Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
REPORT
Distribution of Pump sets (Diesel/Electrical) on subsidy to Farmers
Sponsored by
Directorate of Farmer Welfare and Agricultural Development, Government of Madhya Pradesh
Prepared by
State Planning Commission, Government of Madhya Pradesh March, 2019
STUDY TEAM
Principal Investigator: Mr. S. P. Batra (Specialist Statistics)
Advisor on Project: Mr. Ramesh Kumar Srivastav, Principal
Advisor
MPSPC
Co- Investigator: Mrs. Swati Pramar(Specialist Decentralized
Planning)
Field Coordinator: Dr. Yogesh Mahor (Deputy Team Leader)
Research Associate: Mr. Alok Asthana
IT Support and Report Mr. Arun Bapat
Writing : Dr. Roopak Srivastava
Secretarial Assistance: Mr. Meen Bahadur Lama and
Mr. Saikh Sarfaraz Khan
i
ii
CONTENTS
Description Page No.
Preface i
Contents ii-v
Table List vi-vii
Diagram List viii
Abbreviations ix
Summary of Findings 1-6
Chapter 1: Background of the Project 7-10
1.1 Introduction 7
1.2 Background 8
1.3 Objectives of the Project 8
1.4 Subsidy Pattern 8
1.5 Project Cost 8
1.6 Expected Output 8
1.7 Outcome 8
1.8 Monitoring and Evaluation System 8
1.9 Physical Target 9-10
Chapter 2: Sample Design and Methodology 11-13
2.1 Purpose of Evaluation 11
2.2 Sample Design 11
2.3 Selection of Districts 11
2.4 Selection of Beneficiaries/ Households 11
2.5 Final Selection of Districts and Beneficiaries 11
2.6 Estimation Procedure 12
2.7 Preparation of questionnaire for data collection 12
2.8 Training of field investigators 13
iii
Description Page No.
Chapter - 3: Implementation of Project 14-16
3.1 Physical Achievement (Output) 14
3.2 Level of performance 15-16
Chapter – 4: General Profile of Households in Project Area 17-22
4.1 Socio-Economic Status of Households 17
4.2 Household Size 18
4.3 Educational Status of Head of Household 18-19
4.4 Land Ownership 19-20
4.5 Number of persons per household working in agriculture 20
4.6 Awareness about programs of Agriculture Department 20-21
4.7 Irrigation Facilities in Study area 21
4.8 Modern Agriculture Equipments 22
Chapter – 5: Providing Pump sets and Subsidy 23-25
5.1 Status of Installation of Pump sets 23
5.2 Year of Installation 23-24
5.3 Receipt of Subsidy 24
5.4 Distribution subsidy received 24-25
5.5 Purchase of pump with own choice 25
5.6 Actual amount of pump set 25
Chapter – 6: Impact of Pumps on Productivity and Income 26-32
6.1 Cropping Intensity 26-27
6.2 Percentage of Gross Irrigated Area 27
6.3 Productivity 27
6.4 Area Under crops 27-28
6.5 Yield of Irrigated Crops 28-29
6.6 Rate of return (Income per Acre) 30-31
6.7 Economic and Financial Viability of Installation of pump sets 31-32
iv
Description Page No.
Chapter 7: Perception on Impact of Pump sets 33-37
7.1 Perception of Beneficiaries about Economic Impact of pump sets 33
7.2 Perception of Benefited Beneficiaries 33-34
7.3 Perception of farmers about Impact on Crops 34
7.4 Perception of Beneficiaries 34-35
7.5 Impact on crop and Economic (income) status 35
7.6 Problems of pump sets 36
7.7 Delivery of Services 36-37
7.8 Suggestion for Increasing Income of Farmers 37
7.9 Membership of Groups 37
Chapter –8: Findings and Suggestions 38-43
8.1 Physical Achievement of scheme 38
8.2 Status of Implementation 38
8.3 General Profile of Households in Project area 38
8.4 Socio-Economic Status of Households 38
8.5 Household Size 38
8.6 Educational Status of Head of Household 39
8.7 Land Ownership 39
8.8 Number of persons per household working in agriculture 39
8.9 Source of information 39
8.10 Irrigation Facilities in the Universe under Study 39-40
8.11 Modern Agriculture Equipment 40
8.12 Status of Installation of Pump sets 40
8.13 Year of Installation 40
8.14 Receipt of Subsidy 40
8.15 Average subsidy and cost of pump sets 41
8.16 Impact of Pump sets on Productivity and Income Cropping Intensity 41
8.17 Percentage of Gross Irrigated Area 41
8.18 Area Under crops 41
8.19 Yield of Irrigated Crops 41
8.20 Rate of return (Income per Acre) 41
v
8.21 Economic and Financial Viability of Installation of Pump sets 41
8.22 Perception of Beneficiaries 41
8.23 Perception of farmers about Impact on Crops 42
8.24 Problems of pump sets 42
8.25 Delivery of Services 42
8.26 Suggestion for Increasing Income of Farmers 42
vi
Table No. Particulars Page No.
1.1 District wise targets for Distribution of Pump sets to farmers on
Subsidy
9-10
2.1 List of Selected Districts and number of selected beneficiaries 12
3.1 Proposed Physical Targets and Achievement 14-15
3.2 Level of performance and percentage of districts 15
4.1 Social and economic Profile of Households 17
4.2 Distribution of Households by Household size 18
4.3 Educational Status of Head of Household 18
4.4 Distribution of Households by Land ownership 19
4.5 Number of persons per household working in agriculture 20
4.6 Source of information 21
4.7 Use of Irrigation by Cultivators in Study Area 21
4.8 Proportion of Beneficiaries owning different equipments: 22
5.1 Installation status 23
5.2 Year of Installation 24
5.3 Receipt of Subsidy 24
5.4 Distribution subsidy received: 24
5.5 Purchase of pump with own choice: 25
5.6 Actual amount of pump set: 25
6.1 Cropping Intensity Before and After Installation of Pump sets 27
6.2 Percentage of Gross Irrigated Area Before and After Installation
of water pumps
27
LIST OF TABLES
vii
Table No. Particulars Page No.
