Staple food sector
Presentation by
Background
Objectives of the project
Selection of Focus Sectors
Selection of Focus Sectors
Methodology – desk based research
i.
ii.
Literature review,
Discussion with experts of competition policy, reform
initiatives,
iii. Collection and analysis of secondary data
iv. Stakeholder identification
v. Selection of impact/welfare issues to be covered ,
hypothesis formation
vi. Selection of variables on which data to be collected,
identification of data sources
vii. Development of questionnaires for perception survey,
viii. Development of guidelines for in-depth interview
ix. Finalisation of sampling framework
Methodology – field visits
i. Data collection from govt. officials dealing with
specific sector
•
Not all information available readily from secondary sources
•
Especially, in case of bus transport
ii. Perception survey of producers and consumers
•
To obtain the feedback on issues relevant to the stakeholders
iii. In-depth interview of stake holders
•
To understand the perspective of stakeholders in respect of
• general operational aspects of the sector, as well on
• competition.
Criterion for selection of States - Wheat
Selection of States - Wheat
• Rajasthan and Bihar
Perception survey sampling







Sample size: 400 respondents - 200 farmers, 200 consumers from each state.
States: Rajasthan and Bihar
Districts: From amongst the top and middle wheat producing districts. 100
farmers, 100 consumers from each of the districts.
 Rajasthan: Alwar, Bhilwara.
 Bihar: Saran, Vaishali.
From each districts, two blocks were covered (50 farmers from each block)
From each block, two villages were covered (25 farmers from each block)
Farmer sample selection at village level was stratified random.
 5 samples were drawn from each of the following 5 land holding based
categories
 Marginal (<1 hectare)
 Small (1 to 2 hectare)
 Semi medium (2 to 4 hectare)
 Medium ( 4 to 10 hectare)
 Large (>10 hectare)
Consumers were sampled randomly from the urban areas/ district headquarter
of districts where farmers were surveyed.
Shortlisted reforms and issues for investigation - Wheat
Reform
Area
Production
Procurement
Reform/issues in question
Issues for investigation
 Various administrative and/or  Industry structure
legislative measures with impact  Input availability, provider
on input availability, quality, cost,  Cost of cultivation, production,
etc.
input
 Area under production, output,
yield, etc.
 Establishment
of
State  Volume procured
Government
monopoly
in  Base price for procurement
procurement of wheat in Bihar  Comparison of wholesale prices
vide notification dated 15.04.2013 to procurement price
 Decentralised
Procurement
System introduced in Rajasthan
for wheat procurement
Shortlisted reforms and issues for investigation - Wheat
Reform
Reform/issues in question
Issues for investigation
Area
Warehousing  Warehouse Development and  Number of providers, nature
Regulatory Act 2007
providers
 Private
Entrepreneurship  Capacity of storage
Guarantee Scheme 2008
 Capacity utilisation
 Rural Godown Scheme 2001
Agricultural
Marketing
of
 Repealing of APMC Act by Bihar in  Impact on the stakeholders in the
2006;
wheat supply chain
 Amendment of APMC Act by
Rajasthan in 2005 to bring it in
line with Model APMC Act
Shortlisted reforms and issues for investigation - Wheat
Reform
Reform/issues in question
Area
Distribution  PDS
and
 Open market control measures
marketing
Issues for investigation
 Retail price
 Expenditure on wheat
 Distribution through TPDS
 Subsidy
Competition framework
Competition framework – Staple food, wheat
NUMBER OF PLAYERS
Production Farmers
•
•
•
Large number of farmers
Most are marginal or small
Share in production of each farmer is very small, with no market power
Production Input markets
(Fertilizer)
•
There are 30 large size fertilizer plants in the country manufacturing
urea, 21 units produce DAP and complex fertilizers, 5 units produce
straight nitrogenous fertilizers and the 2 units manufacture ammonium
sulphate as by-products.
• Out of 30 urea units set up between 1967 – 2005, 14 were in the
Private sector.
There are around 15 Private companies producing urea, and 11 Private
companies producing phosphate based fertilizers.
• In Urea, there are another 6 Public sector companies and 2
Cooperatives.
