers, 45 were small farmers, 57 were medium farmers and 54 were large farmers. The average household (HH) size for entire sample was 7.47 persons. The average number of earners in a sample household was 2.93. It was good to find that about 67.5 per cent of all members of sample households belonged to 16-60 years age group which considered as a productive age group. Only 7.0 per cent were aged above 60 years. All respondents of our sample households were heads of their households. About 22.3 percent members of sample households were illiterate and 69.7 per cent of them were literate from primary level to graduate level. As far as the cast composition of selected farmers is concerned, about 51 per cent sample households (HHs) belonged to OBC category, 32.5 percent HHs belonged to ST category, 2.5 percent HHs belonged to SC and remaining 14 per cent HHs belonged to general caste category. The majority of decisions were taken by male members in the case of about 92 per cent of our sample HHs. As far as the main occupation of the sample HHs is concerned,

118 about 78.8 per cent of working members of sample HHs were engaged in farming, 10.2 per cent were engaged in self business, 10.98 per cent were salaried or pensioners and only 0.78 per cent were wage earners. The net sown area (NSA), net operated area (NOA) and gross cropped area (GCA) of sample households was found to be 8.95 acres, 9.01 acres and 16.76 acres per HH respectively and the cropping intensity in the study area was 187 per cent. As regards the nature of tenancy in leased- in land in the study area, near about 0.06 acres per HH was found to be leased in by the sample farmers and the entire leased in lands were leased in by the farmers in the form of fixed rent in cash. The total rainfed area was 8.36 per cent in the case of all sample farmers which implies that about 91.6 per cent of NOA of sample farmers was irrigated from various sources, mainly through tube wells run by electric and diesel. This is particularly because the selected farmers were beneficiaries of NHM and were having sufficient irrigated area so as to cultivate various cash crops. The per-household credit from all sources for sample farmers was Rs 143740 out of which the credit amount from various institutional sources excluding government programmes was Rs 88034.4 (61.2%). The contribution of institutional sources to total credit for farming by marginal farmers, small farmers, medium farmers and large farmers was 63.1per cent, 35.6 per cent, 32.0 per cent and 72.1 per cent respectively. All farmers taken together, per acre loan of Rs 9924.8 was received by a sample farmer from various institutional sources and per acre loan of Rs 6237.1 was availed by a sample farmer from various government programmes. All farmers taken together used the credit amount of Rs 137360 (95.6%) per household in various productive activities such as agriculture and allied activities. The value of farm asset holdings of marginal farmers was Rs 73470 per HH while that of small, medium and large farmers were Rs 213124, Rs 457572 and Rs 645250 respectively. All farmers taken together, a household had farm assets of Rs 41213 per acre of NSA. The livestock was found to be a major component of total asset holdings for all categories of farmers. The per-HH area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops cultivated by the sample farmers was 7.62 acres, 5.48 acres, and 3.67 acres respectively. The total area under HYV was 15.50 acre per HH and its share in GCA was 92.47 per cent for all farmers category. Among various Kharif crops, maize was found to be an important crop cultivated by farmers of all categories and the share of maize in total GCA varied from 12.5 per cent to 27.1 per cent. The total area under horticulture crop in all categories was 3.67 acres per HH (21.89 per cent of GCA). The area under horticulture crop for all selected farmer categories

119 ranged between 19.6 per cent and 27.1 per cent of GCA. Our four study crops aonla, papaya, mango and coriander were cultivated by the sample farmers in 0.82 acres, 0.30 acres, 0.59 acres and 1.12 acres per HH respectively. Out of 16.76 acres of GCA per HH, 16.20 acres constituting about 96.6 per cent was irrigated in the case of sample farmers. Similarly, out of 8.95 acres of NSA per HH, about 8.26 acres constituting about 92.3 per cent was irrigated in the case of our sample farmers. About 7.11 acres (93.4%) of total Kharif area and 5.42 acres (98.9%) of total Rabi area were irrigated whereas about 3.67 acres (96.6%) of total horticultural area was irrigated during the reference year 2008-09. The area under organic farming was nil for all categories of farmers except large farmers. The total area under organic farming was only 5.6 acres which was cultivated by only one farmer. Thus the average area under organic farming per HH was only 0.10 acres in the case of large farmer category and 0.03 acres in the case of all farmers taken together. The gross value of output across all size groups of farmers was Rs 347821 per household (HH), while the total cost of cultivation of all crops including material cost and labour cost was Rs 184988 per HH. Thus the net return from cultivation of all types of crops was Rs 162833 per HH. The material cost was more than the labour cost for all size groups of farmers. The per-HH material cost and labour cost ratio was in the ratio of 64.1: 35.9 in the case of all farmers taken together. The average family income generated by our sample farmers from various farm and non-farm activities was Rs 272065 per HH.

6.2.4 The Production Structure and Resource Use under Horticulture Crops As far as the economics of production of selected horticultural crops is concerned, it was found that only the cultivation coriander and papaya could generate reasonable amount of annual net returns for the sample farmers. The long duration crops like aonla and mango did not reach to fruit bearing stage in the case of majority of NHM beneficiary farmers. Thus the net average returns were not very impressive in the case of these two long duration sample crops. In the case of aonla, the average total cost of cultivation for all farmers category was Rs 20899 per acre, out of which, the total variable cost was Rs 18584 per acre (88.9%) and total fixed cost was Rs 2316 per acre. Out of this total fixed cost, Rs 2093 (10.0%) was spent towards the material component and only Rs 223 (1.1%) was spent towards the labour component. On an average, about 11.34 quintals of output of aonla was realized from an acre of land by sample farmers. The per-acre total revenue generated was highest (Rs18428) in the case of medium farmers and was the lowest (Rs13770) in the case of large farmers. Since the total revenue was less than the total cost in case of all categories of farmers, the per-acre net

120 return was found to be negative in all cases. On an average, about Rs 5277 was the net loss from an acre of aonla during the reference year 2008-09. Some aonla growers were also worried about the low production due to frost and low temperature during winter season that resulted in late bearing of fruits and small sized fruits. The analysis on economics of cultivation of mango crops also resulted in similar kind of results with a net loss of Rs 556 per acre. Only medium category of farmers could generate a net positive return of Rs 26053 from an acre of mango by the reference year 2008-09 since some of them had availed NHM assistance for renovating their existing mango orchards. The main reason of getting negative returns from long duration crops like aonla and mango was that the majority of our sample farmers had planted these two crops for last three to four years. During the early stages, the annual investment was high but the output was nil or very low and the revenue generated was very less. Therefore, net annual returns were very low. However, majority expressed that the net return would be positive in near future. So far as the economics of cultivation of shorter duration crops like coriander and papaya is concerned, the sample farmers had generated the net positive returns from both the crops. The total cost of cultivating papaya crop in the case of all farmers category was Rs 28560 per acre, out of which, the total variable cost was Rs 18786 per acre (65.8%) and total fixed cost was Rs 7400 per acre (25.9%). The production of papaya was 72.3 quintals per acre on an average for the sample farmers. The production of papaya varied from as lowest as 46.1 quintals per acre in the case of marginal farmers to the highest of 103.8 quintals per acre in the case of small farmers. The per-acre net revenue generated was Rs 18232 for all farmers category. The main reason of getting positive net returns from cultivation of papaya was that the life span of papaya crop was near about three years and the maximum production was realized by the sample farmers by the reference year 2008-09. Similarly, the per-acre net revenue generated from an acre of coriander was, on an average, Rs 5434 in the case of all farmers. The net output produced by all farmers was 5.80 quintals per acre of coriander. The total cost of cultivating coriander crop in the case of all farmers category was Rs 11759 per acre. The analysis on the net returns from various horticultural and non-horticultural crops generated by sample farmers of different categories during 2008-09 reveals that the net returns of kharif crops for all farmers category was Rs 9661 per acre. The net return from rabi crops was Rs 11860 per acre which was higher than that from kharif crops because kharif crops mainly depended upon monsoon while rabi crops were provided irrigation facility. However, the average net return from horticulture crops was Rs 6627 per acre which

121 was lower than the both kharif and rabi averages. The aggregate net returns from all crops (kharif, rabi and horticultural) was Rs 18199 per acre of NSA and Rs 9716 per acre of GCA. The marginal farmers, small farmers, medium farmers and large farmers generated net return of Rs 14082, Rs 17557, Rs 22904 and Rs 16608 per acre of NSA respectively. It is expected that the average net return from horticultural crops would further increase once the long duration crops cultivated under NHM scheme like aonla, mango, anar, bael and citrus etc. start giving output by the next few years. So far as the use of human labour is concerned, it may be noted that about 30.5 human-days was required for an acre of kharif crops on an average, while various horticultural crops required an average of 39.8 man-days per acre. The horticultural crops were more labour intensive compared to non-horticultural crops for which the average man- days required for an acre of horticultural crops was higher than that of non-horticultural crops. Considering the cases of our study crops, it was found that, an average of 54.6 man- days was required for an acre of aonla. In the case of mango, papaya and coriander, about 42.0 man-days, 93.2 man-days and 20.4 man-days were used per acre respectively. As regards the activity wise uses of human labour in horticultural crops, out of an average of 39.8 man days per acre per acre of horticultural crops, only about 27.3 man-days were used for various recurring activities and about 12.5 man-days were used for various fixed activities undertaken per acre of horticultural crops. The analysis on the selling of output of selected horticultural crops, viz., aonla, papaya, coriander and mango through various marketing channels reveals that, wholesale market and pre-arranged selling were the major marketing channels for the sample farmers. In the case of papaya, out of total selling of 73.14 quintals/HH through various channels, as high as 62.65 per cent was sold in the wholesale market. In the case of coriander and aonla, respectively 98.84 per cent and 54.52 per cent were sold in the wholesale market. However, the case of mango was an exception. On an average, about 18.31 quintals of mango per HH was marketed through various channels out of which 80.56 per cent was sold on pre-arranged contract and 19.44 per cent was sold through intermediaries at farm gate. As regards the on- farm processing activities using the selected horticultural crops, it was unfortunate to find that none of the sample households in our study areas cultivating allotted four selected horticultural crops were involved in processing activity supported by NHM. However, some sample farmers were involved in processing of other crops.