6.3 Percentage of Irrigated Area under Different Crops Before and
After Installation of irrigation Pumps
28
6.4 Percentage Change in Yield of Irrigated Crops Before and After
Installation of Pump sets
29
6.5 Percentage Change in Yield of(Irrigated and Unirrigated) Crops
Before and After Installation of Pump sets
29
6.6 Percentage Change in Rate of Return per acre of net sown area
for period before and after Installation of Pump sets
30
6.7 Percentage Change in Rate of return per acre of gross
sown/cropped Irrigated area for period before and after
Installation of Pump sets for Irrigated Crops
30
6.8 Percentage Change in Rate of Return for period before and after
Installation of pump sets for Irrigated and Unirrigated Crops
31
6.9 Economic and Financial Viability of pump sets 32
6.10 Economic and Financial Viability of pump set 32
7.1 Perception of Beneficiaries about impact on income 33
7.2 Perception of farmers about Impact on Crops 34
7.3 Perception of Beneficiaries on Impact on Economic and crops
status: (in %)
35
7.4 Problem faced by Beneficiaries 36
viii
Figure No. Particulars Page No.
3.1 Level of performance and percentage of districts 16
4.1 Social and economic Profile of Households 17
4.2 Educational Status of Head of Household
19
4.3 Households By Land Ownership 20
4.4 Proportion of Households aware of programs of department and
Source of Information
21
5.1 Percentage of Beneficiaries reporting year of actions for
installation of pump sets
24
5.2 Distribution of Beneficiaries by amount of subsidy received: 25
7.1 Perception of farmers about Economic Impact 34
7.2 Perception of beneficiaries about Impact on crops (in
Percentage): 35
LIST OF FIGURE
ix
Abbreviation
PPSU The Planning and Policy Support Unit Society
RKVY Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana
FW & AD Department of Farmers welfare and Agriculture Development
MP Madhya Pradesh
HYV High Yielding Varieties
BPL Below Poverty Line
APL Above Poverty Line
OBC Other Backward Classes
1
Summary of Findings
Implementation of Project
The program of distribution of pump set to farmers was implemented in 38 districts out of
proposed 51 districts. 584 pump sets were provided to selected farmers against the target of distribution of thus achieving
75.84% of the targets. The proposed targets were not fixed on likely demand.
It is proposed that targets should be determined on the basis of potential/ available and wells not
having pump sets.
It will help in utilizing available budget and to increase the coverage to extent possible.
It is also proposed that data on source of irrigation used by cultivating households should be
maintained. Similarly data of ownership of various source of irrigation such as tube wells etc.,
should also be maintained. This data will help in identifying farmers for various schemes related to
irrigation.
General Profile of Households in Project Area
Of the universe of 7584 farming households, 2.35% of beneficiaries could not be found in field.
Socio-Economic Status of Households:
Around 58% of estimated households belong to APL category.
Majority of beneficiaries are OBC accounting for 47.11%.
Scheduled tribe constitutes 24.44% and Scheduled Caste 10.58%
General category constitutes 17.87% of total beneficiaries households.
Household Size:
Average household size of beneficiaries’ households is 6.1.
Educational Status of Head of Household:
Around 22.14% of households are headed by illiterates.
29.64% of households headed by those who had attained primary level of education
Around one fifth of households are headed by upper primary passed and equal proportion of
households is headed by high school/ higher secondary passed.
Graduate and post graduates are heading 7.77% of the households.
Educational level of head of household living above poverty line (APL) is relatively better than
BPL households
2
Land Ownership:
Beneficiary households with marginal ownership account for 27.75%
Beneficiary households with mall ownership account for 43.75%
18% of beneficiaries’ households belong to medium category
10.51% of beneficiaries’ households belong to large category
Number of persons per household working in agriculture:
On an average 2.9 persons per household are working in agriculture.
Awareness about programs of Agriculture Department:
70.7% of the beneficiary households were aware of various development programs of department.
Gram Sewak emerged as major source of information about the programs for 61.98% households.
About 12.57% household’s source of information was “Krishi Rath”.
Agriculture officers ranked third served as source of information for 8.81% households.
62.1% of total households were aware of RKVY “Rashtariya Krishi Vikas Yojana”.
Irrigation Facilities in Study area:
79.8% of beneficiaries’ households have their own source of irrigation.
About 4.6 % beneficiaries purchase water or use rented source of irrigation.
6.6 % beneficiaries take water for irrigation from sources owned by community.
About 9.9 % beneficiaries take water for irrigation from government sources f Sprayer owned by
2.0% of beneficiaries and 68.34% of them received subsidy
30.9% own tube well, 59% have well, 1.4% have tank and 8.7% have other source of irrigation
among beneficiaries owing irrigation facilities.
Modern Agriculture Equipments:
12.27% of beneficiaries own tractor
8.6% of beneficiaries own sprinkler
5.2% of beneficiaries own Planter / seeder
3.85% of beneficiaries own drip irrigation facilities.
Providing Pump sets and Subsidy
Status of Installation of Pump sets:
During the field survey 97.65 percent of beneficiaries have been found and remaining 2.35% of beneficiaries
could not be traced in their respective villages.
71.06% beneficiaries have reported purchase of Electric Pump set and 25.36% reported Diesel pumps.
2.36% of beneficiaries reported non receipt of pump sets as on date of survey
1.21% of beneficiaries have not responded.
3
Year of Installation:
During 2014 and 2015, around 70% of beneficiaries have purchased/installed pump sets.
42.6% of beneficiaries have installed in 2014 and 26.7% in 2015.
About 22.5% of beneficiaries have purchased/ installed the pump set but were unable to reveal the
year.
2.7% of beneficiaries have reported purchase of pump set after 2015
5.45% of beneficiaries have reported that pump set were installed prior to 2014.
