tractor financing in kaithal and …...1999-2000 to 2001-02 ,, j haryana state cooperative...
TRANSCRIPT
j^ciiicw 3mtR m. "^t.: wim^ -17 EVALUATION STUDY SERIES NO. CHANDICARH-17
TRACTOR FINANCING IN KAITHAL AND FARIDABAD DISTRICTS
IN HARYANA
(i)\iJiix\< J^cilicJH STKIZR
AN EX-POST EVALUATION STUDY
NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
TTTcf, 2005 PUNJAB AND HARYANA REGIONAL OFFICE, CHANDIGARH
MARCH, 2005
im^' ^icQidH srtzRR M ^ % \ ^ ^ # gif 1971-72 % k n wm^m q ^ g>F ^ftrisR
45.30% m Jit g^ 2001-02 c! iR:g5T9.5% i^ -rm 1 f ^ ^IF^ft^frfcicTT#f^ Kcfieitfc^airt %
^ TR T f f^ 'T#^ ^ jMiilfjidi ^r t t ^ ^ # 13;n3T fif^ ^ # p i f , g53i cmi t g fcr
^ 7T3M 44% it)j|(iH ?9Er ?5g ^ f fCT cmr mgr teS w # sraf^ g^ 1971-72 ctkn ^
7.75% sir I ?^ 3ra% ^ gif 2001-02 eras fgoTcfr fcr sqcrsOciT 0.29 %.ctid/e!ct ^< ^ w ? ^ 1.231
fgi.dld/^cf-im ^ 7Tyr t 3 tk vf^ # $gi5^ cTSlT ttc^ # 5?c¥r TTtTF % ^RDT f ^ ( f g ^ JMd<lldl
t^-^^m fgfgg STtzrzRf h MRUIIH fg?>iT, gc^R sregzR # Ffenorr ^rsa # ^fgcr fm^ ^
3mm ^RR tR- * l % y i d d l m ^s^]dH felT TTOT # I f ^ 3<[dRcW. ^ 3 M ^ pKlcJd cTSn ^gC^
^ g r f ^ JMillJI ^ 3TF5t gji^t gtr tZM Tf ^ c ^ ^ ^ ^dtd'iS CTZTT g ^ ^«t(i>(j # 3TlfsJg>fTT Tt gcRT
35^ gji ^ jram ferr TRn ^ J 3Pf?2RH ^ qcTT ticicn t f^ F fwm ^ ?5f #^ ^ 95^ g?cft
jiiiilPidi ^ gra;^ ft ^ fg^ mfd*"!' ^ ^^sr ^ ^ 9tncT 3 ^ tRiH jnmc% ^ 3 ^ f g ^ SRCR ^
3n?IT I ^gCT 3n% "^ f 5>HFTf g>t s M t or[#T ^ ^ tpT ^ ^ gjRUT 3 ^ cWtUfcHdJ TTqST ^ ^ f e ^ t
I I R ^ , 46% ^cW^iil Slfclcliit % ai-rfJ|d sift foPf fclcrlMltlcb M 5RT TJeR J^cilidH W iH^cicfd ^
5f?RcTtl 3;iSqZR 5cT ^ ^ ^ ^Jgx^^ t ^ cT^ {*'«IHi gjt f^o^iJ ^HeJI Idl JRR W^ ^ •M^'im # t
I ? ^ aidRcfd, 3?q ^raf ^ Jgc^ ^ g i f ^ i^^ # ^ crgr fg^oc ^R ct # #ftcT
^ 7TgTi3Tt g r KTH ^ ^ ^ p ^g^ ^giWdi ? i ^ CCT W^ tmi w^ g>r Jgcr t g fgcc^
-Hgitildl g>f jftrHlfFcT fgjJfT oTRT g7f?U I
(3T. TTfRTSH)
This is the seventeenth evaluation study report brought out by the Punjab and Haryana Regional Office of
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. Chandigarh. The declining share in the use of animal
power from 45.30 per cent in 1971 -72 to about 9.50 per cent in 2001 -02 signals the increasing role of machine
power in substituting draught animals. Tractors and power tillerij have bepome the main source of motive
power for tillage, threshing and transport, contributing about 44 per cent of the total farm power requirement
compared to that 7.75 per cent in 1971-72. During this period the total power availability has increased from
0.29 kw/ha to 1.231 kw/ha in 2001-02. which is likely to increase further with more induction of tractors and
power tillers.
Taking into account issues arising out of various studies conducted across the country, the present study has
been undertaken to evaluate the ground level performance of the tractor units in Haryana State. Further, in
view of the falling farm incomes and decrease in the anuual use of tractors, an attempt has also been made to
compare the economics of new tractors versus second hand trgctors.
The study reveals that in view of tractor becoming a universal jnode of farming iri Haryana, there was no
perceptible difference in the cropping pattern followed by the tractor owners after acquiring the tractor. The
tractorisation has helped the farmers in increasing their operational holding by Jeasing in of land. However, the
46 per cent of units were having overdues which warrants closer appraisal and monitoring by the financing
banks. The study has recommended that financing of second h^nd tractors should be encouraged to small
farmers. Further, in view of the low annual use of tractor for owo farm activities as also due to limited pros
pects for custom hiring, financing of tractors should be encouraged to Self Help Groups(SHGs) and Joint
Liablity Groups. i •• f
(A. Ramanathan) Chief General Manager
fmUm
CONTENTS
CONTENTS i
CREDIT LIST ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ill
BASIC DATA iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v-vi
I TTft nr 1-3
INTRODUCTION
I I T TeT f ^ ^ n ^ TTcf ^ ITitiTlc^ 4 - 6
SAMPLE DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY III ^T'M ^rmrf^^' ^ i ^ ? ^ 7-1 o
PROFILE OF SAMPLE BENEFICIARIES
IV fh3RT3 ' chNf^iJH 11-15
IMPLEMENTATION OF SCHEMES
V f^-?T 3r?R 16-19
IMPACT OF INVESTMENT VI f^?T ^ 3Tlf^^ ? ^ M 20-24
ECONOMICS OF INVESTMENT
VII f^^ ^ f^rrft^ oZT^ rTT 25-28
FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF INVESTMENT
VIII ^^cft^f tw?^ 29-31 REPAYMENT PERFORMANCE
IX ^TR^^^T^^RR 32-33
SECOND HAND TRACTOR MARKETS X m¥Ji\i m ^ rr RTT 34-35
PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS XI 3 I^ f t^T3:^3q^W;r 35.3^
MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MRr$l«e 39-54 ANNEXURES
i e lchH 3T«zPRf ^ ^ ^ 55-60 LIST OF EVALUATIONS STUDIES
CREDIT LIST
Overall Direction
ShriA. Ramanathan, Chief General Manager, Punjab and Haryana, R.O., Chandigarh
Department of Economic Analysis and Research,Head Office, Mumbai
General Direction
Shri TN Jha, General Manager, Head Office
Shri AP Deo, General Manager, R.O., Chandigarh
Dr. DV Deshpande,Deputy General Manager, R.O., Chandigarh
Analysis and F recessing of data & Drafting of Report
Dr. A.K. Sood, Assistant General Manager,R.O., Chandigarh
Field Investigation
Dr. A.K. Sood, Assistant General Manager.R.O., Chandigarh
Shri AR Lakhanpal, Assistant Manager, R.O., Chandigarh
' Acknowledgement
The assistance and cooperation received from the financing agencies viz; PCARDBs, SBI, OBC and Gurgaon Gramin Bank and farmers in Kaithal and Faridabad districts is greatfully acknowledged.
1.NABARD
2. PCARDB
3. HSCARDB
4. GGB
5.SBI
6. OBC
7. R.O.
8. FRR
9..hp
10. NSA
11.RRB
12.ARF
13. GCA
14.0&M
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
Primary Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank
Haryana State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank
Gurgaon Gramin Bank
State Bank of India
Oriental Bank of Commerce
Regional Office
Financial Rate of Return
Horse Power
Net Sown Area
Regional Rural Bank
Automatic Refinance Facility
Gross Cropped Area
Operation and Maintenance
III
m
BASIC DATA ABOUT THE STUDY
1. Period of Implementation
2. Financing Banks
3- Reference Year of the Study
4. Average Cost of lnvestment(Rs.)
5. Sample Size(No.)
6. No. of Control Farmers
7. Average Size of Operational
Holding(acres)
a) Tractor Farms
b) Control Farms
8. Cropping lntensity(%)
a) Tractor Farms
b) Control Farms
9. Total incremental lncome(Rs.)
With Family Labour
Without Family Labour
10. Annual Use of Tractor(hours)
11. Financial Rate of Return(%)
With Family Labour
Without Family Labour
12. Recovery(%)
1999-2000 to 2001-02 ,, j
Haryana State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Devlopment
Bank, SB!, OBC and Gurgaon Gramin Bank
2002-03
Kaithal
New
Tractors
322,126
34
10
23.62
6.56
169
159
77,306
87,474
495
21
24
72
Second Hand
Tractors
147,500
10
8.70
169
50,258
57,015
262
23
28
Faridabad
New
Tractors
296,605
40
10
18.06
4.65
180
159
62,859
61,188
351
17
17
81
Second Hand
Tractors
138,000
10
7.36
164
43,364
48,836
214
19
24
IV
f ^ 7KTT 2TTI ^ 3TF!T # frRT^ cTSTT pF^ ^ m f ^ 3q^TT ^ 3 n ^ g 5 i ? r g ^ ? z r R # ^ R I ^ ^ ^ W ^ $ 5 ^ ^ 3 T g f c q ^ g c T ^ g j ^ g 5 r ^ J J ^ T M f g > ^ T M t I
nW73 MIrhlJ
tor TM 2IT I gsi!^ 3TRT ^ RKIdd cTZfT ^JlC^ ^ g r f ^ 3 ^ % ! ^ STFft ^ ^ KTH ^ ^ ^ ^ H? ^
G^ 5 ^ $gs^ ^ arafcqgj g c i ^ 35^ ^ iff j izn^ fg>^
ter crar qjftsMsfoTcfr # 3^ cra f^ j iyK^cdM; f o i ^ m^ smit 3 I%T 2i?r, 37351 sthrcT ^mrw gjJM: 18.85 1235? cmr 13.63 U ^ 2IT I oTsrf ^-'kUfHcd g i ^ f J^TPft ^ qRT 3grT folcft ^ Stt TcT
5t5lWT^iRT: 6.56 Ugjfcmr 5.85^355 2JT I ^ ^ pT^ Hlfcl*!' 3^ 3P:F?r JH^T^ 3 ^ foTcff ^ M ^ :
3.50 G ^ cTm 3.16 G ^ sft I ^ l u f ^ c i m i f M SRT ^ 3 ^ 7]^ J^CT h gjROT 3 ^ ^ ^ qT 3nfr=r
rra5T3TO^ff^g5rafgjrfg^!rTRfg5ZIT I ? ^ ^ e r g 3 ^ f c T a n M g ) T ^ r 5 f W T 3 m T f a f c f f ^ W ? ^
a5iT^:23.62B^rr2m8.06Bg3^^7TZTTS7T I ^ dilPld fdJ'HMl ^ ?TcT-yfd!ild ^ f ^ t r J l ^ ^ ^
SRfricTSjt I ^ cTSIT ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ "^ ^ 35^ IcT ^^<dl\^ # 3l ?TcT ^tsCTT gjTRT: 10.07 W 7.32 ST I
^-wifHccigicTsifcrqjp^6.22 oo^sir 1 pr^cf^hq^tiTcT^$g^^nf^ra^^qRTg5r4m^ grcT q?j3fr ^ ?R95T # 3r rffiicT fTRrac: sTF r 1 1 ^ eras fg? $ b f^^uHl ^ ^ f g ^ rr^ q gicT STOFT
^ q ? j 3 f r ( g 5 i 4 g 5 ^ g T c r ) ^ ? ^ f c [ ^ t I q ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ q ^ g r c r q ^ s f f ^^f^5q[T(iWr^^?iq ^ 5€ir?f ^ ) ^ ^ | f t 3fr ptS^ ^ "f^ gicT Vdp^\^ ^ gcRT Tt Sr f l l i Sn I 3??Jq^n cTT cIcTT
# i l i ^ y d ia1c\ # ^ tst^ Hllc1*i ^ 3^li^iiT o HST sft a r a ^ Ms' dldlci foTcf # 3 ^ ^^m 3T f ^
Sjf I TjiliHd fch-Hini ^ ^-^H^i^HId # ^ ^ f ^ n t a ^ 3 ^ 3JlRdiil % W2T fddl^lctj) ?itT T^ ^fR^
ter TRIT zn I ^ ^t^CT Hlfd*f ^ di^el^rH, f^olcfr TlfeT cTSJT itoIcT foRf ^ jrfcT qil^ f ^ T ^ ^ ^
^gCT HlfdcUl ^ ^cRT ^ S i t e 2JT I
^ et^ ^ $ g c ^ 351 g r f ^ 3 q ^ ter OT t^^terais fa!?ff ^ asiM: 495 l i u CTSTT 351 l i ^ ZJT i 5 ^ ^5^C^ gJT g i f ^ 3 q ^ 3M>0(*d folcff ^ gjiM: 262 ^CT c!gT 214 ^tT sn I fwCT TTlfcrasf 5RT
jgC^ ^ ^ q^tllcT 3 ^ ^RtcT ftftr if ^ f ^ 3RR ^ 2JT I te ^fgCT gict f^^H)' ^ W^
IMt j ^ $gCT ? ^ g i ^ f^FBHt # <RF sjf I q3M ^ cRF Ff^^lMT # 1% ^ W ^ ^ ^ t ^ ^ ^ ^
^ craricp^fcT^^3<iT^g|t WJ^^«<4'^ ^ l ^ ^ ' ^ l f ' ^ t I
(11) f^ ld^ Sfl 3nf|lf3f ISllll^f ?f|
a < ^ aitcT t ^ jt^l^ ^ ^ 3^h^ ^ 3M tor lolc^ # 5^ <?^ ^.90.302/- 3 ik t p f f e r ^ fo |^ # ^.73.479/- cJSIT f .50.618/- W I ^ ^ ^ 3 1 ^ ^ q? SthlcT ^
SmT JM< <fd folcft 4 fPliWr: ^ . 73479 cISJT ^ 50618/- ^ ! ! S i A ^ ' . ^ c ^ ^T eft Tlf 3I#T cfSJI
TIT
Executive Summary
The present study was undertaken to evaluate the ground level performance of the tractor units in Haryana State. In view of the falling farm incomes and decrease in the anuual use of tractors, an attempt has also been made to compare the economics of new tractors with second hand tractors.
Major Findings
A. Profile of Sample Beneficiaries
The average size of the own holding of sample borrowers wa^ 18.85 acres and t3.63 acres in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively as against 6.56 acres and 5.85 acres of the control farmers in the above respective districts. The second hand tractor owners possessed 3.50 acres and 3.16 acres of own land in the above districts respectively. The purchase of tractor has enabled the sample beneficiaries to cultivate more land due to leasing-in of land.thus, increasing their net cultivated holding to 23.62 acres and 18.06 acres in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively. All the sample farmers had 100 per cent area under irrigation. The average family size of tractor farms was 10.07 and 7.32 for new and second hand tractor farms respectively. For control farms it was 6.22 persons per farm. There was sigriificant reduction in number of work animals in all tractor owners after acquiring tractor. Some farmers even disposed off all their work animals after acquiring tractor. However, the total number of animals (mostly milch animals) increased after purchasing tractor and was more than the control sample. The study revealed that the average assets of new tractor owners were higher in Kaithal district whereas the average liablities were higher in Faridabad district. The dependence of the sample farmers on non-institutional sources was inversly linked to their asset status. The average per farm investment in tubewells, electric motors and diesel engines was higher with new tractor owners compared to second hand tractor owners.
B. Impact of Investment on Cropping Pattern
The total annual use of new tractor farms worked out to be 495 hours and 351 hours in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively. For second hand tractor farms the total use was 262 hours and 214 hours in the above respective districts. There was no perceptible difference in the cropping pattern followed t)y the tractor owners after acquiring the tractor. On control farms also, the cropping pattern was almost sinmlar to the tractor farms. Like Punjab, use of tractor has become a universal mode of farming in Haryana. Therefore, the analysis involving 'before and after' and 'with and without' approaches does not indicate large changes in cropping pattern and cropping intensity.