122

6.2.5 Impact of NHM on the Expansion of Horticultural Crops While analyzing the impact of NHM on area and yield of selected horticultural crops (aonla, papaya, coriander and mango) during a period from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it was found that the extent of expansion of area under these crops was impressive but the overall increase in yield was not satisfactory in case of crops like coriander and mango. In the case of mango crop, the yield rate actually declined from 64 quintals per acre in 2004-05 to 3.62 quintals per acre in 2009-10. In the case of coriander, the average yield stagnated around 5.49 quintals per acre during a period of six years, i.e., 2004-05 to 2009-10. Though the variability of coriander yield was lowest among the study crops, the growth rate of coriander yield was also lowest. The growth rate of yield in the case of aonla and papaya was phenomenal compared to that of mango and coriander. It was noticed that the area under the selected horticultural crops grew tremendously from 2004-05 to 2008-09 but started falling during 2009-10 because of lack of expansion of marketing facilities, pests and weather related risks. As far as the area under rejuvenation/protection, resources procurement through NHM and the resulted increase in productivity is concerned, no cases of rejuvenation are found in the case of aonla, papaya and coriander. Four farmers were found in the case of mango who were involved in rejuvenation activities through NHM. The average area under rejuvenation of mango was 0.20 acres per HH. Only about 8 per cent sample farmers cultivating mango were supported for rejuvenation/protection. The average increase in productivity as a result of rejuvenation was 22.50 quintals per acre of mango. The rejuvenation activities under NHM in the study districts were not performed well for the selected crops. As regards the sources of NMH resource procurement for our sample farmers during the period from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it was found that about 75 per cent of total NHM resource procurement by our sample farmers was through Department of Horticulture. The private nursery provided 15 per cent whereas the private shops provided 10 per cent of total NHM resource procurement by the beneficiary farmers. The majority of sample farmers were benefitted though various promotional activities undertaken through NHM. About 98 percent farmers said that they made use of available good quality planting material like nursery through NHM. About 50.5 per cent farmers were found to use poly-house with ventilation, insect proof netting, fogging and sprinkler irrigation. As high as 91 per cent farmers said that they used and promoted integrated nutrient management (INM) or integrated pest management (IPM). Also 40.5 per cent farmers said that they established new garden or seed production unit with the use of NHM assistance. However, there were so many other activities and provisions under NHM that could not benefit the sample farmers. None of the

123 farmers were associated with upgrading the existing tissue culture unit, soil sterilization and steam sterilization system with boilers, precision farming implements, e.g., computer, GIP, GIS, sensors and application control. Not a single farmer was found to use the modernized post harvest management system like pack house, storage unit, mobile processing unit etc. Thus there is huge scope for expanding these activities among farmers. However, it was true that some farmers did not fulfill eligibility criteria to avail some of the facilities provided under NHM. The planting material, fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs and drip/sprinkler were the major items for which subsidy was provided to the beneficiary farmers. Few farmers have also received subsidy for the activities like establishing vermi compost units and model nursery. The amount of subsidy provided by NHM for planting material was highest of Rs 7295 per HH for aonla crop and was lowest of Rs 2398 for papaya crop. The amount of subsidy provided through NHM for fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs was maximum of Rs 17022 per HH for aonla crop whereas the papaya farmers received minimum amount of subsidy of Rs 5595 per HH for the same. The total aggregate investment for planting material was highest of Rs 10239 per HH in the case of aonla crop and was lowest of Rs 3401 per HH in the case of papaya crop. The aggregate investment on fertilizer, pesticide and other inputs was highest of Rs 23891 per HH in the case of aonla crop. The aggregate investment on fertilizer, pesticide and other inputs in the case of papaya, coriander and mango was Rs 7935, Rs 19298 and Rs 18399 per HH respectively. However, the volume of investments on so many provisions of NHM was grossly inadequate for a holistic growth of horticulture sector. The farmers cultivating aonla received subsidy amount of 71.2 percent of investment for each of the planting material and fertilizer pesticides and other inputs. On an average, the farmers cultivating aonla received 50.2 percent subsidy for drip/sprinkler. There is need of more awareness generation and better monitoring of the programme so as to encourage the farmers to invest more on many other provisions of NHM. Capacity building and human resources development through training, frontline demonstration, publicity and training of the trainers is an integral part of NHM programme. It was found that the training was provided to the sample farmers through various sources on an average of 1.62 times per HH per year. On an average, the training sessions arranged for about 2.82 days per HH per year through different agencies. State Horticulture Department and Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) were found to arrange more number of trainings of 0.65 and 0.61 times per HH per year respectively whereas the Cooperatives/ Local Bodies and Non Government Organizations (NGOs) arranged less number of the training and

124 dissemination activities of 0.01 times per HH per year each. It was noticed that about 26 per cent training sessions were organized within village or nearby village through different agencies out of which the State Horticulture Department and Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) organized 14.5 per cent and 9.5 per cent training sessions respectively. The perceptions of the beneficiary farmers about their experiences in cultivating various horticultural crops with the help of NHM assistance are very helpful in reviewing the performance of the Mission. About 96 per cent of all sample farmers said that NHM helped them by providing seedling/nursery for increasing the area under horticultural crops. On an average, 93.5 per cent of all farmers expressed that NHM helped them by providing material inputs for increasing the area under horticultural crops. About 92.5 per cent of all farmers were of opinion that financial assistance through NHM was a good point. About 63 per cent of all farmers also opined that building infrastructure and capacity building measures such as awareness camps, training etc. were beneficial provisions of NHM. Regarding the effects of NHM on the income levels of the farmers, about 34.5 per cent of all farmers revealed that their income has increased up to 20 per cent after adopting horticultural crops. It was unfortunate that about 51.5 per cent of all farmers revealed that their income has not increased yet though they have adopted horticultural crops through NHM. On an average, about 98 per cent of all farmers expressed that the farmers in their villages were aware about the NHM since they were benefited through the subsidies provided through NHM. Regarding the changes required so as to make NHM more effective, about 33.5 per cent farmers suggested that subsidy provision for fencing should be incorporated in NHM programme. About 42.5 per cent of all farmers suggested that more subsidy amount should be given to the beneficiary farmers through the Mission keeping in view the inflationary price rise. Also about 49.5 per cent farmers suggested that processing facilities should be provided and necessary infrastructures should be developed in their villages or nearby villages. As high as 77 per cent of all farmers suggested that single phase electricity connection for farmers would reduce their electricity bills.

6.3 Policy Suggestions Rajasthan offers excellent horticulture development potential in spite of several biophysical as well as development constraints. The endeavors over the past decade made for planned and systematic development of horticultural in the state have started producing inspiring results. However, there are several challenges that have to be addressed properly so as to strengthen the horticulture sector in study districts of Rajasthan in particular and in India in general. In

125 order to meet the challenges ahead, major emphasis should be on ensuring availability of quality planting material in required quantity and in required time, priority to meet the future needs, protected cultivation to improve the productivity levels, organic farming for capitalizing the niche markets, mechanization to bring efficiency and competence, post harvest infrastructure to match the mammoth expansion, value addition to venture new products, transfer of technology to make the extension systems more accountable, radical reforms in database management, venturing in to new opportunities like genetic modified organisms (GMOs), branding of Indian horticultural crops etc. As far as the four specific study crops in four study districts are concerned, followings are the major suggestions for strengthening the implementation of NHM in Rajasthan. 1. The large degree of spatial and temporal variations was observed in the area and yield of different horticultural crops during the reference periods in Rajasthan. The productivity and area coverage under the selected crops also fluctuated to a large extent over the years and across the districts of Rajasthan mainly due to water shortage and periodic occurrence of drought. For instance, the cases of high mortality of plantation crops were found in Ganau block of Banswara district due to insufficient irrigation during summer as the farmers were small with less resources and their lands were largely under rainfed conditions. Thus the area under assured irrigation in Rajasthan needs a special attention in various parts of Rajasthan including the study districts. Micro irrigation systems like drip irrigation with plastic mulching should be promoted so as to increase the water use efficiency. It was noticed that the filtration units for sprinkler and drip irrigation systems were not working properly at some places. The filtration units should be checked and realigned regularly. 2. For expansion of area under irrigation, provisions under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Guarantee Act (NREGA) could also be utilized under convergence programme. The measures should be taken for convergence of different programmes like: Watershed Programmes, National Agriculture Development Programme (Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana), National Horticulture Mission, Scheme of Artificial Recharge of Ground Water through Dug well, BRGF, with NREGA for developing irrigation infrastructures in rural areas of Rajasthan. As far as convergence of NHM scheme with NREGA is concerned, Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) in the pilot districts of Rajasthan have provided plans for technical training on vermin compost, production of planting material of vegetables

126

and fruits, bee-keeping and seed production. The State Government has undertaken sub schemes, Harit Rajasthan for convergence of NREGA with other Departments. However, there is a need to accelerate this convergence programme in various districts with effective planning and implementation. 3. Cold and frost was found to be a major problem in the case of aonla and papaya cultivation in the study districts of Rajasthan which caused high mortality of plants. So it is suggested that frost and cold resistant varieties may be supplied to the farmers in Rajasthan. The sample farmers expressed that they did not get access to resource persons those could have helped them in sorting out their immediate problems such as pest attack, mortality of plants, application of required amount/type of pesticides and plant protection chemicals etc. and various other problems relating to cultivation of horticultural crops. Thus it is suggested that the team constituted by the Horticulture Department should visit the orchards periodically and suggest preventive/protection measures so that the confidence level of farmers could be raised. 4. The loss of horticultural crops has occurred at many cases due to unavoidable natural calamities along with pest attack. However, there is no provision for crop insurance for horticultural crops unlike agricultural crops. So there is a need of introducing crop insurance for horticultural crops that will improve the confidence level of farmers cultivating horticultural crops. 5. However, the horticultural supervisors those were assigned the duties of helping the farmers at their field were of the opinion that they were putting their best possible efforts in meeting their targets and in helping out the horticulture growers in their jurisdiction. However, as there are around 5 supervisors covering each of the study districts, each has territory extending up to 200 km and the TA and DA that they get for their field visits were grossly insufficient, even that amount was found pending with the department since years in the case of some supervisors, it is unlikely that they discharge their duties in effective manner. So necessary steps should be taken up to sort out the problems relating to the field supervisors. The staffing should also be increased to share the work load so that the farmers don‟t suffer. 6. Sufficient staff needs to be outsourced at both district and block level for effective implementation of NHM programme in the state. Additional workforce need to be appointed on the full time basis exclusively for the work relating to implementation of NHM programme. They should be paid good amount as salary keeping in view

127

the volume of the work. Good amount of salary and TA/DA allowance would make them not to leave the job so quickly which would be beneficial for the field work relating to the Scheme. It was also noticed that, though staff strength for Agriculture Department is more than sufficient, the same for Horticulture Department is highly inadequate at various study districts. If transfer of some staff could be made from Agriculture Department to Horticulture Department, it would increase the performance of the Programme. Particularly the work undertaken under Horticulture Department has increased manifold due to increased importance of horticultural crops, but the staff strength has not increased to that extent. Even one supervisor is in charge of two/three blocks which is not possible. Furthermore, the allowance given towards TA and other field expenses are grossly inadequate for which the staff members are forced to spend a part of their salary for office work. Thus, it is suggested to make necessary arrangements to maintain proper coordination between Agriculture Department and Horticulture Department and to transfer some staff from Agriculture Department to Horticulture Department so as to facilitate smooth implementation of the Scheme. 7. The problem of marketing of the horticultural crops was one of the major issues for the sample farmers. The sample farmers did not get reasonable price for their products due to unavailability of markets in their nearby areas. Sometimes political factors created hindrances for the farmers. For example, an aonla mandi in Chomu district was ready for operation and but its inauguration was not yet materialized, since the political people wanted to wait for the right time to take political mileage (Annexure Plate 10). Such kind of lingering should not be allowed keeping in view the existing serious marketing problems related to the produce. More number of marketing infrastructures and arrangements need to be established so that farmers get reasonable price of their products. 8. One of the reasons for less demand for aonla in the region is the lack of processing facilities. There are very few processing units available for aonla in Jaipur. Since aonla is mainly used only after the processing, the presence of insufficient number of processing units forced the farmers to sell their products at very low price. On the other hand, there is huge potential to establish more aonla processing units in the study district of Rajasthan. Thus it is suggested to expand processing activities and

