Special Study Publication No. 182

End-Term Evaluation/Appraisal in Respect of the Implementation of Bringing Green Revolution to Eastern (BGREI) Programme (With Special Reference to Eastern )

Prof. Ramendu Roy

2012

Agro-Economic Research Centre University of Allahabad-211002

- 1 - Preface

The BGREI (Bringing Green Revolution in Eastern India) Programme was initiated in the year 2010-11. Accordingly has taken decision for improving the agricultural productivity of main food crops in eastern region by promoting technology to realize the bulk production of Rice, Wheat, Rabi-Maize and Sugarcane. The main objective of the programme is to increase the productivity of rice based cropping system in the resource rich eastern region by intensive cultivation through promotion of recommended agricultural technology and package of practices in different agro- ecological sub-regions. This programme was implemented in the eastern region including Assam, , Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand, Orrisa, West Bengal and Eastern Uttar Pradesh and gained momentum in 2011-12 with the focus on rice and wheat for improving the agronomy. In Eastern Uttar Pradesh the major constraints are lack of water management, soil erosion, floods and drought situations, low SRRs (Seed Replacement Rates) and incidence of insects, pests and diseases. The strategies adopted are integrated nutrient management, balanced use of fertilizers and enhancement in irrigated area.

The study reveals that training programme under BGREI Scheme was attempted very poorly in the rice-ecological regions of East U.P. while in wheat ecological regions participation in training programme was better, although it was less than half. Participation in demonstration as progressive farmers was deplorably poor and quite ineffective in rice ecological sub-regions. While in wheat ecological regions it was comparatively better. The main accessing sources of information on modern technology were the extension workers of S.A.D. under BGREI Programme. In rice ecology the cropping intensity was 201% and in wheat ecology it was 184% on the farms of beneficiaries. Almost all the sample beneficiaries had opined that BGREI programme is a good programme. Also majority of non-beneficiaries had agreed to grow hybrid varieties of rice and wheat as demonstrated in their area. Monitoring of BGREI programme was reported inadequate and the effect was negligible in Eastern U.P.

- 2 - This study was conducted under my overall supervision. The study proposal was prepared, discussed and finalized by Dr. Rajendra Singh, Rtd. R.O. of the Centre who also prepared analytical tables, supervised analysis, presented draft report and also drafted the final report. Sri D.K. Singh, Rtd. R.O. of the Centre supervised the data collection, tabulation and completed the analysis. Sri. Ramji Pandey, Sri. S.N. Shukla, Dr. H.C. Malviya, Sri. R.S. Maurya and Sri. Hasib Ahmad collected the primary and secondary data. Shri. K.N. Thapliyal worked as Technical Assistant. They also tabulated and compiled the data. Smt Nirupama Nigam and Shri Ovesh Ahmad printed the report. Sri. H.C. Upadhyay did Xeroxing. Sri. S.D. Singh and Mrs. M.R. Kesarwani did secretarial services.

I express my deep sense of gratitude to all for extending their cooperation in completion of this study. Any comments and suggestions for the improvements in the report are solicited and will be acknowledged thankfully.

Agro-Economic Research Centre University of Allahabad (Ramendu Roy) Allahabad Prof. & Hony. Director

Dated: 12.07.2012

- 3 -

CONTENT

Page no. Preface 2-3 Content 4 List of Tables 5-7

CHAPTERS

I. Introduction 8-14 II. Profile of the State and Selected Districts 15-17

III. Evaluation of the Implementation Process 18-33

IV. Evaluation of Physical and Financial Progress 34-54

V. Evaluation of Monitoring Process 55-58

VI. Results and Discussions 59-87

VII. Summary and Conclusions 88-97

VIII. Recommendations and Policy Suggestions 98-100

Requirements wise Action Taken in BGREI study 100-102

- 4 - LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title of Tables Page No. Chapter-I Table-I- 1 Sample Design 12 Chapter-II Table-II- 1 Rainfall Situation in Selected Districts & State of Uttar Pradesh 15 during 2009-10 Table-II- 2 Irrigational Infrastructure in Selected Districts and State of Uttar 16 Pradesh during 2009-10 Table-II- 3 Cropping Pattern Followed in the Selected Districts and State of 17 Uttar Pradesh during 2009-10 Chapter-III Table-III- 1 Agro-Ecological Rice & wheat sub-region-wise Accessing Source of 20 Information by Sample Beneficiary Farmers on Modern Rice/Wheat Technology in eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2011-12 Table-III- 2 Agro-Ecological Rice & wheat sub-regions-wise cropping pattern on 22 demonstration and non-demonstration plots followed by sample beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of Eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2010-11 Table-III- 3 Agro-Ecological Rice & wheat sub-region-wise cropping pattern on 23 demonstration and non-demonstration plots followed by sample beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of Eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2011-12 Table-III- 4 Agro-Ecological Rice & wheat sub-region-wise Accessing Source of 24 Information by Sample Beneficiary Farmers on Modern Rice/Wheat Technology in eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2011-12 Table-III- 5 Agro-Ecological Rice & Wheat sub-region-wise Cropping-wise 25 Cropping Intensity on the Farms of Sample Beneficiaries and Non- Beneficiaries during 2011-12 Table-III- 6 Agro-Ecological Rice and Wheat Sub-Region-wise perception of 31-32 Sample Beneficiaries of Eastern Uttar Pradesh under BGREI programme during 2011 – 2012 Table-III- 7 Agro-Ecological Rice and Wheat Sub-Region-wise perception of 26 Sample Non-Beneficiaries of Eastern Uttar Pradesh About BGREI programme during 2011 - 2012 Chapter-IV Table-IV- 1 Number of Blocks and villages at a glance for Block 35 Demonstrations (D/C) under BGREI in kharif, 2011-12 (Rice) Table-IV- 2 Concentration of block demonstrations (D/C) in relation to block 36 and village at a glance under BGREI in Kharif, 2011-12 (Paddy) Table-IV- 3 Concentration of block demonstrations (D/C) per net cropped area at 37 a glance under BGREI in kharif, 2011-12

- 5 - Table-IV- 4 Number of Blocks and Villages at a glance for Block 38 Demonstrations (D/C) under BGREI in Rabi, 2011-12 (Wheat) Table-IV- 5 Concentration of block demonstrations (D/C) in relation to blocks 39 and Village at a glance under BGREI in Rabi, 2011-12 (Wheat) Table-IV- 6 Concentration of block demonstrations (D/C) on wheat area at a 41 glance under BGREI in Rabi, 2011-12 (Wheat) Table-IV- 7 Physical target and achievement of kharif rice block demonstrations 42 (D/C) in East U.P. (2011-2012) Table-IV- 8 Physical target and achievements of block demonstrations (D/C) of 43 rice (HYV & Hybrid) and wheat by kharif and rabi in East U.P. (2011-12) Table-IV- 9 Distribution of inputs under block demonstrations (D/C) on paddy 44 under BGREI in kharif, 2011-12 Table-IV- 10 Distribution of inputs under block demonstrations (D/C) on paddy 45 under BGREI in kharif, 2011-12 Table-IV- 11 Distribution of inputs under block demonstrations (D/C) on paddy 46 (Hybrid) under BGREI in Kharif, 2011-12 Table-IV- 12 Break-up of inputs distributed at a glance under Block 48 Demonstration (D/C) in BGREI During Kharif and Rabi, 2011- 12 Table-IV- 13 Distribution of inputs under block demonstrations (D/C) on Wheat 49 under BGREI in Rabi, 2011-12 Table-IV- 14 Component-wise physical and financial target and achievement in 51 asset building activities in Eastern Uttar Pradesh (2011-12) Table-IV- 15 Component-wise physical and financial target and achievement in 52 site specific activities in Eastern Uttar Pradesh (2011-12) Table-IV- 16 Intervention-wise physical and financial progress at a glance in 54 BGREI programme in Eastern Uttar Pradesh (2011-12) Chapter-V Table-V- 1 Detail about State Level Monitoring Team (SLMT) at a glance in 56 BGREI programme for Rice in Eastern Uttar Pradesh (2011-12) Table-V- 2 Details about State Level Monitoring Team (SLMT) at a glance in 57 BGREI programme for Wheat in Eastern Uttar Pradesh (2011-12) Table-V- 3 Details of District Level Monitoring Team (DMLT) at a Glance in 58 BGREI Programme in East U.P. for Rice and Wheat during 2011-12 Chapter-VI Table-VI- 1 Size of Holdings of the Sample Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries 60 of Rice-Ecological Regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 Table-VI- 2 Size of Holdings of the Sample Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries 61 of Wheat-Ecological Regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 Table-VI- 3 Agro-Ecological Rice & wheat sub-region-wise levels of education 67 among sample beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2011-12 Table-VI- 4 Agro-Ecological Rice & wheat sub-region-wise occupational status of 68 sample beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2011-12

- 6 - Table-VI- 5 Items-wise Break-up of Inputs delivered under BGREI Programme 69 for Rice in Rice-Ecology regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 Table-VI- 6 Items-wise Break-up of Inputs used at own Cost for Rice in Rice- 70 Ecology regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 Table-VI- 7 Yield Per Hectare and out put Per Farm of Rice in Rice-Ecology 71 regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 Table-VI- 8 Distribution of Net Return Per Farm and Per Hectare from Rice in 72 Rice Ecological Regions of East U.P. during 2011-12 Table-VI- 9 Item-wise Break-up of Inputs Delivered under BGREI Programme 74 on Wheat in Wheat Ecology Regions of East U.P. during 2011-12 Table-VI- 10 Item-wise Break-up of Inputs used at own Cost on wheat in Wheat 75 Ecological Regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 Table-VI- 11 Yield Per Hectare and Output Per Farm of Wheat in Wheat 76 Ecological Regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 Table-VI- 12 Distribution of Net Return Per Farm and Per Hectare of Wheat in 77 Wheat Ecological Regions of East U.P. during 2011-12 Table-VI- 13 Effectiveness of the Progressive Farmers in Implementation of 78 BGREI Programme in Rice Ecological Regions of East U.P. during 2011-12 Table-VI- 14 Effectiveness of the Progressive Farmers in Implementation of 79 BGREI Programme in Wheat Ecology Regions of East U.P. during 2011-12 Table-VI- 15 Quinquennial Mean of Area, Production and Productivity of 83 Mandate crops (Rice & Wheat) in selected BGREI districts of East U.P. for the period of (2005-06 to 2009-10) alongwith the A.P.Y. for Q.E. Year 2010-11 and Yield obtained through Primary Data (2010-11) Table-VI- 16 Quinquennial Mean of Area, Production and Productivity of 84 Mandate crops (Rice & Wheat) in selected BGREI districts of East U.P. for the period of (2006-07 to 2010-11) alongwith the A.P.Y. for Q.E. Year 2011-12 and Yield obtained through Primary Data (2011-12) Table-VI- 17 Compound Growth Rates and Advance Estimates of Area, 85 Production and Productivity of Mandate crops with Rice and Wheat (2006-07 to 2010-11) in selected BGREI districts of Eastern U.P.

- 7 - CHAPTER-I

I. Introduction

1.1 Background of the Programme:

The programme of BGREI (Bringing Green Revolution in Eastern India) has been initiated since 2010-11 after the expression of finance Minister in his budget speech for the need to develop strategy which may bring green revolution in the eastern region of India. Accordingly Government of India, has taken decision under RKVY (Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana) for improving the agricultural productivity of staples food crops in eastern region by promoting technology that can realize the bulk production of Rice, wheat, Rabi, Maize and sugarcane. The objective of this programme is to increase the productivity of rice based cropping system in the resource rich eastern region, by intensive cultivation through promotion of recommended agricultural technology and package of practices by addressing the underlying constraints of different agro-climatic sub-regions.

A bouquet of activities including organizing demonstrations of rice in different agro- climatic region, block demonstrations of wheat promoting zero tillage, creation of asset building activities for water management, promotion of farm, implements and site specific activities. District-wise scientific resource have been deployed and three tier monitoring system has been created at national, state and district levels for effective implementation and monitoring.

The BGREI programme is a part of the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna (RKVY) Programme with an outlay of Rs. 400 crores. This scheme was implemented in the eastern region, including Assam, Bihar, Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, Eastern Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. This programme gained momentum in 2011-12 with the focus on rice and wheat and strategic intervention relating to crop production, water harvesting and recycling, assets building and site specific activities needed for improving the agronomy. The growth in foodgrains will provide an opportunity to procure and create

- 8 - reserves. Thus, the focus would now be to consolidate the gains with continued emphasis during the 12th five year plan, which begins in April. Further steps would be taken to improve the infrastructure for procurement and storage of the produce and to ensure a reasonable price for farmers (Times of India 26 Feb, 2012).

In eastern U.P. the major constraints are, (1) Lack of water management (2) loss of nutrients due to soil erosion, (3) Floods and drought situations (4) Low SRRs (Seed Replacement Rates) for rice and wheat and (5) Incidence of insects, pests and diseases. The strategies adopted in eastern U.P. are (1) Integrated nutrient Management (2) Balanced use of fertilizers, (3) Green Manuring (4) Enhancement in irrigated area and (5) use of sprinkler irrigation for water economy.

Keeping the above cited statement in views, the Directorate of Eco. and Stat., Min. of Agri., Govt. of India has entrusted AERC, A.U. Allahabad, third party evaluator of the implementation of BGREI programme in eastern U.P. to understand the implementation status of the programme so that the required policy level technical and administrative corrections could be evolved for better implementation in future course. Thus, the main objectives of this study were as follows:

1.2. Objectives of the Study:

1. To study suitability/ correctness of technical interventions/ prescriptions and approach adopted at state/ district and local levels. 2. To observe crop response to the technology promoted. 3. To make critical evaluation of administrative aspects of implementation. 4. To identify status and impact of implementation of various intervention. 5. To identify gaps, if any existing between recommended, promoted and implemented strategies. 6. To explore effectiveness of scientific backstopping in the form of scientists deployed at the district. 7. To examine the effectiveness of the provision of progressive farmers and SDA staff entrusted with BGREI programme and paid honorarium therefore. 8. To examine effectiveness of cluster approach adopted during 2011-12.

- 9 - 9. To examine effectiveness of institutional support provided by CRRI, NGOs, BGREI cell established in DAC and, 10. To examine effectiveness of monitoring mechanism DLMT and SLMT at district and state level.

1.3 Data Base and Research Methodology 1.3.1 Data Base This study was based mainly on the secondary data available at the state, district and Block levels. Simultaneously the primary data were also collected from the sample beneficiary as well as non-beneficiary farmers to see the impact of BGREI programme at the gross root level in the area where the programme was implemented. The secondary data were collected for the years 2006-07 to 2010-11 in respect of the mandate crops. The primary data were collected on the various aspects of BGREI programme implemented in East U.P. during 2010-11 and 2011-12. To see the impact of programme the primary data from beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries both were collected for the same span of time.

1.3.2: Research Methodology:

1.3.2 (a) Method of Study:

This quick and special study was confined to 5 agro-ecological sub- regions of Eastern U.P. a multi-stage stratified random sampling technique was used to undertake the samples for indepth study. At the first stage of sampling one district was selected from each of the 5 agro-ecological sub-regions having maximum concentration of demonstrations in the district. At the second stage suitable number of blocks from the 1000 ha. cluster of block demonstrations were undertaken on the same basis. At the third and ultimate stage of sampling 10 beneficiaries and 5 non-beneficiaries were selected randomly from each of the sub-region/1000 ha. cluster of villages. Thus, 50 beneficiaries and 25 non-beneficiaries from 5 sub-regions of rice-ecology and 20 beneficiaries and 10 non-beneficiaries from two sub-regions i.e. (1) Timely sown (Irrigated) and (2) Late sown (irrigated) were undertaken randomly making a total of 105 samples in all. The data were collected by survey method through schedules and questionnaires.

- 10 - 1.3.2 (b) Selection of Agro-Ecological Sub-Regions:

5 agro-ecological sub-regions of rice and 2 sub-regions of wheat ecology namely (1) Rainfed upland (2) Rainfed low land (shallow) (3) Rainfed low land (medium) (4) Rainfed low land (deep-water) and (5) Irrigated land for rice-ecology and (1) Timely sown (Irrigation) and (2) Timely Sown (Rainfed) for wheat ecology were undertaken from 7 districts of Eastern U.P.

1.3.2 (c ) Selection of Districts:

At the first stage of sampling one district from each of the sub-regions of rice and wheat ecology were selected on the basis of maximum coverage of BGREI progromme such districts are namely (1) Jaunpur, (2) , (3) Maharazganj, (4) Kushinagar and (5) Allahabad for rice ecology and (1) Allahabad and (2) Mirzapur for wheat ecology.

1.3.2 (d) Selection of Blocks:

At the second stage of sampling suitable number of development blocks were undertaken from the 1000 ha. cluster for demonstrations of rice and wheat. Such blocks were namely (1) Shahganj from Jaunpur (2) and (3) Hata from Kushinagar (4) Kaptanganj (5) (6) Shukravele from Kushinagar, (7) from Maharajganj (8) Kaurihar from Allahabad, (9) Meza from Allahabad and (10) Narainpur from Mirzapur.

1.3.2 (e) Selection of Ultimate Sample Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries:

At the third and ultimate stage of sampling 10 beneficiaries and 5 non-beneficiaries from each sub-regions of rice and wheat were undertaken randomly from the 1000 ha. cluster of demonstrations blocks and villages making a samples of 105 in all. The sampling design is given in Table-I-1

- 11 - Table-I-1 Sampling Design

Sl. Agro-Ecological Selected Districts Selected Sample Benefs. Sample Total No. Regions of East U.P. Demonstration in Cluster of Non- Samples Blocks villages of Benefs. in (1000 ha.) Cluster of villages I. Rice Ecology 1. Rainfed Upland Jaunpur 1. Shahganj 10 5 15 2. Rainfed lowland Kushi Nagar 1. Padrauna 10 5 15 (shallow) 2. Hata 3. Rainfed low land Maharajganj 1. Paniara 10 5 15 (Medium) 4. Rainfed lowland Kushi Nagar 1. Kaptanganj, 10 5 15 (Deep-water) 2. Khadd 3. Khukrauli 5. Irrigated Land Allahabad 1. Kaurihar 10 5 15 Sub-Total 5 8 50 25 75 II. Wheat Ecology 1. Timely Sown Allahabad 1. Meza 10 5 15 (Irrigated) 2. Timely Sown - - - - - (Rinfed) 3. Late Sown (Irrigated) Mirzapur 1. Narainpur 10 5 15 4. Late Sown (Rainfed) - - Sub-Total 2 2 20 10 30 Grant Total 7 10 70 35 105

1.3.2 (F) Collection of Data:

(i) Collection of Primary Data

The collection of primary data was done through specially prepared schedules and questionnaires by contacting the sample farmers personally by survey method in one go.

(ii) Collection of Secondary Data

The Secondary data pertaining to all aspects of BGREI programme implemented in Eastern region of U.P. were collected from the records available at the state, district, blocks and others local levels for the period of implementation of BGREI programme i.e. 2010-11 to 2011-12.

- 12 - 1.3.2 (g) Reference Period:

The reference period of this study was 2010-11 to 2011-12 i.e. since inception of BGERI programme.

1.4 Organization of the Study:-

Chapter- I. Introduction I.1 Background of the Programme I.2 Objectives of the Study I.3 Database and Research Methodology I.4 Organization of the Study I.5 Limitations

Chapter- II. Profile of the State and Selected Districts II.I Rainfall Situation II.2 Irrigational Infrastructure II.3 Cropping Pattern

Chapter- III. Evaluation of the Implementation Process III.I Evaluation of Technical Backstopping III.2 Crop Specific Structured Plan III.3 Perception Profiling

Chapter- IV. Evaluation of Physical and Financial Progress IV.I Block Demonstrations IV.2 Assets Building IV.3 Site Specific Interventions

Chapter- V. Evaluation of Monitoring Process V.I Details about SLMTs V.2 Details about DLMTs

Chapter- VI. Results and Discussions

- 13 - Chapter- VII. Summary and Conclusions Chapter- VIII. Recommendations and Policy Suggestions

I.5 Limitations

Followings are the limitations of this study:- 1. Although, BGREI Programme was launched during the agricultural year 2010-11 but it was not fully implemented in the Eastern Uttar Pradesh in this year. This has affected the end term evaluation of progarmme as it was implemented only in one and last year of programme i.e. in 2011-12 only.

2. The primary data analysis was based on 50 sample beneficiaries and 25 sample non-beneficiaries from 5 rice ecological districts out of 28 districts falling in Eastern U.P. vis-à-vis 20 sample beneficiaries and 10 sample non-beneficiaries from only 2 wheat ecological districts out of 6 wheat ecological districts under BGERI demonstration Programme out of the 28 districts of East U.P. Thus, the sample size was scanty to generalize the findings even for 1000 hectares cluster of blocks and villages under this study or 28 districts of Eastern Uttar Pradesh.