C. Economics of Investment .
The average net income per holding worked out to be Rs.265255 and Rs.90302 In Kaithal district and Rs.213338 and Rs.74166 in Faridabad district on new and second hand tractors respectively. On control farms, this was Rs.73479 and Rs.506r8 in Kaithal and Faridabad district respectively. Ttie total InGrement^lincome from own farm, leased land and.custom serviqes was observed to be Bs.77306 and Rs.62859in Kaithal and Faridabad districts r6speactively . In case of seccpj hand tractor farms , i\^ total inqrement^«»co|ne\yas Rs. 50258 and Rs. 43364 per acre in Kaithal and Faridiabad district respectively. The new tractors as well as second hand
wjipi
tRnRFTcT ^^raiSft ^T ^ ^f^i^Tlci S M S^^RfcT folcff ^ g5lRT: ^.77,306/- cTSJT .62,859/- SfT I ^ ^
$ g S ^ ^ TTFTrT Tt ^ (^[^i^Tld 3TKT 3M>(1cM foTcff Tf 5rf?T ijclig ^ J M : ^.50,258/- cTSTT ^.43364/- ^ I
^ foTcft ^ ^ cTSTT 5 ^ ^ 3 ^ snfsJgj wf ^ 6HM ^ I pn^f^ 'HE;*!^^ ^ w 3n#^ fmm
cfr ?iRii3Tt ^#T pnsrfrraj w ^ f^f^ w 5P%UT f ^ ^ fgj, ^CXWITS M 3it.fr.#., cbciwd # g ^
^ f M c f ^ 3? ffSRT ^ e i R f 3;n t 1 ^ ^TRUSft ^ i r#Tcf 3efraxTtf3ff ^ g ^ srfcl lcT 45 97%
^ I S t ^ fjTcff ^ 50% ^ 3ffera5 3tfR3xrlf3ff ^ ^ Slfrfct^ ^ STT I
(n) f^mt ug g>T si^qicR
^ fdo i l i l cTFTcT 51 s t a l ^^^^cPT JfTcTR 18% ^ JcTT t I tJi l ind | * | $ i i i ( ^ 10 ^ * l$ i i l ) loFFt^
g ^ ^^er h 'm^ qr ^ i c ^ ^ ^ ^ fcrafi m, % ^^ WR f^^ ^i%[^ tr[ sro^ 3o% -^Hd^
^flcTR ^ aTTTF ^ 5 ^ 15% ^T tel S7T I ^ T f^dlch^ cTfmTT 42% fm^ ^ 15%. ^ 51? ^ "i^Hd^
tor STT I 65 5 ^ % ^ % ^Prmeft # , 9% c M ^ 3TO^ f TJcTT pr^ 3 i ^ ^FcT #r t c l fen SST. 3TcT:
3 ^ ^ -! HdH 3 g^ ^ f^ratf^ sraftr ^ ^ ^ JcdyH tor sn i 3T?ZRH ^ ^m/cicn t % 3fftra5m ^M ^ t t ^ ug fdd<ui c[)r 15 f M # Ft ter TRTT STT I ^HIHI-^ cttr qr ^ M ywicil ^ J^c^ictjH PiilfHd ^ ^ ^ ^ tor TFTT STT cT2JT UT ^ ^ t ; ^ %gcT 3qcT^ 3rRk ^ t n ^ J ^ ^ ^ ^ 3TTerR qr Ft 35 fen 7F7T srr I difuio^ Ira rTsiT 5r#JT jrrtSnrlraj ^TRiTSTt ^ frrg^THdl-Hlch^ui
3fl^9tw
1. >H> iJid yuiidt ^ rf^ ^ ra5 g ^ ofiUT m^ ^ fen? m^ ^ f 1 ^ ^ ^ ^^=5^ h ^rrq^ 3q^ tg5^^ f ^2^^^3 f r c [ tg f taT i i i >HFWdi!ra^^arHt tnfFi? I
2. 3W^ f5f c[jRif t ^ $g?:T g r f^ 3MiitJ| g5iqt rfsrr femz r |g=e;T fiirHd TTTT ?zfH # ^ ( ^ ^ ^?g4 WWcTT ^^^ cTSn ?7^^ cUMT ?rij?t ^ pfZ^ t^ fe#!T WracTT fen 5THT rnfFH
VI
tractors were found to be financially viable in both districts. The recovery position was comfortable in all sample branches except PCARDB, Baliabhgarh. Over the years, the recovery perfomriance has shown some improvement in two branc^ies i.e. PCARDB.Bailabhgarh and OBC, Kalayat. The recovery percentage of sample borrowers in ail brandies was in the range of 45 to 97 per cent. More than 50 per cent of borrowers in both districts had no overdues.. D. Adherence to Terms and Conditions
The average down payment worlced out to t}e 18 per cent of the total outlay. The down payment requirement of 30 per cent for second time purchases was adhered to by only 15 per cent (10 units) of the sample units availing loan for replacement of previous tractor. Overall, about 42 per cent of the units managed with less than 15 per cent down payment. The implementing bani(s have broadly adhered to the requirement of 8 acres of perennial Irrigated land. Of the 65 repurchase cases, 9 per cent bold the earlier tractors before 3 years, thus, violating the minimum stipulated period norm of 3 years. The study revealed that in majority of cases sanction and disbursement of loan tootc place within 15 days, in general th^ appraisal of loan proposals was very casual in nature and the loan was sanctioned solely on the basis of avayilable land for mortgage. Renewal of insurance was regular in commerdai bank branches and the RRB branch but the PCARDBs at Baliabhgarh, Kaithal and Cheeka were not regular in doing so.
Recommendations
1. Small farmers are not eligible for a tractor loan from the institutional system. Given the universal mode of
use of tractor in agriculture , financing of second hand tractors should be encouraged to this segment.
2. In view of the low annual use of tractor for own farm activities as also due to limited prospects for custom hiring, financing of tractors should be encouraged to Self IHelp Gifoups(SHGs) and Joint Liablity Groups.
CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The management of agriculture production system essentially involves effective management of inputs and timely completion of production operations. Towards this end, the use of latest modern production technology and machines play an important role. The above coupled with the increasing agriculture wage rates have compelled the farmers to resort to mechanisation of farms. Further, the declining share in the use of animal power from 45.30 per cent in 1971-72 to about 9.50 per cent in 2001-02 signals the increasing role of machine power in substituting draught animals. Tractors and power tillers have become the main source of motive power for tillage, threshing and transport, contributing about 44 per cent of the total farm power requirement compared to that 7.75 per cent in 1971 -72. During this period the total power availability has increased from 0.29 kw/ha to 1.231 kw/ha in 2001-02, which is likely to increase further with more induction of tractors and power tillers.
1.2 With fast growth rate in agricultural production since the introduction of new agricultural technology in sixties, farm mechanisation was considered a necessity to meet the increasing demand of draught power as well as human labour. The other benefits associated with the use of tractors are fulfillment of farm transport needs, better and timely operations and promotion of entre-preneurship of the farmers. Besides, considerations like increase in cropping intensity, change in cropping pattern in favour of more remunerative crops, increase in yield of crops, land improvement and levelling resulting in better use of available irrigation and reduction in cost of cultivation also tend to promote agriculture mechanisation.
Farm Mechanisation and NABARD
1.3 In view of above considerations, farm mechanisation has been one of the major purposes of refinance assistance from NABARD since early seventies. The annual flow of All India refinance increased from a meagre amount of Rs. 2.61 crores during the triennium ending 1972-73 to Rs. 4694 crores during the triennium ending 2001-02. The all India cumulative refinance for farm mechanisation stood at Rs. 13546.10 crores as on 31 March 2002 which is about 24 per cent of total refinance for all purposes. Keeping in view its importance, NABARD has already conducted 11 ex-post evaluation studies covering the states of U.R, Bihar, Haryana, Orissa, J&K, Gujarat and Punjab. A number of other studies have also been conducted by Agricultural Universities and other banks. All these studies have evaluated the benefits in terms of various variables and the major findings are outlined as under:
1) Irrigation level determined the tractor density without adversely affecting the labour density. 2) Demand for m^echanisation in agriculture has arisen for breaking the peak labour demand
ansing from adoption of new technology. 3) Kahlon (1984)2 described the use of farm mechanisation in Punjab as a technical necessity
instead of substitution of capital for labour and this view was also supported by a study of Punjab & Sind Bank(1986)3 jp pypjab and Haryana.
4) It has been indicated in some surveys that farm mechanisation economised on cost of cultivation as compared to bullock farm but a study by Department of Agriculture, Govt, of Punjab (1997)" has pointed out an increase in the cost of cultivation. The study also indicates de-crease in annual use of tractor from 531 hours in 1976 to 397 hours in 1993.
1. Economic Survey, 2002-03 2 Kahlon, A.S. (1984): Modernisation of Punjab Agriculture, Allied Publishers, Bombay 3 Anonymous (1986): An Evaluation Study on Farm Mechanisation in Haryana State, Monitoring and Evaluation
Study No. 3 , Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Chandigarh
4 Sidhu, B.S. (1997): Tractorisation of Punjab Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Govt, of Punjab, Chandigarh
1
5) An ex-post evaluation study of tractors in Punjab by NABARD revealed that the usual assumptions of change in cropping pattern, higher cropping intensity and yield of crops in tractor owned farms over the non-tractor farms do not hold good at the present level of mechanisation in Punjab. Tractor is a universal mode of overall farmers irrespective of ownership and it has become a necessity for farm operations. The study brought out that the present methodology based upon incremental income need to be replaced by realistic and simple approach of net income after family labour for working out viability of the investment and repaying capacity.
Status of Farm Mechanisation In Haryana
1.4 The number of holdings above 3 hectares in Haryana State is 378362 forming just 22 per cent of the total holdings. This indicates limited scope for purchase of first time tractors. The data on district-wise tractor density depicted in the Table 1.1 below reveals that the ownership of tractors has become quite widespread in the State. The necessity of tractors because of adoption of new technology may be one of the reasons for the universal farm mechanisation. The use of animal power in terms of draft cattle heads per thousand of NSA decreased from 143 in 1992 to 103 in 1997(latest available data) which indicates its substitution by mechanical power.
Table 1.1
District -Wise Density of Tractors and Draught Animals in Haryana
(Number per 000 of NSA)
District
Ambala Pahchkula* Yamunanagar Kurukshetra Kaithal Kama! Panipat Sonepat Rohtak Jhajjar* Farldabad Gurgaon Rewari Mahendergarh Bhiwani Jind Hisar Fatehabad* Sirsa
State Average
1993-94
Tractors
39 *
60 66 52 63 63 57 53 *
38 33 31 14 21 42 38 *
43
43
Cattle Heads(1992)
260 *
222 110 222 197 101 112 124
* 162 106 34 18 62 276 208
* 38
143
2001-02
Tractors
66 34 96 86 57 78 104 76 76 82 75 49 50 29 43 54 62 63 58
63 m~-
CattleHeads(1997)
115 294 116 101 133 129 103 227 59 " 21 44 37 ' 9 3 27 113 256 180 61
103
*Panchkula district formed in August 1995 and Jhajjar and Fatehabad districts formed in July 1997. Source: Statistical Abstracts of Haryana for the years 1993-94,1994-95 and 2002-03.
tr*"
The Present Study
1.5 Taking into account issues arising out of various studies conducted across the country, the present study has been undertaken to evaluate the ground level performance of the tractor units in Haryana State. Further, in view of the falling farm incomes and decrease in the anuual use of tractors, an attempt has also been made to compare the economics of new tractors versus second hand tractors. The specific objectives of the present study are as below:
1. To assess the impact of tractors on cropping pattern, cropping intensity and yield and its effects in inducing structural changes on farms.
2. To work out the financial viability of investment in tractors.
3. To examine the implementation aspects.
4. To study the second hand tractor markets in the State.
5. To study the recovery performance of tractor borrowers.
6. To comment upon the problems & prospects of tractors on the basis of the findings of the study.
CHAPTER-II
SAMPLE DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Sampling Design
2.1 A multistage sampling procedure was followed for the selection of districts, banks/ branches and beneficiaries. Two districts, Faridabad and Kaithal which witnessed the highest refinance disbursement from NABARD for tractors during the last three years (Table 2.1) were selected as sample districts. In the next ^age, agencies/banks were selected on the basis of refinance disbursement (table 2.2). In Kaithal district, PCARDBs, SBI and OBC were included in the sample whereas in Faridabad district PCARDBs and RRB were selected for field study. The branches were included in the sample based on maximum disbursement for tractors in the respective district.
2.2 Among the selected branches, a list of borrowers who had availed tractor loans during 1999-2000 to 2001-02 was prepared and a sample was drawn keeping in view the concentration of borrowers in the villages so as to economise on the time of survey. The details regarding selected branches and number of beneficiaries is given in Table 2.3. The study envisaged comparative analysis of new versus second hand tractors. In the selected branches, there was no financing for second hand tractors and, therefore, non-loanee farmers having second hand tractors were selected (10 in each district) from the villages having loanee farmers. Besides, 10 control farmers (non-tractor farms) were also chosen in each district to analyse 'with' and 'without' situation. In the present scenario of farm mechanisation, there was hardly any farm using bullocks only for all farm operations. The control farmers were not ownin tractors but were largely using hired tractors for farm opeartions. An effort was made to select control farms from each of the covered village to maintain similarity of other conditions.
The Data
2.3 Data were collected from the respondent farmers by holding personal interviews with the help of questionnaires. The following aspects were covered for gathering requisite information.
•a) Identification
b) Inventory of farm assets
c) Farm structure indicating other economic activities and income
d) Cost of tractor and other related investments
e) Maintenance and operational cost of tractor
f) Cost of cultivation and farm overheads
g) Tractor use for own farm and custom hiring
h) Production of crops and their disposal pattern
IT-
Table 2.1 Disbursement of Refinance for Tractors in Haryana
(Rs. in lakh)
District Ambala Yamunanagar Karnal Panipat Rohtak Panchkula Mahendragarh
• Rewari. Gurgaon Jhajjar Hissar Fatehabad Sirsa Jind Kaithal Kurukshetra Sonepat Bhiwani Faridabad Total
1999-200a 342.68 182.13
1080.45 588.26 246.88
75.52 611.46 37.29
631.74 614.88
1186.01 904.69
1126.04 752.71 770.46 666.85 452.24 763.58
1407.83 12777.27
2000-m 447.27 252.72 119.33 60228 54.29 4.85
474.99 583.04 880.77 510.19 984.48
1020.10 1462.60 966.68
1335.49 912.74
1000.89 890.44
1261.03 15370.46
2om-e2 275.68 268.32 713.19 551.84 452.09 80.97
544.34 433.44 934.14
621.85 585.57 416.63 412.34 897.08 996.80 471.83 815.19 879.96 590.49
10941.75
Total 1065.63 703.17
2^6.97 1742.38 1241.86 205.04
1630.79 1389.37 2446.65 1746.92 2756.06 2341.42 3000.98 2616.47 3102.75 2051.42 2268.32 2533.98 3259.35
39089.48
Table 2.2 Disbursement of Refinance for Tractors in Sample Districts
(Rs. in lakh)
Agency/ Bank
CBs SB! BOB
BO! OBC Syndicate Bank PNB Sub-total RRBs Gurgaon GB Annbala-Kurukshetra GB
Sub-total Haryana SCARDB Grand Total
Faridabad
1999-2000
287.41 —
2.82
18.35 25.14
333.72
314.42
— 314.42 759.69
1407.83
2000-01
296.36 —
6.41 16.42 52.30
— 371.48
254.87 —
254.87 634.68
1261.03
2001-02
— —
19.36 48.78 18.97
— 87.11
142.73 —
142.73 360.65 590.49
Kaithal
1999-2000
89.80 — — • •
47.70 — —
137.50
—
170.58 170.58 462.38 770.46
2000-01
456.58 5.22
— 317.10
— —
778.90
— 61.93 61.93
494.66 1335.49
2001-02
^— —
— 154.01
— —
154.01
— 66.85 66.85
775.94
996.80
Z4 Beside the above data, branch-wise disbursement and recovery pattern for various activities was also collected from the sample branches. A few tractor dealers were also contacted to ascertain the prices of various brands of tractors available in the market.
Table 2.3
Details of Sample Tractor Borrowers
Oislrict
=aiidabad
(aithal
Bank Branch
PCfiJRDB Ballabhgarti
PCARpe Palwal
GGB Mohna
PC/»«DBHodal
Sub-Total
PCARDBKaithal
PCARDB Cheeka
SBl Kaithal
OBC Kalayat
Sub-Total
No. of Borrowers
10
10
10
10
40
9
9 1
8 8
34
No. of Control Farmers
3
2
2
3
10
2
3
3
2
10
No. of Second
Hand Tractor Owners
10
-
10
Methodology
2.5 Financial viability of new as well as second hand tractors has been worked out in terms of financial rate of return (FRR) and benefit cost ratio (BCR). The minimum rate of return on the investment is assumed to be 15 per cent for investment to be considered viable.
2.6 The borrowers of tractors represented 'with project' situation while the non-tractor owners either using hired tractor or mix of hired tractor and bullocks were taken to represent 'without project' situation. All the sample farmers consisting of new tractor owners, second hand tractor owners and control farmers were cultivating crops under irrigated conditions only and hence, the farm budgets were prepared for irrigated conditions.
2.7 Net income from custom service has been worked out after making allowance for operational and maintenance cost for the period of custom work. The cost of cultivation of crops included expenditure on seed, manure, fertilisers, pesticides, irrigation charges, operational and maintenance charges for own tractor and bullocks and wages for hired labour.
2.8 Among sample tractor owners, the horse power of tractors varied from 24 to 60 with a majority (57 %) owning tractor of 35 to 50 hp. Hence, for the purpose of analysis all the sample tractors were taken together as one group irrespective of difference in hp.
CHAPTER-III
PROFILE OF SAMPLE BENEFICIARIES
3.1 In this chapter the profile of the sample beneficiaries in tenns of socio-economic attributes
is analysed and presented. This will be helpful in further economic analysis.