128

units in Jaipur district and other areas which will act as incentives for the aonla growers. 9. The cost of cultivation is taken as the basis for granting subsidies for the horticultural crops. The cost of cultivation calculated by the government is far less than the actual cost incurred by the farmers. So what the government proclaims about 75 per cent subsidy is actually 40-50 per cent. So it is recommended that government should revise the norms on cost of cultivation for the horticultural crops. In case of rejuvenation of mango, the rate of subsidy should also be increased by 50 -75 per cent. 10. As per the norms laid down under NHM, the market linkages, returns to farmers, production advantage and export potential are the basis of selecting some crops as the focus crops for the Rajasthan state under NHM. These crops include fruits (mandarin, kinnow, pomegranate, mango, papaya, bael, ber, aonla, guava, lime, sweet orange), spices (coriander, cumin, fenugreek, fennel, mehandi) and flowers (Dutch rose, desi rose and gerbera). The subsidies under NHM are being provided for growing these focus crops in Rajasthan. However, it was observed that some of the sample farmers were not very serious in taking care of these focus crops. In fact, their focus remained on some other kinds of inter crops. The farmers were found to adopt intercropping practices in fruits orchards and promoting vegetable cultivation as intercrop which is appreciable. It was expressed by the some sample farmers that it was the inter crop rather than the main crop for which they survived. Since the subsidy was available for these focus crops only, they cultivated these crops to get subsidy. However, they promoted other kinds of inter crops which were truly profitable for them. For example, a farmer got subsidy for cultivating mango, but cultivated chili as the inter crop which was actually his main crop. In Kakrali Jat village of Alwar district, a farmer said that he wanted to plant papaya on bunds but due to rigid NHM norms he planted them in field and none of them survived because of water logging. Thus it is suggested that NHM norms should be flexible ones keeping in view the requirements of the farmers. 11. It was observed that the subsidy amount was sometimes given in cash and in some other cases as Cheque. The payment of subsidy in some cases was delayed. As the farmer invests a big amount to start up and if his subsidy gets delayed he has to face agony from the suppliers from whom he has taken the inputs on credit. So it is suggested that the subsidy amount should be paid to the farmers in time. Some

129

deadline should be fixed for the payment of subsidy amount and it should be adhered to. 12. Freedom should be given to the farmers for choosing the crop they want to take up. Presently as subsidy are given for few selected crops, even though the farmer is not convinced about the suitability of these crops. He takes it up eyeing at the subsidy amount. Moreover targets on area expansion under a crop are given to supervisors so they just consider the financial condition and interest of the farmer keeping aside the suitability criteria. Ultimately the farmers makes a huge crop loss just to gain a small amount in the form of subsidy and the supervisor meets his area targets but looses on the production front. The solution of this would be to give subsidy on crops which a farmer aspires to grow and targets should be, along with survival of plants, on production in the form of marketable surplus or arrival at Mandi, particularly in the case of short-duration crops. 13. As far as the supply of planting material and seedling is concerned, the nature of requirement of the farmers and the time limits should be strictly followed. Most of the farmers arranged the planting material for area expansion activity through their own sources without having any quality check since the planting materials were not supplied in time by the Horticultural Department and other approved sources. In some cases it was seen that there was high mortality of plants because of late arrival of the required planting materials. In case of mango growers, our sample farmers preferred more inarching plants than the grafted ones. Many farmers complained about the shortage of quality saplings. Since the Horticultural Department could not provide the required variety of saplings in desired quantity, they had to purchase them from the private nurseries with higher survival risks. It was also noticed that the proper coordination among various stake holders like Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) and Horticulture Department was lacking. While the farmers were complaining about unavailability of papaya plants at Horticulture Department nurseries, the Horticulture Department could have advised the farmers through the supervisors to collect the same from KVK where a large number of good quality saplings were dying because of lack of access to farmers. Thus it is suggested to develop a good rapport among all the government and non-government organizations in a district so as to help the farmers in the best possible way. It is also suggested to develop more number of government nurseries that can provide the required number of plants and quality planting material at reasonable

130

price. There should be proper guidelines for the sale of plants through nurseries established under NHM and some targets must be given to each owner to raise plants for the sale under subsidy scheme. These nurseries must have sufficient number of mother plants for propagation. 14. Fencing was found to be a costly affair for the sample farmers. However it was a necessity for growing high value horticultural crops since wild animals (e.g., groups of blue bulls/Nilgai) were found very active in some regions. Once they attack the field and destroy the plants, farmers face a loss of 2-3 years of efforts and money. Since these are high value crops, they have to be protected from human beings also. Presently those who are not able to afford fencing rely on natural fencing (thorny species of plants) which occupies much of their cultivable land. The community guards are also being appointed but they also fail in defending from wild animals. It was demanded by almost all the sample farmers that fencing activity should also be included in subsidy norms for horticultural crops. It was suggested by the farmers that about 80 per cent subsidy should be provided on fencing. 15. Under the present scheme subsidy are given only when area is more than 0.4 hectares in case of general caste and OBC categories and 0.2 hectares in the case of SC/ST farmers. There should not be upper and lower limits if area expansion is the target. Moreover if such limits have to be put, it should be on the basis of land holding size and not the caste category of the households. If the subsidy can be provided irrespective of land holding size, a large number of poor marginal and small farmers could be benefitted through NHM and the pace of area expansion would be exemplary. Furthermore, it was noticed that the land fragmentation and small landholding size were the major causes for non-expansion of horticultural area since the main focus of farmers was to grow cereals for their survival. Only if some area was left out, they diverted that for horticulture or cash crops. Thus the emphasis should be on covering these large numbers of marginal and small farmers for further expansion of area under horticulture crops in the state for which relaxing the ceiling on land holding size as the eligibility criteria for getting NHM subsidy assumes utmost importance. 16. Farmers were getting compulsorily 3 phase electricity connection for irrigation which was costly particularly for the small and marginal farmers. They were charged fixed rental for electricity which very often came for just 3 hours a day. They were bound to pay rental even though they didn‟t use it to that extent. The sample farmers

131

suggested that they should be given single phase connection and bill should be issued on the meter basis. 17. The sample farmers were found to attend a number of training and awareness camps. However, it was noted that the farmers need more training on organic farming practices and awareness about timely pruning, use and maintenance of drip/sprinkler irrigation systems and plant protection measures. Imparting training for pest management to the farmers is also necessary. The awareness camps regarding various components of NHM and procedures and norms for the farmers to avail the subsidies for different activities under NHM need to be arranged more frequently and at more number places so that majority of farming community would be benefitted. Extensive publicity of the NHM programme is needed at the block level and GP level. Permanent display boards with NHM logo needs to be displayed wherever NHM assistance has been provided which can also raise the publicity of the Scheme. There is also a need to intensify the publicizing of the NHM programmes through print and electronic media. 18. The major activities undertaken under NHM were production and distribution of planting material, vegetable seed production, area expansion, rejuvenation of old and senile orchards, creation of community water resources, protected cultivation, IPM/INM, organic farming, pollination support through bee-keeping, development of post harvest management and marketing infrastructures and human resource development. Except few activities like area expansion, distribution of planting material and human resource development, the performance of NHM in our study areas was not satisfactory. The poor performance in the case of our sample farmers was observed in terms of promotion of processing activities, rejuvenation, development of post harvest management and marketing infrastructures, protected cultivation and organic farming. It is suggested to step up these neglected activities under NHM so as to facilitate a healthy and balanced growth of horticulture sector in Rajasthan. 19. Farm mechanization is very essential for promotion of horticultural crops. However, there is no specific provision under NHM to subsidize the farm mechanization of farmers. It is therefore suggested to provide subsidies to purchase some essential agricultural tools for cultivating horticultural crops. Small size tractors should be given to farmers on subsidized rate so as to enable them to cultivate and weeding in space between the standing crops. The use of recently launched small size tractors

132

would reduce the planting gaps, particularly in the case of fruit crops that, in turn, would increase the number of plants and thus production and productivity. Some farmers opined that the grading machines should also be made available on subsidy by the Government. So that they can fetch better prices in the market. 20. Though huge amount of money is being spent on different activities under NHM, we observed that the existing database on these horticultural crops is poor for conducting secondary research. It is noteworthy that we had to use data from different sources for different years due to unavailability of time series data at a single source. Since the data provided by different sources were found to vary a lot for a specific year, the chance of producing misleading results from the analysis of these time series data cannot be denied. It is worth-mentioning that horticulture is an important segment of agriculture sector, which, in turn, is one of the major components of national economy along with manufacturing, and services sectors. Therefore, the quality of relevant data inputs is extremely important in the context of realistic and effective policy planning process. Thus it is extremely important to seriously consider various issues and problems confronting horticulture data sector through appropriate policy intervention so as to build up-to-date and reliable database on various horticultural crops which would help in research & development of these crops.

133

References

Basu, Kaushik (1983), The Emergence of Isolation and Interlinkage in Rural Markets, Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 35, Pp-262-80. Gondalia, V. K. and G. N. Patel (2007), An Economic Evaluation of Investment on Aonla (Emblica officinalis G.) in Gujarat, Agricultural Economics Research Review, Vol 20, July-December, pp-385-394. Government of India (2007), Report of Working Group on Horticulture, Plantation Crops, and Organic Farming for the XI Five Year Plan (2007-12), Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi. Government of India (2010), NHM Operational Guidelines 2010, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, www.nhm.nic.in. Government of India (2011), Report of Joint Inspection Team in its Visit to Rajasthan during 05-09 January, 2011, National Horticulture Mission, Ministry of Agriculture Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi. Government of Rajasthan (2009a), Economic Review 2009-10, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Government of Rajasthan (2009b), NHM Annual Action Plan 2009-10, Rajasthan Horticulture Development Society, Directorate of Horticulture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur. Gupta, A.K. and Manu Shorf (1987), „Rural Credit: How Does the Poor See It?‟, Vikalpa, Vol.12, No.4 Jodhka, S.S. (1995), Debt, Dependence and Agrarian Change, Rawat, Jaipur National Horticulture Board (2010), „Indian Horticulture Database 2010‟, NHB, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Government of India, New Delhi. R. Madakadze, M. Masarirambi and E. Nyakudya (2004), Processing of Horticultural Crops in the Tropics, in Ramdane Dris and S. Mohan Jain (Eds) Production Practices and Quality Assessment of Food Crops, pp-371-399. Rao, J.M. (1980), Interest Rates in Backward Agriculture, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol.4. Robo India (2005), NHM Revised Action Plan for Rajasthan for Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, http://nhm.nic.in/ActionPlan/ActionPlan_Rajasthan.pdf. Sarap, Kailash (1991), Interlinked Agrarian Markets in Rural India, Sage, New Delhi,

134

Singh, Gorakh (2010), Horticulture: Keeping Health and Happiness, Agriculture Year Book 2010, Agriculture Toady, New Delhi, pp-32-36. Subrahmanyam, K.V. and V. Mohandoss, (1982), “Economic Evaluation of Coorg Mandarin (Orange) in Karnataka”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 37(1), Jan- March. Swain, M (1986), Usurious Interest Rates in Backward Agriculture: Interlinkage, Competition and Monopoly, M.Phil Dissertation, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi. Swain, M (2001), Rural Indebtedness and Usurious Interest Rates in Eastern India: Some Micro Evidence, Journal of Social and Economic Development, Vol.3, No.1, pp-122- 43. Swain, M. and M. Swain (2007), Rural Credit Market Imperfections in Drought Prone Bolangir District of Orissa: Some Critical Issues and Policy Options‟, Artha Vijnana, Vol. 49, No. 3 & 4, Sept.- Dec., 2007, pp.223-254.