• In Phosphate, apart from Private companies, there are another 4
Public sector companies and 1 Cooperative.
Besides, there are about 85 medium and small-scale units in operation
producing Single Super Phosphate fertilizers.
•
•
Competition framework – Staple food, wheat
NUMBER OF PLAYERS
Production Input markets
(Seed)
•
•
•
Production Input markets
(Credit)
•
•
•
Around 500 private seed producers are there.
The opening up the seed sector has also led to significant FDI and
participation of multinational firms
• Around 35-50 of the private firms have foreign collaboration.
Apart from the private producers, there are National Seeds Corporation
and 15 State Seed Corporations.
Bihar:
• 39 commercial banks are present in Bihar.
• There were 2181 rural banked centres (total 2623) with 2350 rural
offices of scheduled commercial banks (total 3909).
Rajasthan:
• 55 commercial banks are present in Rajasthan.
• There were 1626 rural banked centres (total 1914) with 1756 rural
offices of scheduled commercial banks (total 4042).
However, with rural credit being largely dictated by Government policy,
larger presence does not imply better competition.
Competition framework – Staple food, wheat
NUMBER OF PLAYERS
Procurement
•
•
•
•
Procurement for maintaining buffer stock/ food security purposes is
entirely handled by Government agencies.
• There exists a number of national entities like Food Corporation of
India (FCI), National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing
Federation of India (NAFED), etc.
• In addition, there are a number of state bodies like Rajasthan State
Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd (RajFED) in Rajasthan,
Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Marketing Federation
Limited (MP MARKFED) in MP, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies
Corporation Limited in Bihar etc.
• In Bihar, the Primary Agriculture Cooperative Societies (PACS) have
been involved in wheat procurement.
• In Rajasthan, Kray Vikray Sahkari Samiti (KVSS), a cooperative
society of farmers at block level, is involved in wheat procurement.
Number of procuring agencies for a particular crop in an area/ district is
limited.
Procurement takes place largely at the MSP plus any additional
incentive or bonus markup declared on it by the state.
Mostly operates based on a preset target, with no cross agency
competition.
Bihar - Procurement though state agencies only
• Primary Agriculture Cooperative Societies (PACS) in Bihar
• There were earlier 7 procurement agencies involved in procurement of
wheat.
• Since Ravi Marketing Season 2013-14, it has been pruned down to two –
PACS and the nodal agency Bihar State Food Corporation.
• PACS purchases from the farmers and sells it to BSFC, who in turn
delivers it to FCI along with its own procurement from its purchase
centers.
• The farmers’ experience with PACS however raises a few points
• Farmers need to submit land ownership records. Issued by tehsil office, but requires
time of at least a month.
• Creates additional hurdle in case ownership in official records remains with ancestors.
• Refusals to purchase citing quality issues quite common.
• A ‘broker’ segment has emerged – who purchases from farmers at a discounted price
and sells it to PACS
• Paper work completed by arranging documents through internal channels
• Politically influenced
• No system of performance audit
• Bias towards paddy.
• Limited alternate channels – BSFC purchase centres are generally at
block level.
Competition framework – Staple food, wheat
NUMBER OF PLAYERS
Warehouse
•
Though private sector are being encouraged to enter the warehouse
sector, as of now it is dominated by Food Corporation of India (FCI),
Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC) and State Warehousing
Corporation (SWC).
• These three together accounted for ~60% of the national capacity.
• Fragmented private players accounts for barely 17% of capacity.
S.No.
Name of the Organization /Sector
Storage Capacity in Million MTs
Share in total
1.
Food Corporation of India (FCI)
32.05
29%
2.
Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC)
10.07
9%
3.
State Warehousing Corporations (SWCs)
21.29
20%
4.
State Civil Supplies
11.30
10%
5.
Cooperative Sector
15.07
14%
6.
Private Sector
18.97
17%
Total
108.75
100%
Competition framework – Staple food, wheat
NUMBER OF PLAYERS
Marketing
•
Rajasthan
• APMC Act limits the number of markets authorized for trading in select
agricultural crops.
• Currently there are around 130 APMCs and 307 market sub-yards
under these APMCs.