Receipt of Subsidy:
77.5 percent of beneficiaries have reported receipt of the subsidy.
22.5 percent of beneficiaries have reported non receipt of subsidy as on date.
Amount of Subsidy:
Average subsidy reimbursed, for purchase/installation of pump set (Electric/ Diesel/Submersible), per
beneficiary was estimated at Rs. 9995 against the maximum entitlement of Rs. 10000 per beneficiary.
79% of beneficiaries reported that they have received Rs. 10000 as subsidy.
12.8% of beneficiaries have reported receipt of subsidy amount less than Rs. 10000 and 8.2% more than
maximum amount entitled under the program.
Actual Cost of the pump set:
Average cost of the pump set has been estimated at Rs. 21949 which is 9.7% higher than maximum
assumed price of Rs.20000.
43.1% of beneficiaries’ farmers have purchase pump sets costing less than Rs. 20000 and estimated average
cost of pump set was Rs. 15822.
Around 57% of beneficiaries have opted to have a pump set costing more than Rs. 20000 and average
cost of pump set was estimated at Rs. 26599.
Less than one fifth of beneficiaries have purchased pump sets costing in the range of Rs. 5 to Rs. 15
thousand.
Purchase of pump set of Brand of own choice:
87.6 of beneficiaries have reported purchased/ installed pump set of brand of their choice.
4
Impact of Pump set on Productivity and Income
Cropping Intensity
Cropping intensity increased to 1.89 in 2016-17 from 1.36 in 2013-14 registering an
increase of 39%.
Percentage of Gross Irrigated Area:
Percentage of gross irrigated area to gross cropped increased from 71.1% in 2013-14 to
83.7% in 2016-17 registering an increase of 12.6 percentage points for all the beneficiaries
of pump sets.
Productivity:
Irrigated Area under Crops:
The increased proportion of irrigated area under different crops especially paddy, wheat, gram and
mustard is the impact of irrigation facility.
The increase in percentage of irrigated area of kharif crops shows that beneficiaries are taking
precautionary measures to protect crops in case of failure of rain.
Proportion of Beneficiaries cultivating different Crops:
Proportion of cultivating farmers for most of the crops has been increased.
Proportion of Farmers started growing additional crops which were not being grown earlier.
Yield of Irrigated Crops:
Significant change in yield has been observed for crops of both kharif and rabi season.
Ensured availability of irrigation through pump sets has shown positive impact on yield of various
crops.
Rate of return (Income per Acre):
The rate of return per acre of net sown area was estimated Rs. 20284 during 2016-17 against Rs.
11426 during 2013-14, registering an increase of 77.5%, which is significant change.
The rate of return per acre of gross sown area was estimated Rs. 8413 during 2013-14 which has
increased to Rs. 10753 during 2016-17, registering an increase of 27.8%.
The rate of return (i.e. income per acre of crop) for most of the irrigated crops increased
significantly except arhar, moong and gram.
The same phenomenon is found to be true for overall crops (i.e. irrigated and unirrigated both).
5
Economic and Financial Viability of Installation of pump sets:
The average cost of installation of water pump, including maximum subsidy of Rs. 10000, has been
estimated at Rs.21949.
The average net cropped area for the universe under study is estimated at 4.94 acre per beneficiary.
Return per acre of net sown area increased by Rs. 8858
The total capital cost of pump set and interest thereon is likely to be recovered in one year with
surplus of Rupee sixteen thousand.
If only 50% of additional income (changebetween two periods) is available for repayment of
cost of pump, then viability of owning pump turns out to two years period and generate Rs.
15547 as surplus amount.
Owning pump set is found to be economically and financially viable.
Perception on Impact of Pump sets
Perception of Benefited Beneficiaries:
Out of ten beneficiaries, six beneficiaries reported increase in income more than 15% due to
installation of pump sets is significant outcome of the program.
23.2% of the beneficiaries reported that their income has increased by more than 25% after having
pump sets.
Around 40% of beneficiaries have reported significant impact on income i.e. increase in income by
15 to 25%.
21.5% of beneficiaries reported increase in income in the range of 5% to 15%.
No impact on income was reported by 11.6% of beneficiaries.
Perception of farmers about Impact on Crops:
Perception of Beneficiaries:
Around half of the beneficiaries have reported that Irrigation facility has been developed due to
installation of pump sets.
Around 16% of beneficiaries have reported increase in crop production due to availability of
water for irrigation.
13.7% of beneficiaries reported that now it has become easier to take water from river/nala for
irrigation.
Around 8% of beneficiaries were of the opinion that stability of production of crop during
drought condition has been ensured due to ownership of pump set.
The installation of pump sets has impacted by other ways has been reported by 13.6% of the
beneficiaries.
Impact on crop and Economic (income) status:
Perception of Benefited Beneficiaries on Impact of pump sets on Economic and crops status:
6
Irrigation facility developed was emerged as major perception of beneficiaries on impact on crop
among those who have reported economically benefited most, significantly and slightly.
Increase in production due to availability of water for irrigation emerged as second most important
factor contributing to increased income more than 15%.
Pump set facilitated farmers bringing water to field from river/nalla for irrigation has impacted the
income of farmers through pump set.
Problems of pump sets:
43.0 of beneficiaries has problem of increased electricity bill and 11.7% reported increased in
expenditure on repair and maintenance.
The mindset of the beneficiaries, of treating paying for electricity and maintenance of water pumps
as problem in spite of reaping the benefits of increased production, need to be changed otherwise
there won’t be any end.
Delivery of Services:
86.8% beneficiaries have reported no problem while 13.2% of beneficiaries have faced problem in
getting water pump set or receiving subsidy.
Suggestion for Increasing Income of Farmers:
Right price of produce should be ensured by the government.
Some of them have revealed that price of crop should be double of cost of production including all
the components.
Quality seeds and fertilizers should be provided at reduced prices or free of cost.
Benefit of different schemes should be provided to farmers.
Problem of availability of water for irrigation should be resolved.