135

Annexure Tables Annexure 1.1: Year wise physical and financial progress of NHM in Rajasthan

(Rupees in Lakh) Year Outlay Funds released Expenditure Unspent balance as st on 1 April

2005-06 4102.00 2259.57 1421.310 838.260

2006-07 7626.67 3837.93 3306.96 1369.23

2007-08 7575.49 5673.19 4602.29 2440.13

2008-09 12435.63 4097.71 4726.00 1811.84

2009-10 5978.80 2500.00 3466.19 845.65

2010-11 5950.00 4000.00 4863.19 -17.54

Source: Government of India (2011)

136

Annexure 1.2: Component wise details of physical and financial progress under National Horticulture Mission (NHM) from 2005-06 to 2010-11 Sl. No. component Physical Financial Percentage Achievement Achievement Expenditure to (No or Ha) Total Expenditure 1 Nursery 127 740.99 3.00 2 Area Coverage 93175 6437.01 26.05 3 Rejuvenation 2393.7 292.27 1.18 4 Development of 1462 10667.33 43.17 Water Resources 5 Protected Cultivations 51.78 837.93 3.39 6 Organic Farming 6250 191.55 0.78 7 Vermi Compost Units 2041 484.5 1.96 8 Integrated Pest 43671 279.64 1.13 Management (IPM) 9 IPM Infrastructure 37 449.76 1.82 10 HRD 28645 907.95 3.67 11 Post Harvest 60 596.61 2.41 Management 12 Rural 18 59.97 0.24 Markets/Infrastructure

13 Mission - 2766.9 11.20 Management/Other Innovative 14 Total Expenditure - 24712.41 100.00 Source: Government of India (2011)

137

Annexure 1.3: List of villages covered under the survey Sr.No. C.D. Block Tehsil/Taluk District No. of Name of Villages Villages 1 Amer Amer Jaipur 4 AkedaChord,Dabri, Dabri Rampura,Pokharsa Ka Bas 2 Chomu Chomu Jaipur 4 Amarpura, Chomu, Nada, Thekria 3 Govindgarh Chomu Jaipur 18 Dolla ka bas,Govindgarh,Gudliya, Hathnoda,Itavaboji,Jetpura,Kaladera,Khejroli,M orija, Nangal koju, Narshingpura,Niwana, Shamod, Shingodkala, Udaipuria, Bai ka Bas, 4 Umrain Umrain Alwar 5 Akbarpura, Baladehra,Malakhera,Punkhar, Shapur 5 Jalpur Ramgadh Alwar 1 Jalpur 6 Mundawar Mundawar Alwar 4 Jindoli, Raipur, Tatarpura, Ullahedi 7 Ramgarh Alwar Alwar 1 Kakarlijat 8 Kishangarh Kishangarh Alwar 2 Khanpura, Koha Ka Bas 9 Kotkashim Kotkashim Alwar 1 Ladpur 10 Rehani Rajgadh Alwar 1 Machadi 11 Tizara Tizara Alwar 1 Mirchooni 12 Katumar Katumar Alwar 1 Samochi 13 Rawatbhata Rawatbahata Chittorgarh 2 Bardoli, Rawatbhata 14 Beshroadgarh Rawatbahata Chittorgarh 6 Beshroadgarh, Bhalpura, Borav, DhangadKala, Jharjini, Nayagaon Sukhpura 15 Raita Begu Chittorgarh 1 Raiti 16 Begu Begu Chittorgarh 1 Shadi 17 Gopalpura Rawatbahata Chittorgarh 1 Ganeshpura 18 Dudka Ghatol Banswara 3 Dudka, Bhandaria, Kundli 19 Gadhi Gadhi Banswara 5 Bai ka Gadha,Bajwana, Bhantali, Gadhi, Suraj Ka Gada 20 Kanji Ka Gada Ghatol Banswara 1 Harow 21 Masodia Banswara Banswara 1 Hingoligada 22 Gnau Banswara Banswara 1 Kachlikhora 23 Talwara Banswara Banswara 1 Kevadia 24 Kheda Gadhi Banswara 2 Kheda, Mala kheda 25 Ladhuku Gadhi Banswara 1 Ladhuku 26 Methwala Gadhi Banswara 1 Methwala 27 Kardaburda Banswara Banswara 1 Nadiade 28 Sakariya Gadhi Banswara 1 Sakariya 29 Senawasa Ghatol Banswara 2 Senawasa, Jetore 30 Tamatia Hada Banswara Banswara 1 Tamatia Heda 31 Japkura Ghatol Banswara 1 Dindoria 32 Sunderpur Banswara Banswara 1 Saklifarm Total Farmers 77 Source: Field survey

138

Annexure 2.1 : Area and production of horticulture crops in Rajasthan(Area in hectares, production in Metric Tonnes) Year Fruits Vegetables Spices Flowers Medicinals Total Horti. Area Prod. Area Prod. Area Prod. Area Prod. Area Prod. Area Prod. 1980-81 11214 0 37979 105205 227551 52236 0 0 19934 2525 296678 159966 1981-82 12543 0 40694 114802 203824 71607 0 0 18062 2422 275123 188831 1982-83 12891 0 39200 111372 256011 96953 0 0 27091 2219 335193 210544 1983-84 5130 34888 44728 129368 275708 88033 0 0 47245 2554 372811 254843 1984-85 5270 31641 48305 127697 234801 61226 0 0 56833 3073 345209 223637 1985-86 5516 32204 48350 139150 247338 116714 0 0 47501 2795 348705 290863 1986-87 7763 36604 55327 175297 249698 188419 0 0 33084 2570 345872 402890 1987-88 7678 25410 49389 218210 363156 260733 0 0 44269 2291 464492 506644 1988-89 6516 21177 51691 236102 352399 259732 0 0 51236 3398 461842 520409 1989-90 19513 92429 51542 248667 285383 219995 0 0 64825 0 421263 561091 1990-91 21109 104581 59039 300028 273789 280682 0 0 63416 0 417353 685291 1991-92 21145 166281 63478 316373 284792 202529 0 0 58778 0 428193 685183 1992-93 20910 116121 59525 302478 401688 301846 993 5533 68733 0 551849 725978 1993-94 20849 250550 67332 363154 534949 321862 1207 1077 77311 0 701648 936643 1994-95 19825 229603 67670 283357 365232 249277 0 0 69023 0 521750 762237 1995-96 19795 238475 75948 356908 369216 283581 1992 1984 87408 53798 554359 934746 1996-97 20922 267199 82602 398200 476501 370036 1763 2238 139684 84692 721472 1122365 1997-98 20318 298069 82141 323945 513409 417114 2021 2189 129390 85360 747279 1126677 1998-99 20599 238329 99242 396132 441997 359370 2302 4133 123121 81666 687261 1079630 1999-00 20347 240864 94374 443420 369173 309432 1120 1397 109434 62712 594448 1057825 2000-01 20661 238035 90385 364546 441362 357853 2119 2464 141769 82211 696296 1045109 2001-02 21948 200724 99871 433846 762923 616727 1863 2434 143026 89552 1029631 1343283 2002-03 22332 189258 90943 334180 532584 343823 1505 986 167625 78830 814989 947077 2003-04 23295 220891 110312 500722 589629 653347 1949 2161 161215 107772 886400 1484893 2004-05 23835 256977 122886 614192 416087 424286 3312 2604 148932 78897 715052 1376957 2005-06 25442 418520 120913 740823 348712 302598 3008 2255 150752 70347 648827 1534543 2006-07 27610 402170 122912 788333 381583 356051 2728 3259 215786 83818 750619 1633631 2007-08 28995 562770 143132 853329 567782 528728 3343 4606 198200 94059 941452 2043492 2008-09 30601 484660 125573 736701 536849 535845 3354 4857 226169 106213 922546 1868276 Sourcers: (1) Vital horticulture Statistics,1998-99, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (2) Rajasthan Horticulture Statistics 2002-03,Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (3) Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (for data from 2002-03 to 2008-09) (4) 50 Years of Agricultural Development in Rajasthan, Directorate of Agriculture, Jaipur [(from 1980-81 to 1982-83,for fruits), (from 1980-81 to 1994-95, for medicinals)]