3. Due to time constraint which was cut short from 6 months to 4 months without the consent of AERCs the collection of primary data was done in April i.e. prior to harvesting of wheat and sugarcane too. This influenced the quality of primary data particularly in case of wheat. That period has again been extended after the presentation of draft report unnecessarily which too has been consumed by the coordinator in finalizing the common analytical tables in lieu of his dummy tables circulated to the concerned AERCs which delayed the final submission of the report on this quick special study.

4. The collection of secondary data had also become hectic due to non- implementation of BGREI programme during 2010-11 in Eastern Uttar Pradesh. Thus, most of the secondary information particularly on interventions in various components were either nil or incomplete as it was only one year i.e. 2011-12.

- 14 - CHAPTER – II

II. Profile of the State and Selected Districts

II.1:- Rainfall Situation:-

The month-wise and annual average rainfalls in the selected districts of Eastern Uttar Pradesh and in the state of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in the Table-II-1 shows that in the state of U.P. as a whole the average annual rainfall was recorded as 78.95 m.m. While month-wise record shows that the maximum rainfall i.e. 280.90m.m. was recorded in July against the minimum i.e. 4.90m.m. in November. Among the selected districts of Eastern U.P. the maximum rainfall i.e. 111.95 m.m. was recorded in against the minimum i.e. 81.58 m.m. in , Thus, among all the selected districts of Eastern U.P. the rainfall was higher than the state average annual rainfall.

Table-II-1 Rainfall Situation in Selected Districts & State of Uttar Pradesh during 2009-10

(In m.m.) Sl. Selected Month-wise Rainfalls Average No. Districts June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. April May Annual 1. Allahabad 80.7 303.4 300.2 181.1 38.10 7.1 6.7 17.2 19.8 8.40 6.20 10.10 81.58 2. Jaunpur 87.3 296.80 295.4 205.6 45.3 6.8 5.5 14.00 19.5 7.50 4.6 9.6 83.16 3. Mirzapur 104.5 334.00 360.0 199.4 44.7 9.6 4.8 23.2 25.4 11.8 5.7 11.0 94.51 4. Mahraj 167.3 398.60 364.7 251.5 59.3 4.0 5.8 13.8 21.5 11.9 10.6 34.4 111.95 Gunj 5. Kushi 159.1 308.20 299.2 221.7 60.3 6.0 5.8 13.8 21.5 11.9 10.6 34.4 96.04 Nagar Uttar 95.00 280.90 275.6 178.3 35.8 4.9 6.8 17.6 19.9 10.2 7.3 15.1 78.95 Pradesh State

II.2:- Irrigational Infrastructures:-

The source-wise area irrigated in the selected districts of Eastern U.P. and in the state of U.P. as a whole analysed in Table-II-2 indicates that in the state of U.P. as whole the gross irrigated area was reported to 1,93,53,732 hectares. While the net irrigated area was

- 15 - 1,33,83,402 hectares of which the maximum area i.e. 96,14,498 hectares was irrigated by tube-wells and the minimum i.e. 52,716 hectares was irrigated by other sources in the state as a whole. Among the selected districts of Eastern U.P. the maximum gross area irrigated i.e. 3,82,352 hectares was reported in Jaunpur against the minimum i.e. 1,33,146 hectares in . Among the source-wise irrigated area it was reported maximum by tube-wells in district Jaunpur. Thus, tube-wells were the main source of irrigation. Table-II-2 Irrigational Infrastructure in Selected Districts and State of Uttar Pradesh during 2009-10 (Area in Ha.) Selected Sources of Irrigation Net Gross Season wise Irrigated Districts of Irrigated Irrigated Area Eastern Canals Tube- Other Tanks Other Area Area Kharif Rabi Zaid Uttar wells wells & sources Pradesh ponds Jaunpur 64867 178652 0 0 0 243519 382352 149536 228666 4151 Kushi 48914 114586 13101 0 493 177094 274518 147895 123501 3122 Nagar Mahraj 30505 147165 2649 1660 57 168930 177631 17897 157867 1867 Gunj Allahabad 108674 119169 6719 4184 644 239390 358389 126660 222197 9532

Mirzapur 59730 27150 11248 6015 2680 106823 133146 57209 75676 261

Uttar Pradesh 2558098 9614498 1032199 125891 52716 13383402 19353732 7191870 11416590 745272 State

II.3:- Cropping Pattern:-

The pattern of cropping in kharif and Rabi main seasons followed in selected districts of Eastern U.P. as well as in the whole state of U.P. during 2009-10 worked-out in Table-II- 3 shows that the total area covered under foodgrains in the state was reported to 78.52 lakh hectares of which 31.63 lakh hectares was covered during kharif season and 46.37 lakh hectares in Rabi season. Thus, the coverage in Rabi season was comparatively much higher in Rabi season. While among Kharif crops Rice (kharif) had covered maximum i.e. 22.03 lakh hectare against the minimum i.e. 0.82 lakh hectare covered by Jowar. Thus, Rice (Kharif) was main kharif crop. Among Rabi crops the coverage under wheat was highest i.e. 38.26 lakh hectare against Barley covering the minimum i.e. 0.68 lakh

- 16 - hectare. Thus, wheat emerged as the main Rabi crop in the state as a whole. Among the districts of Eastern U.P. the maximum area covered in kharif season i.e. 46.45 lakh hectare under Rice (kharif) was reported in Mahrazganj district against the minimum i.e. 27.98 lakh hectare in Allahabad district. Thus, district Maharazganj covered the highest area under Rice (kharif) in Eastern U.P. While among Rabi crops Allahabad district covered the maximum area i.e. 45.74 lakh hectare under wheat against the minimum i.e. 33.59 lakh hectare in . Thus, district Allahabad covered the maximum area under wheat in Eastern Uttar Pradesh.

Table-II-3 Cropping Pattern Followed in the Selected Districts and State of Uttar Pradesh during 2009-10 (Area in Lakh Ha.) Selected Kharif Season Total Rabi season Total Total Districts Rice Maize Bajra Jowar kharif Wheat Barley Gram Pea Arhar Masoor rabi Food of Eastern food food grains U. P. grains grains Jaunpur 30.53 9.31 1.21 0.71 42.85 45.12 0.13 1.10 1.24 2.18 0.03 49.80 93.09 Kushi 36.16 0.74 0.02 0.00 36.94 33.59 0.02 0.00 0.14 0.20 1.06 35.37 72.80 Nagar Mahraj 46.54 0.02 -- -- 46.47 41.71 0.01 0.00 0.29 0.12 2.66 44.80 91.38 Gunj Allahabad 27.98 0.02 5.88 1.13 35.16 45.74 1.13 3.34 0.92 3.33 2.22 56.70 93.18

Mirzapur 29.22 0.65 4.10 1.48 35.78 39.39 1.99 5.74 1.57 5.50 2.09 56.30 92.09

Uttar 22.03 2.85 3.61 0.82 31.63 38.26 0.68 2.40 1.26 1.32 2.44 46.37 78.52 Pradesh State

- 17 - CHAPTER-III

III. Evaluation of the Implementation Process

This chapter mainly deals with the evaluation of technical back stopping as accessing source of information by farmers on modern technology in East U.P., crop specific structured plan such as cropping pattern followed by sample beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries of East U.P. during 2010-11 and 2011-12, season-wise coverage and cropping intensity on the farms of sample beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries during 2010-11 and 2011-12 and perception profiling of sample beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries of East U.P. which are discussed in the following paragraphs.

III.1 Evaluation of Technical Backstopping

The data worked-out in Table-III-1 indicates that out of the total 50 sample beneficiaries of various rice ecological sub-regions only 16 reported to participate in training programme which is less than one third of the total. Thus, it is obviously clear that training programme under BGREI Scheme was very poorly attempted in rice-ecological regions of eastern Uttar Pradesh. While in wheat–ecological sub-regions the overall participation in training programme was comparatively better although it was less than half as only 8 out of 20 samples reported to participate in training programme.

As regards the participation in demonstration as progressive farmer only 4 out of 50 sample beneficiaries reported to participate in demonstration under rice ecological region. Thus, participation in demonstration under rice-ecological sub-regions was deplorably poor and quite ineffective. The situation under wheat ecological sub-regions was comparatively better as 4 out of 20 beneficiaries had participated under demonstration on an overall. On the other hand the main accessing source of information by the sample beneficiary farmers on modern technology were identified as extension workers about whom all the sample beneficiary farmers had reported that extension workers were the main accessing sources of information on modern rice and wheat technology.

- 18 - About K.V.K. Scientists only the same farmers of rainfed upland sub-region of rice- ecology had reported that they had been informed by K.V.K. Scientists on modern rice and wheat technology under BGREI programme while regarding S.A.U. Scientists only 4 sample farmers of late sown irrigated sub-region of wheat ecology had told that they had been informed about modern wheat technology by S.A.U. Scientists. Thus, it is obviously clear that K.V.K. as well as S.A.U Scientists were nominally involved as source of information to farmers under BGERI programme.

As regards the government demonstration almost all i.e. 100 per cent of sample beneficiary farmers of both rice and wheat ecologies had reported to receive information on modern rice and wheat technology under BGREI programme through Govt. demonstration. Progressive farmers were also identified as the main source of information on modern rice and wheat technology as all the sample beneficiaries had reported to get information by them under BGERI programme. Also 12 out of 50 sample farmers of all the sub-regions of rice-ecology and 5 out of 20 sample beneficiaries of sub- regions of wheat ecology had reported to receive information on modern rice and wheat technology under BGREI programme. Thus, the main accessing sources of information on modern rice and wheat technology under BGREI programme were extension workers progressive farmers and Govt. demonstrations reported by the sample beneficiaries. The related data are given in Table-III-I.

- 19 - Table-III-1 Agro-Ecological Rice & wheat sub-region-wise Accessing Source of Information by Sample Beneficiary Farmers on Modern Rice/Wheat Technology in eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2011-12 (In numbers) Agro-Ecological Participa Participa Identified KVK SAU Govt. Progressive Others Region of Eastern Uttar tion in tion in Extension Scientists Demonst Farmer Pradesh training Demonst Worker ration Program ration as -me progress- ive farmer Rice Ecological 1. Rainfed upland 3 - 10 10 10 10 2 2. Rainfed Lowland 2 1 10 - 10 10 2 (Shallow) 3. Rainfed Lowland 4 - 10 - 10 10 4 (Medium) 4. Rainfed Lowland 3 2 10 - 10 10 2 (Deep water) 5. Irrigated land (rice 4 1 10 - 10 10 2 Hybrid) All Rice Ecological 16 4 50 10 50 50 12 Region Wheat Ecological 1. Timely sown 3 2 10 - 10 10 2 (irrigated) 2. Timely Sown ------(Rainfed) 3. Late sown (Irrigated) 5 2 10 - 4 10 10 3 4. Late sown (Rainfed) ------All Wheat Ecological 8 4 20 - 4 20 20 5 Region

III.2 Crop Specified Structured Plan

III.2.1 Cropping Pattern followed during 2010-11

Sub-region-wise cropping pattern on demonstration and non-demonstration plots of sample beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of eastern U.P. during 2010-11 analysed in Table-III.2 indicates that on the farms of beneficiaries of rice-ecology the coverage was maximum i.e. 48.12% during Kharif season wherein the maximum i.e. 37.01% area was covered by paddy only. While during Rabi season the coverage was 38.87% of which the maximum i.e. 33.02% was covered by wheat only and during Zaid season the total coverage was 12.88% under other crops. The sub-region-wise analysis shows that the coverage under wheat and rice was comparatively higher in rainfed upland sub-region of

- 20 - - 21 - Table-III-2 Agro-Ecological Rice & wheat sub-regions-wise cropping pattern on demonstration and non-demonstration plots followed by sample beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of Eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2010-11 (Area in Ha. Per farm) Agro-Ecological Beneficiaries Non-Beneficiaries sub Region of Kharif Rabi Zaid GCA Kharif Rabi Zaid GCA Eastern U. P. Paddy Others Wheat Others Others Paddy Others Wheat Others Others Rice Ecological 1. Rainfed 1.83 0.33 1.70 0.32 0.09 4.27 0.96 0.05 0.91 0.50 -- 2.42 upland (42.86) (7.73) 39.81 (7.49) (2.11) (100.00) (39.67) (2.07) (37.60) (20.66) (100.00) 2. Rainfed 1.70 1.01 1.42 0.21 0.54 4.88 1.30 0.04 1.15 0.15 0.27 2.91 Lowla. (Shallow) 34.84) (20.70) (29.10) (4.30) (11.06) (100.00) (44.67) (1.37) (39.52) (5.16) (9.28) (100.00) 3. Rainfed 1.10 0.31 1.17 0.22 0.05 2.85 0.60 -- 0.48 0.12 0.01 1.21 Lowland (38.60) (10.88) (41.05) (7.72) (1.75) (100.00) (49.59) (39.67) (9.92) (0.82) (100.00) (Medium) 4. Rainfed 1.81 0.73 1.52 0.30 0.99 5.35 0.60 0.60 0.72 0.48 0.80 3.20 Lowland (Deep (33.83) (13.64) (28.41) (5.61) (18.51) (100.00) (18.75) (18.75) (22.50) (15.00) (25.00) (100.00) water) 5. Irrigated land 1.47 -- 1.24 0.22 1.09 4.02 1.02 -- 0.54 0.45 0.74 2.75 (rice Hybrid) (36.57) (30.85) (5.47) (27.11) (100.00) (37.09) (19.64) (16.36) (26.91) (100.00) All Rice 1.58 0.48 1.41 0.25 0.55 4.27 0.90 0.14 0.76 0.34 0.36 2.50 Ecological (37.01) (11.24) (33.02) (5.85) (12.88) (100.00) (36.00) (5.60) (30.40) (13.60) (14.40) (100.00) Region Wheat Ecological 1. Timely sown 1.05 0.07 1.43 0.10 -- 2.65 0.80 -- 0.85 0.22 0.05 1.92 (irrigated) (39.62) (2.64) (53.96) (3.78) (100.00) (41.67) (44.27) (11.46) (2.60) (100.00) 2. Timely Sown ------(Rainfed) 3. Late sown 2.38 0.09 2.28 0.04 -- 4.79 1.50 0.10 1.69 -- 0.01 3.30 (Irrigated) (49.69) (1.88) (47.60) (0.83) (100.00) (45.45) (3.03) (51.22) (0.30) (100.00) 4. Late sown ------(Rainfed) All Wheat 1.72 0.08 1.85 0.07 -- 3.72 1.15 0.05 1.27 0.11 0.03 2.61 Ecological (46.24) (2.15) (49.73) (1.88) (100.00) (44.06) (1.92) (48.66) (4.21) (1.15) (100.00) Region Note: Figures in brackets are percentages

- 22 - Table-III-3 Agro-Ecological Rice & wheat sub-region-wise cropping pattern on demonstration and non-demonstration plots followed by sample beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of Eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2011-12 (Area in Ha. Per farm) Agro-Ecological Beneficiaries Non-Beneficiaries sub Region of Demonstration Non- Demonstration Eastern U. P. Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Zaid GCA Kharif Rabi Zaid GCA Paddy Wheat Paddy Others Wheat Others Other Paddy Others Wheat Others Other Rice Ecological 1. Rainfed 1.06 - 0.61 0.32 1.59 0.35 0.07 4.00 0.56 - 0.91 0.05 - 1.52 upland (26.50) (15.25) (8.00) (39.75) (8.75) (1.75) (100.00) (36.84) (59.87) (3.29) (100.00) 2. Rainfed 1.68 - - 0.34 1.47 0.30 0.56 4.35 1.10 0.24 1.04 0.24 0.37 2.99 Lowla.(Shallow) (38.62) (7.82) (33.79) (6.90) (12.87) (100.00) (36.79) (8.03) (34.78) (8.03) (12.37) (100.00) 3. Rainfed 0.78 - 0.40 0.18 1.15 0.26 0.04 2.81 0.60 - 0.51 0.11 - 1.22 Lowland (27.76) (14.23) (6.41) (40.93) (9.25) (1.42) (100.00) (49.18) (41.80) (9.02) (100.00) (Medium) 4. Rainfed 1.91 - - 0.77 1.72 0.49 1.02 5.91 0.70 0.60 0.82 0.06 0.52 2.70 Lowland (Deep (32.32) (13.03) (29.10) (8.29) (17.26) (100.00) (25.93) (22.22) (30.37) (2.22) (19.26) (100.00) water) 5. Irrigated land 1.46 - - - 1.46 - - 2.92 1.01 - 1.01 - - 2.02 (rice Hybrid) (50.00) (50.00) (100.00) (50.00) (50.00) (100.00) All Rice 1.38 - 0.20 0.32 1.48 0.28 0.34 4.00 0.79 0.17 0.86 0.09 0.18 2.09 Ecological (34.50) (5.00) (8.00) (37.00) (7.00) (8.50) (100.00) (37.80) (8.13) (41.15) (4.30) (9.09) (100.00) Region Wheat Ecological 1. Timely sown 1.43 1.50 0.07 - 0.10 - 3.10 0.80 0.05 0.85 0.17 - 1.87 (irrigated) (46.13) (48.39) (2.26) (3.22) (100.00) (42.78) (2.68) (45.45) (9.09) (100.00) 2. Timely Sown ------(Rainfed) 3. Late sown 2.21 2.32 - - - - 4.53 1.60 - 1.68 0.02 - 3.30 (Irrigated) (48.78) (51.22) (100.00) (48.48) (59.91) (0.61) (100.00) 4. Late sown ------(Rainfed) All Wheat 1.82 1.91 0.04 0.05 3.82 1.20 0.03 1.27 0.09 2.59 Ecological (47.64) (50.00) (1.05) (1.31) (100.00) (46.33) (1.16) (49.03) (3.48) (100.00) Region Note: Figures in brackets are percentages.

- 23 - Table-III-4 Agro-Ecological Rice & wheat sub-region-wise Accessing Source of Information by Sample Beneficiary Farmers on Modern Rice/Wheat Technology in eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2011-12 (Area in Ha/ Farm & C.I. in %) Beneficiaries Non- Beneficiaries Agro-Ecological Sub- Cultivated Kharif Rabi Zaid Gross Croppin Cultivated Kharif Rabi Zaid Gross Croppin Region of Eastern Uttar Area Area Area Area Cropped g Area Area Area Area Cropped g Pradesh Area Intensity Area Intensity (%) (%) Rice Ecological 1. Rainfed upland 2.16 2.16 2.02 0.09 4.27 108.00 1.41 1.01 1.41 2.42 172.00 2. Rainfed Lowland 2.71 2.71 1.63 0.54 4.88 177.00 1.34 1.34 1.30 0.27 2.91 217.00 (Shallow) 3. Rainfed Lowland 1.42 1.41 1.39 0.05 2.85 200.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.01 1.21 202.00 (Medium) 4. Rainfed Lowland 2.82 2.54 1.82 0.99 5.35 190.00 1.30 1.20 1.20 0.80 3.20 267.00 (Deep water) 5. Irrigated land (rice 1.49 1.47 1.46 1.09 4.02 270.0 1.02 1.02 0.99 0.74 2.75 270.00 Hybrid) All Rice Ecological 2.12 2.06 1.66 0.55 4.27 201.00 1.13 1.04 1.10 0.36 2.50 221.00 Region Wheat Ecological 1. Timely sown 1.57 1.12 1.53 - 2.65 169.00 1.07 0.80 1.07 0.05 1.92 179.00 (irrigated) 2. Timely Sown (Rainfed) 3. Late sown (Irrigated) 2.47 2.47 2.32 - 4.79 194.00 1.70 1.60 1.69 0.01 3.30 194.00 4. Late sown (Rainfed) All Wheat Ecological 2.02 1.80 1.92 - 3.72 184 1.84 1.20 1.38 0.03 2.61 142.00 Region

- 24 - Table-III-5 Agro-Ecological Rice & Wheat sub-region-wise Cropping-wise Cropping Intensity on the Farms of Sample Beneficiaries and Non- Beneficiaries during 2011-12 (Area in Ha/ Farm & C.I. in %) Beneficiaries Non- Beneficiaries Agro-Ecological Sub- Cultivated Kharif Rabi Zaid Gross Croppin Cultivated Kharif Rabi Zaid Gross Croppin Region of Eastern Uttar Area Area Area Area Cropped g Area Area Area Area Cropped g Pradesh Area Intensity Area Intensity (%) (%) Rice Ecological 1. Rainfed upland 2.16 1.99 1.94 0.07 4.00 185.19 1.41 0.56 0.96 - 1.52 107.80 2. Rainfed Lowland 2.71 2.02 1.77 0.56 4.35 160.52 1.34 1.34 1.28 0.37 2.99 223.13 (Shallow) 3. Rainfed Lowland 1.42 1.36 1.41 0.04 2.81 197.89 0.60 0.60 0.62 0.11 1.22 203.33 (Medium) 4. Rainfed Lowland 2.80 2.68 2.21 1.02 5.91 211.07 1.30 1.30 0.88 0.52 2.70 207.69 (Deep water) 5. Irrigated land (rice 1.49 1.46 1.46 - 2.92 195.97 1.01 1.01 1.01 - 2.02 200.00 Hybrid) All Rice Ecological 2.12 1.90 1.76 0.42 4.00 188.68 1.13 0.96 0.95 0.33 2.09 184.96 Region Wheat Ecological 1. Timely sown 1.57 1.57 1.53 - 3.10 197.45 1.07 0.85 1.02 - 1.87 174.76 (irrigated) 2. Timely Sown ------(Rainfed) 3. Late sown (Irrigated) 2.47 2.32 2.21 - 4.53 183.40 1.70 1.60 1.70 - 3.30 194.11 4. Late sown (Rainfed) ------All Wheat Ecological 2.02 1.95 1.87 - 3.82 189.10 1.39 1.23 1.36 - 2.59 186.33 Region

- 25 - Table.III.7

Agro-Ecological Rice and Wheat Sub-Region-wise perception of Sample Non-Beneficiaries of Eastern Uttar Pradesh About BGREI programme during 2011 - 2012

Agro-Ecological sub- Heard About If yes name the Heard Seem any Did If any who sold Will you Ready to If no reason region of Eastern U.P. BGREI Components about standing any one grow accept all your HYV crop demons variety as hybrid under trated demonstrati BGREI of on Yes No 1 2 3 4 Yes No Yes No BGREI K P C V A Yes No Yes No 1 2 3 4 V F R L n K R W y I Rice Ecological 1. Rainfed upland 4 1 Dem - - - 3 2 4 1 4 - 4 - - - 4 1 5 - - - - - 2. Rainfed Lowland (shallow) 4 1 - - - - 2 3 3 2 3 - - - 3 - 4 1 5 - - - - - 3. Rainfed lowland 5 - Dem - - - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5- - - 5 - 5 - - - - - (Medium) 4. Rainfed lowland 4 1 - - - - 4 1 4 1 4 - - - 4 - 4 1 5 - - - - - (Deep water) 5. Irrigated land 4 1 Dem - - - 4 1 4 1 4 - 4 - - - 4 1 5 - - - - - (Rice Hybrid) All Rice Ecological Region 21 4 - - - - 13 7 20 5 20 - 1 - 7 - 21 4 25 - - - - - 3 Wheat Ecological 1. Timely sown 4 1 DEO - - - 3 2 4 1 4 - 4 - - - 5 - 5 - - - - - (Irrigated) 2. Timely sown ------(Rainfed) 3. Late sown 4 1 DEO - - - - 5 4 1 4 - 4- - - 5 - 5 - - - - - (Irrigated) 4. Late sown ------(Rainfed) All wheat Ecological Region 8 2 DEO - - - 3 7 8 2 8 - 8 - - - 10 - 10 - - - - -

- 26 -

rice ecology. In wheat ecology region the coverage was higher during Rabi season in timely sown irrigated sub-region but in late sown rainfed region the coverage was higher in Kharif season. Thus, on the farms of beneficiaries in the rice-ecological sub-regions the coverage was comparatively higher during Kharif against the Rabi season and in the wheat ecological region than during Kharif season. This ascertains that there was effect of BGREI programme on the farms of sample beneficiaries although the programme was not implemented fully during 2010-11.