Size of the Operational Holdings
3.2 Distribution of operational land holding of the sample bon-owers before and after acquisition of
tractor, control farmers and farmers possessing second hand tractors is presented in Table 3.1. The
operational land holding in both the districts has increased after acquisition of the new tractor. The
present net cultivated holdings are 23.62 and 18.06 acres in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respec
tively. It is also seen from the table that the purchase of tractor has enabled the sample tjeneficiaries
to cultivate more land due to leasing-in of land. The leased-in area has increased from 2.41 acres to
5.00 acres in Kaithal district and from 3.30 acres to 5.08 acres in Faridabad district. Similary for
farmers possessing second hand tractors, the total operational holding as well as leased in land has
also increased. The size-wise position reveals increasing share of leased-in land with the size of
farms. The farmers resorted to leasing-in of land for better capacity utilization of tractor.
Size-Wise Distribution of Sample Beneficiaries
3.3 The information on size-wise distribution of sample borrowers given in Table 3.2 reveals
that the proportion of farmers cultivating more than 20 acres of land increased from 9 per cent to 22
per cent after the purchase of new tractor. Similariy the proportion of farmers cultivating 10-20
acres of land went up from 20 to 30 per cent after purchase of second hand tractor. The minimum
land holding cultivated by sample borrowers was reported to be 6 acres in Faridabad district and 5
acres in Kaithal district. In case of control farms, the average cultivated land is 6.56 acres and 4.65
acres in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively with only 1 farmer in both districts cultivating
more than 10 acres. In Faridabad district, the control farmers resorted to leasing out of land to the
extent of 21 per cent of their owned land. In all, the above analysis clearly establishes the advan
tage of acquiring the tractor In terms of increasing the total cultivated land (owned plus leased-in
minus leased-out).
Irrigation Status
3.4 All the sample farmers had 100 per cent area under irrigation. Source-wise irrigation pre
sented in Annexure-1 reveals that 85 per cent of the area is irrigated by tubewells and the remaining
15 per cent with canals in both the districts taken together. Among the districts, the share of tubewells
' was higher in Faridabad (89%) and lower in Kaithal (82%). In control farms also, the share of
tubewells is almost the same (87%).
Table 3.1
Size of Operational Holdings
District/ Farm Size (Acres)
Type of Tractor
rtactor Farms
Kaitlial
<10
•
10-20
>20
AM
New
Second
Hand
New
New
New
Second
Hand
Faridabad
<10
10-20
>20
All
New
Second
Hand
New
New
New
Second
Hand
Non-Tractor Farms
Kaithal
Faridabad
All
After Acquiring the Tractor
O.L. LI. L.a
5.60
5.50
15.19
30.14
18.62
5.50
4.10
3.20
4.50
6.25
5.00
3.20
— • —
— — — —
6.14
5.^6
13.29
22.20
13.15
5.16
3.29
2.20
6.43
— 5.08
2.20
— —
— 1.40
0.17
—
6.56
4.65
6.21
— — —
— — —
Net Cultivated
9.70(5)
8.70{10)
19.89{18)
36.39(11)
23.62(34)
8.70(10)
9.43(7)
7.36(10)
19.72(28)
20.80(5)
18.06(40)
7.36(10)
6.56(10)
4.65(10)
5.61(20)
Before Acquiring the Tractor
O.L. L.I. LO. Net Cultivated
7.17
4.20
16.33
32.60
16.57
4.20
t.OO
^
2.67
3.60
2.41
— —
— — — —
8.17(8)
4.20(10)
19.00(21)
36.20(5)
18.98(34)
4.20(10)
8.00
3.25
14.73
24.06
12.45
3.25
0.63
0.30
4.23
— 3.30
0.30
— —
— — — — * •
8.63(8)
3.55(10)
18.96(30)
24.06(2)
15.75(40)
3.55(10)
Increase in net cultivated land after acquiring tractor
1.53
4.50
0.69
0.19
4.64
4.50
0.80
3.81
0.76
-3.26
2.31
3.81
Figures in brackets are O.L.=Owned Land, L.I
number of sample farmers =Leased-ln Land, L.O.=Leased-out Land
Table 3.2
Distribution of Sample Farmers as per Farm Size
Farm Size
(Acres)
<10
10-20
>20
All
New Tractors
After
12(16)
46 (62)
16(22)
74(100)
Before
16(22)
51 (69)
7 ( 9 )
74 (100)
Second Hand Tractors
After
14(70)
6(30)
— 20(100)
Before
16(80)
4(20)
— 20(100)
Control Farms
19(95)
1 ( 5 )
— 20(100)
Figures in brackets are per cent to total
Family Size
3.5 The average family size of tractor and control farms is given in Annexure-2. The average family size of tractor farms is 10.07 and 7.32 for new and second hand tractor farms respectively. For control farms it is 6.22 persons per farm. District-wise comparison reveals that in Kaithal district, the family sizes were larger for second hand tractor farms and control farms On the other hand, the family sizes for new tractor farms were relatively larger in Faridabad district.
Educational Status
3.6 Information on educational level of sample households is presented in Annexure-3. Of the total adult members of new tractor owners, on an average the literacy was 61 per cent in males and 58 per cent in females whereas these respective percentages for second hand tractor owners were much lower at 34 and 26 per cent. In case of control farmers, the literacy level was 43 and 36 per cent for males and females respectively. Among the districts the literacy level is higher in Kaithal district compared to Faridabad.
Livestock Inventory
3.7 The information on livestock inventory of sample households is presented in Annexure-4. The average herd size is 7.64 animals with new tractor owners, 6.75 animals with second hand tractor owners and 6.10 animals with control farmers. It is also seen that the average size of herd of tractor owners has increased after acquiring the tractor. This is due to increase in the number of milch animals on sample farms over the time. However, the most important impact of farm mechanisation is decline in the average number of v/ork animals per farm after the acquisition of the tractor. This decline in the number of work animals on the sample farms could be related to tractor which has become a universal mode of cultivation in agriculture. Over farm sizes, the number of animals owned are positively related with the size of farm. Among the districts, average herd size is bigger in Kaithal than Faridabad.
Assets and Liabilities
3.8 The average outstanding liabilities and asse;ts (excluding tractor) per farm are given in Annexure-5. The average assets in terms of loans advanced and deposits were Rs. 10034 per farm with new tractor owners. There were no such assets with either second hand tractor owners or control farmers. However, the liabilities were observed on all farm categories which were Rs. 29578, Rs. 27700 and Rs. 26600 with new tractor farms, second hand tractor farms and control farms respectively. The district-wise analysis reveals that the average assets of new tractor owners were higher in Kaithal district whereas the average liablities were higher in Faridabad district. It is also revealed from the annexure that irrespective of the asset status of the sample households, all categories of the farmers in the study area are almost equally indebted. Further, the dependence of the sample farmers on non-institutional sources is inversly linked to their asset status.
Investment on Other Capital Assets
3.9 The capital investment other than tractors is given in Annexure-6. On tractor farms, the average per farm investment in tubewells, electric motors and diesel engines was higher with new tractor owners compared to second hand tractor owners. The district-wise per farm and per acre investment on capital items is presented in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Capital Investment (other than tractor) on Sample Farms
District
. Kaithal Faridabad Average
New Tractors Per Farm
183,529 148,612 164,654
Per Acre 9,736 10,903 10,272
1
Second Hand tractors Per Farm
25,800 '30,380 28,090
Per Acre 7,371 9,614 8,435
(Amount in Rs.' Control Farms
Per Farm 42,175 44,910 44,043
Per Acre 6,429 7,677
7,092
The above table shows that the per acre investment is higher in Faridabad district on tractor as well as control farms. Replacement of Tractor 3.10 Of the 74 sample borrowers, 65 borrowers replaced their earlier tractor with a new one from bank loan. Here the term 'replacement' denotes second time and subsequent purchases. Table 3.4 presents the reasons for replacement of tractors by the sample borrowers. It is evident from the table that 37 per cent replacements were due to excessive repair requirements and 35 per cent were due to considerations of change in hp. It is also pertinent to note that 14 per cent of replacements were on account of status symbol. Remaining 14 per cent were due to reasons like family division, accidents, social obligations, etc.
Sr. No.
1
2 3 4 5
Table 3.4 Reasons for Replacement of Tractors
Reasons
Change of hp Previous tractor required excessive repairing
Status symbol Family Division Other Reasons Total
Kaithal
11 9 4 2 3
29
Faridabad
12 15 5 3 1
36
Total
23 24 9
. 5 4
65
%age to Total
35 37 14 8 6
100
Profile of the Selected Districts Kaithal '3.11 The net area sown is 86 per cent of the total geographical area. The annual average rainfall is 365 mm and the assured irrigation is 100 per cent. Tubewells and canals contribute 44 per cent and 51 per cent of net irrigated area respectively. Paddy and wheat predominate the cropping pattern with 45.23 per cent and 42.26 per cent share iri gross cropped area. The total number of tractors in the district is 11219 in 2002 as against 12543 number of operational holdings above 4 ha. The tractor density is 57 per thousands of NSA which is lower than Faridabad and State average of 63 per thousand of NSA. Faridabad 3.12 The net area sown is 77 per cent of the total geographical area. The annual average rainfall is 377 mm and the assured irrigation is 100 per cent. Tubewells and canals contribute 80 per cent and 20 per cent of net irrigated area. Paddy, wheat, jowar and bajra predominate the cropping pattern with 10.91 per cent. 50.49 per cent, 6.98 per cent and 5.36 per cent share in gross cropped area respectively. The total number of tractors in the district is 12014 in 2002 as against 8646 number of operational holdings above 4 ha. The tractor density is 75 per thousands of NSA indicating high level of mechanisation than the state average.
10
ir
CHAPTER-IV
IMPLEMENTATION OF SCHEMES 4.1 This chapter examines the systems and procedures followed by the financing agencies in the tractor financing during the period of the study i.e. 1999-2000 to 2001-02. NABARD has disbursed a sizeable amount of refinance for tractors in Haryana State which stood at Rs. 128 crores in 1999-2000 (Table 2.1). This increased to Rs. 154 crores in 2000-01 but declined to Rs. 109 crores in 2001-02 and further to Rs. 74 crores in 2002-03. According to the Association of Tractors Manufacturers (Hindustan Times, 21, May, 2003), the fall in tractor sales is an all India phenomenon but is more acute in Haryana and Punjab. Though, the refinance to the banks was extended under automatic refinance facility (ARF), yet they are expected to adhere to certain terms and conditions like minimum acreage, minimum use of tractors, down payment, repayment period etc.
Farm Mechanisation Policy
4.2 The farm medianisation policy of NABARD is issued annually in view of all India and regional requirements, emerging needs, resources available for refinance etc. The salient features of the farm mechanisation policy with special reference to Haryana during the implementation period are given in Annexure-7. There was no change in regard to parameters such as minimum requirement of land holding, down payment and annual use of tractor. However, the refinance rate has been increased to 90 per cent for ail agencies for first time as well as second time tractors during 2001-02.
Tractor Financing in Selected Branches
4.3 The financing pattern of tractors vis-a-vis total loans during 1999-2000 and 2002-03 is presented in Table 4.1. It can be observed from the table that over the period 1999-2000 to 2002-03, none of branches recorded increase in disbursement for tractors . This indicates a slump in the tractor sales in the sample districts and is the outcome of high tractor density. The available demand for tractors is mostly for replacement purpose as also revealed by sample units (88%). The position of total disbursement figures was almost similar to tractor financing.
Table 4.1 Purpose-Wise Disbursement in Selected Branches
? (Rslakh)
District/Branch
PCARDB Kaithal
PCARDB Cheeka
SBI Kaithal
OBC Kalayat
Sub-Total
1 1999-2000
Tractors
No of Acs
57
48
70
45
220
Amount
134.01
129.13
145.53
95.16
503.83
All Purposes
No of Acs
1018
424
115
81
1638
Amount
605.77
301.11
156.12
119.05
1182.05
2000-01
Tractors
No of Acs
73
28
41
46
188
Amount
213.40
89.92
91.05
94.76
489.13
All Purposes
No of Acs
1228
496
84
82
1890
Amount
772.10
382.32
107.04
113.83
1375.29
Faridabad
PCARDB Ballabhgarh
PCARDB Palwal
GGB Mohna
PCARDB Hodal
Sub-Total
Grand-Total
33
149
14
114
310
530
79.49
333.57
25.79
259.21
698.06
1201,89
1410
847
707
1494
4458
6096
779.33
624.92
185.18
801.55
2390.98
3573.03
37
114
1
70
222
410
93.13
277.55
1.50
175.46
547.64
1036.77
1494
686
704
1152
4036
5926
917.74
596.09
178.67
836.13
2528.63
3903.92
11
n
District/Branch
PCARDB Kaithal
PCARDB Cheeka
SBI Kaithal
OBC Kalayat
Sub-Total
2001-02
Tractors
No of Acs
99
57
80
18
254
Atridunt
300.08
157.68
210.77
38:15
706.68
All Purposes
No of Acs
1371
488
130
71
2060
Amount
1033.82
584.45
239.51
66.14
1923.92
2002-03
Tractors
No of Acs
47
53
16
3
119
Amount
155.61 ;
188.82
44.15
5.80
394.38
All Purposes
No of Acs
864
375
55
58
1352
Amount
1007.37
554.70
52.73
61.00
1675.80
Faridabad
PCARDB Ballabhgarh
PCARDB Palwal
GGB Mohna
PCARDB Hodal
Sub-Total
Grand-Total
26
48
3
35
112
366
68.91
122.74
12.30
91.15
295.10
1001.78
494
715
530
850
2589
4649
420.78
624.16
163.50
568.28
1776.72
3700.64
32
36
—
34
102
221
84.75
107.79
—
96.15
288.69
683.07
219
638
628
722
2207
3559
340.72
742.40
190.48
580.80
1854.40
3530.20
Adherence to Down Payment (Margin) Norm 4.4 Branch-wise total outlay, bank loan and down payment is presented in Table 4.2. NABARD advised all banks to sanction loan as per quotations received from the manufacturers. 4.5 The average down payment worked out to be 18 per cent of the total outlay. Two branches had down payment in excess of 25 per cent as against the stipulated norm of 15 per cent. Five branches had down payments near to the stipulated norm. Of the total 74 cases, 65 borrowers had taken loans for replacement of the previous tractor. However, bank records did not corroborate this. The down payment requirement of 30 per cent for second time purchases was adhered to by only 15 per cent (10 units) of the sample units availing loan for replacement of previous tractor. Overall, about 42 per cent of the units managed with less than 15 per cent down payment. Source-wise break up of down payment revealed that 89 per cent of money for down payment came from sale of previous tractor.
Table 4.2 Total Outlay, Bank Loan and Dowi Payment
(Rs/Tractor)
District/Branch
PCARDB Kaithal PCARDB Cheeka SBI Kaithal OBC Kalayat
Sub-Total Faridabad
PCARDB Ballabhgarh PCARDB Palwal GGB Mohna PCARDB Hodal Sub-Total
Grand Total
No. of Cases
9 9 8 8
34
10 10 10 10 40
74
Total Cost of Tractor 344,778 386,644 277,500 297,625 328,935
289,500 241,680 248,559 253,700 258,360
290,786
Bank Loan
290,556 346,222 226,987 207,500 270,791
243,000 201,500 181,400 216,000 210,475
238,188
Down Payment
54222(16) 40422(10) 50513(18) .90125(30) 58144(18)
46500(16) 40180(17) 67159(27) 37700(15) 47885(19)
52598(18)
Sources of Down Payment Sale of
Previous Tractor
51,480 36,270 45,580 74,855 51,566
30,450 38,500 62,850 37,700 42,375
46,598
Own Savings
2,742 4,152 4,000
15,270 6,359
9,100 1,680
— —-
2,695
4,378
Others
— —
933 —
219
6,950 —
4,309 —
2,815
1,622
Figures in brackets denote peV cent to total outlay 12
4.6 Interaction with the bani^ officials indicated that at the time of sanction of loan, the bwrowers propose to purchase implements along with tractor but in practice most of them do not purcheKe the same in order to adjust the margin money/down payment. The study team tried to verify this and observed that the borrowers had some implements available with them but.could not estat>Bsh whether they were purchased with the tractor or were already available with the farmer.
Minimum Acreage Norm
4.7 The farm mechanisation policy states that a tK>nrower should have a minimum 8 acres of perennial irrigated land for availing a tractor loan. The implementing bani<s have broadly adhered to this requirement during the implementation period as the average owned land worthed out to be about 19 and 14 acres in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively. However, presenfly the PCARDBs and SBI are financing tractors to borrowers having minimum land holding of 5 and 4 acres respectively.
Replacement Demand
4.8 Of the total 74 sample units, 65 borrowers had purchased tractor to replace their previous/ old tractor. This clearly indicates the emergence of a strong replacement market for tractors. The minimum stipulated period for repurchase of a tractor is 3 years. Table 4.3 below presents distribution of age of old tractors at the time of sale.