• In addition, the Act also mandates transaction between buyers and
sellers to be conducted though licensed commission agents.
• License generally requires shop at the mandi yard.
• As space is limited, effectively number of such licenses issued are
also limited.
• This gives the commission agents a degree of market power.
• Though post reform, the Act allows direct purchase from farmers, it has
not been successful.
• Small land holding, small individual output.
• Same has been the case with contract farming.
• The millers are not always quality conscious – lower price is the
main attraction.
• Private market places have also not flourished – only 2-3 in the pipeline.
• Land acquisition
• Logistics – especially connectivity
• Large investment with low incentives (20% of fees)
Competition framework – Staple food, wheat
NUMBER OF PLAYERS
Marketing
•
Bihar
• APMC Act was repealed in 2006.
• No market regulator – no control over trade practices
• No market fee are charged from the farmers But other charges for
loading/unloading/Hamal charges are vogue/uncontrolled.
• There are around 53 markets having basic infrastructure as open /
covered platform, shops, godowns, weighbridge, etc.
• The repeal of the Act freed the market for private participation.
• However, in the absence public investment in infrastructure, it
failed to attract significant private investment.
• Limited private mandis, informal mandis
• Underdeveloped marketing setup
• Limited entry by players such as ITC, Britannia, etc., who are procuring
wheat directly from farmers.
Competition framework – Staple food, wheat
ENTRY – EXIT; BARRIERS TO ENTRY
Production –
Inputs
(Fertilizer)
•
•
•
•
Production –
Inputs (Seeds)
•
•
Regulated price and supply of key inputs like natural gas
• The GoI's new investment policy for debottlenecking brownfield and
greenfield urea projects has not picked up due to concerns on urea offtake, high prices of gas, etc..
Govt. control over pricing and distribution of fertilizer along with decision
to import.
Highly capital extensive nature and stringent government policies.
Delay in settling subsidy claims.
• Delay in the issue of sales certification by the state governments
• Issuance of bonds in lieu of cash payments -> imposes liquidity
constraints, increases cost of finance.
No significant barrier
• Already around 500 private players,
• 100% FDI, 35-50 companies with foreign collaboration
However, profit margin significantly determines the areas of operation
• Mostly active in high value – low volume agri products
• Dominant player in maize, sunflower , cotton, vegetable seeds,
horticultural crops, etc.
• High volume – low margin crops of wheat, paddy, other cereals,
oilseeds and pulses are dominated by public sector.
Private sector fertilizer output
Stagnating to declining private sector fertilizer output
14.0
12.0
11.6
11.4
11.3
10.9
12.4
12.3
12.2
11.9
10.9
in million tonne
10.0
8.0
6.0
5.5
5.4
5.4
4.1
4.0
2.9
4.5
4.2
2.9
5.0
4.8
4.3
3.8
3.2
2.7
5.7
5.5
5.4
5.5
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.5
2.9
2.7
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.0
0.0
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Nitrogen(N) fertilizer Private Sector
Nitrogen(N) fertilizer Total
Phosphate(P) fertilizer Private Sector
Phosphate(P) fertilizer Total
2011-12
2012-13
Private seed production
Private sector seed companies show lower volume growth, as a
result of their presence being largely confined to low volume high margin agri products
180
171
47
47
45
160
43
40
140
39
40
35
115
120
45
151
41
112
109
30
100
100
79
77
80
69
63
80
25
83
69
20
63
60
15
40
10
20
5
-
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
Private sector production
2006-07
Public sector production
2007-08
2008-09
Share of private sector (%)
2009-10
IN %