139

Annexure 2.2: Area and production of horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan 2002-03 (Area in hectares, production in Metric Tonnes) District Fruits Vegitables Spices Flowers Medicinal & Total horticultural aromatic Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Ajmer 445 230 2627 1836 4327 728 759 104 7 3 8165 2901 Alwar 490 3780 10665 36882 1068 452 0 0 0 0 12223 41114 Banswara 524 2251 399 396 732 230 1 1 0 0 1656 2878 Baran 503 13197 1191 2694 51249 75186 0 0 1265 59 54208 91136 Barmer 81 450 334 311 99808 29568 0 0 36723 23789 136946 54118 Bharatpur 763 1262 3493 5269 510 547 82 252 134 69 4982 7399 Bhilwara 747 1951 1103 1784 5809 3661 1 1 285 162 7945 7559 Bikaner 52 2 460 206 13899 4152 0 0 115 57 14526 4417 Bundi 563 5290 3326 3094 7875 7049 0 0 0 0 11764 15433 Chittorgarh 1316 10739 1832 3509 17953 27091 0 0 4811 2438 25912 43777 Churu 0 0 289 318 5947 3538 0 0 43 50 6279 3906 Dausa 699 3920 1110 1268 86 49 0 0 1 1 1896 5238 Dholpur 1031 11392 2764 2852 534 853 0 0 2 2 4331 15099 Dungarpur 382 408 268 1220 135 69 0 0 1 1 786 1698 Srigangangar 2637 0 3075 12539 323 416 0 0 8 0 6043 12955 Hanumangarh 287 5065 1194 2671 197 106 0 0 2 2 1680 7844 Jaipur 801 9104 20136 91191 7397 5303 320 250 6 1 28660 105849 Jaisalmer 74 29 16 11 21382 4645 0 0 16649 2227 38121 6911 Jalore 135 221 1590 4620 73829 16328 0 0 56181 41129 131735 62298 Jhalawar 5939 53645 1293 2795 33356 32514 0 0 2321 366 42909 89320 Jhunjhunu 67 77 1621 23591 4476 4348 0 0 0 0 6164 28016 Jodhpur 209 5547 9281 60923 46274 18519 77 107 5248 1759 61089 86855 Karuali 550 8706 1685 2556 625 32 0 0 0 0 2860 11294 Kota 681 21643 1978 16023 39907 66341 38 35 2846 1289 45450 105331 Nagaur 126 182 6195 16171 55988 9279 193 211 5648 4160 68150 30003 Pali 312 339 1333 1132 10241 2649 11 4 34306 802 46203 4926 Pratapgarh N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A Rajsamand 590 3080 277 494 579 143 23 21 16 17 1485 3755 S.modhpur 521 7264 1019 2084 1072 1426 0 0 0 0 2612 10774 Sikar 101 406 4356 22273 13233 23360 0 0 20 32 17710 46071 Sirohi 320 1266 1918 2007 6107 1897 0 0 780 377 9125 5547 Tonk 172 389 3431 9489 5539 1971 0 0 0 0 9142 11849 Udaipur 1214 17425 684 1971 2127 1373 0 0 207 38 4232 20807 State total 22332 189258 90943 334180 532584 343823 1505 986 167625 78830 814989 947076 Notes: (1) *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. (2) Figures in etalics are for the study districts. (3) 'Prod' stands for production Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

140

Annexure 2.3: Area and production of horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan 2003-04 (Area in hectares, production in Metric Tonnes) District Fruits Vegitables Spices Flowers Medicinal & Total horticultural aromatic Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Ajmer 488 87 4169 8325 7390 3692 954 945 109 74 13110 13123 Alwar 403 3804 13942 95324 1597 2171 32 29 0 0 15974 101328 Banswara 684 10425 391 365 615 364 6 7 0 0 1696 11161 Baran 478 11751 1390 3216 89999 189021 4 2 1272 174 93143 204164 Barmer 90 454 652 774 81340 47380 0 0 36094 22152 118176 70760 Bharatpur 739 2100 5370 20586 688 1694 58 119 1 1 6856 24500 Bhilwara 770 4992 1522 2790 7710 5871 6 6 282 37 10290 13696 Bikaner 62 3 315 166 9612 6286 0 0 1245 513 11234 6968 Bundi 628 5535 3578 5074 10723 10966 15 15 1 1 14945 21591 Chittorgarh 1477 15459 1736 3585 25965 45009 23 25 7821 2067 37022 66145 Churu 0 0 157 198 4478 2510 0 0 145 88 4780 2796 Dausa 778 3580 1483 2069 119 122 5 4 0 0 2385 5775 Dholpur 894 11008 2784 4012 730 536 0 0 1 1 4409 15557 Dungarpur 409 418 231 1200 281 329 0 0 0 0 921 1947 Srigangangar 2875 12003 2560 5298 155 132 23 23 6 4 5619 17460 Hanumangarh 338 7921 893 2100 119 107 5 10 0 0 1355 10138 Jaipur 805 9489 24288 82030 7201 5974 441 568 7 6 32742 98067 Jaisalmer 58 139 160 484 13040 25052 0 0 8801 4892 22059 30567 Jalore 121 519 1930 7644 42923 8347 1 1 45033 38811 90008 55322 Jhalawar 6275 49360 1098 4814 95343 105821 8 5 2417 1189 105141 161189 Jhunjhunu 62 120 2010 28278 4145 4296 0 0 1 1 6218 32695 Jodhpur 175 5798 10893 90804 42349 23590 48 66 9049 8312 62514 128570 Karuali 545 21660 1387 4382 748 2250 0 0 0 0 2680 28292 Kota 619 19050 2431 38753 65353 99723 54 54 2617 2451 71074 160031 Nagaur 97 256 8843 24503 36176 23629 202 204 4898 2707 50216 51299 Pali 348 2990 1619 2008 10140 6660 14 11 40200 23575 52321 35244 Pratapgarh N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A Rajsamand 670 2857 380 470 690 530 13 13 1 1 1754 3871 S.modhpur 610 4880 1352 3598 3630 7538 0 0 2 2 5594 16018 Sikar 116 1194 6036 36533 14062 14217 0 0 10 8 20224 51952 Sirohi 309 1188 2240 3229 4785 3716 10 14 897 654 8241 8801 Tonk 170 528 3595 15568 5836 4154 0 0 5 0 9606 20250 Udaipur 1202 11322 877 2542 1687 1660 27 40 300 51 4093 15615 State total 23295 220891 110312 500722 589629 653347 1949 2161 161215 107772 886400 1484893 Notes: (1) *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. (2) Figures in etalics are for the study districts. (3) 'Prod' stands for production Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

141

Annexure 2.4: Area and production of horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan 2004-05 (Area in hectares, production in Metric Tonnes) District Fruits Vegitables Spices Flowers Medicinal & Total horticultural aromatic Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Ajmer 476 81 4974 7581 7197 3806 1786 1138 119 20 14552 12626 Alwar 407 4181 15255 92943 1247 1587 0 0 0 0 16909 98711 Banswara 714 10516 416 159 440 153 12 0 4 0 1586 10828 Baran 463 11878 1787 2962 48106 67649 38 38 799 74 51193 82601 Barmer 93 382 432 670 60569 30156 0 0 34613 14950 95707 46158 Bharatpur 793 376 4602 17461 944 4412 7 15 5 0 6351 22264 Bhilwara 724 7041 2074 4758 7632 6423 2 0 145 29 10577 18251 Bikaner 73 33 730 286 6927 4089 0 0 2838 682 10568 5090 Bundi 569 5038 4030 12619 2199 2295 34 42 23 36 6855 20030 Chittorgarh 1410 17674 2362 6151 27976 57801 55 154 5070 2812 36873 84592 Churu 0 0 194 287 3093 2101 0 0 247 115 3534 2503 Dausa 755 3480 1385 1611 50 43 3 4 0 0 2193 5138 Dholpur 831 10203 2139 31554 1012 1412 0 0 0 0 3982 43169 Dungarpur 416 438 219 890 234 193 0 0 0 0 869 1521 Srigangangar 3188 31812 2160 1653 111 54 13 2 8 3 5480 33524 Hanumangarh 447 4864 838 1205 78 86 10 0 0 0 1373 6155 Jaipur 1022 8676 27565 111930 6654 6588 896 989 36 3 36173 128186 Jaisalmer 126 139 171 1009 9162 3144 0 0 7678 3216 17136 7509 Jalore 125 579 1631 8422 28086 10409 0 0 28313 17460 58155 36870 Jhalawar 6424 89985 1238 5076 74615 78774 12 29 1293 504 83582 174368 Jhunjhunu 68 102 2304 3882 3501 3601 0 0 9 5 5882 7590 Jodhpur 186 2081 12753 117058 35182 22696 135 0 9265 7301 57521 149136 Karuali 542 8732 1600 3005 931 332 0 0 2 4 3075 12073 Kota 625 12417 2174 36951 36427 75157 74 86 1627 1526 40927 126137 Nagaur 119 348 12838 64462 23253 12337 174 104 6145 3733 42529 80984 Pali 292 199 1215 980 5520 2635 9 3 50255 26123 57291 29940 Pratapgarh N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A Rajsamand 633 2385 257 339 726 260 14 0 29 103 1659 3087 S.modhpur 535 4224 1163 2810 2471 6944 1 0 0 0 4170 13978 Sikar 144 1496 7815 52796 11659 11467 35 0 10 9 19663 65768 Sirohi 326 1137 1800 2656 4042 3198 0 0 390 186 6558 7177 Tonk 175 312 3912 18042 3910 3461 2 0 3 0 8002 21815 Udaipur 1133 16173 853 1984 2133 1023 0 0 6 3 4125 19183 State total 23835 256977 122886 614192 416087 424286 3312 2604 148932 78897 715051 1376956 Notes: (1) *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. (2) Figures in etalics are for the study districts. (3) 'Prod' stands for production Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

142

Annexure 2.5: Area and production of horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan 2006-07 (Area in hectares, production in Metric Tonnes) District Fruits Vegitables Spices Flowers Medicinal & Total horticultural aromatic Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Ajmer 564 79 5568 7783 6919 1841 1443 1641 62 23 14556 11367 Alwar 480 3940 14576 85037 879 1722 37 41 18 12 15990 90752 Banswara 771 7683 423 147 374 60 21 5 2 1 1591 7896 Baran 523 11919 1588 6390 45795 66458 33 26 505 31 48444 84824 Barmer 133 367 332 399 46650 7344 0 0 47078 12430 94193 20540 Bharatpur 910 4307 3938 35661 409 1386 3 3 3 3 5263 41360 Bhilwara 971 7248 2049 3976 6419 3264 5 3 74 30 9518 14521 Bikaner 86 10 425 425 3399 1575 0 0 3472 1973 7382 3983 Bundi 619 9746 3348 18840 2897 4054 37 181 4 3 6905 32824 Chittorgarh 1417 35303 2520 10001 29422 63583 59 175 6270 2942 39688 112004 Churu 3 0 161 134 2154 1485 0 0 713 192 3031 1811 Dausa 747 9160 1239 1293 410 377 0 0 0 0 2396 10830 Dholpur 777 9893 3303 35190 488 801 6 4 0 0 4574 45888 Dungarpur 466 466 223 918 216 135 0 0 0 0 905 1519 Srigangangar 4747 133780 2639 47216 104 313 30 3 41 5 7561 181317 Hanumangarh 809 7916 1331 21022 124 187 9 8 12 0 2285 29133 Jaipur 875 9812 24093 86724 5169 4268 366 365 28 19 30531 101188 Jaisalmer 126 125 137 765 7441 238 0 0 9708 1094 17413 2222 Jalore 135 522 1462 4379 38092 10290 4 2 45861 11321 85554 26514 Jhalawar 7371 104672 1363 5547 69978 82764 16 38 1463 638 80191 193659 Jhunjhunu 66 218 2557 30275 2918 3127 0 0 3 4 5544 33624 Jodhpur 178 188 15351 166338 33563 14220 93 0 18702 3906 67887 184652 Karuali 472 7917 1064 2617 319 144 0 0 1 0 1856 10678 Kota 641 8512 2443 38594 27619 54914 101 292 2337 62 33141 102374 Nagaur 267 510 13322 87694 18642 6795 308 344 31871 12372 64410 107715 Pali 282 24 2110 2928 8117 3302 38 13 45367 35501 55914 41768 Pratapgarh N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A Rajsamand 680 8330 466 1370 1398 1055 26 52 655 470 3225 11277 S.modhpur 698 5186 1081 3207 1973 5290 0 0 0 0 3752 13683 Sikar 160 300 7210 62653 7830 7398 3 3 32 40 15235 70394 Sirohi 341 1014 2266 2993 6432 4378 49 49 1409 386 10497 8820 Tonk 157 209 3376 15415 3145 2002 3 0 10 2 6691 17628 Udaipur 1137 12814 947 2403 2288 1281 38 11 85 358 4495 16867 State total 27610 402170 122912 788333 381583 356051 2728 3259 215786 83818 750619 1633631 Notes: (1) *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. (2) Figures in etalics are for the study districts. (3) 'Prod' stands for production Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