Table 4.3
Frequency Distribution According to the Age of Tractors at the Time of Sale(Replacement Demand)
District/Farm Size(Acres)
Kaithal <10 10-20 >20 All
Faridabad <10
10-20 , >20 All
Grand Total % to Total
YEARS
0-3
— 2 1 3
—
3 — 3
6
9
3-5
— 1 4 5
—
2 — 2
7
11
5-8
— 2 3 5
3 7 —
10
15 23
8-10
1 9 3 13
1 10 4 15
28 43
>10
1 2 — 3
• " " \
6 — 6
9 14
All
2 16 11 29
4
28 4 36
65 100
Of the 65 repurchase cases, only 9 per cent sold the earlier tractors before 3 years, thus, violating the minimum stipulated period norm df 3 years.
Horse Power of Tractors
4.9 During the implementation period, the farm mechanisation policy envisaged that the share of tractors above 50 hp should not exceed 5 per cent of the total allocations. The distribution of sample tractors as per hp is given in Table 4.4.
13
Table 4.4
Distribution of Samite Tractors as per Horse Power
Range of Size(hp)
<35
%-50
>50
Ail
Tjfpe offTractw
New
Second Hand
New
SecondHarKi
New
Second Hand
New
Second Hand
No Farldabad
20
6
%
4
—
—
40
10
. of Trsctors Kaithal
10
5
22
5
2
—
34
10
All
30
11
42
9
2
—
74
20
Percentage to Total Farldabad
50.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
Kaithal
29.41
50.00
64.71
50.00
5.88
—
100.00
100.00
All
40.54
55.00
56.76
45.00
2.70
000
100.00
100.00
4.10 It is revealed from the table that out of 74 sample beneficiaries only 2 borrowers in Ka'itiial district purchased tractors above 50 hp. Among second hand t'actors, tiiere was no case above 50 hp. Thus, the conditbn of 'at)ove 50 hp tractors' not exceeding 5 per cent was of total finaneing was not violated. Among new tractons (loanees). about 41 per cent purchased tractors of hp less than 35 and another 57 per cent went for tractors between 35 and 50 hp. During interactions it was given to understand that the tractors below 35 hp are sufficient to carry farm operations. Tractors above 35 hp are generally required to be used in land levelling, land shaping, with reaper and harvester combine.
Time Lag in Sanction and Disbursement
4.11 Distribution of financed cases according to time in sanction and disbursement is presented in Table 4.5. The table shows that in about 91 per cent cases, the loan was sanctioned within 15 days of receipt of application from the borrower. Similarly, the disbursement of the loan took place within another 15 days in 86 per cent cases. The disbursement was delayed beyound 15 days for 14 per cent borrowers due to delay in completion of formalities. Thus, the total time taken from the date of application to disbursement was less than one month in about 86 per cent cases.
Table 4.5 Time Lag in Sanction and Disbursement of Loan
Time
lag (days)
<15 15-30
30-50
>50 All
Between Loan Ap
Farldabad
33 4
1
2 40
plication and Sanction
Kaithal
34 —
—
— 34
Total
67 (90.54) 4(5.41)
1(1.35)
2(2.70) 74(100)
Between Sanction and Disbursement
Faridabad
33 6
1
— 40
Kaithal
31 2
1
— 34
Total
64 (86.49)
8(10.81)
2 (2.70)
—
74(100)
14
i r
Period of Repayment
4.12 The period of repayment was 9 years without any grace period. Yearly instalments were fixed by PCARDBs and RRB while commercial banks fixed half yearly instalments.
Rate of Interest
4.13 During the implementation period, the rate of interest charged from borrowers by ad agencies on loans upto Rs. 2 lakh varied from 9.50% to 14.50% whereas for loans above Rs.2 lakh, the rate of interest was in the range of 10% to 17%.
Security of Loan
4.14 The loans were secured by the first mortgage of land of the borrowers and hypothecation of the tractor financed. The value of the land was determined according to rates available in revenue records and loan amount was fixed as 75 per cent of the assessed value of land. The average mortgage was 5.50 acres and 4.63 acres in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively.
Appraisal of Loan Proposals
4.15 The appraisal of loan proposals was very casual in nature. In PCARDBs, there was no effort to assess the repaying capacity of the borrower. The loan was sanctioned solely on the basis of avavilable land for mortgage. Most of officials were hot aware of the way assessment is to be carried out for working out repaying capacity and viability of the unit. On the other hand, the records of commercial banks and RRB branches contained the assessment of pre and post development income. However, the actual yield and cost of cultivation were much different when compared to the figures used in the assessment by the banks.
Insurance
4.16 The banks ensured comprehensive insurance cover at the time of financing. Renewal of insurance was not regular in PCARDBs at Ballabhgarh, Kaithal and Cheeka. Both the commercial bank branches and the RRB branch were very regular in renewing the insurance cover. The farmers were .however, against the renewal of insurance cover due to heavy amount involved in it (ranging from 1.15% to 1.63%). Bank officials also supported the view of the farmers. The aversion of the farmers for renewal of insurance was also due to other reasons such as non-acceptance of claims of some farmers in earlier tractors, farmers being unaware of the procedure for filing claims in the event of an accident/theft etc.
After Sale Service
4.17 The facilities for repair and replacement of tractor parts are available within 10 km distance in the study area. At district and tehsil headquarters, some tractor agencies have their network of service centers.
15
CHAPTER-V
' IMPACT OF INVESTMENT 5.1 This drapter disojsses the impact of investment in tractors in terms of changes in cropping patterti, yield of crops and cropping intensity on sample farms. However, before that it will be appropriate to analyse ttie use pattern of tracers and labour in both the sample districts. This will facflitate rther eojnomic anal^is in subsequent chapters.
Utilization of Tractors
5-2 The crop-wise and operation-wise use of tractors in Kaithal and Faridabad districts is presented in Annexures 8 and 9 respe<^veiy. The percentage distribution of tractor use on own farm is given in Table 5.1. It is seen from the table that out of the total use of tractors on own famis, the maximum use is on land preparation and interculture on tractor as well as non-tractor farms. This is followed by haulage and marketing operations.
Table 5.1
Percentage Distribution of Operation-Wise Use of Tractor (Percentage to total use)
Operation
Land Preparation/ Interculture
irrigation
threshing
Marketing of Input/Output
Haulage & Others
Total
Tractor Farms
New Tractors
Kaithal
42.03
5.57
8.02
17.50
26.88
100.00
Faridabad
40.47
3.30
8.84
19.17
28.22
100.00
Second Hand Tractors
Kaithal
44.16
3.60
8.89
16.08
27.27
100.00
Faridabad
42.89
—
9.52
16.81
30.78
100.00
Non-Tractor Farms
(by hiring)
Kaithal
76.11
5.50
—
18.39
—
100.00
Faridabad
73.01
—
—
26.99
—
100.00
Custom Work
5.3 The operation-wise custom work undertaken by the sample households is given in Annex-ure-10. Of the average annual custom work of 89 hours on new tractor farms, 60 per cent was for land levelling followed by 15 per cent for ploughing & sowing. Whereas on second hand tractor farms, of the total annual custom work of 119 hours, ploughing & sowing accounted for 61 per cent and land levelling accounted for 16 per cent only. The availability of custom work was higher in Kaithal district compared to Faridabad district. Farm size-wise distribution of use of tractor on custom work is presented in Annexure-11. In both districts taken together, 22 per cent of new tractor holders used tractor for more than 200 hours in a year. This ratio was 15 per cent In case of second hand tractor owners. An analysis of farm size-wise tractor use indicates that with the increase in farm size(new tractors), the percentage of borrowers not doing any custom work also increased. The major reasons indicated by the borrowers not undertating any custom work were non-receipt of hire charges in time and reluctance due to status symbol.
16
Wage/Custom Hiring Rates
5.4 The average per day rate of hiring human labour in the study area was Rs. 75. The average per hour rate for hiring the tractor was Rs. 200.
Total Use of Tractor
5.5 Table 5.2 presents the district-wise total use of tractors on sample farms. For new tractor farms, the total use was 416 hours consisting of 327 hours of own farm work and 89 hours of custom work. For second hand tractor farms the total use was 238 hours which includes 119 hours of own farm work and 119 hours of custom work. District-wise comparison indicates that the use of tractor for own farm works as well as custom work was higher [n Kaithal district on all farm categories.
Table 5.2
Per Annum Total Use of Tractors on Sample Farms
(Hours per farm)
District
Kaithal
Faridabad
Ail
Own Farm
New
390
280
327
Second
Hand
142
95
119
Non
Ttactor@
49
21
34
Custom Work
New
105
71
89
Second
Hand
120
119
119
Total Use
New
495
351
416
Second
Hand
262
214
238
Non
Tractor®
49
21
34
@ by hiring tractor
5.6 The distribution of sample farmers as per total use of tractor hours is given in Annexure-12, , It reveals that in both districts taken together, on second hand tractor farms, the maximum hours of work were restricted upto 400. Whereas in case of new tractor farms, 20 per cent farmers undertook work in excess of 400 hours.
Pattern of Use of Human Labour
5.7 Crop-wise use of hired, permanent and family labour on tractor and non-tractor farms is given in Annexure-13. The district-wise analysis shows that there was not much difference in average total use of labour in the sample distncts between tractor and non-tractor farms. The pattern of hired and permanent labour indicates that hired and permanent labour use was higher on tractor farms in both districts in crops such as paddy, wheat and potato. However, the use of family labour was higher on non-tractor farms in paddy, kharif fodder, wheat and potato. The above pattern of hired labour does not support the theory of replacement of labour with tractor. This is mainly due to the peak demand of labour.
Labour Use for Operating Tractor
5.8 The use of labour for operating the tractor is given in Table 5.3. It can be observed from the table that the per acre use of labour was almost similar on new as well as second hand tractor farms for carrying out own farm works. However, for custom related works, the per acre use was higher on second hand tractors compared to new tractors.
17
Table 5.3 Human Labour Use for Operating Tractor
(mgndays/acre)
District
Kaithal
Faridabad
Own Farm New
1.28
1.17
Second Hand
1.25
1.02
Custom Work New
0.34
0.30
Second Hand
1.05
1.27
Cropping Pattern 5.9 The cropping pattern in Kaithal district given in Table 5.4 shows that paddy and wheat are the main crops in the district occupying about 82 per cent arid 89 per cent of the gross cropped area (GCA) on new tractor farms and second hand tractor farms respectively. The other important crops are kharif fodder, rabi fodder and sugarcane. The cropping pattern before acquiring the tractor was not much different than the pattern followed after acquiring the tractor. In control farms also, the cropping pattern is almost similar to the tractor farms.
Table 5.4 Cropping Pattern in Kaithal District
Figures in brackets Indicate per cent to Gross Cropped Area
18
(GCA)
(Acres per Farnn)
Crop
Paddy
Cotton
Kharif Fodder
Artiar
Sugarcane
Wheat
Rabi Fodder
Sunflower
Potato
GCA
Cropping lntensity(%)
Cropping lntensity(%) with double weight to sugarcane
New Tractor Farms
After
14.48 (38.03)
0.39 (1.02)
1.53 (4.02)
0.75 (1.97)
1.89 (4.96)
16.79 (44.09)
1.61 (4.23)
0.19 (0.50)
0.45 (0.18)
38.08 (100)
161.22
169.22
Before
10.07 (36.03)
0.26 . (0.93)
1.36 (4.87)
0.45 (1.61)
1.48 (5.30)
12.86 (46.01)
1.26 (4.51)
0.15 (0.54)
0.06 (0.20)
27.95 (100)
151.08
159.08
Second Hand Tractor Faims
After
5.98 (42.05)
-
0.57 (4.01)
-
0.45 (3.16)
6.67 (46.91)
0.55 (3.87)
-
-
14.22 (100)
163.45
168.62
Before
2.66 (41.37)
-
0.32 (4.98)
• - •
-
3.07 (47.74)
0.35 (5.44)
-
0.03 (0.47)
6.43 (100)
153.10
—
Non-Tractor Farms
4.55 (43.62)
-
0.58 (5.56)
-
-
4.68 (44.87)
0.59 (5.66)
-
0.03 (0.29)
10.43 (100)
158.99
—
5.10 The cropping pattern in Faridabad district is presented in Table 5.5. Out of the total GCA, wheat and paddy account for 79 per cent and 84 per cent on new tractor farms and second hand tractor farms respectively. Other important crops are sugarcane, potato, kharif and rabi fodder. Besides, sunflower is another important crop on new tractor farms. In control farms wheat accounts for 47 per cent of GCA followed by paddy(41 %). Like Punjab, use of tractor has become a universal mode of farming in Haryana. Therefore, the above analysis involving 'before and after' and 'with and without' approaches does not indicate large changes in cropping pattern.
Table 5.5 Cropping Pattern in Faridabad District
(Acres per Farm)
Crop
Paddy
Cotton
Kharif Fodder
Arhar
Sugarcane
Wheat
Rabi Fodder
Sunflower
Potato
GCA
Cropping lntensity(%)
Cropping lntensity(%)with double weight to sugarcane
New Tractor Farms
After
12.18 (40.87)
—
0.89 (2.99)
—
2.68 (8.99)
11.31 (37.95)
0.97 (3.25)
1.02 (3.42)
0.75 (2.53i
29.80 (100)
165.01
179.84
Before
9.96 (39.03)
—
0.82 (3.21)
—
1.43 (5.60)
10.96 (42.95)
1.07 (4.19)
1.17 (4.58)
0.11 (0.44)
25.52 (100)
162.03
171.11
Second Hand Tractor Farms
After
5.03 (42.99)
—
0.70 (5.98)
0.24 (2.05)
0.40 (3.42)
4.80 (41.03)
0.53 (4.53)
-
-
•11.70 (100)
158.97
164.40
Before
2.31 (42.00)
—
0.38 (6.91)
0.01 (0.18)
0.10 (1.82)
237 (43.09)
0.33 (6.00)
-
-
5.50 (100)
154.93
157.75
Non-Tractor Farms
3.03 (41.00)
—
0.41 (5.55)
—
—
3.47 (46.95)
0.48 (6.50)
-
-
7.39 (100)
158.92
—
Figures in brackets indicate per cent to Gross Cropped Area(GCA)
Cropping Intensity
5.11 The cropping intensity for Kaithal and Faridabad districts are presented in Tables 5.4 and 5.5. In Kaithal district, the cropping intensity has increased by about 10 per cent on both new as well as second hand tractor farms after the acquisition of tractor In case of Faridabad, the cropping intensity has increased by 9 per cent in case of new tractors and 6 per cent in case of second hand tractors. The increase, though not large, is not insignificant. On the other hand the cropping intensity on non-tractor farms at 159 per cent was also high but lower than tractor farms.
19
CHAPTER-VI
ECONOMICS OF INVESTMENT 6.1 In this chapter, economics of investment in terms of parametres like ihpome from crops, income from custom services etc. has been worked out for tractor and non-tractor farms. The inputs and OL^uts have been valued at 2002-03 prices,^
Cost of Cultivation
6.2 Per acre average cost of cultivation has been worked out for tractor and non-tractor farms and has been presented in Annexure-14. The major items of cost of cultivation are expenditure on seeds, manure/fertilizers, pesticides, O&M cost/hiring charges of tractor, hiring charges of human labour, interest on working capital, etc. Some important items of expenditure are discussed below before attempting further analysis.
Operation and Maintenance Cost of Tractor
6.3 The total average annual use for new tractor farms works out to be 495 hours in Kaithal district and 351 hours in Faridabad district. The figures for second hand tractor farms are 262 hours in Kaithal district and 214 hours in Faridabad district. Annexure-15 presents the detailed break-up of O&M cost of tractor in Kaithal and Faridabad districts. The average age of new tractors during the reference year was found to be 1.57 years and 2.72 years in Kaithal and Faridabad districts. For second hand tractors, it was 6.75 years and 6.23 years in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively. The per tractor annual maintenance,repair and miscellaneous expenses including insurance works out to be Rs.7664 and Rs.7161 for new tractors and Rs. 9465 and Rs.9213 for second hand tractors in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively. The maintenance items included change of parts and engine oils, labour cost etc. Miscellaneous expenditure included the insurance premium. The details regarding per hour operation and maintenance cost of tractor are given in Table 6.1. The expenses on fuel/lubricants on the basis of average consumption work out to be Rs. 84.58 and Rs. 87.10 for new tractors and Rs. 96.16 and Rs. 97.86 for second hand tractors in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively. It can be noted that the total per hour expenses on tractor increased with the age of the tractor.
Other Items in Cost of Cultivation
6.4 The expenditure on manure, fertilisers and pesticides taken together accounts for about 30 per cent of the total cost in paddy, wheat,cotton and sugarcane in both Kaithal and Faridabad districts on tractor farms. Whereas on non-tractor farms, this proportion is 28 per cent and 26 per cent in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively. The O&M cost per acre for main crops like paddy, wheat, cotton and sugarcane works out to be 23 per cent and 22 per cent in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively while the rent paid by the non-tractor owners accounts for 31 per cent and 30 per cent of the total cost in the above districts. The tractor power was supplemented with harvestor combine which accounted for about 10 per cent on tractor farms and 11 percent on non-tractor farms in paddy crop. In wheat crop too, the charges for harvestor combine accounted for about 9 per cent on both tractor and non-tractor farms.
20
Table 6.1 Operational and Maintenance Exp€»nses on Tractor
(Amount in Rs.)