IN LAKH QUINTAL
50
Competition framework – Staple food, wheat
ENTRY – EXIT; BARRIERS TO ENTRY
Warehouse
•
•
•
Regulated private entry allowed – requires permission from various
government bodies
A number of schemes to enhance private participation
• Private Entrepreneurs Godown (PEG), 2008 scheme
• Gramin Bhandaran Yojana (Construction of Rural Godowns)
• Scheme for Financing Warehousing Infrastructure under Rural
Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF)
• Capacity Building Programme in Warehousing Sector
• Financial support to Public Private Partnership (PPP) in Infrastructure
Constraints and Impediments
• Capital intensive sector
• Land requirements for constructing
• Warehousing has not been accorded the status of full-fledged
infrastructure
• Storage charges not attractive
• Shortage of trained manpower
• Lack of adoption of modern technology
FCI, CWC, SWC godown capacity and utilization
FCI
State
Time
CWC
COVERED CAP
TOTAL
SWC
COVERED CAP
TOTAL
COVERED
CAP
Grand
Total
TOTAL
CAPACITY (LAKH TONNE)
Bihar
Raj
01-02-12
6.09
1
7.09
1.19
0
1.19
2.62
0
2.62
10.9
01-01-14
6.3
1
7.3
1.21
0
1.21
2.91
0
2.91
11.42
01-02-12
15.77
6.08
21.85
3.99
0.2
4.19
7.86
0
7.86
33.9
01-01-14
22.11
4.33
26.44
4.27
0.46
4.73
9.48
0
9.48
40.65
UTILIZATION (%)
Bihar
Raj
01-02-12
34
95
81
01-01-14
56
88
90
01-02-12
83
89
92
01-01-14
83
103
95
Statewise capacity completed by CWC, SWCs & private investors under PEG
scheme as on 31.01.2014 (in lakh tonne)
Sl. Centre
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Punjab
Haryana
Uttar Pradesh
Maharashtra
Madhya Pradesh
Chhattisgarh
Karnataka
Odisha
Andhra Pradesh
Rajasthan
Tamilnadu
Jammu & Kashmir
Bihar
Jharkhand
Gujarat
West Bengal
Kerala
Himachal Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Total
Capacity
approved by
HLC
49.99
39.53
32.96
7.00
23.67
5.43
3.55
3.75
4.51
2.50
3.45
3.62
9.40
4.75
1.00
6.44
0.55
1.43
0.25
203.76
Capacity for which
tenders sanctioned/
allotted
43.02
35.45
14.46
5.88
19.37
5.41
3.50
3.00
4.01
2.50
2.95
3.28
5.75
1.88
0.50
1.50
0.05
0.38
0.10
152.98
Capacity under Total completed
construction
capacity
5.33
9.15
5.82
0.58
10.89
2.04
0.25
0.43
1.82
0.57
0.50
0.92
0.48
0.75
0.32
0.35
0.10
40.28
37.20
22.68
7.84
5.30
4.01
3.16
2.88
2.09
2.00
1.63
1.05
0.70
0.67
0.50
0.50
0.27
0.05
0.03
92.55
Progress of rural godown scheme (as on 31st March 2014;
cumulative figures)
Sl. State
No.
1 Andhra Pradesh
No. of
projects
1726
No. of
projects
266
Capacity in
tonnes
724,806
2 Madhya Pradesh
3127
6,981,671 16 Bihar
976
465,616
3 Punjab
1671
6,291,363 17 Jharkhand
16
79,918
4 Haryana
2174
6,205,438 18 Kerala
211
72,653
5 Maharashtra
3037
4,845,976 19 Jammu & Kashmir
7
35,648
6 Uttar Pradesh
1064
4,731,145 20 Himachal Pradesh
71
22,347
7 Gujarat
9293
3,029,714 21 Meghalaya
16
21,012
8 Karnataka
4251
2,933,085 22 Tripura
2
7,340
1,646,450 23 Arunachal Pradesh
1
945
9 Chhatisgarh
519
Capacity Sl. State
in tonnes No.
7,337,677 15 Assam
10 Rajasthan
1242
1,508,474 24 Mizoram
1
756
11 West Bengal
2467
1,352,308 25 Goa
1
299
12 Tamilnadu
1037
1,110,793 26 Nagaland
2
250
0
-
33859
50,968,730
13 Uttarakhand
265
784,677 27 UTs
14 Orissa
416
778,369
Total
Competition framework – Staple food, wheat
ENTRY – EXIT; BARRIERS TO ENTRY
Marketing
•
•
The existing provisions of the APMC Act in Rajasthan requires licensed
commission agents as intermediary between buyers and farmers in any
trade
• General precondition to license is ownership of shop/warehouse within
mandi area
• Limited mandi area, limited number of such shops/warehouses
• Limited number of such commission agents, despite increasing
agricultural output
• Enables cartelization and malpractices
The reform in APMC Act/ repeal of the Act in Bihar has enabled greater
private participation in contract farming, direct marketing, private mandis.