While on the farms of non-beneficiaries in rice-ecological sub-regions on an overall coverage during Kharif season was comparatively lower i.e. 41.60% against 44.00% during Rabi season and 14.40% during Zaid season. This proves that on the farms of non- beneficiaries there was no effect of BGREI programme. This also indicates that there were changes in cropping pattern in favour of paddy on the farms of beneficiaries under BGREI programme which was not implemented fully during 2010-11.

On the farms of sample non-beneficiaries in wheat ecological region also the coverage during Kharif season was comparatively lower. But during Rabi season, it was comparatively a little higher. This also shows that under wheat ecological sub-regions the effect of BGREI programme was negligible among the non-beneficiary farmers in East U.P. The related data are contained in Table III-2.

III.2.2 Cropping Pattern followed during 2011-12.

The agro-ecological rice and wheat sub-region-wise cropping pattern on demonstration and non-demonstration plots of sample beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of East U.P. followed during 2010-11 worked-out in Table-III-3 shows that on the farms of beneficiaries in case of demonstration plots of rice ecological sub-regions the average area coverage during Kharif season was 34.50% only. While in wheat ecological region it was 47.64%. Thus, on demonstration plots the coverage was comparatively higher during Rabi season particularly under wheat. In case of non-demonstrations plots of sample beneficiaries of rice-ecological sub-regions the coverage under Kharif was only 13%

- 27 - against 44% during Rabi season and during Zaid season, the coverage was only 8.50%. The sub-region-wise analysis shows that the coverage during Rabi was slightly higher in rainfed low land (Medium) i.e. 51.19% than 50.00% in irrigated land against the lowest i.e. 37.39% in rainfed low land (deep-water) sub-region of rice-ecology. This clarifies that the coverage during Rabi season was much higher on the non-demonstration plots which proves that the effect of BGREI programme was negative in East U.P. In wheat ecological sub-regions on the non-demonstration plots the coverage during Kharif being 51.05% was much high than that during Rabi being 1.31% only. This shows negative effect of BGREI programme on cropping pattern in East U.P.

While on the farms of non-beneficiaries, the coverage during Kharif season in rice- ecological sub-region was comparatively much higher i.e. 45.93% against 44.45% during Rabi-season. In Zaid season it was 0.09%. Thus, the coverage on the farms of non- beneficiaries during Kharif and Rabi both in rice as well as wheat ecological both obviously clarifies that there was no effect of BGREI programme on cropping pattern on an overall in East U.P. The related data are given in Table-III-3.

III.2.3 Cropping Intensity on Sample Farms during 2010-11

The agro-ecological rice and wheat sub-region-wise cropping intensity on the farms of sample beneficiaries worked out in Table-III-4 indicates that the average cultivated area per farm in rice ecological sub-regions was estimated to 2.12 hectares. While the gross cropped area per farm was estimated to 4.27 hectares. The average cropping intensity in rice-ecological sub-regions as a whole was estimated to 201%. This clarifies that in all the rice ecological sub-regions, the sample farms were generally double cropped and the area under Zaid season was quite negligible. In wheat-ecological sub-regions the average cultivated area per farm was estimated to 2.02 hectares and the gross cropped area was estimated to 3.72 hectares. Thus, the cropping intensity on an average in the wheat ecological sub-regions was estimated to 184% which is comparatively much lower than in the rice-ecological sub-regions.

In case of non-beneficiaries the average cultivated area per farm was estimated to 1.13 hectares. While the gross cropped area on an average was estimated to 2.50 hectares per

- 28 - farm. Thus, the average cropping intensity on the farms of rice-ecological sub-regions was estimated to 221.00%. This clarifies that on an average the cropping intensity was slightly higher on the farms of the non-beneficiaries and as such there was no effect of BGREI programme which was also not fully implemented during this year i.e. 2010-11. The sub-region-wise analysis shows that the cropping intensity was highest i.e. 271% on the farms of both the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in irrigated land sub-regions. In wheat ecological sub-regions the cropping intensity was comparatively higher i.e. 184% on the farms of beneficiaries against 142% on the farms of non-beneficiaries of East U.P.

III.2.4 Cropping Intensity on the Sample Farms during 2011-12

Analysis of the agro-ecological rice and wheat sub-region-wise cropping intensity on the farms of sample beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries during 2011-12 in Table-III-5 shows that on the farms of beneficiaries under rice ecological sub-regions the average cultivated area per farm was reported to be 2.12 hectares and the gross cropped area was accounted to 4.00 hectares. Thus, the cropping intensity was estimated to 188.68% on an overall average. The sub-region-wise analysis shows that the cropping intensity was higher i.e. 211.07% on the farms of rainfed low land (deep water) sub-region. This shows that farms of rainfed low land deep water sub-region were cultivated comparatively more intensively in rice ecological sub-region while on the farms of beneficiaries of wheat- ecological sub regions the average cultivated area per farm was 2.02 hectares and the gross cropped area was 3.82 hectares per farm.

Thus, the cropping intensity was more or less similar i.e. 189.10% in wheat ecological sub-regions. The cropping intensity was higher on the farms in wheat ecological sub- regions. The cropping intensity was higher on the farms of timely sown irrigated sub- region of wheat ecology.

In case of the non-beneficiary sample farmers the average cultivated area per farm in rice-ecological sub-regions was estimated to 1.13 hectare per farm and the gross cropped area was estimated as 2.09 hectares per farm and the gross cropped area was estimated as 2.09 hectares per farm. Thus, the average cropping intensity in rice-ecological sub- regions was estimated to 184.96% on an overall. The sub-region-wise analysis shows that

- 29 - on the farms of non-beneficiaries also the cropping intensity was comparatively higher in rainfed low land (deep-water) sub-region. In wheat ecological sub-region also the average cropping intensity was lower i.e. 186.33% against 189.10% on the farms of beneficiaries. Thus, the intensity of cropping was lower in both rice wheat ecological sub-regions on the farms of non-beneficiaries.

III.3 Perception Profiling III.3.1 Perception of Sample Beneficiaries during 2011-12

The agro-ecological rice and wheat sub-region-wise perception of sample beneficiaries under BGREI programme during 2011-12 worked out in Table-III-6 indicates that all the sample beneficiaries of rice as well as wheat ecological sub-regions had reported that the BGREI programme implemented in their area is adequate. Also almost all the sample beneficiaries of both rice and wheat ecological regions had opined that the BGREI programme is good programme except one sample beneficiary of rainfed lowland (medium) sub-region of rice -ecology who also opined that the BGREI programme is an average programme, They did not give any suggestion as there was no reason. About the guidance by S.D.A., K.V.K., SAU and CRRI they reported that they were guided only and best by S.D.A. extension workers. They did not suggest any thing as they were guided best by SDA workers.

Regarding problems in the supply of inputs 27 sample farmers out of 50 under rice- ecology told that they had problems and 23 sample farmers reported that they did not have any problems in supply of inputs. While in wheat ecological sub-regions all the 20 sample farmers had reported that they had problems in supply of inputs particularly fertilizers. In rice-ecological sub-regions also all had problems in supply of fertilizers. About sources of inputs almost all the sample farmers reported that the main sources of inputs were Govt. cooperatives and private stores in both rice and wheat ecological sub- regions. About marketing problems almost all the sample beneficiaries of both rice and wheat ecological sub regions had reported that there was not many marketing system provided by Government. About price of rice they had reported that it varied from Rs.

- 30 - 800 to Rs. 970 per quintal. About the price of wheat they told that it varied from Rs.850 to 900 per quintal. About the adoption of recommended varieties at their own resources almost all had reported that they had adopted recommended varieties at their own resources. They did not assign any reason for the same. Thus, the sample farmers were not benefited adequately under BGREI progarmme in East U.P. Table III.6 Agro-Ecological Rice and Wheat Sub-Region-wise perception of Sample Beneficiaries of Eastern Uttar Pradesh under BGREI programme during 2011 - 2012 (In Number of Beneficiary) Agro-Ecological Whether If yes score in If No reason Whether If yes who If No Whether sub-region of programme rating suggestion guided by guided your problem in Adequate SDA, KVK, best on sugge supply of Eastern U.P. SAU, CRRI problem stion inputs Yes No P A G 1 2 3 Yes No Yes No Rice Ecological 1. Rainfed upland 10 - 10 - - - 10 SDA 6 4 2. Rainfed Lowland 10 - 10 - - - 10 SDA 5 5 (shallow) 3. Rainfed lowland 10 - 1 9 - - - 10 SDA 7 3 (Medium) 4. Rainfed lowland 10 - 10 - - - 10 SDA 4 6 (Deep water) 5. Irrigated land 10 - 10 - - - 10 SDA 5 5 (Rice Hybrid) All Rice Ecological 50 - 1 49 - - - 50 SDA 27 23 Region Wheat Ecological 1. Timely sown 10 - 10 - - - 10 SDA 10 - (Irrigated) 2. Timely sown - - - - (Rainfed) 3. Late sown 10 - 10 - - - 10 SDA 10 - (Irrigated) 4. Late sown - - - - (Rainfed) All wheat Ecological 20 - 20 - - - 20 SDA 10 20 - Region Continue

- 31 - Table III.6 (Contd.)

Agro-Ecological Rice and Wheat Sub-Region-wise perception of Sample Beneficiaries of Eastern Uttar Pradesh under BGREI programme during 2011 – 2012 (In Number of Beneficiary)

Agro-Ecological If yes Source Marketing Price per quintal Do you If no sub-region of name the of input problem Rice-1 adopt reason input dealer Wheat-2 recom at Eastern U.P. season coopera your own tive resources SDA next season/ year 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 Yes No 1 2 Rice Ecological 1. Rainfed upland Fertilizer Govt./ 10 800 580 900 10 - - - Private 2. Rainfed Lowland Fertilizer Govt./ 10 850 900 950 10 - - - (shallow) Private 3. Rainfed lowland Fertilizer Govt./ 10 800 850 900 10 - - - (Medium) Private 4. Rainfed lowland Fertilizer Govt./ 10 850 875 900 10 - - - (Deep water) Private 5. Irrigated land Fertilizer Govt./ 10 850 900 950 10 - - - (Rice Hybrid) Private All Rice Ecological Fertilizer Govt./ 50 50 - - - Region Private Wheat Ecological 1. Timely sown Fertilizer Govt./ 10 965 10 - - - (Irrigated) Private 2. Timely sown Fertilizer Govt./ - - - (Rainfed) Private 3. Late sown Fertilizer Govt./ 10 9.70 10 - - - (Irrigated) Private 4. Late sown Fertilizer Govt./ - - - (Rainfed) Private All wheat Ecological 20 965 20 - - - Region -970

III.3.2 Perception of sample Non-Beneficiary Farmers during 2011-2012

The agro-ecological rice and wheat sub-region-wise perception of sample Non- beneficiaries under BGREI programme during 2011-12 worked out in table-III-7 shows that out of 25 non-beneficiaries of rice-ecological sub-regions 21 told that they have

- 32 - heard about BGREI programme and only 4 had reported negatively. Thus, majority of non-beneficiaries were aware of BGREI programme. In wheat ecological sub-regions also 8 out of 10 sample non-beneficiaries had heard about BGREI programme. Thus, BGREI programme was popular among the farmers of Eastern U.P. They were also knowing about the important component i.e. Block Demonstration. Also 18 out of 25 in rice-ecological sub-regions were quite aware about HYV. This clarifies that in rice ecological regions farmers were more conscious about BGREI programme. But in wheat ecological regions 7 out of 10 were not at all aware about HYV. Also 20 out of 25 sample farmers of rice-ecology and 8 out of 10 of wheat-ecology region had seen the standing crops of HYV. Thus, majority sample non-beneficiary farmers were well known with HYV. Also majority of non-beneficiaries had seen the demonstrations under BGREI programme. About information maximum i.e. 13 out of 25 in rice-ecology and 8 out of 10 in wheat –ecology had told to get information from progressive farmers and only a few from VLWs of SDA. Also majority of sample non-beneficiaries agreed to grow varieties as demonstrated in their areas. Only a few i.e. 4 out of 25 in rice-ecology were not willing to grow the varieties as demonstrated in their areas. Almost all the sample non-beneficiaries were ready to accept the hybrid variety of rice as demonstrated in their areas. The related data are given in Table III.7

- 33 - CHAPTER – IV

IV. Evaluation of Physical and Financial Progress

The present chapter mainly deals with Block Demonstrations, Assets Building and site specific Interventions. Under block demonstrations it covers the number of blocks and villages at a glance under BGREI in kharif, 2011-12 (Rice), concentration of block demonstrations in relation to blocks and villages at a glance under BGREI in kharif, 2011-12 (Paddy), concentration of block demonstration on paddy at a glance under BGREI in kharif, 2011-12, number of blocks and villages at a glance for block demonstration under BGREI in Rabi, 2011-12 (wheat), concentration of block demonstrations in relation to blocks and villages at a glance under BGREI in Rabi, 2011- 12 (wheat) concentration of block demonstrations on wheat at a glance under BGREI in Rabi 2011-12 (wheat), physical target-wise achievement of kharif rice block demonstration in East. U.P. (2011-12), number of block demonstrations of rice (HYV and Hybrid) and wheat by kharif and rabi in East. U.P. (2011-12), distribution of inputs under block demonstrations on total paddy HYV and Hybrid in kharif 2011-12, distribution of inputs under block demonstration on paddy HYV under BGREI in kharif 2011-12, distribution of inputs under block demonstrations on paddy Hybrid under BGREI in kharif, 2011-12 distribution of inputs under block demonstrations on wheat under BGREI in rabi, 2011-12 and breakup of inputs distributed under block demonstrations (D/C) in BGREI during kharif and rabi 2011-12. Under assets building activities it covers component-wise physical and financial targets and achievements in East. U.P. (2011-12). Under site specific interventions it covers component-wise physical and financial targets and achievements in East. U.P. 2011-12. This chapter also covers the intervention-wise physical and financial progress at a glance in BGREI programme in East. U.P. during 2011-12 which are discussed in the following paragraphs :-

- 34 - IV.1:- Block Demonstrations:-

IV.1.1:- Number of Blocks and Villages for Block Demonstrations Under BGREI in Kharif, 2011-12:-

The number of blocks and villages at a glance for Block Demonstrations under BGREI in kharif (Rice), 2011-12 in the chosen districts of East. U.P. workedout in Table-IV-1 shows that on the whole 27 demonstrations were carried out in 954 villages of 99 blocks of 12 districts falling under rice ecology during kharif 2011-12 in East U.P. Among the 12 such districts the maximum i.e. 4(14.81%) demonstrations were carried out in against the minimum i.e. 1 (3.71%) in Kaushambi, Pratapgarh, Sant Kabir Nagar and Ambedkar Nagar districts.

Table IV.1 Number of Blocks and villages at a glance for Block Demonstrations (D/C) under BGREI in kharif, 2011-12 (Rice)

Name of the districts Number of Number of blocks Number of villages demonstrations Allahabad 2 4 18 (7.41) (4.04) (1.89) Kaushambi 1 5 23 (3.70) (5.05) (2.41) Pratapgarh 1 1 10 (3.70) (1.01) (1.05) 3 24 120 (11.11) (24.24) (12.58) Chandauli 2 18 43 (7.41) (18.18) (4.51) Jaunpur 4 12 195 (14.82) (12.12) (20.44) S.Ravi Das Nagar 3 5 86 (11.11) (5.05) (9.01) Maharajganj 3 4 62 (11.11) (4.04) (6.50) KushiNagar 3 14 138 (11.11) (14.14) (14.77) Sant Kabir Nagar 1 2 42 (3.70) (2.02) (4.40) 3 6 177 (11.11) (6.08) (68.55) Ambedkar Nagar 1 4 40 (3.71) (4.03) (4.19) Total 27 99 954 (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Source: State BGREI Cell, Government of Uttar Pradesh Figures in parentheses indicate the percentage over total

- 35 - Accordingly the maximum numbers of blocks i.e. 24 (24.24%) were covered under BGREI kharif (Rice) demonstrations. While the maximum number of villages i.e. 195 (20.44%) were covered in Jaunpur district against the minimum i.e. 10 villages (1.05%) in Pratapgarh district of East U.P. Thus, total 27 demonstrations on rice were carriedout in 954 villages of 99 blocks of 12 districts of East U.P. in kharif 2011-12. The related data are contained in Table-IV-1.