Particulars
Tractor Use (Hours)
(a) Own Farm
(b) Custom Hiring
(c) Total
Per Hour Expenditure on
Maintenance/Repair
Fuel/Lubricants
Misc.
Total
Kaithal
New Tractor Farms
390
105
495
13.34
84.58
2.14
100.06
Second Hand Tractor Farms
142
120
262
31.12
96.16
5.00
132.28
Faridabad
New Tractor Farms
280
71
351
17.91
87.10
2.50
107.51
Second Hand Tractor Farms
95
119
214
35.64
97.86
7.41
140.91
Income from Crops
6.5 District-wise gross income and net income from crops are presented in Table 6.2. The gross income from crops grown by the new tractor owners averaged Rs. 22118 and Rs. 23578 per acre of net sown area in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively. For second hand tractor owners these figures are Rs. 22131 and Rs. 21069 in the sample districts. The values for non-tractor owners were lower at Rs. 19382 and Rs. 19589 due mainly to the lower yields observed on these farms. The average net income per holding worked out to be Rs.265255 and Rs.90302 in Kaithal district and Rs.213338 and Rs.74166 in Faridabad district on tractor farms. On control farms, this was Rs. 73479 and Rs. 50618 in Kaithal and Faridabad district respectively.
Income from Custom Services
6.6 Income arising out of custom services is presented in Table 6.3. As mentioned eariier, the average use of tractors for custom services is 105 hours and 71 hours in Kaithal and Fqridabad districts for new tractors. For second hand tractors, these values are 120 hours and 119 hours in the above respective districts. Due to lower average land holding, the second hand tractor owners resoted to more custom work. The income realised from custom services is given in Table 6.3.
21
Table 6.2
Per Farm and Per Acre Net Income on Sample Farms
Particulars
1. Average Farm
Size(acres}
New Tractor Farms
23.62
II. Gross Income (i) Per Farm
(ii) Per Acre
522421
22118
III. Cost of Cultivation
(i) Per Farm
(a) Without Family Labour
(b) Witii Family Labour
(ii) Per Acre
(a) Without Family labour
(b) With Family Labour
173.955
217.166 ,
7.365
9.194
IV. Rental Paid/Received (per farm
(i)Paicl
(H) Received
(Ki) Net Income
40000
0
-40000
V. Net income
(i)PerFarrn
(a) Without Family Labour
(b) With Family Labour (ii) Per Acre
(a) Without Family Labour
(b) With Family Labour
308466
265255
13060
11230
Kaithal
Second Hand
Tractor Famis
8.70
192.543
22131
63,505
76641 »
7299
8,809
) 25600
0
-25600
. 103438
90302
11889
10380
Non-Tractor Farms
6.56
127149
19382
41,944
53,670
6,394
8,181
0
0
0
85205
73479.
12989
11201
New Tractor Farms
18.06
425813
23578
144,159
174,555
7,982
9,665
39280
1360
-37920
243734
213336"
13496
11813
Faridabad
Second Hand
Tractor Farms
7.36
155067
21069
51,367
63,301
6,979
8,601
17600 0
-17600
. 86100
74166
11698
10077
(Rupees)
Non-Tractor Farms
4.65
91090
19589
30,324
40,472
6,521
8704
0
0
0
60766
50618
13068
10886
* Per acre refers to Net Sown Area Table 6.3
Income from Custom Services
Particulars
Gross Income
O&MCost
Net Income
Kaithal
New Tractor Farms
21,000
10,506
10,494
'Second Hand Tractor Farms ,
24,000
15,874
8,126
(Amount in'Rs.)
Faridabad
New Tractor Farms
14,200
7,633
6.567
Second Hand Tractor Farms
23,800
16,768
7,032
22
Incremental Income
6.7 Total incremental income from own fahn, leased larKl and custom services has been worked out and presented in Table 6.4 and 6.5.
Table 6.4 Net Incremental Income on New and Second Hand Tractor Farms in Kaithal District
Particulars
\
New Tractor Farms
WithFL Without FL 1. Income from Own Farm
Average owned land(acres)
Before tractor(original)
Addition after tractor
Average Gross Income/acre
Average Cost of cultivation/acre
Net Income/acre
Net Incremental Income/acre
18.62
16.57
2.05
22.118
9,194
12,924
1,723
18.62
16.57
2.05
22,118
7,365
14,753
1,765
Total Net incremental Income
For original portion of land
For added land after tractor
Total
28,550
26,494
55,044
29.246
30,244
59,490
2. Income from Leased Land
NetArea(acres)
Net Income
Rent Paid
Income net of rent
Inaemental lna)me
2.59
33,473
20,720
12,753
12,753
2.59
38,210
20,720
17,490
17.490
3. Income through Custom Services
Gross Income
Cost
Net Income
4. Total
Incremental Income
21.000
11,491
9,509
77,306
21.000
10;506
10,494
87,474
Second Hand Tractor Famis
WithFL Without FL
5.5
4.2
1.3
22,131
8,809
13.322-
2,121
5.5
4.2
1.3
22.131
7,299
14,832
1.844
8.908
17,319
26.227
7.745
19,282
27,027
3.2
42.630
25.600
17.030
17,030
3.2
47,462
25,600
21,862
21,862
24,000
16.999
7.001
50,258
24,000
15.874
8.126
57.015
' (Amount in Rupees)
Control Farms
WithFL Without FL
6.56
19.382
8,181
11,201
-
6.56
19.382
6,394
12,988
0 0
FL= Family Labour
23
Table 6.5
Net Incremental Income on New and Second Hand Tractor Farms in Faridabad District
(Amount in Rupees)
Parti<»ilars New Tractor Farms
WittiFL
1. Income from Own Fann
Average ovMied
land(acres)
Before tractor(origina))
Addition after tractcK
Average Gross
Income/acre
Average Cost of
cultivation/acre
Net Income/acre
Net Incrementari
Income/acre
13.15
12.45
0.7
23,578
9.665
13.913
3.028
Total Net Incremental Income
For original
• portion of land
Foradded land
after tractor
Total
37.699
9.739
47.438
2. Income from Leased Land
Net Area{acres)
• Net Income.
Rent Paid
Income net of rent
Incremental income
1.61
22.400
12.880
9,520
9,520
3. Income through Custom Service:
Gross Income
Cost
Netlncome
4. Total
Incremental Income
14,200
8,299
5,901
62,859
Without FL
13.15
12.45
0.7
23.578
7.982
15,596
2.528
•
31.474
10.917
42,391
1.61
25,110
12,880
12,230
12.230
14.200
7.633
6.567
61,188
Second Hand Tractor
Farms
With FL
5.16
3.25
1.91
21,069
8,601
12.468
1,583
5,145
23.814
28.959
1.9
23.689
15.200
8,489
8,489 '
23.800
17,884
5,916
43,364
Without FL
5.16
3.25
1.91
21,069
6.979
14,Q90
1.022
3.321
26,912
30,233
1.9
26,771
15,200
11,571
11.571
23,800
16.768
7,032
48,836
Control Farms
With FL
4.65
19,589
8.704
10,885
0
0
Without FL
4.65
19.589
6,521
13.068
0
0
FL= Family Labour
24
CHAPTER-VII
FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF INVESTMENT
7.1 In this chapter an effort has been made to ascertain the financial viability of new as well as second hand tractors in Kaithal and Faridabad districts. The viability has been worked out in terms of Financial Rate of Return (FRR) using costs and benefits at reference year prices. The Cost of investment at historical prices is given in Table 7.1. To account for cost of investment at current prices, prices of tractors of different hp were collected from tractor dealers in the study area(Table 7.2). The average age of second hand tractors was about 5 years at the time of purchase and therefore the average price of 5-year old second hand tractor has been taken for economic analysis. The average prices of tractors were computed on the basis of hp-wise pattern of possession of tractors by the sample beneficiaries.
Table 7.1
Cost of Investment at Historical Prices
(Amount in Rs. lakh)
Range of hp
<35
35-50
>50
All
Kaithal
New
Without Accessories
2.33
2.99
3.13
2.80
With* Accessories
2.36
3.09
3.65
2.91
Second hand
1.11
1.63
—
1.37
Faridabad
New
Without Accessories
2.18
2.87
—
2.53
With* Accessories
2.21
2.95
—
2.58
Second hand
1.02
1.67
—
1.28
out of 74 beneficiaries, only 16 purchased accessories alongwith tractor
Table 7.2
Cost of Investment at 2002-03 Prices
Range
of hp
<35
35-50
>50
All
V
N umber of Tractors
Kaithal
New
10
22
2
34
Second
Hand
5
5
—
10
Faridabad
New
20
20
—
40
Second
Hand
6 4
—
10
(Amount in Rs.)
Average Cost at Current Prices
Kaithal
New
257,200
346,285
381,000
322,126
Second
Hand
(5 yrs old)
120,000
175,000
—
147,500
Faridabad
New
248,000
345,210
—
296,605
Second
Hand
(5 yrs old)
110,000
180,000
—
138,000
25
Financial Viability
7.2 FRR has been worked out based on the following assumptk)ns:
(i) Life of tractor has been considered as 10 years for new tractor and 5 years for second hand tractor.
(ii) The investment cost of the tractor is accounted in the zero year of the project.
(iii) The weighted average of operational and maintenance cost per hour was taken to iron out the differences due to varying hp and age of tractors with the sample farmers.
(iv) Full benefits due to the tractor has been taken from the first year itself as the use of tractor has become traditional in the study area.
7.3 Cash flow for new and second hand tractors is presented in Tables 7.3 through 7.6. It can be observed from the tables that the new tractors as well as second hand tractors are financially viable in both districts as the FRR works out to be more than 15 per cent.
Table 7.3
Cash Flow for New Tractors (with Family Labour)
(Amount in Rs.)
Particulars
A. Out Flow
Capital Cost
B. Inflow
Own Farm
Custom
Salvage Value
Total Inflow
C. Net Cash Flow
Net Present Worth
of outflow© 15%
Net Present Worth
of inflow® 15%
B.C. Ratio
FRR(%)
Y E A R S
0
Kaithal
322,126
0
0
0
0
-322,126
322,126
395,943
1.23
20.64
Faridabad
296,605
0
0
0
0
-296,605
296,605
322,806
1.09
17.22
1-9
Kaithal
—
67,797
9,509
—
77,306
77,306
Faridabad
—
56,958
5,901
—
62,859
62,859
10
Kaithal
—
67,797
9,509
32,213
109,519
109,519
Faridabad
—
56,958
5.901
29,660
92,519
92,519
26
Table 7.4
Cash Flow for New Tractors (without Family Labour)
(Amount fn Rs.)
Particulars
A. Out Flow
Capital Cost
B. Inflow
Own Farm
. Custom
Salvage Value
Total Inflow
C. Net Cash Flow
Net Present Worth of outflow© 1.5%
Net Present Worth
of inflow® 15%
B.C. Ratio
FRR(%)
Kaithal
322,126
0
0
0
0
-322,126
322.126
447,770
1.39
24.36
0
Faridabad
. 296,605
0
0
0
0
-296.605
296.605
314.420
1.06
16.51
Y E A R S
1-9
Kaithal
—
76.980
10,494
—
87,474
87,474
Faridabad
—
54,621
6,567
—
61.188
61,188
Kaithal
—
76,980
10,494
32,213
119,687
119,687
10
Faridabad
—
54,621
6.567
29,660
90,848
90,848
Table 7.5 Cash Flow for Second Hand Tractors (with Family Labour)
(Amount in Rs.) Particulars
A. Out Flow
Capital Cost B. Inflow Own Farm Custom Salvage Value Total Inflow C. Net Cash Flow Net Present Worth of outflow® 15% Net Present Worth of inflow® 15%
. B.C. Ratio FRR(%)
Kaithal
147,500 s
0. 'idSS 0 nB • 0 • 0
-147,500 147,500
175,806
1.19 22.57
0
Faridabad
138,000
m- 0 ,.„. 0
0 0
-138,000 -138,000
152,224
1.06 19.12
Y E A R S 1-9
Kaithal
—
43,257 7,001
— 50,258 50,258
i
Faridabad
—
37,448 5,916
— 43,364 43,364
Kaithal
—
43,257 7,001 14,750 65,008 65,008
•
10
Faridabad
—
37,448 5,916 13,800 57,164 57,164
27
Table 7.6 Cash Flow for Second Hand Tractors (without Family Labour)
Particulars
A. Out Flow
Capital Cost
B. Inflow
Own Farm
Custom
Salvage Value
C. Net Cash Flow
Net Present Worth
of outflow© 15%
Net Present Worth
of inflow© 15%
B.C. Ratio
FRR(%)
Kaithal
147.500
0
0
0
-147,500
147,500
199,190
1.35
28.39
0
Faridabad
138,000
0
0
0
-138,000
138,000
170,567
1.24
24.26
Y E A R S
1-9
Kaithal
—
48,889
8,126
—
57,015
Faridabad
—
41,804
7,032
—
48,836
(A mount in Rs.)
10
Kaithal
—
48,889
8,126
14,750
71,765
Faridabad
—
41,804
7,032
13,800
62.636
Sensitivity Analysis
7.4 In order to examine the vulnerability of profitability to changes in various parameters that go into computing the economics, sensitivity analysis has been attempted as follows: (i) By increasing the diesel prices by 10 per cent (ii) By reducing the returns by 10 per cent (ill) By increasing the Investment cost by 10 per cent The results are presented in Table 7.7. The results indicate that the investment in both categories of tractors jn the study area can withstand the variations in various factors except in Faridabad district where ERR is marginally lower than 15 per cent.
Table 7.7 Sensitivity Analysis-FRR(%)
Parameter
Diesel Prices increased by 10%
Returns reduced by 10%
Investment Cost increased by 10%
Kait New
WithFL 18.04
17.67
17.99
Without FL 21.52
21.12
21.46
tial Faridabad Second Hand
With FL 18.59
17.93
18.53
Without FL 24.01
23.33
23.95
New With FL 14.87
14.48
14.79
Without FL 14.20
13.82
14.13
Second Hand WithFL 15.36
14.71
15.30
Without FL 20.17
19.50
20.10
FL= Family Labour
28
CHAPTER-Vm REPAYMENT PERFORMANCE
8.1 The financial strength of the banks depends upon the recycling of the funds. This, in turn. necessitates repayment of the toaris withtn stipulated tinre. Thus, an attempt has been made in this chapter to analyse the repayment perfonmance of the sample tractor famns as aiso to study the incidence of overdues arKi factors responsible for them. . Recovery Position of Banks 8.2 The recovery and overdue position of sample bank branches (D=DemarKl. C=Cottection, B=Balance) is given below in Table 8.1
Table 8.1 Recovery and overdues of Sample Branches
(Rs. lakhs) Particulars
a) PCARDB Baliabhgarh
. 1. Total Loans
2. FM loans
3) PCARDB Palwal 1. Total loans
2. FM loans
c) GGB Mohna 1. Total Loans
2. FM loans
d) PCARDB Hodal 1. Total Loans
2. FM Loans
e) PCARDB Kaithal 1. Total Loans
2000-01 D
1345.35
73.82
941.93
198.29
263.07
66.47
1316.15
262.98
955.08
C
679.75
24.20
636.77
177.99
208.36
45.19
952.95
237.08
740.22
B
665.60 (49.47) 49.42 (66.95)
305.16 (32.40) 20.30 (10.24)
54.71
(20.80) 21.28 (32.01)
363.20 (27.60)
25.90
(9.85)
214.86 (22.50)
2001-02 D
1674.10
84.84
1170.50
347.00
274.09
62.24
1590.60
250.26
1229.32
C
901.51
48.10
796.33
324.90
224.20
41.71
1116.42
204.16
862.10
B
772.59 (46.15) 36.74 (43.31)
374.14 (31.97) 22.10 (6.37)
49.89 (18.20) 20.53
(32.99)
474.18
(29.81)
46.10
(18.42)
367.22 (29.87)
2002-03 D
2242.88
184.30
1576.54
297.53
305.47
41.43
1764.68
338.66
1573.66
C
1222.36
125.36
982.18
223.02
282.65
26.69 "
1135.85
240:51
1113.86
B
1020.52 (45.50) 58.94
(31.98)
594.36 (37.70) 74.51 (25.04)
22.82 (7.47) 14.74
(35.58)
628.83
(35.63)
98.15
(28.98)
459.80 (29.22)
29
2. FM Loans
f)PCARDB Cheeka 1. Total Loans
2. FM Loans
g) SB! Kaithal 1, Total Loans
2. FM Loans
h) OBC Kalayat 1. Total Loans
2. FM Loans
309-11
563.84
266.86
493.00
425.00
44.67
36.01
237.39
493.37
244.76
292.00
267.00
31.05
23.87
31.72 (10.26)
70.47 (12.50) 22.10 (8.28)
202.00 (40.97) 158.00 (37.18)
13.62 (30.49) 12.14
(33.71)
412.03
646.83
294.52
554.00
479.00
60.43
48.25
339.28
526.78
255.40
323.00
295.00
40.67
31.17
72.75 (17.66)
120.05 (18.56) 39.12
(13.28)
231.00 (41.70) 184.00 (38.41)
19.76 (32.70) 17.08
(35.40)
453.85
806.65
331.37
584.00
503.00
49.27
39.96
322.23
667.80
260.44
339.00
307.00
33.64
28.20
131.62 (29.00)
138.85 (17.21) 70.93
(21.41)
251.00 (42.98) 196.00 (38.97)
15.63 (31.72) 11.76
(29.43)
Figures in brackets are percentage to^emand.