• The actual participation though have been slow. Some reasons are
• Small agricultural land holding, low production
• Lack of transparency in contracting process
• Lack of sanctity of the contract
• Lack of public investment in infrastructure
• Lack of protection for crop failure, crop insurance
• Problem with land acquisition
• Credit availability and cost issues
Competition framework – Staple food, wheat
PRICE DISCOVERY
Procurement,
Marketing,
Flow of information,
Infrastructural
bottlenecks
•
•
•
•
Even though the price of agricultural produces are not regulated
directly, many of the government interventions significantly affect
price discovery through market
• Procurement activity in certain items like wheat, rice, etc.
• Policy of declaring Minimum Support Price
• Restriction on movement, imports-exports
• Designated market places, intermediaries
Large scale procurement and storage has shrunk the scope of private
sector in the market of these staple foods
Extension services are weak – information flow on seeds, weather,
prices, markets, etc. is not efficient
Lack of access to markets
• Large number of marginal/small farmers far away from the
market.
Wheat procurement
2500
45000
2000
30000
25000
1500
22514
20000
16355
476
539
11066
9300
10000
183
135
217
500
15000
557
772
1000
5000
0
0
0
0
1984-85 1990-91 2000-01 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
AXIS TITLE
Bihar
Rajasthan
All India
'000 TONNE
28335
1303
35000
43
'000 TONNE
40000
1964
38148
Actual buffer stock holding in excess of
stipulated minimum
35
30
30
29
25
23
22
22
IN MILLION TONNE
20
17
15
17
17
13
13
14
13
17
14
14
12
10
9
10
8
8
7
6
5
5
(1)
1st April
1st July
1st October
1st January
(5)
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
Stipulated 1st April 1st July 1st Oct 1st Jan
minimum
holding
norm
7
20.1
14
11.2
(in mn
tonne)
Minimum Support and Wholesale Price of Wheat
MSP vs April-June average
wholesale price of wheat
1800
1600
1400
IN RS/QUINTAL
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
MSP
Bihar
Rajasthan
Production, Area under cultivation and yield
PRODUCTION
•
•
Bihar
• Increased from 2,306,000 tonne in 1980-81 to 4,787,000 tonne in 2011-12.
• CAGR of 2.38%, lower than the national average of 3.11%.
Rajasthan
• Increased from 2,394,000 tonne in 1980-81 to 9,320,000 tonne in 2011-12.
• CAGR of 4.48%, considerably higher than the national average of 3.11%.
AREA UNDER CULTIVATION
•
•
Bihar
• Increased from 1,755,000 hectare in 1980-81 to 2,170,000 hectare in 2011-12.
• CAGR of 0.69%, lower than the national average of 0.95%.
Rajasthan
• Increased from 1,635,000 hectare in 1980-81 to 2,935,000 hectare in 2011-12.
• CAGR of 1.91%, double the national average of 0.95%.
YIELD


Bihar
o Increased from 1,314 kg/hectare in 1980-81 to 2,206 kg/hectare in 2011-12.
o CAGR of 1.69%, lower than the national average of 2.14%.
Rajasthan
o Increased from 1,464 kg/hectare in 1980-81 to 3,175 kg/hectare in 2011-12.
o CAGR of 2.53%, higher than the national average of 2.14%.