Every eighth farmer/ beneficiary stressed on the need of training of new techniques of cultivation
and agricultural practices.
Membership of Groups:
19.5% of beneficiaries are the members of self-help groups
6.6% associated with interest groups (Farmer Interest Group)
4.3% are the members of farmers producing companies/ organizations.
A lot of efforts need to be put in associating beneficiaries with SHGs, FIGs and FPO for economic
uplifting of farmers.
7
Chapter 1: Background of the Project
RKVY aims at achieving and sustaining desired annual growth, by ensuring holistic development of
Agriculture and allied sectors.
The main objectives of the scheme are:
(i) To incentivize the States so as to increase public investment in Agriculture and allied sectors.
(ii) To provide flexibility and autonomy to States in the process of planning and executing
Agriculture and allied sector schemes.
(iii) To ensure the preparation of agriculture plans for the districts and the States based on agro-
climatic conditions, availability of technology and natural resources.
(iv) To ensure that the local needs/crops/ priorities are better reflected in the agricultural plans of
the States.
(v) To achieve the goal of reducing the yield gaps in important crops, through focused
interventions.
(vi) To maximize returns to the farmers in Agriculture and allied sectors.
(vii) To bring about quantifiable changes in the production and productivity of various
components of Agriculture and allied sectors by addressing them in a holistic manner.
(viii) To incentivize the States so as to increase public investment in Agriculture and
Allied Sectors.
Under the objective “To achieve the goal of reducing the yield gaps in important crops, through focused
interventions of RKVY, State has undertaken for providing pump set to farmers to use other sources of
water such as perennial drain/nala, river, dugout ponds etc., for irrigation during 2014-15. The details of the
projects are as follow:
1.1 Introduction:
Water is most precious and essential resource for enhancing agriculture productivity and for Ecological
sustenance and other beneficial uses. Agriculture productivity requires major share of the existing water
resource. Thus increasing the productivity of water used in agriculture is essential to meet the enhanced
requirement of food, fodder and livelihood security. For change in water use of agriculture, better rural
livelihood by improved production, improved environmental eco system, upgrade rain fed farming system,
8
conservation of water bodies and indigenous technology of water and its resources management etc.,
action plan are needed to mitigate the water problems.
1.2 Background: The common practice of irrigation crops in rural India reveals that farmers are normally using perennial
water bodies through water lifting devices. The main source of making irrigation water available of farmer
are tube well, open well, canals, etc. Other than other sources such as perennial nala, river, dugout ponds
etc. are also important sources of supplementary and life saving irrigation.
This project was envisaged to provide an opportunity to farmer to have their own water lifting devices in
form of Electrical pump and Diesel pump on subsidy basis.
1.3 Objectives of the Project: 1. To facilitate farmers to get irrigation water through lift irrigation.
2. To supplement the electricity through electric/ diesel pump.
3. To supplement the canal irrigation through lift irrigation.
4. To increase water use efficiency in project area.
5. Raising cropping intensity from present level of 136% through life saving irrigation.
1.4 Subsidy Pattern: Farmer shall be registered for purchasing of diesel/ electric pump at local agriculture office. All categories
of farmers are eligible for subsidy and farmers will be free to choose make and model of pump sets. After
purchasing of diesel/ electric pump set of 5 to 10 HP, the subsidy will be granted 50% of the cost of Diesel/
Electric pump or Rs. 10000/- whichever is less.
1.5 Project Cost: The total project cost for 10000 Diesel/ electric pump sets at the rate of Rs 10000 subsidy per pump set
works out to be Rs. 10 crore.
1.6 Expected Output: There are 10000 Diesel/ Electric pumps will be provided to the farmer to lift the water from the wells and
other sources.
1.7 Outcome: On completing the project, the irrigated area may be increased by 20 to 30 thousand hectare of targeted
farmers, resulting in increased production and productivity of the crops.
1.8 Monitoring and Evaluation System:
9
Since this project is based on subsidy to the farmer therefore it requires constant and regular monitoring
in every part of its implementation. To maintain the data base of the progress, the work of supervising the
execution has been entrusted to RKVY cell of directorate, so as to ensure the successful implementation of
the project. The data base will also be maintained for the distributed number of Electrical and Diesel
pumps to know the choice of the farmers.
1.9 Physical Target: Based on CDAP plans and experiences of previous years experience, the overall target for the year 2014-
15 was proposed for 10000 pump sets (Electrical or Diesel). The overall targets were divided in to all four
quarters. The targets were revised in the 4th quarter based on the performance of the districts to achieve
the targets fully. The district wise targets were as follow:
Table 1.1 : District wise targets for Distribution of Pump sets to farmers on Subsidy
S.No. Districts Targets for 2014-15
Physical (Number) Financial (Rs. In lake)
1 Jabalpur 200 20.00
2 Katni 250 25.00
3 Balaghat 40 4.00
4 Chhindwara 300 30.00
5 Seoni 200 20.00
6 Mandla 100 10.00
7 Narsinghpur 200 20.00
8 Sagar 350 35.00
9 Damoh 400 40.00
10 Panna 100 10.00
11 Tikamgarh 250 25.00
12 Chhatarpur 300 30.00
13 Rewa 300 30.00
14 Sidhi 150 15.00
15 Singrauli 50 5.00
16 Satna 20 2.00
17 Shahdol 50 5.00
18 Anuppur 40 4.00
19 Umaria 120 12.00
20 Dindori 50 5.00
21 Indore 100 10.00
22 Dhar 300 30.00
23 Jhabua 50 5.00
24 Alirajpur 50 5.00
25 Khargone 500 50.00
26 Barwani 100 10.00
27 Khandwa 150 15.00
10
S.No. Districts Targets for 2014-15
Physical (Number) Financial (Rs. In lake)
28 Burhanpur 140 14.00
29 Ujjain 150 15.00
30 Mandsaur 500 50.00
31 Neemuch 500 50.00
32 Ratlam 300 30.00
33 Shajapur 250 25.00
34 Agar 250 25.00
35 Dewas 150 15.00
36 Morena 80 8.00
37 Sheopur 50 5.00
38 Bhind 20 2.00
39 Gwalior 40 4.00
40 Shivpuri 150 15.00
41 Guna 200 20.00
42 Ashoknagar 50 5.00
43 Datia 50 5.00
44 Bhopal 250 25.00
45 Sehore 200 20.00
46 Raisen 400 40.00
47 Vidisha 200 20.00
48 Rajgarh 800 80.00
49 Betul 150 15.00
50 Hoshangabad 250 25.00
51 Harda 150 15.00
TOTAL 10000 1000.00
11
Chapter 2: Sample Design and Methodology
2.1 Purpose of Evaluation: The purpose of present evaluation is to study the impact of distribution of pump set to farmers on crop
productivity and cropping intensity. It will also estimate the total irrigated area, gross cropped area and
per unit increase in productivity versus spending on irrigation. In addition, study will reveal benefits
reaped by farmers from pump sets and problems being faced after procuring pump sets.
