tractor financing in kaithal and …...1999-2000 to 2001-02 ,, j haryana state cooperative...

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^' îcQidH 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 ^ ÎF^ft^frfcicTT#f^ Kcfieitfcâirt %

^ 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% ^cWîil 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 fôîJ ^HeJI Idl JRR W^ ^ •M^'im # t

I ? ^ aidRcfd, 3?q ^raf ^ Jgc^ ^ g i f ^ i^^ # ^ crgr fgôc ^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

5t5lWTîRT: 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^ûHl ^ ^ 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^liîiT o HST sft a r a ^ Ms' dldlci foTcf # 3 ^ ^^m 3T f ^

Sjf I TjiliHd fch-Hini ^ ^-^Hî^HId # ^ ^ f ^ n t a ^ 3 ^ 3JlRdiil % W2T fddl^lctj) ?itT T^ ^fR^

ter TRIT zn I ^ ^t^CT Hlfd*f ^ diêl^rH, fôlcfr 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 ^ ^fî^Tlci S M S^^RfcT folcff ^ g5lRT: ^.77,306/- cTSJT .62,859/- SfT I ^ ^

$ g S ^ ^ TTFTrT Tt ^ (^[î^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 ^ ^êr h 'm^ qr ^ i c ^ ^ ^ ^ fcrafi m, % ^^ WR f^^ î%[^ 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^cîctjH 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-Hlchûi

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^ârHt 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


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


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


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


(b) With Family Labour (ii) Per Acre


(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


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


Faridabad

New 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

tractor financing in kaithal and …...1999-2000 to 2001-02 ,, j haryana state cooperative...

Documents