Production of wheat – cost of inputs
Inflation in agricultural input prices (Farm inputs Index Number of Whole Sale Prices, base 2004-05=100)
Month/Year
1990-91
1999-00
2000-01
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
Fertilisers
31.85
85.61
93.22
110.00
119.20
137.20
151.30
Electricity (Irrigation)
23.03
60.70
75.99
118.10
127.20
136.80
168.00
Pesticides
47.02
83.76
85.49
111.40
113.60
116.00
121.90
Non-electical Machinery
43.69
76.58
80.93
116.50
120.50
123.70
123.10
Tractors
45.23
85.42
88.14
123.30
127.90
137.90
142.60
Lubricants
30.26
70.93
76.33
177.80
200.30
235.30
247.90
High Speed Diesel (HSD)
20.43
53.24
66.24
138.10
153.90
167.80
191.50
Light Diesel Oil (LDO)
18.15
53.41
68.26
172.50
208.60
259.20
273.60
Fodder
51.30
60.30
63.15
156.90
189.10
195.90
235.80
Cattle Feed
44.06
103.72
103.13
170.80
179.70
190.30
218.70
Cost of cultivation
Cost of cultivation
Cost of cultivation
Bihar
ITEMS
Rajasthan
1996-97 2000-01 2010-11 1996-97 2000-01 2010-11
Cost of Cultivation per hect. (Rs.)
10,921
14,512
24,599
14,879
18,308
32,681
423
507
772
394
508
689
Seed (Kg.)
114
115
113
144
151
151
Fertilizer (Kg. Nutrients)
114
135
126
110
110
133
2
2
0
8
3
3
Human Labour (Man hrs.)
601
513
479
589
551
464
Animal Labour (Pair hrs.)
107
48
32
31
35
6
Cost of Production per qtl. (Rs.)
Input Qty. per Hect.
Manure (Qtl.)
Breakup of cost of cultivation
Bihar
ITEMS
Rajasthan
1996-97
2000-01
2010-11
CAGR
1996-97
2000-01
2010-11
CAGR
6,713
9,109
17,544
7.10%
9,567
12,106
18,855
4.97%
Human Labour
2,084
2,681
6,273
8.19%
3,836
4,836
8,437
5.79%
Bullock Labour
834
0.02%
423
524
132
-1.22%
Machine Labour
653
1,932
3,397
12.50%
1,470
1,799
3,400
6.17%
Seed
769
928
2,005
7.09%
1,090
1,259
2,352
5.65%
Fertilizer & Manure
1,372
1,740
2,057
1,419
1,367
2,096
Insecticides
0
-
-
5
13
17
Irrigation Charges
831
1,086
2,549
1,131
2,057
2,053
Miscellaneous
-
-
-
-
-
-
Interest on Working Capital
170
6.80%
193
251
369
4.75%
3.54%
5,312
6,202
12,776
6.47%
Operational Cost
Fixed Costs
4,180
507 837
236 426
4,934
6,804
8.34%
4.35%
Wheat consumption habit
Commodities Year
Rice
Qty. consumed per Annum
(in kg)
Rural
Urban
1993-94
82.61
62.42
2004-05
77.62
57.31
2009-10
74.7
56.64
1993-94
52.56
54.02
2004-05
50.98
53.05
2009-10
53.03
52.82
Coarse cereals 1993-94
27.86
12.53
2004-05
18.86
10.59
2009-10
10.34
4.6
1993-94
163.03
128.97
2004-05
147.46
120.94
2009-10
138.08
114.05
All pulses & 1993-94
Pulse Products 2004-05
9.25
10.46
8.64
9.98
2009-10
7.92
9.6
1993-94
4.5
6.81
2004-05
5.84
8.03
2009-10
7.74
9.95
Wheat
All cereals
All edible oil
Allotment – Offtake under TPDS