143

Annexure 2.6: Area and production of horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan 2007-08 (Area in hectares, production in Metric Tonnes) District Fruits Vegitables Spices Flowers Medicinal & Total horticultural aromatic Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Ajmer 599 81 6260 10851 7340 2748 1706 2722 33 12 15938 16414 Alwar 465 6215 15658 76416 1183 1481 2 12 0 0 17308 84124 Banswara 748 12478 447 239 400 234 11 3 11 2 1617 12956 Baran 538 13620 1505 5188 89381 118384 63 44 493 1527 91980 138763 Barmer 141 270 371 434 68277 17569 0 0 44186 9642 112975 27915 Bharatpur 960 602 6737 57739 638 1886 0 0 0 0 8335 60227 Bhilwara 1111 8620 1919 4209 7414 5377 12 20 104 12 10560 18238 Bikaner 100 100 270 249 3431 1934 0 0 3844 1481 7645 3764 Bundi 640 9036 3281 19705 4711 6119 72 242 5 3 8709 35105 Chittorgarh 1376 33999 2616 13635 36376 93032 63 250 5040 2827 45471 143742 Churu 25 0 322 460 3178 1457 0 0 770 277 4295 2194 Dausa 729 12216 1755 2432 844 219 27 36 0 0 3355 14903 Dholpur 782 9495 6205 55348 643 1271 4 1 0 0 7634 66115 Dungarpur 457 482 258 1236 198 229 3 2 0 0 916 1949 Srigangangar 4902 105849 2475 45769 165 615 31 5 20 1 7593 152239 Hanumangarh 999 5557 1282 16474 145 143 22 6 3 6 2451 22186 Jaipur 1004 9936 30562 103565 5069 5078 793 641 126 27 37554 119247 Jaisalmer 124 152 156 121 6519 1096 0 0 9669 1826 16468 3195 Jalore 144 471 1888 5384 62841 25083 4 2 36731 12659 101608 43599 Jhalawar 8074 284938 2311 5734 95435 59913 14 37 2576 2186 108410 352808 Jhunjhunu 56 322 3542 43282 6579 5697 0 0 1 2 10178 49303 Jodhpur 182 330 15641 151340 44796 29301 101 0 24854 8948 85574 189918 Karuali 525 7589 1030 2868 355 120 0 0 0 0 1910 10577 Kota 641 8000 2590 34914 49198 102139 92 220 3532 2780 56053 148053 Nagaur 263 679 14133 96452 21975 14264 223 267 23159 14268 59753 125930 Pali 307 265 1778 2124 15878 5248 16 16 42220 35263 60199 42916 Pratapgarh N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A Rajsamand 702 7201 587 1436 1767 1196 8 1 4 3 3068 9837 S.modhpur 606 5081 1270 4120 3617 9033 0 0 0 0 5493 18234 Sikar 152 605 7945 69631 10730 6027 9 9 62 43 18898 76315 Sirohi 328 1990 3261 3216 11543 7354 20 19 672 242 15824 12821 Tonk 173 461 4225 17537 4912 2997 17 17 0 0 9327 21012 Udaipur 1143 16132 852 1221 2244 1484 30 34 85 22 4354 18893 State total 28995 562770 143132 853329 567782 528728 3343 4606 198200 94059 941452 2043492 Notes: (1) *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. (2) Figures in etalics are for the study districts. (3) 'Prod' stands for production Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

144

Annexure 2.7: Area and production of horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan 2008-09 (Area in hectares, production in Metric Tonnes) District Fruits Vegitables Spices Flowers Medicinal & Total horticultural aromatic Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Ajmer 676 0 4421 8541 3864 1722 1747 2859 35 8 10743 13130 Alwar 464 100 14527 104559 1071 1434 43 37 0 0 16105 106130 Banswara 523 0 385 180 396 133 4 4 5 1 1313 318 Baran 442 700 1402 3995 96519 136418 11 0 163 389 98537 141502 Barmer 158 0 504 548 58404 8326 0 0 49323 8399 108389 17273 Bharatpur 1028 1280 5060 44339 388 1957 11 51 0 0 6487 47627 Bhilwara 1182 0 1640 3327 3746 3153 9 6 112 27 6689 6513 Bikaner 78 0 298 298 5254 4543 0 0 5211 2794 10841 7635 Bundi 701 0 3257 12459 10527 11801 0 0 11 7 14496 24267 Chittorgarh 955 0 1380 5530 25163 54537 55 133 3989 2188 31542 62388 Churu 24 0 194 372 3946 2305 0 0 1137 486 5301 3163 Dausa 684 3 1363 2075 436 136 20 25 0 0 2503 2239 Dholpur 753 100 4798 43410 237 460 0 0 0 0 5788 43970 Dungarpur 458 0 121 573 212 171 3 0 0 0 794 744 Srigangangar 5952 0 2098 42147 142 155 22 0 12 0 8226 42302 Hanumangarh 1206 0 865 14652 157 188 0 0 0 0 2228 14840 Jaipur 907 0 27860 69311 4101 4797 898 925 67 36 33833 75069 Jaisalmer 106 0 205 584 7600 1196 0 0 11497 2722 19408 4502 Jalore 142 0 1395 3735 46390 13060 5 0 32264 8142 80196 24937 Jhalawar 8488 350 2154 5192 105719 103575 11 0 1984 1911 118356 111028 Jhunjhunu 69 0 3021 31138 6021 9587 0 0 7 2 9118 40727 Jodhpur 165 0 16145 109897 40577 27222 121 359 31235 16978 88243 154456 Karuali 496 170 874 2732 235 642 1 0 1 5 1607 3549 Kota 667 0 2223 33432 60548 102554 106 45 5160 3092 68704 139123 Nagaur 247 0 12345 69840 17132 11960 166 299 39282 31042 69172 113141 Pali 385 0 1454 1967 7064 2735 23 29 41188 26873 50114 31604 Pratapgarh 596 0 176 501 5455 4679 0 0 2977 808 9204 5988 Rajsamand 688 0 399 1065 1567 1927 12 11 0 0 2666 3003 S.modhpur 709 640 1398 4022 2273 5843 0 0 0 0 4380 10505 Sikar 151 0 7242 95521 9786 10422 7 4 65 148 17251 106095 Sirohi 307 0 2026 4027 7603 5056 73 70 287 123 10296 9276 Tonk 153 0 3719 15075 2374 1938 2 0 2 0 6250 17013 Udaipur 1043 0 624 1657 1942 1213 4 0 155 31 3768 2901 State total 30601 3343 125573 736701 536849 535845 3354 4857 226169 106213 922546 1386958 Notes: (1) *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. (2) Figures in etalics are for the study districts. (3) 'Prod' stands for production Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

145

Annexure 2.8: Area under selected horticulture crops in Rajasthan (Area in hectares, production in Metric Tonnes) Years Aonla Papaya Coriander Mango Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod 1978-79 N.A N.A N.A N.A 80604 47226 N.A N.A 1979-80 N.A N.A N.A N.A 44635 24455 N.A N.A 1980-81 N.A N.A N.A N.A 61594 35020 N.A N.A 1981-82 N.A N.A N.A N.A 106176 56625 N.A N.A 1982-83 N.A N.A N.A N.A 108860 72484 N.A N.A 1983-84 15 15 268 609 110142 55008 529 6842 1984-85 0 0 233 561 101796 29629 297 2136 1985-86 9 9 181 238 118524 36750 499 3099 1986-87 9 9 203 450 124572 102401 486 1690 1987-88 11 9 92 154 228388 16690 348 1125 1988-89 24 21 74 121 133354 101810 278 906 1989-90 35 32 339 592 105809 72754 6438 30927 1990-91 31 155 382 1910 131723 140393 7271 36355 1991-92 1 15 354 5608 108967 71719 7162 53994 1992-93 21 126 346 2422 144097 106208 7193 39561 1993-94 0 0 324 7912 156167 105170 7180 58347 1994-95 0 0 359 9729 121777 91881 6977 50470 1995-96 50 417 390 11460 137675 116387 7058 51615 1996-97 27 292 380 11258 157078 154755 7010 45856 1997-98 22 170 396 15488 232596 214916 6924 58296 1998-99 66 1087 449 21349 198157 179629 6840 65244 1999-00 172 1372 442 6365 124168 127755 6419 106537 2000-01 267 1573 391 3930 145239 166410 6498 116427 2001-02 396 2219 374 3394 204660 233997 6493 98493 2002-03 460 1842 379 3970 112333 122705 6365 65614 2003-04 519 4531 386 3284 241393 300090 6468 86481 2004-05 825 4937 360 6505 148334 169765 6407 69889 2005-06 1064 7115 401 8134 136755 142369 6437 120384 2006-07 1397 11160 406 5799 131137 155101 6456 82044 2007-08 1730 13275 450 17140 212961 166127 6243 90815 2008-09 1705 14099 447.58 7385 245091 273573 5993 92899 Sourcers: (1) Vital horticulture Statistics,1998-99, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (2) Rajasthan Horticulture Statistics 2002-03,Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (3) Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (for data from 2002-03 to 2008-09) (4) 50 Years of Agricultural Development in Rajasthan, Directorate of Agriculture, Jaipur [(from 1980-81 to 1982-83,for fruits), (from 1980-81 to 1994-95, for medicinals)]