IV.1.2:- Concentration of Block Demonstrations in Relation to Blocks and Villages in Kharif (Paddy), 2011-12:-

The concentration of block demonstrations in relation to blocks and villages at a glance under BGREI in kharif (Paddy), 2011-12 analyzed in Table-IV-2 indicates that the total number of demonstrations in 12 chosen districts was 27. The concentration of demonstrations per block was 0.27% on the whole. While the concentration of demonstrations per village was quite negligible 0.03% on an overall. Table IV.2 Concentration of block demonstrations (D/C) in relation to block and village at a glance under BGREI in Kharif, 2011-12 (Paddy) Name of the districts No. of Concentration of Concentration of demonstrations D/C in relation to D/C in relation to blocks Villages Allahabad 2 0.50 0.11 Kaushambi 1 0.20 0.04 Pratapgarh 1 1.00 0.10 Varanasi 3 0.75 0.03 Chandauli 2 0.11 0.05 Jaunpur 4 0.33 0.02 S.Ravi Das Nagar 3 0.60 0.03 Maharajganj 3 0.75 0.05 KushiNagar 3 0.21 0.02 Sant Kabir Nagar 1 0.50 0.02 Faizabad 3 0.50 0.02 Ambedkar Nagar 1 0.25 0.03

Total 27 0.27 0.03

- 36 -

Among blocks the maximum concentration i.e. 1% was in Pratapgarh against minimum i.e. 0.11% in . While among village it was maximum i.e. 0.11% in Allahabad against minimum i.e. 0.02% in Jaunpur, Kushi Nagar, Sant Kabir Nagar and Faizabad districts. Thus, among blocks in Pratapgarh and among villages in Allahabad the concentration of demonstrations was maximum. The related data are given in Table- IV-2 IV.1.3:- Concentration of Blocks Demonstrations on Paddy Area in Kharif 2011- 2012:-

The concentration of block demonstrations on Paddy area at a glance under BGREI in kharif, 2011-12 workedout in Table-IV-3 indicates that in all the 12 districts of East U.P. chosen under rice ecology the total area under paddy was reported to 12,28,098 hectares. The block demonstrations were carried out on 27,000 hectares only putting 1000 hectares per block demonstration. Thus, the concentration on paddy area was estimated to 2.20 per cent on an overall in all the 12 such districts. Among districts the maximum i.e. 10.87% was estimated in Sant Ravidas Nagar district against the minimum i.e. 0.86% in Ambedkar Nagar. The related data are given in Table-IV-3. Table IV.3 Concentration of block demonstrations (D/C) per net cropped area at a glance under BGREI in kharif, 2011-12

Name of the districts Area under paddy No. of Demonstration area Concentration of (ha) demonstration under Paddy HYV demonstration on & Hybrid (Ha) paddy area in percent Allahabad 155232 2 2000 1.29 Kaushambi 45799 1 1000 2.18 Pratapgarh 97289 1 1000 1.03 Varanasi 50950 3 3000 5.89 Chandauli 111777 2 2000 1.79 Jaunpur 139160 4 4000 2.87 S.Ravi Das Nagar 27635 3 3000 10.86 Maharajganj 166780 3 3000 1.78 KushiNagar 127193 3 3000 2.36 Sant Kabir Nagar 90665 1 1000 1.10 Faizabad 99295 3 3000 3.02 Ambedkar Nagar 116323 1 1000 0.86 Total 1228098 27 27000 2.20

- 37 - IV.1.4:- Number of Blocks and Villages for Block Demonstrations under BGREI in Rabi (Wheat), 2011-2012:-

The number of blocks and villages at a glance for block demonstrations under BGREI in Rabi (wheat), 2011-12 workedout in Table-IV-4 shows that the total number of demonstrations carried out in 6 chosen districts under wheat ecology in Rabi, 2011-12 on wheat was 22. These demonstrations were carriedout in 260 villages of 23 blocks on an overall in 6 such districts of East U.P. The district-wise distribution shows that the maximum i.e. 7 (31.82%) demonstrations were done in Mirzapur district against the minimum i.e. only 2 (9.09%) in Sant Ravidas Nagar and Chandauli districts. Accordingly maximum i.e. 6 blocks were covered under Mirzapur against only 2 in Sant Ravidas Nagar. While the number of maximum i.e. 95 (36.54%) villages were covered in against the minimum i.e. only 9 (3.46%) in Sant Ravidas Nagar. Thus, the maximum number of demonstrations were carried out in Mirzapur and minimum in Sant Ravidas Nagar. While the maximum number of villages were covered in Sonbhadra district and minimum in Sant Ravidas Nagar. Table-IV-4. . Table IV.4 Number of Blocks and Villages at a glance for Block Demonstrations (D/C) under BGREI in Rabi, 2011-12 (Wheat)

Name of the Number of Number of blocks Number of Villages districts demonstrations Allahabad 3 3 27 (13.64) (13.04) (10.38) Mirzapur 7 6 61 (31.82) (26.09) (23.46) Sonbhadra 5 4 95 (22.73) (17.39) (36.54) S.Ravi Das Nagar 2 2 9 (9.09) (8.70) (3.46) Chandauli 2 5 41 (9.09) (21.74) (15.77) 3 3 27 (13.63) (13.04) (10.39) Total 22 23 260 (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Source: State BGREI Cell, Government of Uttar Pradesh Figures in parentheses indicate the percentage over total

- 38 - IV.1.5:- Concentration of Block Demonstrations in Relation to Blocks and Villages in Rabi (Wheat), 2011-2012:-

The concentration of block demonstrations in relation to blocks and villages at a glance under BGREI in Rabi (wheat), 2011-12 analyzed in Table-IV-5 indicates that the total number of demonstrations was 22. The concentration of demonstrations in relation to blocks on an overall was estimated to 0.96%. While the concentration in relation to villages was only 0.08% on an overall in all the 6 chosen districts. Among the districts the maximum concentration i.e. 1.25% in relation to blocks was in Sonbhadra and in relation to villages i.e. 0.22% was in Sant Ravidas Nagar district. Thus, it is clarified that maximum concentration of demonstrations in relation to blocks was in Sonbhadra district. The related data are given in Table-IV-5 Table IV.5 Concentration of block demonstrations (D/C) in relation to blocks and Village at a glance under BGREI in Rabi, 2011-12 (Wheat)

Name of the No. of Concentration of D/C Concentration of D/C districts demonstrations in relation to blocks in relation to Villages Allahabad 3 1.00 0.11 Mirzapur 7 1.17 0.11 Sonbhadra 5 1.25 0.05 S.Ravi Das Nagar 2 1.00 0.22 Chandauli 2 0.40 0.05 Ghazipur 3 1.00 0.11 Total 22 0.96 0.08 Source: State BGREI Cell, Government of Uttar Pradesh Figures in parentheses indicate the percentage over total

IV.1.6:- Concentration of Block Demonstrations on wheat area in Rabi, 2011-12:-

The concentration of block demonstrations on wheat area at a glance under BGREI in Rabi (wheat), 2011-12 analyzed in table-IV-6 shows that the total area under wheat in the 6 chosen districts of wheat ecology was reported to 6,73,024 hectares. In total 22 demonstrations were carriedout in 22,875 hectares. The concentration of demonstrations on wheat area on an overall was estimated to 3.40%. Among the districts the maximum i.e. 9.97% concentration of demonstrations on wheat area was estimated in Sonbhadra district against the minimum i.e. 1.42% in Allahabad district. Thus, the maximum

- 39 - concentration of demonstrations on wheat area was in Sonbhadra district of East U.P. and minimum in Allahabad district. The related data are given in Table-IV-6 Table IV.6 Concentration of block demonstrations (D/C) on wheat area at a glance under BGREI in Rabi, 2011-12 (Wheat)

Name of the Area under No. of Demonstration Concentration of wheat (ha) demonstrations area under wheat demonstration on districts (Ha) Wheat area in percent Allahabad 210574 3 3000 1.42 Mirzapur 97121 7 7500 7.72 Sonbhadra 53912 5 5375 9.97 S.Ravi Das Nagar 44634 2 2000 4.48 Chandauli 95572 2 2000 2.09 Ghazipur 171211 3 3000 1.75 Total 673024 22 22875 3.40

IV.1.7:- Physical Target and Achievements of Kharif Rice Demonstrations in East U.P. During 2011-12:-

The physical targets and achievements of kharif rice block demonstrations in East U.P. during 2011-12 worked out in Table-IV-7 indicates that all the targets fixed under 5 rice- ecological sub-regions for kharif rice block demonstrations (27) were achived. Thus, the status of achievements was 100 per cent. The maximum targets of 13 block demonstrations was fixed in irrigated rice sub-region and was achieved 100% by carrying out all the 13 block demonstrations. Also the targets fixed in all the 12 districts of rice- ecology were achieved. Thus, achievement of physical targets fixed in rice ecological sub-regions was 100 per cent in East U.P. The related data are given in Table-IV-7.

IV.1.8:- Physical Target and Achievements of Demonstrations of Rice (HYV & Hybrid) and wheat in East U.P. During 2011-12:-

The physical targets and achievements of block demonstrations of rice (HYV & Hybrid) and wheat by kharif and rabi in East U.P. during 2011-12 analysed in Table-IV-8 shows that the total numbers of demonstrations i.e. 27 in rice (HYV – 19 and Hybrid – 8) and 22

- 40 - - 41 -

Table IV.7 Physical target and achievement of kharif rice block demonstrations (D/C) in East U.P. (2011-2012) Target as per BGREI District-wise physical achievement Status of programme Achieveme Agro Ecological Total Allaha Kaus Pratapg Varan Chanda Jaunp S. Ravi Mahra KushiN Sant Faizabad Ambe Total nt (%) sub reason of No. bad hambi arh asi uli ur Das jganh agar Kabeer dkar Rice Nagar Nagar Nagar Upland rice 5 1 1 1 -- -- 2 ------5 100 (20.00) (20.00) (20.00) (40.00) (100.00) Shallow water 3 ------1 -- 1 -- 1 -- 3 100 rice (33.33) (33.33) (33.34) (100.00) Medium water 3 ------1 ------1 -- -- 1 -- 3 100 rice (33.33) (33.33) (33.34) (100.00) Deep water rice 3 ------1 ------1 1 -- -- 3 (33.33) (33.33) (33.34) (100.00) Irrigated 13 1 -- -- 2 1 2 2 2 1 -- 1 1 13 (7.69) (15.38) (7.69) (15.39) (15.39) (15.39) (7.69) (7.69) (7.69) (100.00) Total rice 27 2 1 1 3 2 4 3 3 3 1 3 1 27 (7.41) (3.70) (3.70) (11.11) (7.41) (14.82) (11.11) (11.11) (11.11) (3.70) (11.11) (3.71) (100.00) Source: State BGREI Cell, Government of U.P. Figures in parentheses indicate the percentage over total

- 42 - Table IV.8 Physical target and achievements of block demonstrations (D/C) of rice (HYV & Hybrid) and wheat by kharif and rabi in East U.P. (2011-12)

Target of District-wise physical achievement Status of demonstration Achievement under BGREI (%) Crop No Allahabad Kaushambi Pratapgarh Varanasi Chandauli Jaunpur S. Ravi Mahrajga KushiNagar Sant Faizabad Ambedkar Total Das nh Kabeer Nagar Nagar Nagar KHARIF (2011-12) HYV 19 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 -- 19 100 (5.26) (5.26) (5.26) (0.53) (10.53) (15.79) (10.58) (10.53) (10.53) (5.26) (10.52) (100.00) Hybrid 8 1 -- -- 1 -- 1 1 1 1 -- 1 1 8 100 (12.50) (12.50) (12.50) (12.50) (12.50) (12.50) (12.50) (12.50) (100.00) Sub- 27 2 1 1 3 2 4 3 3 3 1 3 1 27 100 total (7.41) (3.70) (3.70) (11.11) (7.41) (14.81) (11.11) (11.11) (11.11) (3.70) (11.10) (3.70) (100.00) RABI (2011-12) Alld. Mirzapur Sonbhadra S. Rabi Chandauli Ghazipur Total Das Nagar Wheat 22 3 7 5 2 2 3 ------22 100 (13.64) (31.82) (22.73) (9.09) (9.09) (13.63) (100.00) Source: State BGREI Cell, Government of U.P. *NFSM Districts. Figures in parentheses indicate the percentage over total

- 43 - Table IV.9 Distribution of inputs under block demonstrations (D/C) on paddy under BGREI in kharif, 2011-12

Name of the No. Seed distribution U.P.seed corporation Zinc Sulphate Borex Pretllachlor districts of U.P. Total Quantity per Total Total Quantity Total Value Total Quantity Total Value (Rs.) D/C Seed Quantity D/C (MT) Value Quantity per D/C (Rs.) Quantity per D/C corpora (MT) (Rs.) (MT) (MT) Litre Litre tion (MT)

Total Quantity/ Total Quantit D/C (MT) Value y (MT) (Rs.) Allahabad 2 55 27.50 4914000 55 50 25 1432500 10 5 810500 3200 1600 828800 Kaushambi 1 40 40.00 864000 40 25 25 716250 5 5 405250 1600 1600 424400 Pratapgarh 1 40 40.00 864000 40 25 25 716250 5 5 405250 1600 1600 4214400 Varanasi 3 95 31.67 5778000 95 75 25 2148750 15 5 1215750 4800 1600 1243200 Chandauli 2 80 40.00 1728000 80 50 25 1432500 10 5 810500 3200 1600 828800 Jaunpur 4 135 33.75 6642000 135 100 25 2865000 20 5 1621000 6400 1600 1657600 S.R. Das 3 95 31.67 5778000 95 75 25 2148750 15 5 1215750 4800 1600 1243200 Nagar Maharajganj 3 95 31.67 5778000 95 75 25 2148750 15 5 1215750 4800 1600 1243200 KushiNagar 3 95 31.67 5778000 95 75 25 2148750 15 5 1215750 4800 1600 1243200 Sant Kabir 1 40 40.00 864000 40 25 25 716250 5 5 405250 1600 1600 414400 Nagar Faizabad 3 95 31.67 5778000 95 75 25 2148750 15 5 1215750 4800 1600 1243200 Ambedkar 1 15 15.00 4050000 15 25 25 716250 5 5 405250 1600 1600 414400 Nagar Total 27 880 32.59 48816000 880 675 25 19338750 135 5 10941750 43200 1600 11188800 Source: State BGREI Cell, Government of U.P. Note: I. Zink sulphate and Borax were supplied by U.P. Agro, II. Seeds of paddy and wheat were supplied by U.P. Corporation. III. Figures have been estimated based on the norms of BGREI U.P. cell .

- 44 -

Table IV.10 Distribution of inputs under block demonstrations (D/C) on paddy (HYV) under BGREI in Kharif, 2011-12 (Value in Rs.) Name of the district No. of Seed Zinc Sulphate Borex Pretiachlor D/C Total Qty Qty/D/C Total Value Total Qty Qty/D/C Total Value Total Qty Qty/D/C Total Value Total Qty Qty/D/C Total Value (MT) (MT) (Lit) (Lit) Allahabad 1 40 40 864000 25 25 716250 5 5 405250 1600 1600 414400 Kaushambi 1 40 40 864000 25 25 716250 5 5 405250 1600 1600 414400 Pratapgarh 1 40 40 864000 25 25 716250 5 5 405250 1600 1600 414400 Varanasi 2 80 40 1728000 50 25 1432500 10 5 810500 3200 1600 828800 Chandauli 2 80 40 1728000 50 25 1432500 10 5 810500 3200 1600 828800 Jaunpur 3 120 40 2592000 75 25 2148750 15 5 1215750 4800 1600 1243200 S.Ravi Das 2 80 40 1728000 50 25 1432500 10 5 810500 3200 1600 828800 Nagar Maharajganj 2 80 40 1728000 50 25 1432500 10 5 810500 3200 1600 828800 KushiNagar 2 80 40 1728000 50 25 1432500 10 5 810500 3200 1600 828800 Sant Kabir 1 40 40 864000 25 25 716250 5 5 405250 1600 1600 414400 Nagar Faizabad 2 80 40 1728000 50 25 1432500 10 5 810500 3200 1600 828800 Ambedkar ------Nagar Total 19 760 40 16416000 475 25 13608750 95 5 7699750 30400 1600 7873600 Source: State BGREI Cell, Government of U.P

- 45 -

Table IV.11 Distribution of inputs under block demonstrations (D/C) on paddy (Hybrid) under BGREI in Kharif, 2011-12 (Value in Rs.) Name of the district No. Seed Zinc Sulphate Borex Petrellachlor of Total Qty Qty/D/C Total Total Qty Qty/D/C Total Total Qty Qty/D/C Total Total Qty Qty/D/C Total D/C (MT) (in M.T.) Value (MT) (M.T.) Value (kg) (Kg) Value (Lit) (Litre) Value Allahabad 1 15 15 4050000 25 25 716250 5 5 405250 1600 1600 414400 Kaushambi ------Pratapgarh ------Varanasi 1 15 15 4050000 25 25 716250 5 5 405250 1600 1600 414400 Chandauli ------Jaunpur 1 15 15 4050000 25 25 716250 5 5 405250 1600 1600 414400 S.Ravi Das 1 15 15 4050000 25 25 716250 5 5 405250 1600 1600 414400 Nagar Maharajganj 1 15 15 4050000 25 25 716250 5 5 405250 1600 1600 414400 KushiNagar 1 15 15 4050000 25 25 716250 5 5 405250 1600 1600 414400 Sant Kabir ------Nagar Faizabad 1 15 15 4050000 25 25 716250 5 5 405250 1600 1600 414400 Ambedkar 1 15 15 4050000 25 25 716250 5 5 405250 1600 1600 414400 Nagar Total 8 120 15 32400000 200 25 5730000 40 5 3242000 12800 12800 3315200 Source: State BGREI Cell, Government of U.P

- 46 - in wheat were carried out in all the chosen respective rice and wheat ecologies. Thus, the status of achievements of fixed targets of block demonstrations in both rice as well as wheat ecologies was 100 percent. In HYV rice all 19 and in Hybrid all the 8 demonstrations were carried out in all the chosen districts. Thus, the targets fixed in each districts of both rice and wheat ecologies were achieved fully. The related data are given in Table-IV-8.

IV.1.9:- Distribution of Inputs Under Block Demonstrations on Paddy in Kharif 2011-12 Under BGREI:-

The distribution of inputs under block demonstrations on paddy under BGREI in kharif 2011-12 analyzed in Table-IV-9 indicates that on an overall the total value of the petrellachlor distributed in kharif 2011-12 was estimated to Rs. 1,11,88,800. While the quantity per demonstrations was fixed as 1600 litres the total quantity of petrellachlor in all the 12 chosen districts was estimated to 43,200 litres on an overall. The value of Borax on an overall was estimated to Rs. 1,89,41,750 and the total quantity distributed was 135 M.T. and the quantity per demonstrations was fixed to 5 M.T. in all the 12 chosen districts. While the value of Zinc sulphate on an overall was estimated to Rs. 1,93,38,750 and the total quantity distributed was 675 M.T. The quantity per demonstrations was fixed to 25 M.T. in each of the chosen 12 districts. While the value of seeds was estimated to Rs. 4,88,16,000 and the total quantity was 880 M.T. on an overall. While the quantity of seeds per demonstrations was distributed as 32.59 M.T. on an average. Thus, maximum amount of inputs was incurred on seeds an average in all the 12 chosen districts.

IV.1.10:- Distribution of Inputs Under Block Demonstrations on Paddy (HYV) in Kharif 2011-12 Under BGREI:-

The distribution of inputs under block demonstrations on paddy (HYV) under BGREI in kharif, 2011-12 analyzed in Table-IV-10 shows that the value of seeds among all the main inputs was estimated to be maximum i.e. Rs. 1,64,16,000 on an overall in all the 12 districts of rice ecology in East U.P. While the total quantity of seeds was 760 M.T. and the quantity of seeds per demonstrations was fixed as 40 M.T. Thus, seed emerged as the main inputs under block demonstrations on paddy (HYV) in East U.P. The value of Zinc

- 47 - Table-IV.12 Break-up of inputs distributed at a glance under Block Demonstration (D/C) in BGREI During Kharif and Rabi, 2011-12

Crops Area No. Seed Zinc sulphate Borax Petrellachlor in Ha of DC Qty. Value Qty. Value Qty. in Value Qty. Value (Rs.) M.T. (Rs.) M.T. (Rs.) kg (Rs.) Litre HYV 19000 19 760 16416000 475 13608750 95 7699750 30400 7873600 (Paddy) (0.04) (864) (0.025) (716) (0.005) (405) (1.60) (414) Hybrid 8000 8 120 32400000 200 5730000 40 3242000 12800 3315200 (Paddy) (0.015) (4050) (0.025) (716) (0.005) (405) (1.60) (414) Total 27000 27 880 48816000 675 19338700 135 10941750 43200 11188800 (Paddy) (0.03) (1808) (0.025) (716) (0.005) (405) (1.60) (414) Seed Sulphosulphuron Qty. Value Qty. Value M.T. (Rs.) (gram) (Rs.) Wheat 22875 22 2287.50 51468750 754875 11254500 (0.10) (2250) (33) (492)

Note: Figures in Brackets are per hectare.

Sulphate was estimated to Rs. 1,36,08,750 on an overall and total quantity distributed was 475 M.T. The quantity of Zinc Sulphate per demonstrations was put as 25 M.T. The value of Borax was estimated to Rs. 76,99,750 on an overall and total quantity was 95 litres. The value of petrellachlor was Rs. 78,73,600 and quantity was 3040 litres. The related data are given in Table-IV-10.

IV.1.11:- Distribution of Inputs Under Block Demonstrations on Paddy (Hybrid) in Kharif 2011-12 Under BGREI:-

The distribution of inputs under block demonstrations on paddy (Hybrid) under BGREI in kharif, 2011-12 analysed in Table-IV-11 indicates that the value of seeds was estimated to Rs. 3,24,00,000 on an overall and the total quantity of seed distributed was 120 M.T. The quantity of seed per demonstrations was fixed to 15 M.T. Thus, it is clarified that seed was the main input in case of the paddy hybrid. While the value of Zinc Sulphate was estimated to Rs. 57,30,000 on an overall and the quantity was 200 M.T. The value of Borex was estimated to Rs. 32,42,000 and the total quantity was 40

- 48 - litres. The quantity of Borex per demonstrations was fixed to 5 litres. The value of petrellachlor was estimated to Rs. 33,15,200 and the quantity was 12,800 litres. The quantity of petrellachlor per demonstrations was fixed as 1600 litres. The related data are given in Table-IV-11.