ALLOTMENT (In '000
TONNES)
STATES/
UTs
Year
BPL
AAY
Bihar
2002-03
1,341
252
1,375
Bihar
2012-13
436
420
Rajasthan
2002-03
795
Rajasthan
2012-13
All India
All India
OFFTAKE (In '000
TONNES)
BPL
AAY
2,968
381
203
3
587
963
1,818
410
410
181
1,001
155
2,930
3,880
636
149
147
932
630
391
1,158
2,180
623
382
1,144
2,149
2002-03
9,827
1,842
26,799
38,468
6,341
1,638
1,637
9,616
2012-13
5,850
3,342
14,135
23,328 6471.972 3306.370
9,871
19,649
Bihar
-11%
5%
-4%
-5%
1%
7%
51%
5%
-2%
10%
-9%
-6%
0%
10%
23%
9%
-5%
6%
-6%
-5%
0%
7%
20%
7%
CAGR (02-03
to 12-13)
Rajasthan
All India
APL TOTAL
APL TOTAL
Subsidy under TPDS
(in Rs / quintal)
BPL
AAY
APL
ECONOMIC COST
SUBSIDY
PERCENTAGE
2000-01
858.26
443.26
51.6
2014-15 (BE)
1993.7
1578.7
79.2
2000-01
858.26
658.26
76.7
2014-15 (BE)
1993.7
1793.7
90
2000-01
858.26
28.26
3.3
2014-15 (BE)
1993.7
1383.7
69.4
Choice of buyer
70%
68%
80%
70%
67%
67%
70%
60%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Marginal/Small
Medium
Large
37%
24%
0%
Small
Overall
Medium
Large
Rajasthan
Local trader
Local open market
Money lender
Local trader
Local open market
Money lender
Govt agent
Nearby mandi
Others
Govt agent
Nearby mandi
Others
Overall
8%
3%
0%
2%
9%
14%
14%
17%
22%
21%
26%
10%
2%
5%
10%
11%
9%
9%
5%
24%
10%
6%
1%
0%
0%
0%
3%
0%
0%
20%
10%
20%
17%
22%
26%
30%
2%
40%
40%
30%
40%
50%
50%
2%
60%
37%
80%
Raj as t h an
76%
B i h ar
Production and % sold
Bihar
Rajasthan
90%
81%
72%
71%
70%
66%
61%
60%
50%
49%
50%
6.00
40%
4.00
30%
PRODUCTION (IN QUINTAL)
62%
78%
78%
72%
71%
72%
25.00
72%
70%
58%
2.00
80%
70%
71%
59%
58%
20.00
60%
50%
40%
15.00
30%
10.00
20%
20%
0%
2011
2012
2013
0.00
11.29
30.50
8.55
2.68
10.31
26.88
7.91
2.56
13.22
8.86
2.49
4
11
5
2
3
9
4
1
3
7
3
0.00
27.32
5.00
10%
1
PRODUCTION (IN QUINTAL)
66%
8.00
82%
30.00
75%
75%
90%
80%
% OF PRODUCTION SOLD
10.00
80%
35.00
10%
0%
2011
2012
2013
Marginal/Small
Medium
Large
Marginal/Small
Medium
Large
Overall
Marginal/Small
Medium
Overall
Marginal/Small
Medium
Large
Overall
Large
Overall
% OF PRODUCTION SOLD
12.00
Impact of PACS on market access and price
realisaiton
% of farmers w ho report ed i nc reas e i n pri c e
real i s at i on
40%
45%
20%
24%
30%
24%
25%
24%
23%
30%
25%
34%
33%
35%
26%
30%
32%
40%
30%
29%
29%
35%
30%
45%
33%
40%
42%
% of farmers w ho report ed i nc reas e i n ac c es s
20%
15%
15%
10%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
Marginal/Small
Medium
Saran
Large
Vaishali
Overall
Marginal/Small
Medium
Saran
Large
Vaishali
Overall
Farmers’ experience with Decentralized Procurement System largely positive.