It can be seen from the table that the recovery position in FM loans is higher compared to total loans in all sample branches except GGB Mohana and OBC Kalayat. Branch-wise analysis shows that the recovery position was comfortable in all sample branches except PCARDB, Ballabhgarh. Over the years, the recovery performance has shown some improvement in two branches i.e.
PCARDB.Ballabhgarh and OBC. Kalayat.
Repayment Performance of Sample Units
8.3 The per unit repayment performance of sample tractor farms (Table 8.2) indicated that the
Table 8.2
Repayment Performance of Sample Farms
.(Rs. lakhs/Unit)
Sr. No.
1
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
Particulars
PCARDB Ballabhgarh
PCARDB Palwal
GGBMohna
PCARDB Hodal
PCARDB Kaithal
PCARDB Cheeka
SBI Kaithal
OBC Kalayat
Demand
1.30
1.91
0.52
1.55
0.54
•1.25
0.38
0.36
Collection
0.86
1.47
0.44
1.50
0.37
0.95
0.17
0.32 .
Balance
0.44
0.44
0.08
0.05
0.17
0.30
0.21
0.04
% balance to demand
33.85
23.04
15.38
3.23
31.48
24.00
55.26
11.11
30
recovery percentage of sample borrowers in all branches was in excess of 45 per cent ranging between 45 to 97 per cent. The per unit highest overdyes were observed in SBI. Kaithal (42.11 %). 8.4 The average incidence of overdues was also worked out and has been presented in Table-8.3
Table 8.3 Classification of Sample Units as per Incidence of Overdues
Level of
Overdues {%)
Nil
1-25
26-50
51-75
76-100
Total
No. of Units
Kaithal
20 (59)
1
(3)
3
(9)
3
(9)
7 • (20)
34 (100)
Faridabad
20 (50)
80 (20)
4 (10)
6 (15)
2
(5)
40 (100)
Average Incidence of Overdues(*/o)
Kaithal
0.00
10.00
41.57
61.85
95.59
33.19
Faridabad
0.00
15.51
36.70
32.40
100.00
16.98
Figures In brackets indicate percentage to total
It is seen from the table that more than 50 per cent of borrowers in both districts had no overdues. The overdues were on a higher scale in Faridabad district compared to Kaithal. Of the 41 per cent defaulters in Kaithal district, 29 per cent had overdues exceeding 50 per cent. Whereas in Faridabad district, the percentage of defaulters having overdues in excess of 50 per cent was 20. Further, in Kaithal district, 20 per cent units had overdues more than 95 per cent and 5 per cent units in Faridabad district had 100 per cent overdues. The overall incidence of overdues worked out to be 33 per cent and 17 per cent in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively.
Reasons for Default
8.5 The reasons for default included family divisions(2 cases), illness involving large expenditure(1 case), non-receipt of sugarcane payment from sugar mill (3 cases), less crop yield due to drying-up of tubewell(2 cases)^ purchase of land (2 cases), inability to use tractor on custom hiring due to ban on commercial use of farm tractors(2 cases), diversion of money to fulfill social needs(3 cases), etc.
Rationality of Repayment Period
8.6 All the sample branches have fixed nine years for repayment without any grace period. While PCARDBs and RRB fixed yearly instalments, commercial banks fixed half-yearly instalments. The average loan amount @ 85 per cent of the cost of tractor works out to be Rs.279595 and Rs.219606 in Kaithal and Faridabad districts. The annual equated instalments at the prevailing rate of interest of 12 per cent works out to be Rs. 48929 and Rs.38431 in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively. These instalment amount are 50 per cent and 51 per cent of per holding net income of the borrowers in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively. Therfore, the present repayment period of 9 years is justified.
31
ChafMber-IX
Second Hand Tractor Market
9.1 The smsri^marginal s^ment of t t« fanrang community which is 'ineligible' for financial assistance for a new b'actor from the instttiiAicmari diannels can at best afford a comparatively cheaper seoMxl hand tractor. The eidstenoe of well (xganised arxi accessible market for second hand tractors is of paramount impcKtance espedafly to tills segment An attempt has been made in this d»pter to understand the avaiabie m a r l i n g arrarigement Ibr buying and selling of second hand tractors in Haryana state. TlKXigh there was no financing for second hand tractors in the sample branches, yet this is a msyor sector for tmth 'eligible' and Ineligible' farmers.
Marketing System in H»yana State
9.2 In Haryana state there are no organised peikxScal tractor markets where second hand tractors from nearby areas are brought togettier for sale. However, ttie existing system can be classified into tiiree categories.
(a) Seller-Buyer
9.3 Under this system the buyer and seller are generally known to each other as they t)elong to nearby/adjoining localities. The price of the tractor is finalised by mutual agreement based on the general condition of engine, gear box, etc. Due to direct contact vMth each other, both are benefit-ied as they escape exploitation in the hands of agents and do not have to shell out hefty amounts as commission. The buyer cari rest assured about the quality of the tractor as it happens to be from the nearby area and generally known to him.
(b) Seller-Commission Agent-Buyer
9.4 This is the most prevelant system of marketing second hand tractors in the state. The commission agent is the keyperson in this channel and helps in settling the deal. The agent is generally a local person who roams around in various villages to ascertain the prospective buyers and sellers of second hand tractors. In lieu of his services, he charges Rs. 5000-10000/- from each party. This system facilitates both buyers and sellers in locating more alternatives at a faster pace.
(c) Dealer-Buyer/Seiler
9.5 Under this this system, the agencies/manufacturers handling the sale of new tractors also
dealin the purchase and sale of second hand tractors. All the district headquarters and most other
big towns in the state have good number of tractor dealers. In Faridabad district, Faridabad,
Ballabhgarh and Palwal are having sizeable number of dealers. In Palwal town alone, 16-17 brands
of tractor are available. Similarly, Kaithal also has a good tractor market where almost all major
tractor brands are available. This channel enables the seller to dispose off his tractor directly to the
dealer and/or purchase a new tractor. The dealers offer higher price for the second hand tractor as
It provides them assured client/market. On purchase from the farmer, the tractor is repaired for
rriinor defects and/or painted/polished to give it a new/better look and make it ready for sale to other
32
interested party. The interaction with some of the dealers in the study area has revealed that in the above process, they enjoy a margin ranging from Rs.20000 to Rs. 35000. Of late this system is gaining popularity since the dealers/manufactures aliso arrange bank loans to those who wish to purchase new tractor.
Tractor Markets Outside the State
9.6 Punjab happens to be the state boardering Haryana. In Punjab, major markets for second hand tractors adjoining Haryana are Patiala, Bhatinda and Mansa. Incidentally, Patiala is the largest market for second hand tractors in Asia and it is as old as Independent India. Customers from as far as Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttranchal, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, H.P. and J&K visit the market to strike a bargain for second hand tractors and rare tractor parts. Though there has been a stump in the market over the past few years, there is an estimated transaction of Rs. 10 lakh everyday. Around 300 shops employing 1500 workers deal in second hand tractors at Patiala.
33
Chapter-X
Problems and Prospects of Tractors
Problems Facing the Tractor Financing
10.1 Poor Appraisai System
The appraisal system adopted by the financing banks at the time of loan sanctions is mostly solely based on ensuring the minimum stipulated acreage and ignoring other important factors such as demand, incremental income, individual entrepreneurship, other resources of the borrowers etc. The result has been indiscriminate financing which also affects the opportunities for custom work to the existing tractor holders. The above is also indicated by insignificant changes in cropping pattern, cropping intensity and yield.
10.2 High Tractor Density
Over the years tractors have become a major source of farm power in agriculture sector in the state. The availability of easy credit and wide network of tractor markets in the state has r^ulted in high tractor density. This way a level of saturation has been reached. Further, during the last 4-5 years, there has been decline in the sale of tractors. According to Association of Tractor Manufacturers, the sale effractors in Haryana state declined from 19980 units in 1999-2000 to 14403 units in 2001-02.
10.3 Stiff Competition from Private Financers
The declining pattern of tractor financing observed in the banks is influenced by the presence of private players in the field. Mahindra is directly financing tractors by pledging just 1 -2 acres of land. Similarly UTI bank is offering tractor loans at 3 acres. The financing of tractors at such low land holdings is yitiating the whole atmosphere by putting the poor farmers under indebtness. This.if goes unchecked ,will put the entire system out of rails and may add to the NPAs of the financing institutions in the years to come.
10.4 Repacement of Gid Tractors
About 20 per cent of the borrowers replaced their old tractors within 5 years of purchase. Some of
them had genuine reasons but most of them were lured by the dealers who purchased the old
tractors at higher price and in return compelled the farmers to purchase a new tractor from them at
a high price.
10.5 Second l-land Tractor Financing
The second hand tractors constituted about 1 per cent of the total FM financing in the state. The
study revealed that the major reasons for negligible share of second hand tractors in the overall
FM portfolio are farmers aversion to purchase second hand tractors due to high repair requiremants,
difficulties in assessing the value of the tractor and banks unwillingness to finance due to their
belief that the transactions take place mostly among family members.
34
10.6 Uneven Distribution of Tractors
The total annual use of the tractors worked out to be 495 hours in Kaithal district and 351 hours in Faridabad district which is much less than the stipulated use of 1000 hours. Out of this, the use for custom hiring was 105 hours in Kaithal district and 71 hours in Faridabad district respectively. The reasons for such a scenario are high density and uneven distribution of tractors, uniform cropping pattern in the area, social status symbol attached with tractor ownership etc. Therfore, there is a need to normalise the distribution of tractor population from area to area so that prospects for custom hiring could be increased.
Propects of Tractor Financing
The proportion of small and marginal holdings in the state is 67 per cent and in the study districts it is 77 per cent in Kaithal and 69 per cent in Faridabad. With such a high proportion of 'ineligible' farmers and present high tractor density in the state, the future prospects for tractor financing exits mainly for replacement of the existing stock. For small farmers, the prospects lies in second hand tractors.
35
CHAPTER-XI
MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11.1 The present study was undertaken to evaluate the ground level performance of the tractor units in Haryana state. In view of the falling farm Incomes and decrease in the anuual use of tractors, an attempt has also been made to compare the economics of new tractors with second hand tractors.
Major Findings
Adherence to Terms and Conditions
11.2 The average down payment worked out to be 18 per cent of the total outlay. The down payment requirement of 30 per cent for second time purchases was adhered to by only 15 per cent (10 units) of the sample units availing loan for replacement of previous tractor. Overall, about 42 per cent of the units managed with less than 15 per cent down payment.
11.3 The implementing banks have broadly adhered to the requirement of 8 acres of perennial irrigated land while disbursing loan during the implementation period as the average owned land worked out to be about 19 and 14 acres in KaithaJ and Faridabad districts respectively. However, presently the PCARDBs and SBI are financing tractors to borrowers having minimum land holding of 5 and 4 acres respectively.
11.4 Of the 65 repurchase cases, 9 per cent sold the earlier tractors before 3 years, thus, violating the minimum stipulated period norm of 3 years. The stipulated requirement of share of tractors above 50 hp not exceeding 5 per cent was adhered to.
11.5 The study revealed that in about 91 per cent cases, the loan was sanctioned within 15 days of receipt of application from the borrower. Similarly, the disbursement of the loan took place within 15 days in 86 per cent cases. Thus, in most of the cases (86%), the time taken was about one month from date of application to loan disbursement. The period of repayment was 9 years without any grace period. Yearly instalments were fixed by PCARDBs and RRB while commercial banks fixed half yearly instalments. .
11.6 The appraisal of loan proposals was very casual in nature. In PCARDBs, there was no effort to assess the repaying capacity of the borrower. The loan was sanctioned solely on the basis of avavilable land for mortgage. The commercial banks and RRB branches did work out the pre and post development income but the actual yield and cost of cultivation were much different when compared to the figures used in the assessment by the banks. Renewal of insurance was regular in commercial bank branches and the RRB branch but the PCARDBs at Ballabhgarh, Kaithal and Cheeka were not regular in doing so.
Profile of Sample Beneficiaries
11.7 The average size of the own holding of sample borrowers was 18.85 acres and 13.63 acres in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively as against 6.56 acres and 5.^5 acres of the control farmers in the above respective districts. The second hand tractor owners possessed 3.50 acres and 3.16 acres of own land in the above districts respectively. The purchase of tractor has enabled the sample beneficiaries to cultivate more land due to leasing-in of land,thus, increasing their net cultivated holding to 23.62 acres and 18.06 acres in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively.
36
11.8 All the sample farmers had 100 per cent area under inrigation. 85 per cent of the area was irrigated by tubewells and the remainir^g 15 per cent with canals in both the districts taken together. Among the districts, the share of tubewells was higher in Faridabad (89%) and lower in Kaithal (82%). In control farms also, the share of tubewells was almost the same (87%).
11.9 The average family size of tractor farms was 10.07 and 7.32 for new and second hand tractor farms respectively. For control farms it was 6.22 persons per farm. Of the total adult members of new tractor owners, on an average literates were 61 per cent in males and 58 per cent in females whereas these respective percentages for second hand tractor owners were much lower at 34 and 26 per cent respectively. In case of control farmers, the literacy level was 43 and 36 per cent for males and females respectively. The literacy level is higher in Kaithal district compared to Faridabad.
11.10 There was significant reduction in number of work animals in all tractor owners after acquiring tractor. Some farmers even disposed off all their work animals after acquiring tractor. However, the total number of animals (mostly milch animals) increased after purchasing tractor and was more than the control sample. The average herd size was 7.64 animals with new tractor owners, 6.75 animals with second hand tractor owners and 6.10 animals with control farmers.
11.11 The study revealed that the average assets of new tractor owners were higher in Kaithal district whereas the average liablities were higher in Faridabad district. Further, irrespective of the asset status of the sample households, all categories of the farmers in the study area were almost equally indebted. The dependence of the sample farmers on non-institutional sources was inversly linked to their asset status.
11.12 The average per farm investment in tubewells, electric motors and diesel engines was higher with new tractor owners compared to second hand tractor owners. Further, the per acre investment was higher in Faridabad district on tractor as well as control farms. Of the 74 sample borrowers, 65 borrowers repalced their earlier tractor with a new one from bank loan. About 72 per cent replacements were due to excessive repair requirements , considerations of change in hp and aggressive marketing by dealers.
Impact of Investment
11.13 The total annual use of new tractor farms worked out to be 495 hours and 351 hours in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively which was much lower than the stipulated 1000 hours. For second hand tractor farms the total use was 262 hours and 214 hours in the above respective districts. The proportion of custom work in the total use of tractor was almost double and triple in Kaithal and Faridabad districts on second hand tractor farms as compared to new tractor farms. Due to lower land holding, the second hand tractor owners resorted to more custom work.
11.14 There was no perceptible difference in the cropping pattern followed by the tractor owners after acquiring the tractor. On control farms also, the cropping pattern was almost similar to the tractor farms. In Kaithal district, the cropping intensity has increased by about 10 per cent on both new as well as second hand tractor farms after the acquisition of tractor. In case of Faridabad, the cropping intensity has increased by 9 per cent in case of new tractors and 6 per cent in case of second hand tractors. The increase, though not large, is not insignificant. On the other hand the cropping intensity on non-tractor farms at 159 per cent was also high but lower than tractor farms. Like Punjab, use of tractor has become a universal mode of farming in Haryana. Therefore, the analysis involving 'before and after' and 'with and without' approaches does not indicate large changes in cropping pattern and cropping intensity.
37
Economics of Investment
11.15 Per acre expenses on fuel/lubricants on the basis of average consumption worked out to be Rs. 85/- and Rs. 87/- for new tractors and Rs. 96/- and Rs. 98/- for second hand tractors in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively. The total expenses per hour on tractor increased with the age of the tractor.
11.16 The average net inconrie per holding worked out to be Rs.265255 and Rs.90302 in Kaithal district and Rs.213338 and Rs.74166 in Faridabad district on tractor farms. On control farms, this was Rs.73479 and Rs.50618 in Kaithal and Faridabad district respectively. The total incremental income from own farm, leased land and custom services was observed to be Rs.77306 and Rs.62859 in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively. In case of second hand tractor farms, the total incremental income was Rs. 50258 and Rs. 43364 per acre in Kaithal and Faridabad district respectively.
11.17 The new tractors as well as second hand tractors were found to be financially viable in both districts. ^
11.18 The recovery position was comfortable in all sample branches except PCARDB, Ballabhgarh. Over the years, the recovery performance has shown some improvement in two branches i.e. PCARDB.Ballabhgarh and OBC, Kalayat. The recovery percentage of sample borrowers in all branches was in excess of 45 per cent (45% to 97%). More than 50 per cent of borrowers in both districts had no overdues. The overdues were on a higher scale in Faridabad district compared to Kaithal. The overall incidence of overdues worked out to be 33 per cent and 17 per cent in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively. The repayment period of 9 years was found to be rational.