IV.1.12:- Distribution of Inputs Under Block Demonstrations on Wheat Under BGREI in Rabi, 2011-12:-

The distribution of inputs under block demonstrations on wheat under BGREI in Rabi, 2011-12 worked out in Table-IV-12 indicates that the value of seeds distributed by U.P. Seeds Corporation was estimated to Rs. 5,14,68,750 on an overall in 6 chosen districts from wheat ecological sub-regions of East U.P. The total quantity of seed was reported to 2287.50 M.T. on the whole. The number of demonstrations was 22 in total. While the value of sulphosulphuron was estimated to Rs. 1,12,54,500 on an overall and the total quantity distributed was 7,54,875 gms on the whole. The quantity per demonstrations was fixed to 34,313 gms on an average. Thus, the maximum amount of inputs was incurred on seeds under BGREI programme in case wheat in all the 6 chosen districts of East U.P. The related data are contained in Table-IV-13. Table IV.13 Distribution of inputs under block demonstrations (D/C) on Wheat under BGREI in Rabi, 2011-12 Name of the No. of Seed Distributed by U.P.Seed Corpo. Sulphosulphuron district D/C Total Quantity/ Total Value Total Quantity Total Quantity D/C (MT) (Rs.) Quantity per D/C Value (MT) (grams) (grams) (Rs.) Allahabad 3 300 100 6750000 99000 33000 1476000

Mirzapur 7 750 107 16875000 247500 35357 3690000

Sonbhadra 5 537.50 107 12093750 177375 35475 2644500

S.Ravi 2 200 100 4500000 66000 33000 984000 Das Nagar Chandauli 2 200 100 4500000 66000 33000 984000

Ghazipur 3 300 100 6750000 99000 33000 1476000

Total 22 2287.50 103.98 51468750 754875 34313 11254500

- 49 - IV.1.13:- Break-up of Inputs Under Block Demonstrations in Kharif and Rabi, 2011-2012:-

The break-up of inputs distributed at a glance under block demonstrations through BGREI during kharif and rabi, 2011-12 worked out in Table-IV-13 indicates that the value of seed of total paddy was estimated to Rs. 4,88,16,000 of which the maximum i.e. Rs. 3,24,00,000 was incurred on paddy (Hybrid) and Rs. 1,64,16,000 on paddy (HYV). Thus, it is obviously clear that high value of seed was due to high price/value of the paddy (Hybrid) which alone was 40.50% of the value of total paddy seeds. The value of Zinc Sulphate was estimated to Rs. 1,93,38,700 and the quantity was 675 M.T. While the value of Borex was estimated to Rs. 1,09,41,750 and quantity was 135 kgs on an overall. The value of petrellachlor was estimated to Rs. 1,11,88,800 and the quantity was 43,200 on an overall on total Paddy.

As regards the break-up of inputs on wheat, the value was estimated to Rs. 5,14,68,750 and the quantity was estimated to 2287.50 M.T. The number of demonstrations was 22 in case of wheat. The value of sulphosulphuron was estimated to Rs. 1,12,54,500 which was 49.2% of the total value of inputs. Thus, in case of wheat too the value of seed was significantly higher in East U.P. The related data are given in Table-IV-13.

IV.2:- Assets Building:-

IV.2.1:- Component-wise Physical and Financial Target and Achievement in Assets Building During 2011-12:-

The component-wise physical and financial target and achievement in assets building activities in Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 analyzed in Table-IV-14 shows that the total physical target of shallow tube-wells and pump-sets was fixed to 34,713 of which the maximum i.e. 24,427 were shallow tube-wells and 10,286 were pump-sets. While the total finance sanctioned was Rs. 2828.490 lakhs of which Rs. 1799.890 lakhs was for shallow tube-wells and Rs. 1028.600 lakhs for pump-sets. Regarding physical and financial achievement it was reported that the total 27,829 of shallow tube-wells and pump-sets were achieved to be structured of which the maximum i.e. 19,081 were shallow tube-wells and 8748 were pump-sets. The total amount utilized was estimated to

- 50 - Rs. 2059.384 lakhs of which Rs. 1184.610 lakhs were utilized for shallow tube-wells and Rs. 874.774 lakhs for pump-sets. Thus, the target as well as achievement in case of shallow tube-wells were obviously higher in comparison of pump-sets. On the other hand 80.17% of the total physical target was achieved. Accordingly 72.81% of the financial target was achieved on an overall.

Table IV.14 Component-wise physical and financial target and achievement in asset building activities in Eastern Uttar Pradesh (2011-12)

Component Physical and Financial Physical and Financial Achievement (%) target under BGREI* achievement under BGREI** Number Amount Number Amount utilised in Physical Financial sanctioned in lakh Rs. lakh Rs. Shallow tube well 24427 1799.890 19081 1184.610 78.11 65.82

Pump sets 10286 1028.600 8748 874.774 85.05 85.05

Dug well/bore well ------Re-excavation of ------ponds Total 34713 2828.490 27829 2059.384 80.17 72.81 Source: *Central BGREI Cell, **State BGREI Cell

IV.3:- Site Specific Interventions:-

IV.3.1:- Component-wise Physical and Financial Target and Achievement in Site Specific Activities in East U.P. During 2011-12:-

The component-wise physical and financial target and achievement in site specific activities in East U.P. during 2011-12 worked-out in Table-IV-15 shows that only Rs. 166.353 lakhs for bio-fertilizers and Rs. 737.50 lakhs for the construction of HDPE pipes were sanctioned under BGREI. While the physical achievement in case of bio-fertilizers was reported to 1,96,359 kgs and 9641 HDPE pipes. About financial achievement it was reported that for bio-fertilizers the total Rs. 166.353 lakhs were utilized. Also Rs. 733.590 lakhs sanctioned for HDPE pipes were almost utilized. Thus, total physical and financial target fixed for bio-fertilizer were fully achieved. While in case of HDPE pipes about 50% of the physical and financial targets were achieved. No training to any one was organized. The data are given in Table-IV-15

- 51 - Table IV.15 Component-wise physical and financial target and achievement in site specific activities in Eastern Uttar Pradesh (2011-12)

Component Amount sanctioned Physical achievement under Achievement (%) under BGREI* in BGREI** lakh Rs. Number Amount utilised Physical Financial in lakh Rs. Training of the farmers as Nil ------well as progressive farmers Construction of pucca Nil ------irrigation channel Bio-fertilizer 166.353 196359 166.353 99.55 88.34

Construction of HDPF Pipe 737.50 9641 737.590 45.98 56.72

Total -- -- 903.943 -- 60.72

Source: *Central BGREI Cell, **State BGREI Cell

IV.3.2:- Intervention-wise Physical and Financial Progress in BGREI Programme in East U.P. During 2011-12:-

The intervention-wise physical and financial progress at a glance in BGREI programme in Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 workedout in Table-IV-16 shows that during the year 2010-11 the programme was not implemented at reported. During 2011-12 also the amount sanctioned by G.O.I. intervention-wise was not available except the sanction of Rs. 625.440 lakhs for Hybrid rice demonstration. As regards the physical and financial progress it was reported that the physical target of 27,000 rice demonstrations were carried out and the amount utilized was Rs. 2055.62 lakhs. Thus, in case of rice demonstrations 100% physical achievement was reported. While the financial achievement as reported was 75.82%.

In case of wheat the physical target of 22000 block demonstrations were carriedout and the amount of Rs. 880.00 Lakhs was utilized. Thus, physical achievement reported was 106.76% and financial achievement of seed and fertilizer (line sowing including monitoring) 1,65,000 hectares were covered and the amount of Rs. 1200.00 lakhs were utilized. Thus, the physical achievement was 94.88%. While the financial achievement was 80.39%. In case of zero Till/seed drill the physical target of 755 was covered and the

- 52 - amount utilized was Rs. 113.250 lakhs. Thus, in case of zero till/seed drill also there was 84.95% achievement.

Regarding assets building activities the physical target of 24,427 shallow tube-wells and 10,286 pump-sets were structured and amount of Rs. 2828.490 lakhs was utilized. Thus, the physical achievement was 72.81% and the financial achievement was 85.05%. As regards site specific activities the physical target of 1,96,354 kgs of bio-fertilizer was covered and the amount of Rs. 188.500 lakhs was utilized. Thus, 99.55% of the physical achievement was reported. The financial achievement was 88.25%. While in case of HDPE pipes the physical target of 20,970 was covered and the amount of Rs. 1300.140 lakhs was utilized. Thus, the physical achievement as 45.98% and financial achievement as 56.73% was reported. Thus, on an overall the financial achievement of 75.05% was achieved in case of all the interventions. This shows clearly that physical and financial achievements in case of interventions under BGREI programme were satisfactory and significant to continue this programme.

- 53 - Table IV.16 Intervention-wise physical and financial progress at a glance in BGREI programme in Eastern Uttar Pradesh (2011-12)

Type of interventions Amount sanctioned by GOI Physical and financial Achievement (%) (Rs. in lakh)* progress (Rs. in lakhs)** 2010-11 2011-12 Total No. Amount utilised Physical Financial Paddy (Rice) Demonstration (i) Rice ------(ii) HYV ------19000 1430.18 19550 1091.184 (102.90) (76.30) (iii) Hybrid -- 625.440 -- 8000 625.440 7450 467.402 (93.13) (74.73) Sub Total ------27000 2055.62 27000 1558.586 (100.00) (75.82) Wheat (i) Block ------22000 880.00 23487.5 826.790 Demonstration (106.76) (93.95) (ii) Proper placement ------165000 1200.00 156555 964.700 of seed and (94.88) (80.39) fertilizer (Line Sowing including monitoring) No. (iii) Zero Till/Seed ------755 113.250 773 115.600 drill No. (102.38) (102.08) Sub Total ------2193.25 -- 1907.09 (86.95) Assets building activities (i) Shallow ------24427 1799.890 19081 1184.610 tubewells (78.11) (65.82) (Boring) No. (ii) Pumpsets ------10286 1028.600 8748 874.774 (85.05) (85.05) Sub Total ------2828.490 -- 2059.384 (72.81) Site Specific activities (i) Bio Fertilizer kg ------196354 188.500 195463 166.353 (99.55) (88.25) (ii) PVC or High ------20970 1300.140 9641 737.590 Density (45.98) (56.73) Polyethylene (HDPE) Pipe No. Sub Total ------1488.640 903.943 (60.72) Grand Total ------8566.00 6429.003 (75.05) Source: *Central BGREI Cell, **State BGREI Cell Note: Figures in brackets are percentages.

- 54 - CHAPTER-V

V. Evaluation of Monitoring Process

Monitoring of BGREI programme in Eastern Uttar Pradesh is generally done by the internal organization of the State BGREI cell established by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. While the evaluation and concurrent monitoring of BGREI Scheme is performed by the external agencies nominated by the Government of India, NFSM (National Food Security Mission) division, Department of Agriculture and cooperation, New Delhi or State Food Security Mission, Executive Committee, Uttar Pradesh. The internal monitoring at district level is done by the Deputy Director Agriculture who tours the entire district. During his tour he is assisted by the district consultant and technical assistant. He generally monitors the day to day activities through telephonic conversation. He watches the progress under the programme in the meeting held fortnightly at the district head-quarter. In the middle if there is any problem he is informed instantly. He redresses the problem forth with.

At the division level, Joint Director Agriculture regularly monitors the BGREI Programme in the districts under his jurisdiction. Also he impacts the programme as and when he visits the districts. While at the State level Additional Director Agriculture constantly monitors the BGREI programme and if there is any problem he solves the same. The consultants and other staff appointed under BGREI programme assists him in day to day monitoring of the programme. The details are given in the following paragraphs:-

V.1. Details about SLMTs V.I.I Details of State Level Monitoring Team (SLMT) in BGREI Programme for Rice in East U.P. during 2011-12.

The details about State Level Monitoring Team (SLMTs) at a glance in BGREI programme for Rice in eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2011-12 worked out in Table-V-1

- 55 - shows that the composition of State Level Monitoring Team includes the (i) Joint Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation as chairman (ii) Dr. C.K. Pandey (D.C.-NRM) as member (iii) Director Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh as member, (iv) Scientists and V.C., B.H. U. Varanasi as member. During 2011-12 only 3 meetings on 24-6-11, 19.04.2011 and 19.05.2011 were organized at state level to monitor the BGREI programme in Eastern Uttar Pradesh. Thus, it is evidently clear that monitoring at state level was quite inadequate for Rice under BGREI programme. The information is given it table-V-1. Table.V.1 Details about State Level Monitoring Team (SLMT) at a glance in BGREI programme for Rice in Eastern Uttar Pradesh (2011-12)

State Composition of State Level Monitoring Team No. of Composition Status meeting Eastern U.P. i. Joint Secretary, Department of Agriculture Chairman 24.06.2011 and Cooperation ii. Dr. C.K. Pandey (D.C.-NRM) Member 19.04.2011 iii) Director Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh -Do- 19.05.2011 iv. Scientists and V.C., B.H. U. Varanasi -Do- Note: These meeting were organized at state -Do- level to monitor the BGREI Programme in U.P.

V.I.2 Details of State Level Monitoring Team (SLMT) in BGREI Programme for Wheat in East U.P. during 2011-12

The details about State Level Monitoring Team (SLMT) at a glance in BGREI programme for wheat in Eastern, Uttar Pradesh during 2011-12 given in Table-V-2 shows that the composition of the state level monitoring team (SLMT) for wheat also is the same team which monitors the BGREI programme for rice in Eastern Uttar Pradesh. About number of meetings for wheat held during 2011-12 it was reported that only two meetings were held i.e. on 21.07.2011 and 13.04.2012 in total. Thus, it is obviously clarified that monitoring at state level for wheat under BGREI programme too was inadequate according to fixed norms for monitoring. The information is given in table- V.2.

- 56 - Table.V.2 Details about State Level Monitoring Team (SLMT) at a glance in BGREI programme for Wheat in Eastern Uttar Pradesh (2011-12)

State Composition of State Level Monitoring Team No. of Composition Status meeting Eastern U.P. i. Joint Secretary, Department of Agriculture Chairman 21.07.2011 and Cooperation ii. Dr. C.K. Pandey (D.C.-NRM) Member 13.04.2012 iii) Director Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh -Do- iv. Scientists and V.C., B.H. U. Varanasi -Do- Note: Two meetings only during 2011-12 -Do- were held at state level to monitor the progress of BGREI Programme.

V.2 Details about DLMTS V.2.1. Details of District Level Monitoring Team (DMLT) in BGREI Programme for Rice and Wheat in East U.P. during 2011-12

The details of district level monitoring team (DMLT) at a glance in BGREI programme in Eastern Uttar Pradesh for rice and wheat during 2011-12 worked out in Table-V-3 indicates that the composition of district level monitoring team (DLMT) includes (i) Deputy Director of Agriculture (U.P.) as Chairman, (ii) Scientists of district level (KVK) as member, (iii) ATMA consultant of district level as member, (iv) District Level Representative of Agriculture Engineer as member. (v) Representative of Deputy Commissioner /District Collector as member and (vi) District Representative / water Resource Department as member. About the number of meetings held it was reported that it is held only once in a year. The progress of BGREI programme was reported to be discussed in the meeting of ATMA time to time only. Thus, it is very much clear that monitoring at district level under BGREI programme was also found to be quite inadequate as per the prescribed norms of the BGREI programme in Eastern Uttar Pradesh. The related information is given in Table-V-3

- 57 - Table-V.3 Details of District Level Monitoring Team (DMLT) at a Glance in BGREI Programme in East U.P. for Rice and Wheat during 2011-12

Districts Composition of District Level Status No. of Monitoring Team Meeting 1 Allahabad i. Deputy Director of Agriculture Chairman - (U.P.) 2 Kaushambi ii. Scientists of district level (KVK) Member Once in a year 3 Pratapgarh iii. ATMA consultant of district level -Do- For Rice & Wheat 4 Varanasi iv. District Level Representative of -Do- The Agriculture Engineer Progress of 5 Chandauli v. Representative of Deputy -Do- BGREI to Commissioner /District Collector be discussed 6 Jaunpur vi. District Representative / water -Do- in meeting Resource Department of ATMA time to time only 7 S.Ravi Das Nagar 8 Maharajganj 9 KushiNagar 10 Sant Kabir Nagar 11 Faizabad 12 Ambedkar Nagar

- 58 - CHAPTER-VI

VI. Results and Discussions

This chapter mainly deals with the size of holdings owned by the sample beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers of both rice and wheat ecologies of eastern Uttar Pradesh, agro- ecological rice and wheat sub-region-wise levels of education among sample beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2011-12, agro- ecological rice and wheat sub-region-wise occupational status of sample beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2011-12, item-wise break-up of inputs delivered under BGREI Programme for rice in rice-ecological regions of east U.P. during 2011-12, item-wise break-up of inputs used at owned cost for rice in rice-ecological regions of East U.P., yield per hectare and output per farm of rice in rice-ecological regions of East U.P during 2011-12, distribution of net return per farm and per hectare of rice in rice-ecological regions of east U.P. item-wise break-up of inputs delivered under BGREI programme on wheat in wheat ecological regions of East U.P. during 2011-12, items-wise break-up of inputs used at own cost on wheat in wheat ecological regions of east U.P. during 2011-12, yield per hectare and output per farm of wheat in wheat ecological regions of East U.P. (2011-12), distribution of net return per farm and per hectare of wheat in wheat ecological regions of East U.P. during 2011-12, effectiveness of the progressive farmers in implementation of BGREI programme in rice ecological regions of east U.P. during 2011-12 and effectiveness of the progressive farmers in implementation of BGREI programme in wheat ecological regions of east U.P. during 2011-12 which are discussed in the following paragraphs.

- 59 - VI.1. Size of Holdings of Sample Farmers of Rice and Wheat Ecological Regions of East U.P. VI.1.1. Size of Holdings of Sample Beneficiary and Non- Beneficiary Farmers of Rice Ecological Regions of East U.P. During 2011-12

The size of holdings of the sample beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of rice ecological regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 worked -out in TableVI-1 indicates that on an overall average the size of holdings among beneficiaries was estimated to 1.96 hectare against 0.97 hectare among the non-beneficiaries in the rice ecological regions of East U.P. The size-group-wise analysis shows that the average size of holdings was comparatively higher among beneficiaries as compared to the same among non- beneficiaries in all the four size-groups. Thus, it is obviously clear that beneficiary farmers had comparatively larger holdings in the area under study. Regarding numbers of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in various size-groups it was found that among beneficiaries 50% were marginal farmers, 22% small, 18% medium and only 10% were large farmers. While among non-beneficiaries 76% were marginal, 12% were small and 12% were medium farmers. Large farmers were not at all reported among sample non- beneficiaries. Thus, it is evidently clear that there was preponderance of marginal farmers where in among non-beneficiaries it was comparatively much higher. The related data are given in Table VI.1 Table VI.1 Size of Holdings of the Sample Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries of Rice- Ecological Regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 Size of land Average size of holdings Number of farmers holdings Beneficiary Non-beneficiary Beneficiary Non-beneficiary Marginal 0.61 0.63 25 19 (50.00) (76.00) Small 1.489 1.44 11 3 (22.00) (12.00) Medium 3.08 2.67 9 3 (18.00) (12.00) Large 7.72 - 5 (10.00) - Overall 1.96 0.97 50 25 (100.00) (100.00) Source: Field Survey Note: Figures in brackets are percentage to over all.

- 60 - VI.1.2. Size of Holdings of the Sample Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries of Wheat- Ecological Regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12

The size of holdings of the sample beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries wheat ecological regions of east U.P. during 2011-12 analysed in Table-VI-2 shows that on an over all average the size of holdings of beneficiary farmers was estimated to 1.93 hectares against 1.36 hectares of the non-beneficiary farmers of wheat ecological regions of East U.P. The size-group-wise analysis indicates that the average size of holdings in case of beneficiaries was comparatively higher than in case of the same in non-beneficiaries excepting in small size-group. Thus, it is obviously clear that in wheat ecological regions also the beneficiary farmers had larger holdings in comparison of non-beneficiary farmers. As regards the numbers of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in wheat ecological regions it was found that there was preponderance of small farmers in both the categories wherein the number was much higher i.e. 70% in case of non-beneficiaries against only 40% in case of beneficiaries. Thus, it is very clear that in wheat ecological regions there was preponderance of small farmers in East U.P. The related data are contained in Table VI-2. Table VI.2 Size of Holdings of the Sample Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries of Wheat- Ecological Regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12

Size of land Average size of holdings Number of farmers holdngs Beneficiary Non- Beneficiary Non- beneficiary beneficiary Marginal 0.99 0.67 7 3 (35.00) (30.00) Small 1.59 1.66 8 7 (40.00) (70.00) Medium 2.99 - 3 - (15.00) Large 5.00 - 2 (10.00) - Overall 1.93 1.36 20 10 (100.00) (100.00)

Source: Field Survey Note: Figures in brackets are percentage to over all.

- 61 - VI.2. Levels of Education among Sample Beneficiaries and Non- Beneficiaries of Rice and Wheat Ecology Regions of East U.P.