Expresses high level of satisfaction in terms of selling experience, market access
and price realisation
Farmers' experience with DPS
100%
90%
90%
88%
87%
83%
80%
70%
60%
60%
65%
66%
65%
55%
49%
50%
40%
63%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Marginal/Small
Medium
Selling experience
Large
Market Access
Price realisation
Overall
Farmers’ experience with abolishment of APMC Act largely
negative in terms of impact on price realisation and market access
80%
72%
70%
63%
60%
55%
50%
48%
47%
43%
40%
30%
27%
24%
20%
10%
10%
4%
5%
1%
0%
Improved price
realisation
Reduced price
realisation
No change
Improved access
Impact on price
Reduced access
No changes
Impact on access to price information
Saran
Vaishali
Level of satisfaction and change experienced in supply
of farm inputs
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
29%
20%
63%
42%
58%
Raj
41%
51%
Bhr
59%
49%
47%
53%
52%
30%
34%
40%
31%
20%
48%
66%
60%
30%
37%
70%
71%
80%
69%
80%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Bhr
Raj
No of players
Bhr
Raj
Quantity
Bhr
Raj
Reliability
Bhr
Raj
Quality
Bhr
Raj
Affordability
No of players
Bhr
Raj
Quantity
Bhr
Raj
Reliability
Bhr
Raj
Quality
Bhr
Raj
Affordability
95%
Access to open market
77%
90%
80%
80%
83%
100%
70%
50%
50%
60%
50%
70%
60%
50%
61%
58%
50%
50%
39%
40%
40%
30%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
1%
1%
0%
20%
6%
6%
3%
8%
6%
20%
10%
30%
10%
72%
0%
10%
19%
14% 12% 14%
9%
2%
0%
Alwar
Bhilwara
Chhapra
Rajasthan
Only 1
2 to 3
Hazipur
Bihar
4 to 5
6 to 8
>8
Alwar
Bhilwara
0%0%
Chhapra
Rajasthan
Only 1
0%0%
Hazipur
Bihar
2 to 3
4 to 5
>5
Access to open market
120%
96%
100%
85%
84%
80%
66%
60%
40%
34%
20%
12%
11%
4%
2%
2%
4%
0%
0%
Alwar
Bhilwara
Rajasthan
No
Marginal
Chhapra
Hazipur
Bihar
Significant
Bih
Raj
Bih
Raj
Bih
Raj
Bih
Raj
No. of shops
Assured
availability
Raj
Price
Bih
Quality
Varieties
Consumers in Rajasthan looks to be more satisfied
relative to their Bihar counterparts
Hazipur
Chhapra
13%
59%
2%
65%
Bhilwara
36%
54%
Alwar
58%
Hazipur
18%
Chhapra
38%
38%
4%
37%
Bhilwara
21%
59%
Alwar
41%
Hazipur
34%
17%
Chhapra
47%
5%
44%
Bhilwara
26%
58%
Alwar
39%
Hazipur
51%
4%
86%
Chhapra
11%
61%
Bhilwara
35%
52%
Alwar
51%
Hazipur
41%
6%
Chhapra
85%
8%
72%
Bhilwara
37%
54%
Alwar
84%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Very Satisfied
50%
Somewhat satisfied
60%
70%
80%
12%
90%
100%
Bih
Raj
Bih
Raj
Bih
Raj
Bih
Raj
No. of shops
Assured
availability
Raj
Price
Bih
Quality
Varieties
Rajasthan consumers also look to have experienced more
positive changes in access to wheat/atta in open market
Hazipur
16%
70%
Chhapra
30%
Bhilwara
56%
37%
42%
Alwar
68%
Hazipur
30%
25%
Chhapra
57%
14%
61%
Bhilwara
23%
46%
Alwar
40%
Hazipur
43%
29%
Chhapra
52%
20%
64%
Bhilwara
35%
49%
Alwar
48%
Hazipur
44%
29%
66%
Chhapra
39%
Bhilwara
53%
31%
53%
Alwar
69%
Hazipur
26%
36%
60%
Chhapra
52%
Bhilwara
40%
43%
43%
Alwar
83%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Significant increase
50%
Marginal increase
60%
70%
80%
16%
90%
100%
Access to PDS
60%
50%
49%
50%
40%
32%
30%
26%
21%
20%
17%
10%
3%
2%
0%
Bihar
Rajasthan
<=5 Minutes
6 to 15 Minutes
16 to 30 Minutes
> 30 Minutes
Access to PDS
70%
90%
58%
60%
84%
80%
70%
50%
43%
42%
60%
40%
50%
27%
30%
21%
43%
40%
20%
32%
30%
10%
0%
6%
0%
0% 0%
Bihar
Rajasthan
2%
25%
20%
10%
13%
3%
0%
Yes, always
Most of the times
Bihar
Increase
No change
Rajasthan
Decline
Access to PDS – likely inconsistency in service outreach
across areas
70%
60%
50%
70%
63%
56%
66%
60%
50%
50%
44%
40%
40%
40%
31%
30%
26%
30%
20%
20%
11%
11%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Bihar
Satisfied
0%
Rajasthan
Indifferent
3%
Unsatisfied
Bihar
Increase
Rajasthan
No change
Decline