2.2 Sample Design: The universe under the study is 10000 farmers who have been provided pump sets in 51 districts of the
state.
2.3 Selection of Districts: The proposed sample of 15 districts will be selected with probability proportion to size. The size is the
number of pump set distributed in district. Depending upon the probability of selection of a district, a
multiplier will be assigned to all 15 selected districts.
2.4 Selection of Beneficiaries/ Households: From selected districts 400 beneficiaries will be selected using systematic sampling technique. Each
selected beneficiary will be assigned a multiplier based its probability of selection.
All estimates will be for the universe of 10000 farmers.
2.5 Final Selection of Districts and Beneficiaries: It is worth mentioned that all the proposed districts to be covered under the programme has not been
covered. Thus after the discussion with department, it has been decided that sample for studying the
impact of project should be drawn from the districts in which programme has been implemented as per
list provided by the department.
Details of selected districts and number of beneficiaries from each district are presented in Table 3.
12
Table 2.1 : List of Selected Districts and number of selected beneficiaries
2.6 Estimation Procedure: Probability of selection of district Di (PDi) = Number of tube wells in the ith district/ (Total number of tube
wells/ No. of districts to be selected) where I range from 1 to n, n is the number of selected districts.
Probability of selection of jth beneficiary in ith district (PBij) = Number of beneficiaries to be selected from
ith district/ Total number beneficiaries in the ith district where i varies from 1 to n and j varies from 1 to k,
k is the number of beneficiaries selected from ith district.
Let us assume
The gross cropped area before having pump set for jth beneficiary of ith district= abij and
The gross cropped area after having pump set for jth beneficiary of ith district= aaij
Estimated gross cropped area before having pump set AB=∑ ∑ (
)
Estimated gross cropped area after having pump set AA=∑ ∑ (
)
Percentage change in gross cropped area= (AA-AB)/AB*100. Similarly ratio estimates will be
calculated for various parameters under study.
2.7 Preparation of questionnaire for data collection: A questionnaire covering name of beneficiary, name of village, block, district, his socio-economic status,
land holding, source of irrigation, mechanized equipment owned, year of receiving pump set, crops
grown, productivity, approximate value of output, cost of irrigation, cultivation before and after having
water lifting device; Farmers assessment on impact of pump set, on his economic and agriculture
condition was also sought along with problem being faced by him after having pump set, has been
prepared and was finalized after discussions with department.
Selected Districts
Number of beneficiaries selected
Selected Districts
Number of beneficiaries selected
Narsimhapur 23 Shajapur 25
Sidhi 14 Agar 32
Jhabua 11 Morena 17
Khargone (West Nimar) 48 Bhopal 19
Khandwa (East Nimar) 30 Raisen 14
Mandsaur 44 Rajgarh 32
Neemuch 45 Jabalpur 16
Ratlam 29 All Selected Districts 399
13
This questionnaire was pre tested in field and on the basis of feedback received from respondents the
questionnaire was revised and finalized.
Data from selected beneficiaries has been collected through using "e-sanchay" software developed by
Directorate Economics and Statistics. The field investigators, having android mobile/ tablets, collected
the data through personal interview of beneficiaries. The consistency of data was ensured through
developing consistency checks in the e-sanchay software itself.
2.8 Training of field investigators Training cum workshop of 2 days duration was organised at Water and Land Management Institute,
Bhopal. Practical training on capturing data through e-sanchay was provided by the DES officers.
Detail discussions on survey questionnaire and concepts were done at the workshop. The field
survey was carried out from 1-8-2018 to 30-9-2018 in all 15 Districts.
All the analysis and tabulation is done by using SPSS software.
14
Chapter - 3: Implementation of Project
3.1 Physical Achievement (Output): The data on implementation of programme of distribution of pump set to farmers reveals that
programme was implemented in 38 districts out of proposed 51 districts. The reason for not covering
remaining 13 districts may be non receipt of applications from farmers of these districts. These
districts were Damoh, Hoshangabad, Tikamgarh, Vidisha, Harda, Burhanpur, Umaria, Panna, Datia,
Alirajpur, Singrauli, Anuppur and Bhind with the allocation of 1820 pump sets. As per proposal, after
quarterly reviews the targets of distribution of pump sets were reallocated to other districts having
more demand which is evident from districts which have achieved more than proposed targets. The
proposed targets and achievements are presented below in Table.