The agro-ecological Rice and wheat sub-region wise levels of education among sample beneficiaries and Non-beneficiaries of East U.P. during 2011-12 analysed in the Table- VI-3 shows that in Rice-Ecological region as a whole out of the 50 beneficiaries 9 were illiterates. Out of 41 literates the maximum i.e. 18 were matric and higher secondary, 16 were middle passed, 5 primary passed and only 2 were graduates. Thus, among beneficiaries of rice-ecological region majority were matric, H.S. and middle passed. Higher education was nil. While among 25 non- beneficiaries of rice-ecological region the maximum i.e. 10 were middle passed, 7 were graduates, 5 were primary passed, 2 were matric and H.S. Among non- beneficiaries only 1 was illiterate. Thus, literacy was higher among non- beneficiaries in the rice-ecological region. Among the 5 sub-regions of rice-ecological region irrigated land (Allahabad) was the sub-region where only 1 out of 10 beneficiaries was illiterate and out of the 9 literates 2 were graduates, 6 were matric and H.S. and only 1 was primary passed. Thus, level of education in Allahabad (Irrigated land) was comparatively higher.

In wheat ecological region out of 20 beneficiaries none was illiterate. Among literates, the maximum i.e. 10 were middle passed, 8 were graduates, 1 was post graduates and 1 was primary passed. Thus, level of education among the beneficiaries was higher in wheat ecological region as compared to rice ecological region. Among the non- beneficiaries out of 10 the maximum i.e. 7 were matric and High School and the remaining 3 were primary passed. Among the sub-regions of wheat ecological region in the timely sown (irrigated) Allahabad region the level of education was comparatively higher. The related data are given in Table-VI.3

VI.3. Occupational Status of Sample Beneficiaries and Non- Beneficiaries of Rice and Wheat Ecology Regions of East U.P.

The agro-ecological Rice and wheat sub-region wise occupational status of sample beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries of eastern U.P. during 2011-12 analysed in Table-VI- 4 shows that in rice ecological region out of 50 beneficiaries the maximum i.e. 43 beneficiaries were purely engaged in the farming occupation and remaining 7 were

- 62 - engaged in non- farming occupation. While among non- beneficiaries out of 25 the maximum i.e. 23 were engaged in farming occupation and only 2 in non-farming occupation. Thus, among beneficiaries more than 86 per cent and among non- beneficiaries 92 per cent of sample farmers were engaged in farming occupation in East Uttar Pradesh. Among the sub-region of rice-ecology almost 100 per cent of sample farmers were in farming occupation in Rainfed upland (Jaunpur), Rainfed Lowland (Shallow) Kushinagar and Rainfed Lowland (Maharajganj). While in wheat-ecological region among beneficiaries 90 per cent of the sample farmers were engaged in farming occupation and among non- beneficiaries 100 per cent were engaged in farming occupation. Thus, majority of both beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries were engaged in farming occupation. Data are given in Table- VI-4.

VI.5 Items-wise Break-up of Inputs and Net Return of Rice on Sample Farms of Beneficiaries and Non- Beneficiaries of East U.P.

VI.5.1. Items-wise Break-up of Inputs Delivered under BGREI Programme in Rice Ecology Regions of East U.P. during 2011-12

The items-wise break-up of inputs delivered under BGREI programme for rice in rice ecological regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 worked-out in Table VI.5 shows that on an overall average the total inputs delivered under BGREI programme was estimated to Rs. 3682 per hectare. The input-wise distribution shows that the maximum inputs i.e. 1500 were incurred on account of deep ploughing and land preparation. Transplanting was another important item of inputs on which similar amount of input i.e. Rs. 1500/- hectare was incurred on an average. Thus, land preparation as well as transplanting were the expensive items of inputs in rice ecological regions of eastern U.P. The rice- ecological sub-region-wise distribution of inputs shows that highest total inputs i.e.Rs. 6480 per hectare was incurred in irrigated land region against the lowest total inputs i.e. Rs 2348 per hectare in rainfed upland sub-region of rice-ecology in Eastern U.P. Also the seed (benefit amount) was estimated maximum i.e. Rs. 2000/ ha. in irrigated land sub- region of rice ecology due to which the inputs became higher. Other inputs in all the regions were more or less similar. Thus important inputs were seed, land preparation and transplanting in rice-ecological regions.

- 63 - VI. 5.2 Item-wise Break-up of Inputs Used at own Cost in Rice-Ecological Regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12.

The item-wise Break-up of inputs used at own cost for rice in rice ecological regions of eastern U.P. during 2011-12 analysed in Table-VI-6 indicates that on an average the total cost per hectare on own cost was accounted to Rs. 29085 in case of beneficiaries against Rs. 25,073 per hectare in case of non-beneficiaries. While the cost per hectare excluding benefit was accounted to Rs. 24,359 on the farms of beneficiaries against Rs. 25,007 on the farms of non- beneficiaries. The cost per hectare including benefit was found to be Rs. 28041 on beneficiaries farms against Rs. 25007 on the farms of non-beneficiaries. Thus, total cost per hectare was considerably higher on the farms of beneficiaries in comparison of non-beneficiaries. Accordingly the cost per hectare including benefit was also higher on the farms of beneficiaries. While the cost per hectare excluding benefit was higher on the farms of non-beneficiaries in comparison of the farms of beneficiaries. This clarifies that benefits under BGREI programme caused increase in the total cost per hectare. The sub-region-wise distribution shows that the total cost per hectare in case of beneficiaries was comparatively higher i.e. Rs. 33.352 in medium deep–water region against the lower i.e. Rs. 22,269 in rainfed low land and shallow sub-region of rice ecology. In case of non-beneficiaries also it was higher i.e. Rs. 32,100 against the lower i.e. 20,871 in rainfed low land shallow sub-region. Thus, the total cost was higher in medium deep water sub-region on the farm of beneficiaries as well as the non- beneficiaries and lower in rainfed low land shallow sub-region on the farms of both beneficiaries as well as non-beneficiaries. The inputs-wise distribution shows that fertilizer followed by harvesting cost were the expensive inputs in comparison of other inputs on an overall average in the rice ecological regions of Eastern U.P. the related data are given in Table-VI-6.

VI.5.3. Yield and Output Per Hectare and Per Farm in Rice Ecological Regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12

The Yield per hectare and output Per Farm in Rice-Ecological Regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 analysed in Table-VI.7 indicates that on an overall average the total value

- 64 - of produce per farm was accounted to Rs. 73,401 on the farms of beneficiaries against Rs. 36,660 on the farms of non-beneficiaries. While the total value of produce per hectare was accounted to Rs. 53,119 in case of beneficiaries against Rs. 46,218 in case of non- beneficiaries. Thus, it is well established that the value of produce at both the levels i.e on per farm as well as per hectare was higher in case of beneficiaries as compared to that in case of non-beneficiaries. The sub-region-wise analysis shows that the value of produce at both levels was higher i.e. Rs. 1,15,696 and Rs, 79,244 respectively on per farm and per hectare in irrigated land sub-region of rice ecology against the lower Rs. 22,651 per farm in medium deep water region and Rs. 32,989 per hectare in deep-water sub-region of rice ecology of East U.P. Thus, productivity of farm as well as land was significantly higher in irrigated land sub-region in comparison of other sub-region of rice ecology. The yield rates of grain as well as straw were also higher in case of the beneficiaries as compared to the same in case of non-beneficiaries being higher in irrigated land sub- region of the rice-ecology of East U.P. The related data are given in Table VI.7.

VI.5.4 Distribution of Net Return Per Farm and Per Hectare from Rice in Rice- Ecology Regions of East U.P. during 2011-12.

The distribution of net return per farm and per Hectare from rice in rice-ecological regions on sample farms in east U.P. during 2011-12 worked-out in TableVI-8 shows that on an overall average the net return per farm excluding benefit in case of the beneficiaries was accounted to Rs. 39,790 against Rs. 16,824 in case of non-beneficiaries. While the net return including benefit per farm in case of beneficiaries was accounted ro Rs. 34,746 against Rs. 16,824 in case of non-beneficiaries. Thus, net return per farm in both excluding benefits as well as including benefit conditions was more than double on the farms of beneficiaries in comparison of the farms of non-beneficiaries. Among the sub- regions of rice ecology the net return per farm in both the conditions was also about double on the farms of beneficiaries of irrigated land sub-region of East. U.P.

- 65 - - 66 - Table-VI-3 Agro-Ecological Rice & wheat sub-region-wise levels of education among sample beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2011-12 (In numbers) Agro-Ecological Region Illiterate Primary Middle Matric & Higher Graduates Post graduates & Total of Eastern Uttar Pradesh Secondary Above Benefic Non- Benefic Non- Benefic Non- Benefic Non- Benefic Non- Benefic Non- Benefic Non- iaries Benefic iaries Benefic iaries Benefic iaries Benefic iaries Benefic iaries Benefic iaries Benefic iaries iaries iaries iaries iaries iaries iaries Rice Ecological 1. Rainfed upland 3 -- -- 2 4 3 3 ------10 5 (30.00) (40.00) (40.00) (60.00) (30.00) (100.00) (100.00) 2. Rainfed Lowland 2 1 1 1 3 -- 4 1 -- 2 -- -- 10 5 (Shallow) (20.00) (20.00) (10.00) (20.00) (30.00) (40.00) (20.00) (40.00) (100.00) (100.00) 3. Rainfed Lowland 3 ------7 4 -- 1 ------10 5 (Medium) (30.00) (70.00) (80.00) (20.00) (100.00) (100.00) 4. Rainfed Lowland -- -- 3 2 2 1 5 -- -- 2 -- -- 10 5 (Deep water) (30.00) (40.00) (20.00) (20.00) (50.00) (40.00) (100.00) (100.00) 5. Irrigated land (rice 1 -- 1 -- -- 2 6 -- 2 3 -- -- 10 5 Hybrid) (10.00) (10.00) (40.00) (60.00) (20.00) (60.00) (100.00) (100.00) All Rice Ecological 9 1 5 5 16 10 18 2 2 7 -- -- 50 25 Region (18.00) (4.00) (10.00) (20.00) (32.00) (40.00) (36.00) (8.00) (4.00) (28.00) (100.00) (100.00) Wheat Ecological 1. Timely sown ------3 6 -- -- 2 4 ------10 5 (irrigated) (60.00) (60.00) (40.00) (40.00) (100.00) (100.00) 2. Timely Sown ------(Rainfed) 3. Late sown (Irrigated) -- -- 1 -- 4 -- -- 5 4 -- 1 -- 10 5 (10.00) (40.00) (100.00) (40.00) (10.00) (100.00) (100.00) 4. Late sown (Rainfed) ------All Wheat Ecological -- -- 1 3 10 -- -- 7 8 -- 1 -- 20 10 Region (5.00) (30.00) (50.00) (70.00) (40.00) (5.00) (100.00) (100.00) (Figures in parenthesis are percentages)

- 67 - Table-VI-4 Agro-Ecological Rice & wheat sub-region-wise occupational status of sample beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2011-12 (In numbers) Agro-Ecological Farming Business Service & Agril. Labour Non-Agril. Total Non- Total Region of Eastern Person Labour Farming Uttar Pradesh Benefi Non- Benefi Non- Benefi Non- Benefi Non- Benefi Non- Benefi Non- Benefi Non- ciaries Benefi ciaries Benefi ciaries Benefi ciaries Benefi ciaries Benefi ciaries Benefi ciaries Benefi ciaries ciaries ciaries ciaries ciaries ciaries ciaries Rice Ecological 1. Rainfed upland 7 5 ------3 -- 10 5 (70.00) (100.00) (30.00) (100.00) (100.00) 2. Rainfed Lowland 9 5 ------1 -- 10 5 (Shallow) (90.00) (100.00) (10.00) (100.00) (100.00) 3. Rainfed Lowland 9 5 ------1 -- 10 5 (Medium) (90.00) (100.00) (10.00) (100.00) (100.00) 4. Rainfed Lowland 10 4 ------1 10 5 (Deep water) (100.00) (80.00) (20.00) (100.00) (100.00) 5. Irrigated land (rice 8 4 ------2 1 10 5 Hybrid) (80.00) (80.00) (20.00) (20.00) (100.00) (100.00) All Rice Ecological 43 23 ------7 -- 50 25 Region (86.00) (92.00) (14.00) (100.00) (100.00) Wheat Ecological 1. Timely sown 9 5 ------1 -- 10 5 (irrigated) (90.00) (100.00) (10.00) (100.00) (100.00) 2. Timely Sown ------(Rainfed) 3. Late sown (Irrigated) 9 5 ------1 -- 10 5 (90.00) (100.00) (10.00) (100.00) (100.00) 4. Late sown (Rainfed) ------All Wheat Ecological 18 10 ------2 -- 20 10 Region (90.00) (100.00) (10.00) (100.00) (100.00) (Figures in parenthesis are percentages)

- 68 - Table- VI.5.1 Items-wise Break-up of Inputs delivered under BGREI Programme for Rice in Rice-Ecology regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 (Cost in Rs./Ha.) Items of Inputs Jaunpur Kushinagar Maharajganj Kushinagar Allahabad All Rice Rainfed upland Rainfed lowland (shallow) Medium deep water Deep water Irrigated Ecological Regions Beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- beneficiar Non- beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary beneficiar y beneficiar y y Deep ploughing and land - 1500.00 - - - 1500.00 - 1500.00 - 1500.00 - preparation Seeds ------Seeds (benefit amount) 866.20 - 333.53 - 879.74 - 157.43 - 2000.00 - 847.38 - Seed treatment ------Weed management 604.32 - 153.03 - 640.00 - - - 604.93 - 500.57 - Micro-nutrients ------Micro-nutrient (benefit 877.46 - 345.66 - 875..00 - 198.43 - 875.00 - 634.31 - amount) Direct seeding ------/transplanting Line sowing by drum ------seeders Transplanting - - 1500.00 - - 1500.00 - 1500.00 - 1500.00 - Plant protection ------Total 2348 - 3832 - 2395 - 3356 - 6480 - 3682 -

- 69 - Table- VI.6 Items-wise Break-up of Inputs used at own Cost for Rice in Rice-Ecology regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 (Cost in Rs./Ha.) Items of Inputs Jaunpur Kushinagar Maharajganj Kushinagar Allahabad All Rice Ecological Rainfed upland Rainfed lowland Medium deep water Deep water Irrigated Regions (shallow) Beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary Land preparation 4335.21 5107.14 1700.00 2054.55 6089.74 6000.00 1500.00 1954.02 1683.22 3405.94 3062 3704 Seeds - 1021.43 - 985.27 - 1105.00 - 1040.23 1304.79 3168.32 1305 1464 Seed treatment ------Transplanting 3680.75 3535.71 1900.00 3360.00 3961.54 2933.33 1600.00 3126.44 1924.66 3168.32 2613 3225 Manures 3568.08 3175.00 1462.54 1581.82 3974.36 4000.00 1439.79 1522.99 2191.78 3217.82 2527 2700 Soil amendments ------Micro-nutrients ------Fertilizers 3547.42 652.79 3436.39 2940.00 4966.67 3833.33 3623.04 3183.91 3657.47 3828.71 3846 2888 Bio-fertilizers ------Irrigation 3906.10 665.87 1746.73 1505.45 2653.85 4000.00 2201.68 1896.55 1619.86 1584.16 2426 1930 Weeding 2591.55 392.39 1052.32 1309.09 1785.90 2260.00 1005.24 948.28 1934.93 1524.75 1674 1287 Plant protection ------Harvesting 3887.32 3821.43 3653.39 3260.00 3089.74 4433.33 3801.05 3606.32 3773.97 4019.80 3641 3828 Threshing 3605.63 3000.00 3103.49 3121.82 3423.08 2600.00 3424.08 3250.00 3674.66 3544.55 3446 3103 III. Land revenue paid 112.68 - 190.25 145.45 110.26 - 201.05 294.25 147.26 59.41 152 166 IV. Interest on capital paid 883.00 898.21 547.32 607.82 901.67 935.00 563.87 624.71 657.40 825.74 711 778 V. Grand total of cost per 32466 22270 22269 20871 33352 32100 22716 21448 28750 28348 29095 25073 Ha. (excluding beneficiaries) VI. Cost per hectare 30118 22270 18792 20871 30957 32100 19360 21448 22570 28348 24359 25007 (excluding beneficiaries) Cost per hectare (including 32466 22270 22624 20871 33352 32100 22716 21448 29050 28348 28041 25007 benefit)

- 70 - Table- VI.7 Yield Per Hectare and out put Per Farm of Rice in Rice-Ecology regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 (Cost in Rs./Ha.) Items of Inputs Jaunpur Kushinagar Maharajganj Kushinagar Allahabad All Rice Ecological Rainfed upland Rainfed lowland Medium deep water Deep water Irrigated Regions (shallow) Beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- Beneficia Non- beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary ry beneficiar y Grain yield rate (kg./ha) 5802.82 4392.56 4994.05 4181.82 5274.36 4033.33 4921.46 4022.99 7671.23 7128.71 5695.61 4911.75

Straw yield (qt./ha) 67.61 55.36 80.26 65.45 51.28 40.33 91.10 63.22 92.05 78.22 80.50 63.09

Value of Grain per farm 51294.00 20418.00 68340 39100.00 34395.20 20231.20 79900.00 22064.00 102256.00 65730.00 67237.04 33509

Value of Straw per farm 7200.00 3100 2700 1440 8000 2420 3480.00 896 13440.00 7900 6164.00 3151

Total value of produce per 584940 123518 71040 40540 42395 22651 83380 22960 115696 73630 73401 36660 farm

Total Value Per Ha. 54924 41996 42235 36855 49225 37752 43654 32989 79244 72901 53119 46218

- 71 - Table- VI.8 Distribution of Net Return Per Farm and Per Hectare from Rice in Rice Ecological Regions of East U.P. during 2011-12

Items of Inputs Jaunpur Kushinagar Maharajganj Kushinagar Allahabad All Rice Rainfed upland Rainfed lowland Medium deep water Deep water Irrigated Ecological (shallow) Regions Beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- Beneficia Non- Beneficia Non- Benefic Non- beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary -ry beneficiary -ry benefic -iary beneficiar iary y Net Return/farm in Rs. 26418 11047 39432 17582 18249 3391 46402 8032 82744 44999 39790 16824 (excluding benefit) Net Return (including 23917 11047 32987 17582 16381 3391 39993 8032 73283 44999 34746 16824 benefit)/farm in Rs. Net return/ha in Rs. 24806 19726 23443 15984 18268 5652 24294 11541 56674 44553 28760 21211 (excluding benefit) Net Return/ha in Rs. 22458 19726 19611 15984 15873 5652 20937 11541 50194 44553 25078 21211 (including benefit) Source: Field Survey

- 72 - While the net return per hectare excluding benefit was accounted to Rs.28,760 on the farms of beneficiaries against Rs. 21,211 on the farms of non-beneficiaries on an overall average. The net return per hectare including benefit was accounted to Rs. 25,078 in case of beneficiaries against Rs. 21,211 in case of non-beneficiaries. Thus, the net return per hectare was also accounted to be considerably higher on the farms of beneficiaries being highest in irrigated land sub-region of rice ecology in East U.P. The related data are given in Table VI-8.

VI.6:- Item-wise Break-up of Inputs, output and Net Return from Wheat on the Sample Farms of Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries of East U.P.:-

VI.6.1:- Item-wise Break-up of Inputs Delivered Under BGREI Programme on Wheat in Wheat Ecological Regions of East U.P.:-

The item-wise break-up of inputs delivered under BGREI programme on wheat in wheat ecological regions of eastern U.P. during 2011-12 worked-out in Table-VI-9 indicates that on an overall average the total delivered cost per hectare was accounted to Rs. 2,663.12 on the farms of beneficiaries of which the maximum i.e. Rs. 2,000 was delivered on account of seeds only and the remaining Rs. 663.12 was delivered for weedicides. Except these two items nothing else was delivered on wheat in any of the sub-regions of wheat ecology. The sub-region-wise analysis indicates that in both the selected sub-regions the inputs delivered under BGREI programme were more or less similar. Thus, it is well established that only seeds and weedicides were delivered in case of wheat in the selected sub-regions of wheat ecology of Eastern U.P. The related data are given in Table-VI-9.