Prospects of Tractor Financing
11.19 The proportion of small and marginal holdings in the state is 67 per cent and in the study districts it is 77 per cent in Kaithal and 69 per cent in Faridabad. With such a high proportion of Ineligible' farmers and present high tractor density in the state, the future prospects for tractor financing exits mainly for replacement of the existing stock. For small farmers, the prospects lies in tractors of smaller horse power (less than 35 hp).
Recommendations
1. Sniall farmers are not eligible for a tractor loan from the Institutional system. Given the universal mode of use of tractor in agriculture, financing of second hand tractors should be encouraged to this segment.
2. In view of the low annual use of tractor for own farm activities as also due to limited prospects for custom hiring, financing of tractors should be encouraged to Self Help Groups(SHGs) and Joint Lfablity Groups. -—
38
Annexure-1 Farm Mechanisation Policy of NABARD
Particulars
Refinance Rate{%)
CBs First Time
Second Time
SCBs
SLDBs First Time
Second Time
RRBs
First Time
Second Time
Down Payment(%) First Time
Second Time
Minimum Acreage
of perennially irrigated
iand(Acres) New
Second Hand
Minimum Annual U^e(Hrs) Repayment Period(Yrs)
Incremental Income to be
taken for repayment(%)
Minimum period for second tractor(yrs)
1999-2000
70
40
80
90
40
80 40
15
30
8 N.S.
9 50
3
YEAR
2000-01
70
40
80
90
40
80 40
15
30
8 N.S.
9
50
3
2001-02
90
90
90
90 90
90 90
15
30
8
N.S.
9
50
3
2002-03
90
N.S.
90
90 N.S.
90 N.S.
As per RBI instructions
As per RBI instructions
. 8
8
9
50
3
N.S.= Not specified
39
Annexure-2
Source-wise Irrigation on the Sample Farms
(•/•to total)
District/Farm Slze(Acres)
A. Tractor Farms
Kaithal
<10
10-20
>20
All
Faridabad
<10
10-20
>20
All
B. Non-Trattor Farms
Kaithal
Faridabad
Both Districts
Tu bewails
75
83
85
82
82
85
89
85
88
85
87
Canals
25
17
15
18
18
15
11
15
12
15
13
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
40
size of Family- Sample Households
Farm Size (Acres)
A. Tractor Farms
Kaithal
<10
10-20
>20
All
Faridabad
<10
10-20
>20
All
Both Districts- Average
B. Non-Tractor Farms
Kaithal
Faridabad
Both Districts- Average
Adults
New Tractor
Farms
Male
3.15
3.60
3.50
3.50
2.95
3.65
2.15
3.34
3.41
2.15
1.80
1.97
Female
3.50
3.00
2.80
3.01
3.50
4.00
3.20
3.81
3.44
2.50
1.50
2.00
Total
6.65
6.60
6.30
6.51
6.45
7.65
5.35
7.15
6.85
4.65
3.30
3.97
Second Hand
Tractor Farms
Male
2.50
"
2.50
3.00
3.00
2.75
Female
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.50
Total
5.50
5.50
5.00
5.00
5.25
Children
New Tractor
Farms
Male
2.00
1.50
1.10
1.44
2.10
1.80
1.50
1.82
1.65
1.00
1.50
1.25
Female
1.15
1.50
0.50
1.13
1.75
1.90
2.50
1.95
1.57
1.50
0.50
1.00
Total
3.15
3.00
1.60
2.57
3.85
3.70
4.00
3.77
3.22
2.50
2.00
2.25
Seco
Tract
Male
1.50
1.50
0.65
0.65
1.07
Fe
1
1
0
0
1
ro
Educational Status of Sample Households
=arin Size (Acres)
. Tractor Farms
<aithal
=10
10-20
>20
Ml
-aridabad
=10
10-20
>20
Ml
3oth Districts- Average
3. Non-Tractor Farms
<althal
-aridabad
3oth Districts- Average
Illiterate
New
Male
60.50
33.10
29.57
37.56
65.23
45.70'
28.35
41.25
39.15
56.40
59.65
57.17
Female
76.15
42.25
36.40
40.72
68.00
59.15
44.05
44.56
42.05
61.27
65.75
63.56
Second Hand
Male
65.15
65.15
67.26
67.26
66.13
Female
73.75
73.75
74.29
74.29
74.05
Upto Matric
New
Male
38.50
43.50
59.15
48.29
32.00
44.72
62.15
50.63
49.65
38.45
35.75
38.11 1
Female
22.15
36.00
49.62
49.12
32.00
35.65
52.00
50.94
49.92
35.53
34.25
34.39
Second Hand
Male
29.16
29.16
31.00
31.00
30.52
Female
23.00
23.00
25.71
25.71
23.88
Above Matri
New
Male
1.00
23.40
11.28
14.15
2.77
9.58
9.50
8.12
11.20
5.15
4.60
4.72
Female
1.70
21.75
13.98
10.16
5.20
3.95
4.50
8.03
3.20
2.05
Sec
Ma
5.6
5.6
1.7
1.7
3.3
Composition of Animal Herd Owned by Sample F
Farm Size (Acres)
A. Tractor Farms
Kaithal <10 New
Second Hand
10-20 New
>20 New
All New
Second Hand
Faridabad <10 New
Second Hand
10-20 New
>2 New
All New
Second Hand
Both Districts New Second Hand
B. Non-Tractor Farms Kaithal
Faridabad
Both Districts-Average
Buffalo
3.00
3.50
6.00
9.33
6.64
3.50
2.14
2.00
3.03
6.40
3.30
2.00
4.83
2.75
2.30
2.50 2.40
After Acquiring the Tractor
Cow
0.80
2.00
1.00
1.22
1.04
2.00
0.85
2.00
1.25
0.80 1.12
2.00
1.08
2.00
1.70
2.00
1.85
Growing
Stocit
2.50
2.00
1.00
1.25 1.30
2.00
1.57
1.50
1.43
1.80
1.50
1.50
1.41
1.75
1.50
1.00 1.25
" Worit
Animals
0.20
— —
0.44
0.17
—
0.43
0.50
0.54
— 0.45
0.50
0.32
0.25
0.50
0.70
0.60
Total
6.50
7.50
8.00
12.24
9.15
7.50
4.99
6.00
6.25
9.00 6.37
6.00 7.64
6.75
6.00
6.20
6.10
Buff
2.4
3.0
4.8
7.7 4.5
3.0
2.1 2.0
2.8 6.5
2.8
2.0
3.6
2.5
Assets and Liabilities of Sample Beneficiaries( Excluding Tractor Loan)
^
Farm Size (Acres)
A. Tractor Farms
Kaithal
<10 New
Second Hand
10-20 New
>20 New
All New
Second Hand'
Faridabad
<10 New
Second Hand
10-20 New
>20 New
All New
Second Hand
Both District New
Second Hand
3. Non-Tractor Farms
<aithal
-aridabad
3oth Districts-Average
Loans
Advanced
0
0
0
9090
2941
0
0
0
4500
8636
4230
0
3638
0
0
0
0
Assets
Bank
Deposit
0
0
0
3636
1176
0
0
0
5000
0
3500
0
2432
0
0
0
0
Deposit
with Arhtiya
0
0
2222
22000
8294
0
0
0
2273
284
0.
3984
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
2222
34726
12411
0
0
0
9500
10909
8014
0
10034
0
0
0
0
Institutio
Crop Loan
10000
8000
11905
12000
11656
8000
8000
6840
11667
7500
10504
6840
11033
7420
6000
5000
5500
Farm Inventory Other than Tractor
^ en
7
Farm Size (Acres)
A. Tractor Farms
Kaithal
<10 New
Second Hand
10-20 New
>20 New
All New
Second Hand
Faridabad
<10 New
Second Hand
10-20 New
>20 New
All New
Second Hand
Both Districts New
Second Hand
B. Non-Tractor Farms
Kaithal
Faridabad
Both Districts-Average
Tubewells
No.
1.25
0.20
1.33
2.83
1.80
0.20
1.00
0.30
1.50
2.33
1.52
0.30
1.65
0.25
0.50
0.70
0.60
Value
76000
13000
88000
105000
91735
13000
57000
15500
73500
95540
73367
15500
81806
14250
30125
32700
31413
Electric Motors
No.
1.30
0.40
1.55
2.05
1.68
0.40
0.75
0.60
0.90
1.15
0.91
0.60
1.26
0.50
0.35
0.39
0.37
Value
9500
3500
11250
17050
12869
3500
6100
4270
7550
9950
7596
4270
10019
3885
2900
3340
3120
Diesel E
No.
1.17
0.25
1.15
1.75
1.35
0.25
1.00
0.45
0.85
1.50
0.96
0.45
1.14
0.35
0.50
0.55
0.53
r-
Crop-wise and Operation-wise Use of Tractor in Kaithal
Crop
Tractor Farms
Paddy
Cotton
K,Fodder
Aitiar
Sugarcane
Wheat
R.Fodder
Sunflower
Potato
Non-Tractor Farms Paddy
K.Fodder Wheat
R.Fodder
Potato
Type of Tractor
New
Second Hand
New
Second Hand
New
Second Hand
New Second Hand
New
Second Hand
New
Second Hand New
Second Hand New
Second Hand
New Second Hand
Land Preparation
& Interculture
4.12
4.23 2.47
0.00
3,05 3.11
2.95 0.00 3.52
3.70
4.91 4.86 3.00
3.12 3.05 0.00 3.97
0.00
3.97
2.15 3.62
2.05
2.95
Irrigation
1.50
0.85 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.60 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Threshing
1.00
1.10
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
M Tr
Ag
Crop-wise and Operation-wise Use of Tractor in Faridabad District
Crop
Tractor Farms
Paddy
Cotton
K.Fodder
Arhar •5
Sugarcane
Wheat
R. Fodder
Sunflower
Potato
Non-Tractor Farms
Paddy
K.Fodder
Wheat
R.Fodder
Potato
Type of Tractor
New
Second Hand
New
Second Hand
New
Second Hand
New
Second Hand
New
Second Hand
New
Second Hand
New
Second Hand
New
Second Hand
New
Second Hand
Land Preparation
& Interculture
3.86
3.65
0.00
0.00
2.69
2.75
0.00
1.98
3.15
3.00
4.17
3.62
2.65
2.41
3.00
0.00
3.46
0.00
3.52
2.07
3.55
1.76
0.00 '
Irrigation
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 •
0.00
0.00
0.00 .
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Threshing
1.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.12
1.10
0.00
0.00 .
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
M
T
A
4^ 00
Custom Work undertaken by the Sample Benef
District/Farm
Slze(Acre)
Kaithal
<10
10-20
>20
All
Farldabad
<10
10-20
>20
All
State
<10
10-20
>20
All
Per cent to Total
Land Levelling
New
51.00
200.10
10.17
73.04
26.51
57.05
10.14
31.75
38.93
128.52
10.16
53.79
60.49
Second
Hand
20.69
—
—
20.69
18.34
—
—
18.34
19.61
—
—
19.61
16.43
Ploughing
New
20.00
4.82
—
4.39
25.24
10.14
4.52
10.65
22.58
7.48
1.64
7.31
8.22
Second
Hand
39.50
—
—
39.50
46.90
—
—
46.90
43.20
—
—
43.20
36.19
Sowing
New
18.50
2.29
—
3.41
11.03
12.68
3.61
8.59
14.82
7.49
1.31
5.82
6.55
Second
Hand
31.83
—
—
31.83
26.30
—
—
26.30
29.06
—
—
29.06
24.35
Transp
New
9.40
5.59
5.50
6.10
—
4.06
—
1.60
4.77
4.82
3.50
4.01
4.51
Se
H
1
1
5
5
3
3
2
Percentage Distribution of Tractor Hours on Custom
District
Kaithal
Faridabad
Both Districts
Farm Size
<10
10-20
>20
All
<10
10-20
>20
All
<10
10-20
>20
Whole Sample
Type of
Tractor
New
Second Hand
New
New
New
Second Hand
New
Second Hand
New
New
New
Second Hand
New
Second Hand
New
New
New
Second Hand
Nil
0.00
000
16 66
36 36
20.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.86
40.00
17.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.39
37.50
18.92
0.00
0-50
0,00
10.00
0.00
36.36
11.76
10.00
14.29
20.00
7.14
60.00
15.00
20.00
8.33
15.00
4.35
43,75
13.51
15.00
Range of T
50-100
40 00
30.00
16.67
27 28
23.53
30.00
57,14
30.00
7.14
0.00
15.00
30.00
50,00
30.00
10.87
18.75
18.92
30,00
Distribution of Sample Farmers as per Total Annual Use
en o
Range of Use
(Hours)
1-100
101-200
201-400
401-600
601-700
>700 Total
Kaithal
New
No.
7
7
8
10
1
1 34
% to Total
20.59
20.59
23.53
29.41
2.94
2.94
100.00
Second Hand
No.
4
1
4
—
—
—
10
% to Total
40.00
20.00
40.00
_
—
—
100.00
Faridabad
New
No.
10
11
16
2
1
40
% to Total
25.00
27.50
40.00
5.00
2.50
—
100.00
Second Hand
No.
2
6
2
—
—
—
10
% to Tota
20.00
60.00
20.00
—
—
—
100.00
Crop-wise Use Pattern of Human Labour on Samp
Ul
District/Crops
Kaithal
Paddy
Cotton
K.Fodder
Arhar
Sugarcane
Wheat
R.Fodder
Sunflower
Potato
Average/acre
Faridabad
Paddy
Cotton
K.Fodder
Arhar
Sugarcane
Wheat
R.Fodder
. Sunflower
Potato
Average/acre
Hired Labour
Tractor
Farms
** _ H I I ^ - ^
7.54
12.65
0.00
2.39
17.42
9.25
0.00
5.12
18.31
8.23
8.12
0.00
2.05
0.00
12.32
8.35
0.00
6.52
19.00
8.36
Non-Tractor
Farms
3.58
0.00
0.59
0.00
0.00
6.50
6.32
0.00
9.85
4.90
5.72
0.00
2.02
0.00
0.00
6.25
7.52
0.00
0.00
5.88
Permanent Labour
Tractor
Farms
4.52
5.56
0.00
8.05
10.50
6.13
4.50
8.50
12.45
5.54
5.02
0.00
6.23
0.00
11.42
8.25
5.25
6.42
14 10
7.14
Non-Tractor
Farms
3.50
0.00
1.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.25
1.62
3.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,41
Fam
Tractor
Farms
19.52
16.98
27.84
12.85
19.39
7.32
37.42
22.06
23.63
15.13
16.05
0.00
18.56
0.00
21.56
5.72
35.45
21.23
19.50
13.60
Per Acre Average.Cost of Cultivation of Various Crops on sample Farms
District/Crops
Paddy Tractor Farms Kalthal Faridabad All Tlon-Tractor Farms Kaithal Faridabad All Cotton Tractor Farms Kalthal Faridabad All Non-Tractor Farms Kalthal Faridabad All Kharif Fodder Tractor Farms Kalthal Faridabad All Non-Tractor Farms Kalthal Faridabad All Arhar Tractor Farms Kalthal Faridabad All Non-Tractor Farms Kalthal Faridabad All
Seeds
112 119 116
95 91 93
139 0
139
0 0 0
212 203 207
200 205 203
95 84 89
0 0
o\
Manure & Fertilisers
964 1023 995
846 662 754
824 0
824
0 0 0
486 450 467
455 440 448
853 750 798
0 0 0
Pestcides
425 368 395
332 389 361
932 0
932
0 0 0
190 185 187
165 175 170
45 65 56
0 0 0
Hired Human Labour
565 609 588
269 429 349
949 0
949
0 0 0
0 154 82
44 152 98
179 165 172
0 0 0
Cost of C iltivation O&iM Cost Hiring cliarges of Tractor/ of Harvester Hiring Combine ciiarges
1076 1150 1115
1235 1250 1243
1022 0
1022
0 0 0
510 574 544
258 290 274
630 675 654
0 b 0
425 420 422
415 412 414
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Own Bullocl( Labour Expenses
0 0 0
0 0 0
210 0
210
0 0 0
0 0 0
215 255 235
0 0 0
0 0 0
Irrigation
612 623 618
423 566 495
385 0
385
0 0 0
550 525 537
500 510 505
240 235 237
0 0 0
Interest on working capital
209 216 212
181 190 185
223 0
223
0 0 0
97 105 101
92 101 97
102 99
100
0 0 0
Total Cost of Cultivation
4388 4528 4461
3796 3989 3894
4684 0
4684 0 0 0 0 0 0
2045 2196 2125
0 1929 2128 2030
0 0
2144 2073 2106
0 0 0 0
Yield qtl) New tractor/ Second
Non-tractor hand Tractor
21.89 21.52 21.69
21.78 21.15 21.46
3.95 0
3.95
0 0 0
165 162 163
160 158 159
412 0
4.12
0 0 0
21.81 21.76 21.79
0 0
• 0
163 162
162.5
0 3.82 3.82
Value of New tractor/
Non-tractor
16430 15946 16168
15159 15113 15136
7231 0
7231
0 0 0
7755 7452 7591
7680 7268 7474
3896 0
3896
0 0 0
>
01
01 0
01 01 05
to
01
0
01
0
0
N)
•A 10
0 <o
4>.
00 0 Nl N3
Tl 0)
Q !
m a.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7^
Si.