Table 3.1 : Proposed Physical Targets and Achievement
S.No. Districts Proposed Targets (Number)
Target Achieved (Number)
Percentage of Target Achieved
1 Jabalpur 200 66 33.0
2 Katni 250 44 17.6
3 Balaghat 40 37 92.5
4 Chhindwara 300 65 21.7
5 Seoni 200 59 29.5
6 Mandla 100 48 48.0
7 Narsinghpur 200 230 115.0
8 Sagar 350 218 62.3
9 Damoh 400 - -
10 Panna 100 - -
11 Tikamgarh 250 - -
12 Chhatarpur 300 371 123.7
13 Rewa 300 53 17.7
14 Sidhi 150 141 94.0
15 Singrauli 50 - -
16 Satna 20 8 40.0
17 Shahdol 50 16 32.0
18 Anuppur 40 - -
19 Umaria 120 - -
20 Dindori 50 62 124.0
21 Indore 100 111 111.0
22 Dhar 300 141 47.0
23 Jhabua 50 44 88.0
24 Alirajpur 50 - -
25 Khargone 500 1441 288.2
15
S.No. Districts Proposed Targets (Number)
Target Achieved (Number)
Percentage of Target Achieved
26 Barwani 100 136 136.0
27 Khandwa 150 305 203.3
28 Burhanpur 140 - -
29 Ujjain 150 93 62.0
30 Mandsaur 500 445 89.0
31 Neemuch 500 452 90.4
32 Ratlam 300 291 97.0
33 Shajapur 250 406 162.4
34 Agar 250 647 258.8
35 Dewas 150 161 107.3
36 Morena 80 105 131.3
37 Sheopur 50 19 38.0
38 Bhind 20 - -
39 Gwalior 40 39 97.5
40 Shivpuri 150 15 10.0
41 Guna 200 237 118.5
42 Ashoknagar 50 18 36.0
43 Datia 50 - -
44 Bhopal 250 192 76.8
45 Sehore 200 155 77.5
46 Raisen 400 140 35.0
47 Vidisha 200 - -
48 Rajgarh 800 539 67.4
49 Betul 150 37 24.7
50 Hoshangabad 250 - -
51 Harda 150 - -
TOTAL 10000 7584 75.8
Against the target of distribution of 10000 pump sets 7584 pump sets were distributed thus achieving
75.84% of the targets. Out of 38 districts in which program were finally implemented, 12 districts achieved
more than proposed target, while 21 districts have performed better than overall state performance. For
14 districts the performance was below 50% and same has been presented in table and bar diagram.
3.2 Level of performance:
Table 3.2 : Level of performance and percentage of districts
Level of performance
Above 100% 75 – 100% 50 -75% 50 - 25 % Below 25% All
No. of Districts 12 9 3 9 5 38
% of districts 31.6 23.7 7.9 23.7 13.2 100
16
Fig 3.1: Level of performance and percentage of districts
It seems that proposed targets were not fixed on likely demand. It is proposed that depending on
potential/ available wells not having pump sets the targets should be determined so that available budget
can be fully utilized and to extent possible coverage can be increased. The data of source of irrigation at
household’s level should be maintained. Similarly data of tube wells owner with and without pump sets
should also be maintained. This data will help in identifying farmers for various schemes related to
irrigation
12
31.6
9
23.7
3
7.9 9
23.7
5
13.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
No. of Districts % of Districts
>100%
75 -100%
50 -75%
25-50%
<25%
17
Chapter – 4: General Profile of Households in Project Area
The universe under the study consisted of 339 farming households who have been benefited under the
scheme as per list provided by the department. Out of these 369 households were found at their place
and the data was collected from them. Total 30 households were missing or not found.
4.1 Socio-Economic Status of Households:
The households have been classified as BPL (below poverty line) and APL (above poverty line) depending
upon type of ration card held by households. Antodaya households are treated as BPL households. Around
4327 of estimated households belong to APL category. Majority of beneficiaries households are of other
backward classes (OBC) accounting for 47.11%. The households belonging to scheduled tribe constitutes
24.44% and general category constitutes 17.87% of total beneficiaries households.
Fig 4.1 : Social and economic Profile of Households
Table 4.1 : Social and economic Profile of Households
Ration Card
General Schedule Caste (SC)
Scheduled Tribes (ST)
Other Backward
Classes(OBC) Total
APL (Above Poverty Line)
23.40 5.92 16.16 54.52 100.00
BPL (Below Poverty Line)
10.09 17.12 36.09 36.70 100.00
Total 17.87 10.58 24.44 47.11 100.00
ECONOMIC STATUS OF
HOUSEHOLDS
58%
42%
APL BPL
SOCIAL STATUS OF
HOUSEHOLDS
24%
11%
18%
47%
GEN SC ST OBC
18
4.2 Household Size: Average household size of beneficiaries’ households is 6.1. Marginally higher household size is observed
among APL. BPL households have higher proportion of households as compare to APL households for
family size is more then 8.
Table 4.2 : Distribution of Households by Household size
Household Size Percentage of Households
BPL APL All
Up to 2 7.21 2.93 4.71
3-4 26.14 24.09 24.94
5-6 33.20 40.93 37.72
7-8 13.82 17.44 15.94
More than 8 19.62 14.61 16.69
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00
Average Household
6.0 6.2 6.1
4.3 Educational Status of Head of Household:
Around 22.14% of households are headed by illiterates, 29.64% of households headed by those who have
attained education up to primary. Around 20.12% of households are headed by upper primary passed.