146

Annexure 2.9: Area and production of selected horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan (2002-03) Sl. No. District Area in Hectares and Production in Metric Tonnes Aonla Papaya Coriander Mango Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod 1 Ajmer 123.0 49.4 1.0 14.2 31.0 25.0 64.0 44.0 2 Alwar 30.0 86.9 35.0 348.5 59.0 41.0 134.0 1375.6 3 Banswara 6.0 105.0 4.0 72.7 NA NA 463.0 1465.2 4 Baran NA 14.6 22.0 327.2 45544.0 51684.0 236.0 9972.7 5 Barmer NA 0.0 2.0 33.3 2.0 2.0 3.0 12.7 6 Bharatpur 2.0 3.1 31.0 31.9 1.0 1.0 57.0 173.1 7 Bhilwara NA 0.0 25.0 99.3 7.0 4.0 460.0 786.5 8 Bikaner 7.0 0.3 0.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 9 Bundi 1.0 0.2 11.0 114.7 5182.0 4630.0 155.0 1047.1 10 Chittorgarh 37.0 77.4 38.0 436.8 919.0 1020.0 719.0 5998.8 11 Churu NA 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 12 Dausa 8.0 26.2 25.0 283.6 6.0 6.0 527.0 2151.2 13 Dholpur 0.0 0.0 9.0 40.5 5.0 5.0 469.0 7758.0 14 Dungarpur NA 0.0 4.0 21.7 NA NA 326.0 281.6 15 Srigangangar 3.0 0.0 NA 0.0 7.0 4.0 36.0 0.0 16 Hanumangarh 7.0 50.1 NA 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 17 Jaipur 68.0 833.7 18.0 115.4 55.0 34.0 349.0 3414.1 18 Jaisalmer 16.0 1.6 0.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 0.2 19 Jalore 4.0 0.0 9.0 27.2 0.0 0.0 41.0 41.1 20 Jhalawar 1.0 4.2 22.0 88.7 28477.0 28231.0 327.0 3792.7 21 Jhunjhunu NA 0.4 4.0 15.9 2.0 1.0 25.0 0.0 22 Jodhpur 19.0 206.3 6.0 7.5 920.0 552.0 3.0 1.8 23 Karuali 2.0 10.6 34.0 1352.0 19.0 10.0 310.0 2433.1 24 Kota 1.0 45.7 3.0 109.0 30819.0 36340.0 275.0 4352.2 25 Nagaur 56.0 55.0 2.0 2.8 12.0 11.0 4.0 0.4 26 Pali 15.0 28.0 2.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 8.0 27 Pratapgarh N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 28 Rajsamand 4.0 2.4 13.0 95.6 43.0 1.0 212.0 1991.5 29 S.modhpur 8.0 106.4 8.0 111.5 32.0 16.0 104.0 2500.0 30 Sikar 15.0 118.0 4.0 16.0 111.0 55.0 21.0 81.0 31 Sirohi NA 0.1 9.0 31.9 3.0 2.0 140.0 673.8 32 Tonk NA 0.0 9.0 7.8 41.0 16.0 69.0 101.9 33 Udaipur 27.0 16.3 29.0 156.4 18.0 7.0 830.0 15155.4 State total 460.0 1842.0 379.0 3970.1 112333.0 122705.0 6365.0 65613.6 Notes: (1) *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. (2) Figures in etalics are for the study districts. (3) 'Prod' stands for production Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

147

Annexure 2.10: Area and production of selected horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan (2003-04) Sl. No. District Area in Hectares and Production in Metric Tonnes Aonla Papaya Coriander Mango Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod 1 Ajmer 106 13.64 1 1.4 99 123 88 18.866 2 Alwar 31 195.085 15 146.28 261 324 146 1645.916 3 Banswara 6 141.3 5 127 3 4 454 9689.4 4 Baran 1 92.275 21 356.26 84147 131438 211 8406.55 5 Barmer 0 0 2 33.3 1 1 3 12.7 6 Bharatpur 2 1.3 21 23.882 0 0 74 113.135 7 Bhilwara 21 157.295 25 150.492 43 53 433 3024.749 8 Bikaner 1 0.05 0 33 41 0 0 9 Bundi 10.3 12 242.864 9154 10335 168 1161.749 10 Chittorgarh 57 1.8 55 442.3 2223 987 753 13112.2 11 Churu 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 0 12 Dausa 24 29.305 26 253.26 17 21 577 1927.657 13 Dholpur 0 0.6 8 40.5 6 7 451 7524 14 Dungarpur 0 0 4 24.196 3 4 351 290.17 15 Srigangangar 7 49.9 0 0 11 14 58 5.5 16 Hanumangarh 14 177 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Jaipur 89 1669.725 27 183.2 102 127 320 3365.28 18 Jaisalmer 16 23 NA 0 9 11 1 7 19 Jalore 3 0.9 7 52.5 11 14 41 196.8 20 Jhalawar 4 12.32 26 117.307 88563 95648 328 1441.454 21 Jhunjhunu NA 0.3 4 52.5 NA NA 22 12.9 22 Jodhpur 12 332.5 1 7.5 263 327 2 3.8 23 Karuali 2 2.02 37 494.405 61 76 308 15956.5 24 Kota 1 103.5 4 77.1 55193 59056 193 4327.8 25 Nagaur 45 113.5 2 2.84 395 491 2 0.8 26 Pali 27 470 5 30 16 20 5 30 27 Pratapgarh NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 28 Rajsamand 7 2.335 9 96.4 11 14 208 1916.416 29 S.modhpur 9 55.6 19 72.875 281 349 191 2095.273 30 Sikar 27 869.3 2 16.3 174 216 32 178 31 Sirohi NA 0.048 12 38.462 12 15 133 675.809 32 Tonk 0 0 9 20.24 248 308 68 113.593 33 Udaipur 7 6.228 27 180.805 47 59 847 9227.083 State Total 519 4531.126 386 3284.168 241393 300090 6468 86481.1 Notes: (1) *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. (2) Figures in etalics are for the study districts. (3) 'Prod' stands for production Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

148

Annexure 2. 11: Area and production of selected horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan (2004-05) Sl. No. District Area in Hectares and Production in Metric Tonnes Aonla Papaya Coriander Mango Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod 1 Ajmer 170.19 14.34 0.29 0 89 102 83.76 18.866 2 Alwar 42.26 424.06 21.85 134.86 48 55 93.23 1579.348 3 Banswara 6.19 141.3 4.38 85.32 1 1 654.85 9821.8 4 Baran 23.65 94.5 19.49 222.7 45449 57766 193.28 8699.95 5 Barmer 0 0 1.68 32.7 N.A. N.A. 2.6 12.8 6 Bharatpur 0.75 0.3 17.5 3.226 1 1 69.35 104.135 7 Bhilwara 26.06 254.633 22.69 179.28 228 261 410.43 4516.178 8 Bikaner 1 0 0 0 39 45 0 0 9 Bundi 11.31 8.236 9.96 80.75 1165 1408 165.92 1039.787 10 Chittorgarh 44.27 619.96 55.53 4064.26 1551 1199 738.48 3204.7 11 Churu 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 12 Dausa 29.25 66.6 26.92 233.66 2 2 540.06 1910.2 13 Dholpur 0.23 0.6 8.53 37 3 3 433.75 6920 14 Dungarpur 0 0 4.36 24.67 2 2 353.69 302.93 15 Srigangangar 30.97 0 0 0 6 7 42.87 0 16 Hanumangarh 18 44.8 0 0 1 1 0 0 17 Jaipur 136.13 1830.555 26.98 169.63 94 108 346.6 3155.28 18 Jaisalmer 43.43 23 0 0 783 897 0.47 7 19 Jalore 15.8 32.5 6.33 47.5 1 1 40.07 200.4 20 Jhalawar 4.78 20.22 20.64 125.715 66149 65157 325.72 2944.853 21 Jhunjhunu 0.09 0.65 3.49 25.97 2 2 25.17 12.77 22 Jodhpur 30 167.4 0.5 1.8 143 164 3 4.2 23 Karuali 0.2 0.52 35.3 444.075 6 7 305.81 4181.6 24 Kota 4.07 71.5 4.57 45.8 32218 42173 191.57 3808.2 25 Nagaur 51.49 147.68 2.04 2.31 10 11 3.77 1.166 26 Pali 38.4 25 3.3 3 3 3 5.18 12 27 Pratapgarh N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 28 Rajsamand 6.95 69.775 9.45 57.535 34 39 205.94 1040.187 29 S.modhpur 8.88 54.6 7.65 54.686 58 67 104.15 1609.731 30 Sikar 73.4 798.8 3.21 171.3 82 94 26.89 176.6 31 Sirohi 0.2 0.358 8.54 30.698 2 2 148.02 652.308 32 Tonk 0 0 8.53 9.192 69 79 67.67 74.323 33 Udaipur 6.91 24.725 25.79 217.617 92 105 824.64 13877.67 State Total 824.86 4936.612 359.5 6505.254 148334 169765 6406.94 69888.98 Notes: (1) *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. (2) Figures in etalics are for the study districts. (3) 'Prod' stands for production Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

149

Annexure 2.12: Area and production of selected horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan (2006-07) Sl. No. District Area in Hectares and Production in Metric Tonnes Aonla Papaya Coriander Mango Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod 1 Ajmer 243 30.3 1 0.2 46 54 69 8.9 2 Alwar 113.94 952.838 14.1 65.27 37 44 80.34 1033.992 3 Banswara 6.19 141.56 3.84 84.124 3 4 713.19 7003.2 4 Baran 56.17 239.2 23.56 251.809 42961 54045 192.53 8764.7 5 Barmer 1 10 1.66 13.1 0 0 2.94 3.1 6 Bharatpur 13.17 53.85 25.5 124.7 0 0 67.36 718.535 7 Bhilwara 88.73 542.87 28.95 373.602 3 4 430.36 2577.13 8 Bikaner 24.37 2.475 0 0.006 36 43 0 0 9 Bundi 19.77 138.15 26.82 221.212 1390 1549 174.64 990.653 10 Chittorgarh 95.94 5357.6 60.23 2602.93 1959 2606 735.67 16367.2 11 Churu 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 12 Dausa 31.74 191.184 25.1 309.8 2 2 529.73 6767.7 13 Dholpur 0.23 0.6 7.58 37 5 6 427.43 6875 14 Dungarpur 0 0 5.32 25.744 1 1 390.8 322.869 15 Srigangangar 70 295.3 0 0 4 5 32 405.8 16 Hanumangarh 59 280 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Jaipur 116.6 1914.885 29.13 212.7 54 64 355.08 3300.24 18 Jaisalmer 44.43 24.5 0 0 2 2 0.47 6 19 Jalore 18.26 42 9.84 39.4 7 8 37.54 184 20 Jhalawar 7.21 41 14.07 187.195 61963 68159 330.61 3301.699 21 Jhunjhunu 2.65 3.85 3.49 23.615 7 8 22.64 11.16 22 Jodhpur 29 17.7 1 6 182 216 2 0 23 Karuali 1.68 9.62 26.9 512.785 5 6 304.5 3236.44 24 Kota 9.11 268.2 4.84 42.9 22314 28093 190.54 3536.5 25 Nagaur 163.33 140.5 2.26 1.4 7 8 3.46 0.565 26 Pali 63.2 4.3 5 0.3 1 1 4.14 0.1 27 Pratapgarh N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 28 Rajsamand 21.88 144.178 17.21 279.906 59 70 193.59 3563.841 29 S.modhpur 15.31 127.947 8.47 55.665 24 28 102.86 1479.988 30 Sikar 70.57 76.674 5.04 32.4 13 15 39.86 31.2 31 Sirohi 1.65 5.418 28.16 17.178 7 8 142.24 686.703 32 Tonk 73.96 4.26 9.82 8 9 63.67 24.793 33 Udaipur 6.97 29.565 22.9 268.483 35 41 816.97 10841.82 State Total 1397.1 11160.22 406.23 5799.244 131137 155101 6456.16 82043.82 Notes: (1) *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. (2) Figures in etalics are for the study districts. (3) 'Prod' stands for production Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