- 73 - Table VI-9 Item-wise Break-up of Inputs Delivered under BGREI Programme on Wheat in Wheat Ecology Regions of East U.P. during 2011-12 (Cost in Rs./Ha.) Inputs Allahabad Mirzapur All Wheat Timely sown (irrigated) Late sown (Irrigated) Ecological Region Beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- benefic Non- beneficiary beneficiary iary beneficia ry Deep ploughing and ------land preparation Seeds 2000.00 - 2000.00 - 2000.00 - Seeds (benefit amount) ------Seed treatment ------Weedicides 616.63 - 709.61 - 663.12 - Micro-nutrients ------Micro-nutrient (benefit ------amount) Direct seeding ------/transplanting Line sowing by drum ------seeders Transplanting ------Plant protection ------Total delivered Cost 2616.63 - 2709.61 - 2663.12 -

VI.6.2:- Item-wise Break-up of Inputs used at Own Cost on Wheat in Wheat Ecological Regions of East U.P. During 2011-12:-

The item-wise break-up of inputs used at own cost on wheat in wheat ecological regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 analyzed in Table-VI-10 shows that on an overall average the total cost per farm was accounted to Rs. 38,536.90 in case of non-beneficiaries. Thus, it is obviously clear that cost on the farms of the beneficiaries was significantly much higher in wheat ecological region of East U.P. While the total cost per hectare was nominally higher i.e. Rs. 21,785.16 in case of beneficiaries against Rs. 20,793.70 in case of non-beneficiaries. The owned cost per hectare in case of the beneficiaries was accounted to Rs. 19,122.04 against Rs. 20,793.70 in case of non-beneficiaries. While the cost per hectare including benefits was accounted to Rs. 11,969 in case of beneficiaries against Rs. 16,438 in case of the non-beneficiaries. Thus, the inputs on owned cost per hectare was more or less similar on the farms of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in wheat ecology of Eastern U.P. Among the items of cost fertilizers was found to be most

- 74 - expensive item on the farms of both beneficiaries (being Rs. 5147.41 per ha.) and non- beneficiaries (being Rs. 5057.79 per ha.) followed by land preparation on the farms of non- beneficiaries incurring Rs. 4141.10 per hectare and harvesting on the farms of beneficiaries incurring Rs. 3659.92 per hectare in the wheat ecology of Eastern U.P. Thus, fertilizers, land preparation and harvesting have emerged as the most expensive items of inputs on the farms of beneficiaries as well as non- beneficiaries of the wheat ecology of Eastern U.P. The related data given in table-VI-10.

Table VI.10 Item-wise Break-up of Inputs used at own Cost on wheat in Wheat Ecological Regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 (Cost in Rs./Ha.) Inputs Allahabad Mirzapur All Wheat Ecological Timely sown (irrigated) Late sown (Irrigated) Regions Beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- beneficiary Non- beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary Land preparation 2175.44 4141.18 - - 2175.44 4141.18 Seeds 25.61 3227.53 373.85 1630.95 199.73 2429.24 Sowing 3080.70 1855.76 2873.52 1726.19 2977.11 1790.98 Transplanting ------Manures 894.74 141.18 253.96 119.05 574.35 130.12 Soil amendments ------Micro-nutrients ------Fertilizers 5317.84 4770.82 4976.98 5344.76 5147.41 5057.79 Bio-fertilizers ------Irrigation 2494.74 2856.47 510.09 304.76 1502.42 1580.62 Weeding ------Plant protection ------Harvesting 3943.86 3058.82 3375.98 3666.55 3659.92 3362.69 Threshing 3480.70 2741.18 3420.03 3590.48 3450.37 3165.83 Land revenue paid 26.67 18.82 34.44 15.36 30.56 17.09 Interest on capital paid 550.81 666.82 434.07 440.12 492.44 1106.94 Total cost per farm in 35066.10 21036.80 42007.70 28288.20 19122.04 20793.70 Rs. Total Cost per hectare 24607.79 24749.18 18962.53 16838.21 21785.16 20793.70 (Total Cost) Owned Cost (Kg) Per 21991.16 24749.18 16252.92 16838.21 38536.90 24662.50 hectare Cost per hectare (including 24608 24749 18963 16838 11969 16438 benefit) in Rs.

- 75 - VI.6.3:- Yield per Hectare and Output Per Farm of Wheat in Wheat Ecological Regions of East U.P. During 2011-12:-

The yield per hectare and output per farm of wheat in wheat ecological regions of eastern U.P. during 2011-12 analyzed in Table-VI-11 indicates that the average rate of grain yield of wheat was estimated to 4075 kgs/ha in case of beneficiaries against 3460 kgs./ha in case of non- beneficiaries. While the rate of straw yield was estimated to 47.16 Qte./ha. on the farms of beneficiaries against 42.88 qtl.ha on the farms of non- beneficiaries of the wheat ecology. While the value of total produce per farm was accounted to Rs. 87,107.50 on the farms of beneficiaries against Rs. 52,186.00 on the farms of non- beneficiaries. The value of grain per farm was estimated to Rs. 71,112.50 on the farms of beneficiaries against Rs. 41,038.00 on the farms of non- beneficiaries and the value of straw per farm was estimated to Rs. 15,995.00 on the farms of beneficiaries against Rs. 11,148.00 on the farms of non- beneficiaries on an average. Thus, the value of total produce, grain as well as straw of wheat was considerably much higher on the farms of beneficiaries which clearly indicates that it was the effect of BGREI programme. The sub-region-wise distribution shows that the value of total produce was comparatively much higher in irrigated late sown sub-region of wheat on the farms of beneficiaries. The related data are contained in the Table-VI-11.

Table VI.11 Yield Per Hectare and Output Per Farm of Wheat in Wheat Ecological Regions of Eastern U.P. during 2011-12 (Cost in Rs./Ha.) Inputs Allahabad Mirzapur All Wheat Ecological Timely sown (irrigated) Late sown (Irrigated) Regions Beneficiary Non- Beneficiary Non- Beneficiary Non- beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary Grain yield rate 42.39 37.18 39.11 32.02 4075.00 3466.00 (kg./ha) Straw yield (qt./ha) 49.12 47.06 45.19 38.69 47.16 42.88

Value of Grain per 58175 15168 84050 51740 71112.5 41038 farm Value of Straw per 11180.00 9296.00 20810.00 13000.00 15995.00 11148 farm Total value of produce 69355 39632 104860 64740 87107.50 52186.00 per farm

- 76 - VI.6.4:- Distribution of Net Return Per Farm and Per Hectare of Wheat in Wheat Ecological Regions of East U.P. During 2011-12:-

The distribution of net return per farm and per hectare of wheat in the wheat ecological regions of East U.P. during 2011-12 analyzed in Table-VI-12 shows that the net return per farm excluding benefits on an average was accounted to Rs. 53,436.50 on the farms of beneficiaries against Rs. 38,666.00 on the farms of non- beneficiaries. While the net return per farm including benefits was accounted to Rs. 48,570.50 in case of beneficiaries against Rs. 27523.50 in case of non- beneficiaries on an average. Thus, net return per farm excluding benefits was significantly higher in case of both beneficiaries as well as non-beneficiaries which shows that there was no effect of the BGREI programme on net return per farm in wheat ecology. Accordingly the net return per hectare excluding benefits was also considerably higher in case of beneficiaries but in case of non- beneficiaries it was similar. The sub-region wise distribution shows that the net return per farm as well as per hectare was significantly higher in late sown irrigated sub-region of wheat ecology of Eastern U.P. This also confirms that effect of BGREI programme was meagre in wheat ecology of Eastern U.P. The related data are given in Table-VI-12.

Table VI.12. Distribution of Net Return Per Farm and Per Hectare of Wheat in Wheat Ecological Regions of East U.P. during 2011-12 (Value in Rs./ Farms & per ha.) Net Return Per farm and Allahabad Mirzapur All Wheat Hectare Timely sown (irrigated) Late sown (Irrigated) Ecological Regions Beneficiary Non- Beneficiary Non- Benefici Non- beneficiary beneficiary ary beneficia ry Net Return/farm 38018 18595 68855 58737 53436.50 38666.00 excluding benefit Net Return (including 34289 18595 62852 36452 48570.50 27523.50 benefit)/farm Net return/ha (excluding 26680 21876 31082 21698 288.81 21757.00 benefit) Net Return/ha 24063 21876 28372 21698 26217.50 21787.00 (including benefit) Source: Field Survey

- 77 - VI.7:- Effectiveness of Progressive Farmers in Implementation of BGREI Programme in Rice Ecological Regions of Eastern U.P.:-

The effectiveness of progressive farmers in the implementation of BGREI programme in Rice ecological regions of East U.P. during 2011-12 worked-out in Table-VI-13 shows that almost all the progressive farmers had reported about unavailability of honorarium to them. The area allotted to each progressive farmers for supervision was 100 hectares and number of linked farmers was 140. Out of the total progressive farmers of rice ecology 52% were of higher secondary level of education, 24% were graduate level and remaining 24% were of the level of P.G. and above. Thus, the level of education of progressive farmers in rice ecology was considerably better. All the farmers (100%) reported about unavailability of drum seeders as well as information cards. The related data are given in Table-VI-13. Table VI.13 Effectiveness of the Progressive Farmers in Implementation of BGREI Programme in Rice Ecological Regions of East U.P. during 2011-12 Particulars Responses of the progressive farmers A. Education (%) Illiterate Primary 00 Middle 00 Secondary/Higher Secondary 52.00 Graduate/Technical 24.00 Post Graduate and above 24.00 B. Area for supervision (ha) per progressive farmer 100 C. Number of linked farmers per progressive farmer 140 D. Status of availability of honorarium (%) Received - Not received 100.00 E. Amount of honorarium received - F. Mode of payment of honorarium Cash - Cheque - Online - G. Status of availability of Drum Seeder (%) Received - Not received 100.00 H. Number of farmers per unit of drum seeder Kharif - Rabi - Summer - I. Availability in documentation of Information Card Available - Not available 100.00 Source: Field Survey

- 78 -

VI.8:- Effectiveness of Progressive Farmers in the Implementation of BGREI Programme in Wheat Ecological Regions of Eastern U.P. During 2011-12:-

The effectiveness of the progressive farmers in the implementation of BGREI programme in wheat ecological regions of east U.P. during 2011-12 worked-out in table-VI-14 shows that out of the total progressive farmers 60% were of the level of higher secondary education, 20% were of graduate level and 20% were of the level of P.G. and above. In wheat ecological regions also 100% of progressive farmers had not received honorarium. Also drum seeders and information cards were not received by 100% of progressive farmers for their respective areas allotted for supervision. Thus, almost all the progressive farmers were found to be ineffective in their respective areas allotted under BGREI programme. The related data are given in Table-VI-14. Table VI.14 Effectiveness of the Progressive Farmers in Implementation of BGREI Programme in Wheat Ecology Regions of East U.P. during 2011-12 Particulars Responses of the progressive farmers A. Education (%) Illiterate 00 Primary 00 Middle 00 Secondary/Higher Secondary 60 Graduate/Technical 20 Post Graduate and above 20 B. Area for supervision (ha) per progressive farmer 100 C. Number of linked farmers per progressive farmer 104 D. Status of availability of honorarium (%) Received - Not received 100.00 E. Amount of honorarium received - F. Mode of payment of honorarium Cash - Cheque - Online - G. Status of availability of Drum Seeder (%) Received - Not received 100.00 H. Number of farmers per unit of drum seeder Kharif 00 Rabi 00 Summer 00 I. Availability in documentation of Information Card Available - Not available 100.00 Source: Field Survey

- 79 - VI.9: Quinquennial Mean of Area, Production and Productivity of Mandate Crops (Rice and Wheat) in selected BGREI Districts of East Uttar Pradesh (2005-06 – 2009-10)

The quinquennial mean of area, production and productivity of mandate crops (Rice and Wheat) in selected BGREI Districts of East U.P. for the period (2005-06 to 2009-10) alongwith the A.P.Y. for Q.E. year 2010-11 and yield obtained through the primary data for 2010-11 worked-out in Table-VI-15 indicates that among the selected BGREI districts the area as well as production of rice have been estimated to be highest in Maharajganj district a rainfed lowland medium agro-ecological region of eastern U.P. While the area being lowest the productivity has been reported to be highest in Kushinagar district a rainfed lowland shallow agro-ecological region of eastern U.P. Thus, among the five agro-ecological regions the productivity of rice has been highest in rainfed lowland shallow region of East U.P. Indeed the average productivity of rice in BGREI districts has been found to be more than double of that in the non-BGREI districts. While in the U.P. state as a whole the productivity of rice during the quinquennial (2005-2006 to 2009-2010) has been reported to be more or less similar to that in the BGREI districts.

Regarding the productivity of wheat it has been considerable higher in Allahabad district a timely sown irrigated region of Eastern U.P. as compared to the same in Mirzapur district a late sown irrigated region of East U.P. Thus, it is evidently clear that productivity of wheat in timely sown irrigated region has been comparatively much higher. Like in case of rice, the productivity of wheat also has been reported to be more than double in BGREI districts as compared to the same in the non-BGREI districts. While the average productivity of wheat in the state of U.P. as a whole has been estimated to be much higher during the quinquennial years 2005-06 to 2009-10.

In the quinquennial ending year 2010-11 also the productivity of rice has been estimated to be highest i.e. 23.35 qtls. per hectare in Kushinagar district a rainfed lowland shallow region, of East U.P. While in BGREI District, non-BGREI districts and in U.P. state as a whole the productivity of rice has been found to be more or less similar during the quinquennial ending year 2010-11 but it has been significantly higher than the mean yield

- 80 - during quinquennial years. This clearly indicates that the trend of yield has been increasing. In case of wheat too the yield during the quinquennial ending year 2010-11 has been increased significantly as compared to that during the quinquennial years (2005- 06 to 2009-10). The yield of wheat in BGREI districts has been more than double of the same in the non-BGREI districts. While the yield of wheat in the state of U.P. as a whole has been much higher during the quinquennial ending year. Thus, it is a clear indication that the programme of BGREI is a revolutionary programme to bring second green revolution in eastern part of India. The related data are given in Table-VI-15.

VI.10: Quinquennial Mean of Area, Production and Productivity of Rice and Wheat in selected BGREI Districts of East Uttar Pradesh (2006-07 to 2010-11)

The quinquennial mean of area, production and productivity of the mandate crops (Rice and Wheat) in selected BGREI Districts of East U.P. for the period (2006-07 to 2010-11) alongwith the A.P.Y. for Q.E. year 2011-12 and yield obtained through the primary data during 2010-11 analyzed in Table-VI-16 indicates that during the quinquennial years 2006-07 to 2010-11 also the productivity of rice has been estimated to be the highest i.e. 23.69 qtls. per hectare in Kushinagar district (Rainfed Lowland shallow region) of East U.P. against the lowest i.e. 19.98 qtls per hectare in Jaunpur district (Rainfed upland Region) of east U.P. Thus, the rainfed lowland shallow region of east U.P. has the highest productivity for rice. The yield level of rice in BGREI districts has been more than double in comparison of that in non-BGREI districts. The yield of rice in U.P. state as a whole has been reported to be the same as in BGREI districts of eastern U.P.

In case of wheat the yield level during quinquennial years 2006-07 to 2010-11 has been considerably higher i.e. 23.27 qtls. per hectare in Allahabad district (Irrigated land timely sown region) against only 19.07 qtls per hectare in Mirzapur district (Late sown irrigated region). Thus, the yield level of wheat in timely sown irrigated region has been significantly higher which clearly highlights that impact of BGREI programme on yield of wheat. The yield of wheat in BGREI districts has been much higher than the yield of wheat in non-BGREI districts. The yield in the state of U.P. as a whole has also been much higher in this quinquennial years. Accordingly the yield level of rice in Q.E. year

- 81 - - 82 - Table-VI-15 Quinquennial Mean of Area, Production and Productivity of Mandate crops (Rice & Wheat) in selected BGREI districts of East U.P. for the period of (2005-06 to 2009-10) alongwith the A.P.Y. for Q.E. Year 2010-11 and Yield obtained through Primary Data (2010-11)

(Area in Ha., Production in M.T. & Productivity in Qtls/Ha.) Mandate Crops & Yield based Selected Districts of Quinquennial Mean (2005-06 to 2009-10) A.P.Y. for Quinquennial Ending (2010-11) on Primary Data Eastern U.P. (2010-11) Rice Area Production Productivity Area Production Productivity Allahabad 162617 361427 22.24 141316 328660 23.25 N.A. Jaunpur 142869 278757 19.50 139885 292220 20.89 N.A. Mahrajganj 166238 385088 23.16 167451 363536 21.71 N.A. Kushinagar 122496 289362 19.39 125415 292844 23.35 N.A. BGREI Distts. 3106074 6023112 8.68 3027035 6519579 21.54 N.A. Non-BGREI Distts. 2782360 5651219 20.11 2890127 6519639 21.78 N.A. U.P. State 5798809 11676352 23.00 5917162 13039218 21.66 N.A. Wheat Allahabad 212290 488547 23.00 210574 519125 24.65 N.A. Mirzapur 963056 189699 19.69 97121 224822 23.15 N.A. BGREI Distts. 3911949 8741124 22.34 3484170 9870284 28.33 N.A. Non-BGREI Distts. 6399084 181989296 12.82 3484170 20130048 14.31 N.A. U.P. State 9515911 27023925 28.39 6968340 30000632 31.13 N.A. Source: BGREI cell, Directorate of Agriculture, U.P. State, Lucknow.

- 83 - Table-VI-16 Quinquennial Mean of Area, Production and Productivity of Mandate crops (Rice & Wheat) in selected BGREI districts of East U.P. for the period of (2006-07 to 2010-11) alongwith the A.P.Y. for Q.E. Year 2011-12 and Yield obtained through Primary Data (2011-12)

(Area in Ha., Production in M.T. & Productivity in Qtls/Ha.) Mandate Crops & Yield based Selected Districts of Quinquennial Mean (2006-07 to 2010-11) A.P.Y. for Quinquennial Ending (2011-12) on Primary Data Eastern U.P. (2011-12) Rice Area Production Productivity Area Production Productivity Allahabad 156749 354820 22.66 154812 383206 24.75 76.71 Jaunpur 142434 284756 19.98 148278 307536 20.74 58.03 Mahrajganj 166427 380932 22.89 177498 411406 23.17 52.74 Kushinagar 123586 292636 23.69 132940 316047 23.77 49.94 BGREI Distts. 3084308 6237531 20.22 3269366 6736533 20.60 56.95 Non-BGREI Distts. 2765913 5649131 8.75 2931867 5988079 20.42 N.A. U.P. State 57611944 118886904 20.62 92179110 123642384 13.41 N.A. Wheat Allahabad 212000 493466 23.27 231080 518139 22.42 42.39 Mirzapur 96230 195000 19.07 104891 202800 19.29 39.11 BGREI Distts. 3929422 9053794 23.04 4165187 9576484 22.99 40.75 Non-BGREI Distts. 6392610 18724610 13.20 6648314 19473594 29.29 N.A. U.P. State 9365324 27818674 29.70 9739934 28931421 29.70 N.A. Source: BGREI cell, Directorate of Agriculture, U.P. State, Lucknow.

- 84 - Table-VI-17 Compound Growth Rates and Advance Estimates of Area, Production and Productivity of Mandate crops with Rice and Wheat (2006-07 to 2010-11) in selected BGREI districts of Eastern U.P.

(Area in Ha., Production in M.T. & Productivity in Qtls/Ha.) Mandate Crops & Compound Growth Rate Advance Estimates (2011-12) Selected Districts Rice Area Production Productivity Area Production Productivity Allahabad -6.42% -4.21% 2.36% 12754.15 309484.19 24.26 Jaunpur -0.42% 2.34% 2.76% 140642.80 304539.15 21.65 Mahrajganj 0.30% 0.01% -0.29% 167907.35 380641.51 22.67 Kushinagar 0.71% -0.13% 1.02% 126237.90 290983.53 23.93 BGREI Distts. -1.11% 1.38% 5.45% 2981908.52 6590965.81 22.46 Non-BGREI Distts. -0.78% 0.19% 2.05% 2613941.95 5677560. 35 21.21 U.P. State -0.96% 1.76% 2.69% 5595873.83 12506893.74 22.30 Wheat Allahabad -0.16% 0.62% 0.78% 210986.03 501773.56 23.78 Mirzapur -0.09% 3.07% 3.16% 95965.99 212789.79 22.17 BGREI Distts. 0.56% 3.39% 3.05% 3897362.09 9990165.54 27.58 Non-BGREI Distts. 0.16% 3.73% 5.54% 6377645.96 20861966.17 36.50 U.P. State 0.87% 3.44% 2.55% 9816483.70 30744901.40 31.32

- 85 - 2011-12 has been found increasing and in Allahabad district (Irrigated Land Region) it has been highest i.e. 24.75 qtls. per hectare against lowest i.e. 20.74 qtls per hectare Jaunpur district (Rainfed upland region). Thus, irrigated land region has the highest productivity level in case of rice in East U.P. The yield level in BGREI districts and in non-BGREI districts has been almost similar in case of rice in Q.E. year 2011-12. But the yield level of rice in the state of U.P. as a whole has been much lower during the Q.E. years 2011-12.

In case of wheat the yield in Allahabad district has decreased slightly and in Mirzapur district it has remained quite constant during the Q.E. year 2011-12. Accordingly it has been decreased in BGREI districts and increased considerably in non-BGREI districts. The yield level in the state of U.P. as a whole has also been remained constant during the Q.E. year 2011-12. While the yield levels of both the mandate crops i.e. rice and wheat based on primary data during the year 2011-12 have increased significantly. The related data are given in Table-VI-16.