Almost one fifth of households are headed by high school/ higher secondary passed and Graduate and
post graduates are head of 7.77% of the households. Educational level of head of household living above
poverty line (APL) is relatively better than BPL households as 33.67% of households of APL category are
headed by those who have educational qualification of high school and above while in case of BPL such
households are 20.28%. Details are presented in table given below:
Table 4.3 : Educational Status of Head of Household
Educational Level Percentage
BPL APL All
Illiterate 35.12 12.90 22.14
Primary (Class 1st to 5th) 29.39 29.82 29.64
Upper Primary (Class 6th to 8th) 15.21 23.62 20.12
High School 9.72 12.06 11.08
Higher Secondary 8.33 9.90 9.25
Graduate 0.55 8.17 5.00
Post Graduate 1.68 3.54 2.77
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00
19
Figure 4.2 : Educational Status of Head of Household
4.4 Land Ownership:
Around 71.49% of beneficiary households are marginal and small ownership. Households with marginal
and small ownership constitute 83.72% and 62.8% Among BPL and APL households respectively. 28.52% of
beneficiaries’ households belong to medium and large category which owned more than 2 hectare of land
(or more than 5 acre of land). The proportions of such farmers are higher among APL and 2.28 times the
proportion among BPL. All the beneficiaries are cultivators. Details are presented in Table below:
Table 4.4 : Distribution of Households by Land ownership
Land ownership (size)
Percentage of Households
BPL APL All
Marginal 46.03 14.77 27.75
Small 37.69 48.03 43.74
Medium 11.82 22.39 18.01
Large 4.46 14.80 10.51
All 100.00 100.00 100.00
Educational Status of Head of Household
22.14
29.64
20.12
11.089.25
5.002.77
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
Illiterate Primary
(Class 1st
to 5th)
Upper
Primary
(Class 6th
to 8th)
High
School
Higher
Secondary
Graduate Post
Graduate
20
Fig 4.3 : Households By Land Ownership
4.5 Number of persons per household working in agriculture:
Only one person of the household works in agriculture in 16.1% of total beneficiaries households. In 35.1%
of households, two persons are engaged in agriculture. In 35.9% of households, 3-4 persons are engaged
while in 12.9% of households 5 or more persons are engaged in agriculture. On an average 2.89 persons
per household are working in agriculture.
Table 4.5 : Number of persons per household working in agriculture
Person working in agriculture Percentage
of households
1 16.1
2 35.1
3-4 35.9
5-6 9.3
More than 6 3.6
Average Number of person working in agriculture per household
2.89
4.6 Awareness about programs of Agriculture Department:
Various development programs of agriculture department have reached up to 70.7% of the beneficiary
households. Gram Sewak emerged as major source of information about the programs for 61.98%
households. About 12.57% households have reported to have information through “KrushiRath”.
Agriculture officers were at the third rank as about 8.81% households have received the information
HOUSEHOLDS BY LAND OWNERSHIP
14.77
48.03
22.39
14.80
46.03
37.69
11.82
4.46
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
Marginal Small Medium Large
APL BPL
21
through them. News papers and Radio & Television were reported as source of information by 2.11% and
4.65% of households respectively. Around 8.59% of households had told “Any others” as source of
information. 62.1% of total households were aware of RKVY “Rashtariya Krishi Vikas Yojana”. Details are
presented in figure and table below:
Fig 4.4 : Proportion of Households aware of programs of department and Source of Information
Table 4.6 : Source of information
Source of information Percentage
of households
1 KrushiRath 12.57
2 Officials of Department 8.81
3 News Papers 2.11
4 Radio and TV 4.65
5 Website 1.29
6 Through Gram Sewak 61.98
7 Any other 8.59
4.7 Irrigation Facilities in Study area:
79.8% of beneficiaries’ households have their own source of irrigation. About 4.6 % beneficiaries purchase
water or use rented source of irrigation. 6.6 % beneficiaries take water for irrigation from sources owned
by community. About 9.9 % beneficiaries take water for irrigation from government sources for irrigation.
Among beneficiaries owing irrigation facilities, 30.9% own tube well, 59% have well, 1.4% have tank and
remaining 8.7% have other source of irrigation. Households, who owned source of irrigation, have more
than one source of irrigation. The findings are depicted in figure below:
1.29
2.11
61.98
8.59 12.57
8.81
4.65
Krushi Rath Officials of Department
News Papers Radio and TVWebsite Through Gram Sewak
Any other
22
Table 4.7 : Use of Irrigation by Cultivators in Study Area
Item Percentage
Own Source 79.8%
Rented Source 4.6%
Community Based 6.6%
Government Source 9.9%
4.8 Modern Agriculture Equipments:
Government of Madhya Pradesh is stressing on modernization and mechanization of agriculture in the
state. Some of the modern and mechanized equipment are being provided to farmers on subsidy under
various schemes of state and Central government. To assess the status of modernization and
mechanization in different project areas, where RKVY have been implemented and being evaluated by
PPSU, data has been collected on Sprinkler, Tractor, Planter/seeder, Thresher, Harvester, sprayer,
equipments for drip irrigation and others.
Beneficiaries own pipeline, Sprinkler, Sprayer and Drip irrigation facilities and Tractors. The proportion of
households/ beneficiaries owning, of which how many have subsidy for purchase, Average amount of
subsidy and Average values for each of these assets/ equipment is presented below in the table. All the
households have diesel/ electric pump set for lifting water from the source.
Table 4.8 : Proportion of Beneficiaries owning different equipments:
Equipment % of
beneficiaries owning
Of which % of beneficiaries
received subsidy
Average amount of subsidy
Received (In Rs.)
Average value of the equipment
(In Rs.)
Subsidy (In %)
Sprinkler 8.6 32.84 6175 15417 40.05
Sprayer 2.0 68.34 3338 5220 63.95
Drip 3.85 51.45 40180 51760 77.63
Tractor 12.27 1.53 200000 516327 38.74
Planter/ Seeders
5.2 7.5 10000 18809 53.17
Thresher 2.29 -- -- 38040 --
23
Chapter – 5: Providing Pump sets and Subsidy
Successful agriculture is dependent upon farmers having sufficient access to water. Water is the major and more
essential input for the Production of crops in addition to other inputs such as seeds, manure, fertilizers, pesticide and
insecticides etc. Thus to insure food security in the country, ensured source of irrigation is necessary and optimum
use of water in agriculture is the call of the present situation. When water source is available, the Pumps play a very
important role of linking the water source to the level of plants or fields. The role of pumps in agriculture irrigation
system becomes more important as ground water level is decreasing day -by-day.
To increase the irrigated area, under the program farmers are to be provided water pumps. Under the program, all
general categories (Small/marginal/large farmers) are to be provided subsidy for installation of pump. The rate of the
subsidy is 50% of the cost of pump or Rest. 10,000/- whichever is less. Thus maximum subsidy of Rs. 10000 was
planned for each beneficiary. The subsidy will be granted 50% of the cost of Diesel/ Electric pump or Rs.