150

Annexure 2.13: Area and production of selected horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan (2007-08) Sl. No. District Area in Hectares and Production in Metric Tonnes Aonla Papaya Coriander Mango Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod 1 Ajmer 236 30.3 3 0.2 81 63 58 8.9 2 Alwar 147.51 1097.8 10.78 2824.3 61 47 55.22 778.9 3 Banswara 6.2 141.5 3.87 87.96 0 0 681.64 11758.22 4 Baran 59.69 231.005 22.6 237.403 82808 81152 198.7 9291.3 5 Barmer 5.21 10.05 1.78 13.1 1 1 2.95 3.1 6 Bharatpur 13.29 3.8 22.79 21.715 13 10 65.8 43.535 7 Bhilwara 207.07 699.855 41.22 348.642 16 12 372.87 3932.077 8 Bikaner 24.75 26 0.06 0 11 8 0 0 9 Bundi 22.04 138.976 26.8 658.182 1407 1147 168.39 992.657 10 Chittorgarh 54.52 1045.735 70.04 6896.191 2451 2238 721.17 19211.62 11 Churu 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 12 Dausa 35.22 639.3 22.05 428.3 5 4 520.38 7923.6 13 Dholpur 0.23 113 7.58 37.7 4 3 425.01 6824.5 14 Dungarpur 0 0 5.56 23.001 1 1 380.4 333.216 15 Srigangangar 86.02 789.5 0 7 5 34.3 251.7 16 Hanumangarh 62 2822.2 0 0 0 0 0 17 Jaipur 258.41 3010.455 21.38 127.17 51 40 363.15 3140.28 18 Jaisalmer 44.43 24.5 0 25 20 0.47 6 19 Jalore 25.26 45.5 16.03 81.8 7 5 39.08 148.5 20 Jhalawar 20.72 676.7 20.76 953.2 85762 38593 309.14 4555.4 21 Jhunjhunu 0.05 7.7 1.01 42.4 6 5 22.47 11.2 22 Jodhpur 36 38.5 5 6.3 274 214 0 23 Karuali 1.68 16.414 28.71 575.324 1 1 302.21 2572.548 24 Kota 11.78 688.9 4.29 59 39657 42314 176.3 2236 25 Nagaur 152.76 185 1.26 0.7 24 19 4 0.654 26 Pali 69 74 4 2 6 5 2 8 27 Pratapgarh N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 28 Rajsamand 23.54 144.178 18.65 225.756 24 19 209 3410.741 29 S.modhpur 25.07 261.558 7.58 62.09 121 94 101.07 1371.435 30 Sikar 68.06 97.9 4.38 26.12 24 19 36.61 297.3 31 Sirohi 6.65 7.077 28.17 192.195 1 1 142.98 1306.742 32 Tonk 19.84 183.3 4.9 1.512 34 26 58.82 18.103 33 Udaipur 7.07 24.1 45.89 3208.208 73 57 790.68 10379.14 State Total 1730.07 13274.8 450.14 17140.47 212961 166127 6242.81 90815.37 Notes: (1) *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. (2) Figures in etalics are for the study districts. (3) 'Prod' stands for production Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

151

Annexure 2.14: Area and production of selected horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan (2008-09) Sl. No. District Area in Hectares and Production in Metric Tonnes Aonla Papaya Coriander Mango Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod 1 Ajmer 278 N.A 2 N.A 65 73 57 N.A 2 Alwar 167.15 N.A 13.17 N.A 27 30 56.72 N.A 3 Banswara 6.2 N.A 4.28 N.A 0 0 466.26 N.A 4 Baran 17.92 N.A 19.81 N.A 90683 110647 189.35 N.A 5 Barmer 4.96 N.A 1.78 N.A 1 1 2.95 N.A 6 Bharatpur 9.86 N.A 44.32 N.A 12 13 57.39 N.A 7 Bhilwara 195.68 N.A 45.87 N.A 18 20 389.84 N.A 8 Bikaner 3.45 N.A N.A 23 26 N.A 9 Bundi 24.46 N.A 27.17 N.A 4267 3536 174.84 N.A 10 Chittorgarh 62.39 N.A 56.29 N.A 3203 3184 439.77 N.A 11 Churu 0 N.A N.A N.A 5 6 N.A 12 Dausa 33 N.A 21.83 N.A 2 2 476.94 N.A 13 Dholpur 7.74 N.A 7.58 N.A 4 4 424.09 N.A 14 Dungarpur 0 N.A 5.82 N.A 0 0 380.79 N.A 15 Srigangangar 46.87 N.A N.A N.A 12 13 20.48 N.A 16 Hanumangarh 76 N.A N.A N.A 2 2 0 N.A 17 Jaipur 209.48 N.A 21.04 N.A 48 54 327.66 N.A 18 Jaisalmer 38.43 N.A 0 N.A 1 1 0.47 N.A 19 Jalore 22.26 N.A 15.91 N.A 0 0 38.83 N.A 20 Jhalawar 16.18 N.A 13.87 N.A 96940 92187 314.31 N.A 21 Jhunjhunu 0.35 N.A 3.31 N.A 9 10 22.87 N.A 22 Jodhpur 39 N.A 2 N.A 259 289 1 N.A 23 Karuali 5.91 N.A 28.4 N.A 30 34 268.29 N.A 24 Kota 27.89 N.A 4.41 N.A 49135 63055 170.46 N.A 25 Nagaur 139.33 N.A 1.26 N.A 20 22 4 N.A 26 Pali 91 N.A 3 N.A 23 26 14 N.A 27 Pratapgarh 0.5 N.A 24.3 N.A 5 6 445.82 N.A 28 Rajsamand 31.01 N.A 16.24 N.A 113 126 207.39 N.A 29 S.modhpur 35.57 N.A 6.76 N.A 37 41 103.74 N.A 30 Sikar 67.03 N.A 1.28 N.A 4 5 39.98 N.A 31 Sirohi 7.21 N.A 12.61 N.A 32 36 130.24 N.A 32 Tonk 33.85 N.A 4.9 N.A 31 35 38.46 N.A 33 Udaipur 6.57 N.A 38.37 N.A 80 89 729.53 N.A State total 1705.25 14099 447.58 7385 245091 273573 5993.47 92899 Notes: (1) *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09. (2) Figures in etalics are for the study districts. (3) 'Prod' stands for production Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

152

Annexure Plates Photographs on Implementation of NHM in Rajasthan

Plate 1: Papaya cultivation with mulching by a NHM beneficiary in Alwar district

Plate 2: Vermi compost unit at Alwar

153

Plate 3: Papaya cultivation by NHM beneficiary in Banswara district

Plate 4: Shed Net Model Nursery in Banswara Horticulture Department under NHM

154

Plate 5: Chili cultivation as an inter crop with Mango plantation as the main crop under NHM in Banswara district

Plate 6: Aonla cultivation under NHM in Chomu village of Jaipur district

155

Plate 7: Rural Godown constructed in Jaipur district with the help of Agriculture Ministry

Plate 8: Rejuvenation of Mango orchard in Banswara district

156

Plate 9: Mango tree with barahmasi Mango in Methwala village in Banswara

Plate 10: Aonla Pack house Mandi in Chomu, Jaipur funded by APEDA, Government of India

157

Appendix I: Coordinator’s Comments on the Draft Report

1. The Vallabh Vidyanagar Centre was selected for four districts and four crops, viz., Jaipur and Alwar for Papaya and Anola; and Banswara and Chittorgarh for Garlic and Ginger. However, in the final selection, the Centre has selected coriander and mango in the districts of Banswara and Chittorgarh. It is essential to provide the reasoning why the replacement of garlic and ginger has been done for the above said crops. It is also essential that this change should have been brought to the notice of the coordinator centre. 2. Table 3.5: Calculate credit per acre by net sown area instead of gross cropped area. Similarly, Table 3.7, ownership of productive assets should also be Rs. per net sown area as per gross cropped area does not make much sense. Table 3.9, last two rows present gross cropped area with two different numbers, clear the confusion. Also present one Table giving details of percentage of area irrigated to the sown area crop wise. Table 3.11, Value of output, cost and net returns all are calculated with respect to gross cropped that is meaningless. Calculate all value with respect to Net Sown Area (which is by definition the value of productivity per annum). Change the whole discussion also pertaining to this table. 3. The profitability of anola and mango crops is negative not only with respect to total cost but also with respect to variable cost. Kindly check the cost calculations and also the revenue side at the farm level. If there are some extreme values either ignore them or make correction. Make sure that common cost items like repair and maintenance, interest on working capital etc., that are not particular cost items not linked with a specific crop are appropriately apportioned to different crops given their ratio in the gross cropped area. Also make sure that the fixed cost including preparatory tillage, planting material, supporting material etc. is amortized into the life span of the crop in question. The formula for amortization is given below:

The following annual amortization method is used for calculating annual value of fixed cost:- i P = B ------1 - (1 + i) - n

Where P = is the amount of annual payment B = is the initial amount n = is number of years (life period of plantation) i = is the interest or discount rate (10% in the present case) In the chapter also discuss and present the life time of the plantation (years) used for amortization of the fixed cost. 4. Chapter 5: Table 5.7 present the frequency of the training provided during the year by percentage of households instead number per household.

158

Appendix II: Action Taken on Coordinator’s Comments on the Draft Report

1. The change in the crop matrix was done in the consultation with P.C. Bodh of Ministry of Agriculture and Dr. Parmod Kumar, the Coordinator of the study. The concerned emails dated 15th and 16th July 2010 may be referred. The change was necessary since the number of beneficiaries cultivating previously allotted crops was insufficient in the study districts.

2. Since our focus was „crop productivity‟ instead of „land productivity‟, we had calculated the input use, yield, costs and net returns per acre of gross cropped area. As suggested by the Coordinating Centre, we have reported these parameters per acre of NSA also. Accordingly, Table 3.5, Table 3.7 and Table 3.11 have been modified. The typographical error in Table 3.9 has been corrected. As suggested, an additional table on irrigation area as a percentage of sown area crop-wise has been added and the discussions have been made accordingly.

3. It has already been mentioned in the report that mango and aonla were long duration crops. Our study covered the period of four years since implementation of NHM in 2005-06 up to 2008-09 which was insufficient for these orchards to yield reasonable amount of output. So the impact of NHM on the productivity and net returns from the cultivation of these crops was not properly discernible. Thus the profitability of aonla and mango crops was negative. As suggested, we have rechecked the calculation of costs and returns. Fixed cost has been amortized. The life time of the plantation (years) used for amortization of the fixed cost has been discussed.

4. Chapter 5: Table 5.7, section (A) already presents the frequency of the training provided during the year in terms of the number per household, not as percentage of households.

159