01
0
cn cn O)
to
cn
--1 CO to
0
cn
0
0
cn cn cn
to <o -A
cn 0 to cn
-J to
00 0
r 1 i
g
cn cn
to 0
00
CO to
0
00
0
0
cn
cn --4 CO
ro 0 10 (n
cn
t»
0
00 -si to to
0
-sj -si
0
-n 3. Q. 0) CT 0) OL
01 Cfl CO 00
to
CO to
CO 00 0
to CJl
l\3 0 to
0
0
cn 01
CJl O) to
<o cn 00
cn to cn
0
00 cn
0
cn 00 to
0
7:
Si.
cn 00 <j> cn
00
oo
0
CO --J CO
l\5 to •0.
0
0
0 to
CJl -vl 0
0 <o 00
CJl
KJ N3
0
to to
CO
0
00
cn
d
1 1
0
1 >
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-n
al a> w a> a.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
? -1
1 1
>
135
IVJ
CD
l\5 to 0
0
cn CO cn
0
to CD 0
CO
(O
CJl CO
w 10 10 0
cn bo
0
00
00
0
CO
*-CJl
0
-n 0) -1 d. a> 0)
a.
to
to cn
CO cn cn
00 to
05 cn M
0
CO to cn
CO to t:>
O) 0
w CO
2
cn 00
0
cn cn cn to
0
CO CO 0 CJl
0
2.
cn 0 to
cn cn
to
CJl
CO 00
cn en
0
to cn 0
CO
to
05
CO 0 -J 0
;vl
cn
0
-si
- —k
0
0
0
-1 S 0
3 1 -n u
i (A
0
0)
c 3 0
0
>
00 CO to
o>
0
CJl
to
to to (O
0
0
CO
10 -si
10 at a> to
CO to
CO to 0 to
0
2 0
Tl 0) —1
d. (U CT 0)
a.
2 0
cn cn
0
cn 0)
to
o>
0
0
CO CJl 00
10 to
10
10
CO —X
00
CO _1 0 10
0 CO to 0
7;
00 CO CO
o> cn to
0
-si •b.
to
CO
0
0
CO to CJl
10
cn
ro a> 10 -4
CO to cn
CO CO
0 0 to 0
1 1 1
>
to to (O
00 to 0>
•b.
0
0) -si
0
10 -si to
4^ ts
cn 00
cn u
CO 00 0
CO CJl •b.
CJl O) -si 0
•b.
O) to •b
to
CO to
0
2
Tl B) 3 .
a. CT m a.
CO CO to
to 10
to CO
0
cn 00 to
0
10 00 to
cn 0
CO
CO
w
CO
tJl
CO cn 00
CJl
to _i
0
00 cn
cn -J cn
to N CO
S
to to tji
00 cn cn
-J.
0
0
cn 0
0
to cn
cn cn
t3> CO
to at
CO 00 CJ>
CO
cn
to
to
CO to
to -si
0
0
CJl
1 i
CD <D
A (D
3
0
>
CO to -si
2 0
00
•b
00
CO CO 0
CO CD
cn
0
at CJl
to to
at CO
cn -4
0 0 CO
cn •b 0 -A
Tl m 3. a. 0) cr 0) a.
CO
CJI
0 cn cn
0
£35
to
CO
0
0 0
0
cn 00 0
10 to 0
10 <o
cn io
0 CO 00 CO
CJl --J cn •b
3
CO CO 0
0 IS} CJl
00 CJl
-b
00
CO CJl 0
CO to 0
0
cn CJl 0
to to
at CO 00
cn
00
to 05 00 cn
cn 0
!
1 i
>
CO CO 00
10 CJl
to CO
cn cn 00
0 to CJl
0 0
0
to
cn CO <o
cn bo CO
t3)
bo to
0 CO CO (O
0 -J CO CO
CO cn .A
0)
to
10
Tl 0) =!. Q. 0) CT 0)
a.
CO CO
to •b CJl
to cn 0
cn to cn
0 to
0 0
0
•b
0
10
<n 0 CO
(35
<3>
CJl
0 CO CO CJl
0 (35 CO (O
CO 00 10
CO (3)
7;
u
2.
2 cn
to CJ) cn
to 0
cn (D •b
0 to to
0 0
0
•b 10 cn
to
CO
cn -J (O
(35
C7>
to 00
0 to CJl CO
0 CO to 00
cn CO
-b
(35
2 (O
-
1 I f
CJl -J
>
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tl Bl 3 .
a. 0) CT 0)
a.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I 1 I
•
£
2
to 10
00 to
0 CO
0 CO
0
0
00 CD
CO -si CO
-4 OS CO CO
10 to to
10
00
to •b to (O -J
10 CO
0
—I, 0
CJl
CJl
to
Tl
u -1
QI ID a-a 0.
10 cn
cn 10 CO
(ji
0
to 10
CJl -si (Jl
0
0
to to cn
CO CJl to
-J cn
to CO
to
to
to cn
-si
to
10 CO
to
4^
05 (O CO
CJl (35
CO
7; a 3 2.
CO CJl 0
•b CJl (35
4^ CJl 0
CO 0 05
00 O) 0
0
0
00 cn to
CO 00 CD
00
CO
10 10
to
t3>
10 4k <n CJl to
to to to to cn
2 00
to
-A
00 CO to
1 I
Ui c m
0 u 3 (D
0
53
Annual Expenditure on Operation and Maintenance of Tractors
District
Kaithal
New Tractors
Second Hand Tractors
Faridabad
New Tractors
Second Hand Tractors
Average Age of tractor during reference year(yrs)
1.57
6.75
2.72
6.23
Fuel and Lubricants Own Farm
32074
13363
23883
9068
Custom
9791
11831
6690
11875
Ex-Post Evaluation Study Reports Published bv Head Office
Sr.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Title of Evaluation Report
*Minor Irrigation Scheme-Construction of New Wells and Installation of
Pumpsets in Sholapur District, Maharashtra
*Minor Irrigation Scheme-Installation of Shallow Tubewells in Karnal District, Haryana
*Bhadra Land Development Project -Scheme for Reclamation and Development
of Land.Karnataka
*Land Development under Nagarjuna Sagar Project, Miryalguda Taluka, Andhra Pradesh
*Dairy Development Scheme in Jagadhri Block of Ambala District, Haryana
* Dairy Development Scheme in Moga Area of Faridkot District, Punjab
'Poultry Development Scheme in Mulkanoor, Karimnagar District, Andhra Pradesh
'Mechanised Fishing Boats in South Kanara District, Karnataka
'Development of Acid Lime Gardens in Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh
'Groundwater Irrigation in Kota District, Rajasthan
'Minor Irrigation In Bhojpur District, Bihar
'Development of Grape Cultivation in Bijapur District, Karnataka
'River Lift Irrigation Schemes in Pune District, Maharashtra
'Dairy Development Schemes in Western Uttar Pradesh
'River Lift Irrigation Schemes In Kolhapur District, Maharashtra
'Sheep Rearing in Nalgonda District, Andhra Pradesh
'Development of Coffee Plantation In Lower Plain Area, Madurai District, Tamil Nadu
'Public Tubewells and River Lifts in Orissa
'Power Tillers in Hooghly District, Andhra Pradesh
Commercial Poultry In Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh
Dugwell Irrigation in Palghat District, Kerala
Tractors in North Bihar
Dairy Development Schemes in Darjeeling District, West Bengal
Tractor Schemes in Varanasi, Ghazipur and Jaunpur Districts of Eastern Uttar Pradesh
Tractors and Power Tillers in Tamil Nadu
Minor Irrigation in Muzaffarnagar District, Uttar Pradesh
Dairy Development in Quilon District, Kerala
Dugwell Irrigation in Dhenkanal District, Orissa
1 Bamboo and Shallow Tubewells In Purnia District, Bihar
Year of
Publication
1977
1977
1977
1977
1978
1978
1979
1979
1981
1982
1982
1982
1982
1982
1982
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1986
1986
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1988
1988
55
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Dugwell Irrigation in Nasik District, Maharashtra
Calf Rearing in North Arcot, Salem and Coimbatore Districts, Tamil Nadu
Minor Irrigation in Allahabad District, Uttar Pradesh
Coconut Development in Quilon District, Kerala
Minor Irrigation in Purulia District, West Bengal
Sprinkler Irrigation for Small Farmers in Amravati District, Maharashtra
Dugwell Irrigation for Small Farmers in Amravati District, Maharashtra
Marine Fisheries in Coastal Gujarat and Maharashtra
Financing of Shallow Tubewells under Massive National Programme in Haryana
Financing of Apple Orchards in Hill Districts, Uttar Pradesh
Work Animals and Animal Driven Carts in Meerut District, Uttar Pradesh
Inland Fishery in Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh
Bio-Gas Plants in Nainital and Rampur Districts, Uttar Pradesh
Impact of Non-farm Sector Investments
Lift Irrigation Schemes in Maharashtra
Mandwan Watershed Project under Indo-German Watershed Development Programme(IGWDP)-Maharashtra State
Self Help Group in Tamil Nadu
Micro Finance for Rural People -An Impact Evaluation Study
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1989
1989
1989
1990
1991
1991
1991
1991
1994
1995
1999
2000
20
56
au
Reports Published by the Regional Offices of National Bankfor Agriculture and Rural Development
Regional Office
Ahmedabad
»
Bangalore
Bhopal
Bhubaneshwar
m
-
-
Title of Evaluation Report
Poultry Development Schemes in Gujarat
Dairy Development Schemes in Mehsana District
Lift Irrigation Scheme of Ukai Left Bank Main Canal -GUijarat
Financing of Tractors in Mehsana and Rajkot District -Gujarat
Investments Financed under IRDP in Valsad District -Gujarat
Development of Grape Gardens In Bangalore And Kolar Districts -Karnataka
Borewell Financing In Chitradurga And Kolar District -Karnataka
Development Of Coffee Gardens In Karnataka State
Sericulture Development In Karnataka -Farm Investments
Lift Irrigation Scheme In Belgaum District -Karnataka
Poultry (Broiler)Development In Bangalore (Rural)
And Bangalore (Urban) Distrits -Karnataka
Drip Irrigation Programme in Chitradurga district of Karnataka
Dugwell and Shallow Tubewell Irrigation in Narsinghpur District-MP
Tractor Financing in Raisen and Vidisha District -MP
Commercial Layer Poultry Development in Indore District -M.P.
IRDP in Sagar District - M.P.
Betelvine Gardens in Puri District of Orissa
Tractor irvSarnbalpur District of Orissa
Dairy Development in Cuttack and Ganjam District of Orissa
Brackish Water Prawn Culture in Puri District of Orrisa
Minor Irrigation in Sarnbalpur District of Orissa
Shallow Tube wells in Undivided Cuttack and
Undivided Puri Districts of Orissa
District Rural Industries Project (DRIP) and Primary
Lending Institutes J(PLi) Training Programme in
Undivided Ganjam District of Orissa
Series No.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Year of Publication
1988
1989
1991
1992
1994
1989
1990
1992
1993
2000
2001
2002
1988
1989
1992
1994
1989
1989
1992
1997
1997
2000
2002
57
Chandigarh
Chennai
Guwahati
Poultry Farming In Punjab
Dairy Development Schemes in Karnal & Rohtak Districts -Haryana
Tractors in Haryana
Grape Gardens in Hissar District of Haryana
Inland Fisheries in Patiala and Bathinda District of Punjab
Viability of Tractors in Punjab
Rural Non Farm Sector in Ludhiana and Sangrur Districts*of Punjab
Water Conveyance System in Rewari and Mahendergarh
Districts of Haryana
Cold Storage in Jalandhar, Ludhiana and Patiala Districts of Punjab
Dairy Financing in Kurukshetra and Kaithal District of Haryana
Self Help Groups in Karnal, Gurgaon & Bhiwani Districts of Haryana
Poultry(Layers) in Sangrur and Gurdaspur Districts in Punjab
Financing of Tubewells in Bhatinda, Hoshiarpur and
Ropar Districts of Punjab
Agro and Food Processing Units in Haryana
Evaluation of Rural Roads under RIDF in Punjab
Dairy Development in Punjab
Poultry Development in Salem District -Tamil Nadu
Dugwell Irrigation in Puddukkottai and
North Arcot Districts of Tamil Nadu
Tea Gardens in Nilgiri District of Tamil Nadu
Minor Irrigation Investments under Marine Assistance Programme
in Sough Arcot and Tiruchirappalli Districts of Tamil Nadu
Jasmine Investments in Salem and Madurai Districts of Tamil Nadu
Mini Dairy in Coimbatore and Periyar Districts of Tamil Nadu
Marine Fisheries in Tamil Nadu
Sericulture in Tamil Nadu
IRDP in Tirunelveli District of Tamil Nadu
Modern Rice Mills in Tamil Nadu-
Coconut Development in Coimbatore District of Tamil Nadu
Private Shallow Tubewells And Lift Points In Assam
Inland Fishery In WestTripura District-Tripura
Integrated Rural Development Programme In Nagaon District of Assam
Farm Mechanisation (Power Tiller) In Sibsagar District -Assam
1 1987
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2
3
4
1987
1994
1998
2000
2001
2001
2001
200
2002
2002
2003
2003
2003
2003
2004
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1994
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1989
1992
2000
2000
58
Hyderabad
Jaipur
Jammu
Kolkata
Lucknow
Public Tube wells in Khammam District, Andhra Pradesh
Development of Grape gardens in Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh
Dugwell Irrigation in Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh
Mango Orchards in Krishna and Khammam District. Andhra Prad^h
On Farm Development in Khammam and Krishna Districts, Andhra Pradesh
Inland Fishery in West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh
Dairy Development in Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh
Poultry Layer Investment in Andhra Pradesh
Food(Mango)Processing in Visakhapatnam & Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh
Sheep Rearing in Mahabubnagar and West Godavari Districts
Minor Irrigation Structure in Kherwara P.S. in Udaipur Distsrict of Rajasthan
Tractors in Alwar District -Rajasthan
Market Yard in Kekri -Ajmer District oif Rajasthan
Borewell in Jodhpur District-Rajasthan
IRDP in Alwar District of Rajasthan
Poultry Development in Ajmer District of Rajasthan
Sprinkler Irrigation Scheme in Barmer District of Rajasthan
Dairy Development Schemes in Bharatpur District of Rajasthan
Water Management Schemes in Jaipur District of Rajasthan
Minor Irrigation Schemes in Bikaner District of Rajasthan
Orange Cultivation Schemes in Jhalawar District of Rajasthan
IRDP in Baramulla District of J&K
Tractors in Jammu District of J&K
Inlctnd Fisheries Schemes in Nadia District, West Bengal
Betelvine Gardens in Midnapur District, West Bengal
Bullock and Bullock Cards in Malda District, West Bengal
Poultry Farming (Broiler) in Midnapur District, West Bengal
Minor Irrigation Schemes in Birbhum District, West Bengal
Minor Irrigation Scheme in Jhansi District -Uttar Pradesh
Tractors in Western Uttar Pradesh
Inland Fishery in Azamgarh and Deoria Districts -Uttar Pradesh
NFS in Moradabad District -Uttar Pradesh
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1988
1989
1969
1991
1995
1996
1999
2000
2001
2002
1988
1991
1991
1993
1995
1995
1997
1999
2001
2001
2002
1992
1995
1987
1989
1991
1999
2000
1988
1992
1994
1994
59
Hi !
Patna
Pune
Shimla
Trivandrum
Saghan Mini Dairy Allahabad District -Uttar Pradesh
Mushroom in Dehradun District - Uttar Pradesh
Grapes in Muzaffarnagar District -Uttar Pradesh
Shallow Tube Wells In Darthanga, Madhubani & Samastipur Districts In Bihar
Deep Tube Weils In Bihar
Dairy Development In Begusarai & Singhbhum Districts In Bihar
Minor Irrigation Schemes In Samastipur District In Bihar
IRDP In Randii District In Bihar
Lift Inrigation in Aurangabad District-Maharashtra
Well Irrigation in Aurangabad District -Maharashtra
Poultry Development in Pune District - Maharashtra
Grape Garden in Nasik District - Maharashtra
Land Devetopment in Command Area of Kukkadi Project-Maharashtra
IRDP in Yavatmal District - Maharashtra
Farm Mechanisatk>n in Ahmednagar District-Maharashtra
Post Harvest Centres (Pre-cooling etc.) for Export of Grapes in Maharashtra
Dairy Development in Mandi District of Himachal Pradesh
Betelvine Gardens in Trivandrum district of Kerala State
Broiler Poultry Development in Ernakulam District of Kerala
Development of Rubber Plantation in Kottayam Districts of Kerala
Fisheries Development in Kollam District of Kerala State
Farm Mechanisation in Palghat and Ernakulam Districts of Kerala
Rural Non-Farm Sector in Mallappuram and Kozhikode Districts of Kerala
Sprinkler Irrigation in Arecanut Garden in Kasargod District of Kerala
Dairy Development in Kollam District of Kerala
5
6
7
1
2
, 3
4
5
1 .
2
2
4
5
6
7 .
8
1
1
2
3
4
5
6(5)
7
8
1997
1997
1998
1998
1989
1989
1996
1997
1998
1991
1991
1993
1995
1998
1999
2001
1997
1988
1990
1990
1992
1995
1998
2002
2002
60