VI.11: Compound Growth Rates and Advance Estimates of Area, Production and Yield of Mandate Crops Rice and Wheat during 2006-07 to 2009-10 in Selected BGREI Districts of East Uttar Pradesh

The compound growth rates and advance estimates of area, production and yield of mandate crops Rice and Wheat during 2006-07 to 2009-10 in selected BGREI districts of East Uttar Pradesh worked out in Table-VI-17 shows that there has been negative growth in area of rice. The compound growth in production of rice in the state as a whole has been estimated to 1.76 percent. While in BGREI districts it has been 1.38 percent. Accordingly the productivity of rice in the state as a whole has been estimated to 2.69 percent. While in BGREI districts it has been 5.45 percent. This shows clearly the effect of the BGREI programme. In case of wheat too the productivity has increased. The advanced estimates also reveal that the levels of production and productivity of both the mandate crops Rice and Wheat have significantly increased during the year 2011-12. Thus, it can safely be concluded that the levels of production and productivity of mandate crops in state of U.P. has increased after the implementation of BGREI programme in East U.P. the data are contained in Table-VI-17.

- 86 - Monitoring Status of the BGREI Programme during 2011-12

Monitoring status by CRRI scientist Dr. D.P. Singh, cuttack reported that the status of monitoring in Allahabad and Jaunpur districts is satisfactory.

External Monitoring Status

External monitoring is done by following agencies I. Department of Panning (Evaluation wing) on the behest of Govt. of U.P. II. Agro-Economic Research Centre, Allahabad

Monitoring report was awaited till the survey of this study as reported by AERC, Allahabad. Success and short-coming of BGREI Programme

The effort in launching this programme is highly appreciated by all concerned

- 87 - CHAPTER-VII

VII. Summary and Conclusions

Introduction:-

The programme of BGREI (Bringing Green Revolution in Eastern India) was initiated since 2010-11. Accordingly Government of India has taken decision under RKVY (Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna) for improving the agricultural productivity of staple food crops in eastern region by promoting technology that can realize the bulk production of Rice, Wheat, Rabi Maize and Sugarcane. The main objective of the programme is to increase the productivity of rice based cropping system in the resource rice eastern region by intensive cultivation through promotion of recommended agricultural technology and package of practices in different agro-ecological sub-regions. This programme was implemented in the Eastern region including Assam, Bihar, Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal and Eastern Uttar Pradesh and gained momentum in 2011-12 with the focus on rice and wheat for improving the agronomy. In Eastern Uttar Pradesh the major constraints are lack of water management, loss of nutrients due to soil erosion, floods and drought situations, low Seed Replacement Rates (SRRs) incidence of insects, pests and diseases. The strategies adopted in Eastern U.P. are integrated nutrient management, balanced use of fertilizers, green manuring, enhancement in irrigated area and use of the sprinkler irrigation to save water. Thus, the main objectives of this study were as given below:-

Objectives of the Study:-

1. To study suitability/correctness of technical interventions/prescription and approach adopted at state/district and local levels. 2. To observe crop response to the technology promoted. 3. To make critical evaluation of administrative aspects of implementation. 4. To identify status and impact of implementation of various interventions.

- 88 - 5. To identify gaps if any existing between recommended, promoted and implemented strategies. 6. To explore effectiveness of scientific backstopping in the form of scientists deployed at the district. 7. To examine the effectiveness of the provision of progressive farmers and S.D.A. Staff entrusted with BGREI programme and paid honorarium therefore. 8. To examine effectiveness of cluster approach adopted during 2011-12. 9. To examine effectiveness of institutional support provided by CRRI, NGOs, BGREI cell established in DAC and, 10. To examine effectiveness of monitoring mechanism DLMT and SLMT at district and state level.

Method and Procedures of Study:-

This quick and special study was confined to 5 agro-ecological sub-regions of eastern Uttar Pradesh. A multistage stratified random sampling technique was used to undertake the samples. At the first stage of sampling one district was selected from each of the 5 agro-ecological sub-region having maximum concentration of demonstrations in the district. At the second stage suitable number of block from the 1000 hectares cluster of block demonstrations were undertaken on the same basis. At the third and ultimate stage of sampling 10 beneficiaries and 5 non-beneficiaries were selected randomly from each of the sub-region 1000 hectares cluster of villages. Thus, 50 beneficiaries and 25 non- beneficiaries from 5 sub-regions of rice ecology and 20 beneficiaries and 10 non- beneficiaries from two sub-regions i.e. (1) Timely sown (Irrigated) and (2) Late sown (irrigated) were undertaken randomly making a total of 105 samples in all. The data were collected by survey method through schedules and questionnaires. The secondary data pertaining to all aspects of BGREI programme implemented in Eastern region of U.P. were collected from the records available at the state, district, blocks and other local levels for the implementation period of BGREI programme i.e. 2010-11 to 2011-12.

- 89 - Summary of Main Findings and Conclusions:- Rainfall situation:-

The present study reveals that among the 5 selected districts of east U.P. the maximum rainfall i.e. 111.95 m.m. was recorded in Maharajganj district against the minimum i.e. 81.58 m.m. in Allahabad district. Thus, in all the chosen districts the rainfall was higher than the state average annual rainfall.

Irrigation Infrastructure:-

As regards the irrigational infrastructures it was reported that the area irrigated by tube- wells was maximum in Jaunpur against minimum in Mirzapur district. Thus, tube-wells were the main source of irrigation in selected districts.

Cropping Pattern:-

The cropping pattern in chosen districts shows that rice among kharif crops and wheat among rabi crops have emerged as main crops and wheat also emerged as main rabi crop in the state of U.P. as a whole. District Allahabad covered maximum area of wheat and Maharajgunj covered maximum area of rice among the 5 selected districts of Eastern U.P.

Technical Back Stopping:-

Regarding technical backstopping it was found that training programme under BGREI scheme was very poorly attempted in rice ecological regions of Eastern U.P. While in wheat ecological regions participation in training was better although it was less than half as only 8 out of 20 participated in training programme.

The participation in demonstration as progressive farmers in rice ecological sub-regions was deplorably poor and quite ineffective. While in wheat ecological regions it was comparatively better.

- 90 - On the other hand the main accessing sources of information by beneficiaries on modern technology were identified as extension workers on modern rice and wheat technology in Eastern U.P.

While K.V.K. as well as S.A.U. scientists were nominally involved as source of information to the farmers under BGREI programme. Thus, main accessing source of information on modern technology under BGREI programme were extension workers, progressive farmers and Govt. demonstrations.

Crop specified structured plan:-

The coverage was comparatively higher during kharif season on the farms of beneficiaries in rice-ecological sub-regions and vice-versa in wheat ecological sub- regions. This ascertains that there was effect of BGREI programme on the farms of beneficiaries although the programme was not implemented fully during 2010-11. on the farms of non-beneficiaries of both rice and wheat ecologies the effect of BGREI programme was negligible and also the programme was not implemented fully during 2010-11.

Cropping Pattern Followed During 2011-12:-

The coverage during rabi season was much higher on the non-demonstration plots which very well proves that the effect of BGREI programme was negative in East U.P. in both wheat and rice ecologies.

The coverage on the farms of non-beneficiaries during kharif and rabi both in rice as well as wheat ecologies was much higher which clarifies that there was not any effect of BGREI programme on cropping pattern on an overall in East U.P.

Cropping Intensity on Sample Farms During 2010-11 and 2011-12

During the year 2010-11 the sample farms of rice-ecological sub-regions were generally double cropped (cropping intensity 201%). While in wheat ecological regions it was

- 91 - comparatively lower (Cropping intensity 184%) on the farms of beneficiaries of both rice and wheat ecologies.

While on the farms of non-beneficiaries the cropping intensity in rice ecology was 221% while in wheat ecology it was 184%. On an average cropping intensity was slightly higher on the farms of non-beneficiaries and as such there was not much effect of BGREI programme which was also not fully implemented during 2010-11. While during 2011-12 the cropping intensity in rice ecology was 188.68% on an average and in wheat ecology it was 189.10%. Thus, in wheat ecology the cropping intensity was slightly higher in case of beneficiaries. In case of non- beneficiaries the cropping intensity was lower in both rice and wheat ecological sub-regions. This shows that there was nominal impact of BGREI programme.

Perceptions of Sample Beneficiaries During 2011-12:-

Almost all the sample beneficiaries of both rice and wheat ecological region had viewed that BGREI programme is a good programme. They reported that they were guided best by S.D.A. workers only.

About problems almost all the sample beneficiaries of both rice and wheat ecological sub-regions had reported that there was no proper distribution of input supplies as well as marketing system provided by the Government. Thus, the sample farmers were not benefited adequately under BGREI programme in East U.P.

Perceptions of Sample Non-Beneficiaries During 2011-12:-

The majority of non- beneficiaries were well aware of BGREI programme in both rice and wheat ecologies. Thus, BGREI programme was popular among the farmers of Eastern U.P. In rice ecological regions farmers were more conscious about BGREI programme. Majority of non- beneficiaries agreed to grow varieties as demonstrated in their areas.

- 92 - Also almost all the sample non- beneficiaries were ready to accept the hybrid varieties of rice as demonstrated in their area.

Evaluation of Physical and Financial Progress:-

Block Demonstrations:-

Total 27 demonstrations on rice were carriedout in 954 villages of 99 blocks of 12 districts of East U.P. in kharif 2011-12. The concentration of demonstrations was maximum among blocks of Pratapgarh district and among villages of Allahabad district.

The maximum number of demonstrations were carried-out in Mirzapur and minimum in Sant Ravidas Nagar. While the maximum number of villages were covered in Sonbhadra and minimum is Sant Ravidas Nagar. In rice as well as wheat ecology the maximum concentration of demonstrations in relation to block was in Sonbhadra district.

Physical Target and Achievements of Demonstrations on Rice (Hybrid & HYV) and Wheat During 2011-12:-

The physical targets fixed in each of the chosen districts of both rice and wheat ecologies were achieved fully.

The maximum amount of inputs in case of rice was incurred on seeds on an average in all the 12 chosen districts under rice ecology.

Distribution of Inputs under Block Demonstrations on Paddy and Wheat under BGREI Programme During 2011-12:-

The maximum amount of inputs was incurred on seeds under the BGREI programme in case of paddy in all the 12 chosen districts as well as in all the 6 chosen district of wheat ecology of East U.P.

- 93 - Break-up of Inputs under Block Demonstrations in Kharif and Rabi During 2011- 2012:-

The high value of seed was due to high price/value of the Paddy (Hybrid) which alone was 40.50% of the value of total paddy seeds. In case of wheat too the value of seeds was significantly higher in wheat ecology of East U.P.

Assets Building:-

The target as well as achievement in case of shallow tube-wells were obviously higher in comparison of pump-sets. On the other hand 80.17% of total physical target was achieved. Accordingly 72.81% of the financial target was achieved on an overall.

Site Specific Interventions:-

The total physical and financial target fixed for bio-fertilizer were fully achieved. While in case of HDPF pipes about 50% of the physical and financial targets were achieved. No training to anyone was organized.

In case of Rice demonstrations 100% physical achievement was reported. While the financial achievement as reported was 75.80%.

In case of zero till/seed drill also there was 84.95% achievement in wheat ecology of East U.P. Thus, on an overall the financial achievement of 75.05% was achieved in case of all the interventions. This shows clearly that physical and financial achievements in case of interventions under BGREI programme were satisfactory and significant to continue this programme further.

Evaluation of Monitoring Process:-

Details about SLMTs:-

During 2011-12 only 3 meetings on 24-6-11, 19-4-11 and 19-5-11 were organized at state level to monitor the BGREI programme in Eastern Uttar Pradesh in case of Rice. Thus, it is evidently clear that monitoring at state level was quite inadequate for Rice under BGREI programme.

- 94 - In case of wheat also it was reported only two meeting were held i.e. on 21-7-2011 and 13-4-2012 in total during 2011-12. Thus, it is obviously clear that monitoring at state level for wheat too was inadequate according to fixed norms for monitoring.

Details About DLMTs:-

About the number of meetings it was reported that it is held only once in a year. The BGREI programme was reported to be discussed in the meeting of ATMA time to time only. Thus, it is clear that monitoring at district level was also found to be quite inadequate as per the prescribed norms of BGREI programme in Eastern U.P.

Size of Holdings of Sample Farms of Rice and Wheat Ecologies of Eastern U.P.:-

There was preponderance of marginal farmers where in among non-beneficiaries it was comparatively much higher. Beneficiaries farmers had comparatively larger holdings in rice ecology of the area under study.

In wheat ecological regions also the beneficiaries farmers had larger holdings in comparison of non- beneficiaries farmers. In wheat ecology there was preponderance of sample farmers and the number was higher (70%) in case of non- beneficiaries against only 40% in case of beneficiaries.

Level of Education among Sample Farmers:-

Among beneficiaries of rice ecology majority were matric, H.S. and middle passed. But literacy was Higher among non- beneficiaries. The level of education in Allahabad (Irrigated land) Regions was comparatively higher.

In wheat ecological regions the level of education among beneficiaries was higher as compared to that in rice ecological region. In Allahabad the level of education was comparatively higher.

- 95 - Occupational Status of Sample Farmers:-

Among beneficiaries more than 86% and among non- beneficiaries 92% were engaged in farming occupation. Thus, it is safely concluded that majority of sample farmers were engaged in farming occupation.

Break-up of Inputs and Net Return on Sample Farms:-

In rice-ecology land preparation and transplanting were expensive items of inputs. The total cost was higher in medium deep water sub-region of rice ecology. The value of produce per farm and per hectare was higher in case of beneficiaries as compared to that in case of non- beneficiaries. The productivity of farm and land was significantly higher in irrigated land of rice ecology.

Distribution of Net Return Per Farm and Per Hectare in Rabi and Wheat Ecologies:-

The net return per farm was more than double on the farms of beneficiaries in comparison of the farmers of non- beneficiaries in rice ecology particularly in irrigated land sub-region of East U.P.

In wheat ecological sub-regions only seeds and weedicides were delivered in the selected sub-regions of East U.P. The cost on the farms of beneficiaries was much higher in comparison of non- beneficiaries.

Fertilizers, land preparation and harvesting have emerged as the most expensive items of inputs on the farms of both beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries of wheat ecological regions of East U.P.

Yield Per Hectare and Output Per Farm on the Sample Farm:-

In case of beneficiaries of rice ecology the output per farm and per hectare both levels was higher in comparison of non- beneficiaries. The yield of farm as well as land was higher in irrigated land sub-region than other sub-regions of rice ecology of East U.P.

- 96 - While the output of wheat was considerably much higher on the farms of beneficiaries which clearly indicates the effect of BGREI programme. The yield rates of both grains as well as straw was found much higher on the farms of beneficiaries as compared to the same on the farms of non- beneficiaries.

Effectiveness of Progressive Farmers in Implementation of BGREI Programme in Rice and Wheat Ecologies of East U.P.:-

The level of education of progressive farmers in rice-ecology was considerably better. All the farmers (100%) reported about unavailability of drum seeders and information cards.

While in wheat ecological region almost all the progressive farmers were found to be ineffective in their respective area allotted under BGREI Programme.

- 97 - CHAPTER-VIII

Recommendations and Policy Suggestions

VIII.1 Recommendations:-

Based on the main findings of this study the following recommendations are made for better and durable implementation of the BGREI progarmme in East U.P.:-

1. In rice-ecology of East U.P. the normal rainfall is higher than the state average annual rainfall. Thus, suitable varieties of hybrid rice as well as wheat can give boosting production if technology is used properly. 2. Irrigational infrastructure in the whole East U.P. requires profound transformation. Only tube-wells have been remained as the main sources of irrigation in eastern region of U.P. 3. Rice + wheat + Dhaincha crop / sun hemp rotation must be strictly followed in Eastern U.P. to enhance productivity of land as well as intensity of cropping. 4. Regular and more training programme, demonstrations and sources of information as scientists / extension workers must be increased. 5. Scientific package of practices under BGREI programme must be provided timely and adequately. 6. To attract and bring more and more willing non-beneficiaries under hybrid rice and wheat cultivation. 7. The coverage during kharif as well as Rabi must be increased to make the BGREI programme more effective. 8. Cropping intensity must be increased by developing triple cropped systems instead of prevalent double cropped system in East U.P. i.e. in Zaid season coverage must be increased. 9. The systems of input supplies as well as marketing of produce must be improved and developed in East U.P. as a whole.

- 98 - 10. Block demonstrations must be increased and carried out at least in all the potential villages of remote areas. 11. The prices of hybrid seeds of rice and wheat must be fixed reasonably and affordable. 12. The number of shallow tube wells and pump sets must be increased in whole of East U.P. under assets building programme of BGREI. 13. Under site specific interventions Zero till/ seed drill practice must be strictly increased to boost wheat production in East U.P. 14. More number of meetings as well as visits of extension workers/scientists by the SLMTs and DLMTs must be held on regular basis and on the prescribed norms. 15. Level of education among beneficiaries must be increased and for this provision must be made under the BGREI programme itself. 16. The inputs particularly seeds and fertilizers must be subsidized to attract more number of farmers. 17. The availability of drum seeders and information cards under BGREI programme must be strictly increased in whole east U.P.

VIII.2. Policy Suggestions

1. For proper and regular use of technology by the needy farmers there must be provision of more funds so that the technology may reach in each and every village. 2. Irrigational infrastructure in East U.P. is totally neglected even when there are numbers of rivers. So East U.P. needs some profound transformation in irrigational infrastructure. 3. For increasing coverage under Zaid crops during summer Government must provide inputs of all sorts of suitable crops and varieties. 4. More numbers of regular and long duration training programmes as well as demonstrations along with visits of scientists / extension workers must be provided by the Government.

- 99 - 5. Government must strictly develop suitable triple cropped systems instead of prevalent double cropped systems in whole East U.P. 6. Government must take the whole systems of input supplies and marketing of produce in its own hand by developing and improving the present systems. 7. The prices of hybrid seeds of rice and wheat must be controlled by the Government to make it reasonable and affordable to the farmers. 8. More numbers rotavetors, drum seeders must be provided by the Government in whole of East U.P. on reasonable rates. 9. For uplifting level of education among beneficiaries Government must make some provision under the BGREI progarmme itself. 10. More numbers of meetings as well as visits of extension workers and scientists by the SLMTs and DLMTs must be held on regular basis and on prescribed norms strictly.

- 100 - Requirements wise Action Taken in BGREI study

1. Requirements from Coordinating Centre

Debashis Sarkar | Add to Address book |This is spam From:

adhara Rao G.” , [email protected], director , To: mma Sebastian , [email protected], “Dr. Anup K. Das”

Subject: I report

Date: 6 Sep 2012 20:32:45 IST

Cc: S Bhandari” , [email protected], Satya Vir Singh

Dear Sir,

It may be noted that for BGREI evaluation study, the participating Centres are required to calculate quinquennial mean (five year average) for the period to 2005-06 to 2009-10 and then compare with QE: 2010-11, quinquennial mean (five year average) for the period to 2006-07 to 2010-11 and then compare with QE: 2011-12. This exercise needs to be done separately for area, production and yield for BGREI districts across mandate crops of the state. The level of productivity achieved by the farmers (based on primary data) needs to be compared with the productivity level obtained from secondary data.

It was also decided that a suitable econometric analytical model need be devised for statistical analysis of primary data for mean difference in yield and factors responsible therefore should be employed to validate the results and findings. The econometric

model has already sent to you.

It was further stressed that the evaluation report need to be finalized and soft copy thereof be mailed to AERC, Visva Bharat by all the Centres before 31st August, 2012.

In view of the above, I request you to send the evaluation report incorporating all the points mentioned above as early as possible.

With regards,

Yours sincerely,

Debashis Sarkar

- 101 - 2. Requirements wise Action Taken in the Final Report for BGREI Evaluation study in East Uttar Pradesh

As per the additional requirement by the coordinator vide his letter dated 06/09/2012 to be mailed before 31st August, 2012, incorporating the same in the finalized report, the requirement-wise Action Taken in the Final Report for BGREI Evaluation study in East U.P. are as follows:

Sl. Requirements Action –Taken No. 1. Quinquennial Mean for Rice Seeing no mention the Q.M. for 2005-06 to 2009- & Wheat during 2005-06 to 10 in Table-VI-15 and for 2006-07- to 2010-11 2009-10, 2006-07 to 2010-11 alongwith A.P.Y. for Q.E. in Table-VI-16 Alongwith Q.E. in 2010-11 alongwith the yield based on primary data and the and 2011-12 compared with compound growth rates and advance estimates of primary data (yield levels). A.P.Y. of mandate crops (2006-07 to 2010-11) in In addition C.G.R. and A.E. Table-VI-17 have been incorporated in Chapter-VI of A.P.Y. for Rice & Wheat (Results and Discussion). (2006-07 to 2010-11) are calculated. 2. Econometric analysis of Regarding this requirements action has already Primary data of East U.P. been taken vide our letter dated 12/08/2012 annexed with primary data on M.S. Excel. Please see proceedings of Review Meeting dated 30/07/12

3. The Final Report in soft copy Received the letter dated 06/09/2012 only on to be mailed by 31/08/2012 11/09/2012. However, we are sending the final report in both soft and hard copies incorporating your all requirements except Econometric analysis

- 102 -