10000/- whichever is less.
Under the program, the overall target for the year 2014-15 was proposed for 10000 pump sets (Electrical or
Diesel)Against the target of distribution of 10000 pump sets 7584 pump sets were distributed thus
achieving 75.84% of the targets. The status of program of providing pump sets in state and other related
parameters have been estimated based on sample survey. The findings are as follow:
5.1 Status of Installation of Pump sets:
During the field survey 92.48 percent of beneficiaries have been found and remaining 7.52% of beneficiaries could
not be traced in their respective villages. The results pertain to 92.48% of the beneficiaries which have been
estimated in absolute number are 7406. The beneficiaries were asked the type (Electric or Diesel) of pump they have
installed. In response to that 71.06% beneficiaries has received Electric Pumps and 25.36% has received Diesel
pumps. Further about 1.21% has not responded this question but about 2.36% has indicated that they have not
received any pump sets.
Table 5.1 : Installation status
Electric Pump
Diesel Pump
Pump Not Received
Not Responded
Total
71.06 25.36 2.36 1.21 100.00
5.2 Year of Installation:
It has been estimated that actions for installation of pumps were done for 42.62% of beneficiaries in 2014, for
26.65% in 2015 and for 2.75% in 2016 or after. About 22.53% have not responded to this and about 5.45% has
reported that the pump installation was done before 2013 or before.
24
Table 5.2 : Year of Installation:
Year Of Pump Installed Percentage
Year not mentioned 22.53
Year 2013 Or Before 5.45
Year 2014 42.62
Year 2015 26.65
Year 2016 or after 2.75
Total 100.00
Figure 5.1 : Percentage of Beneficiaries reporting year of actions for installation of pump sets
5.3 Receipt of Subsidy:
The beneficiaries were entitled for subsidy up to Rs.10000 for installation
of pump set/ submersible pump set. The table explains the status of
subsidy received.
About 77.46 percent beneficiaries have received the subsidy. The 22.54
percent of beneficiaries has reported that they have not received the
subsidy. Some of them may be in process of getting subsidy.
5.4 Distribution subsidy received:
The total average subsidy received, for installation of pump set/ submersible pump set, by each beneficiary was Rs.
9995 which was 99.95% of Rs. 10000 which was maximum amount provision in the project. The results are depicted
in table given below. Percentage of beneficiaries who have received subsidy upto Rs.5000 is 8.19%, those who have
received more then 5000 but less then 10000 are 4.56%, received equal to Rs.10000 are 79.03% and beneficiaries
have received subsidy more then highest cap value of Rs.10000 are 8.22%.
Table 5.4 : Distribution subsidy received:
Amount of subsidy percentage beneficiary
up to 5000 8.19
5001 to 9999 4.56
equal to 10000 79.03
more then 10000 8.22
100.00
01020304050
22.53
5.45
42.62 26.65
2.75
Table 5.3 : Receipt of Subsidy
Where Subsidy Received?
percentage
No 22.54
Yes 77.46
Total 100.00
Average subsidy 9995.34
25
Figure 5.2 : Distribution of Beneficiaries by amount of subsidy received:
5.5 Purchase of pump with own choice:
Under this scheme the beneficiary was allowed to purchase the pump of his own choice or brand from market.
Question was asked to the beneficiaries those who have reported to have received subsidy for pump. The results are
given in the table. Total 87.62 % beneficiaries have reported that they were allowed to purchase the pump of their
choice or brand. 12.38 percent of beneficiaries who have received subsidy were told that the pump provided under
the scheme was not of their choice.
Table 5.5 : Purchase of pump with own choice:
Weather pump was provided of their choice/brand?
percentage of beneficiaries
No 12.38 Yes 87.62
Total 100.00
5.6 Actual amount of Pump sets:
beneficiaries were asked about the actual cost of pump set. More then half (56.85%) beneficiaries has opted to
have a Pump sets of the cost more then Rs. 20000 and only 6.31% of beneficiaries have opted to have a
pump of cost between 5 to 10 thousand. Distribution on the cost is shown in the table below. The average
cost of Pump sets is found to be Rs.21949 which is 9.7% higher then Rs. 20000.
Table 5.6 : Actual amount of Pump sets:
Actual cost reported percentage of beneficiaries
5000 to 10000 6.31
10001 to 15000 12.91
15001 to 20000 23.92
20001 to 30000 49.10
30000 and above 7.75
Total 100.00
0
20
40
60
80
up to 5000 5001 to9999
equal to10000
more then10000
8.19 4.56
79.03
8.22
26
Chapter – 6: Impact of Pumps on Productivity and Income
To study the impact of any project or intervention the base line study/ bench mark study should have
been undertaken before launching of project or initiation of intervention. This base line study/ bench mark
study provides the situation of various parameter related to area of operation which can easily compared
at later date. The advancement made on different parameter can be affirmatively drawn.
The data relating to present position can be collected without any problem while for the past (i.e. before
launch of project), in absence of base line study, one has depended on recall method to capture the data.
The data collected through recall method may not be cent-percent reliable. This data may reveal the trend
of progress but the quantum of progress taken place can’t be affirmatively inference. In following
paragraphs, the perception of households about the impact of pumps providing scheme on agricultural
productivity and their income has been analyzed for project area.
Impact on various parameters such as cropping intensity, area under crop, yield and other related to
agriculture are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The data collected from sampled households in study area on land ownership (agricultural land) which
include land owned, leased in land, leased out and current fallow land and similarly details of crops grown
i.e. area under crop, production, values received from sale of produce and expenditure incurred has been
collected for 2016-17 and for the year before fencing was laid in study area. From this information of
households, net sown area in the study area can be estimated for year 2016-17 and gross cropped area for
2016-17 and 2013-14 (prior to fencing) can be estimated. Estimated net sown area for the year 2013-14
has been assumed same as that of 2016-17 as this much area was available for cultivation. In other words,
landholding pattern of households has not changed in study area. In spite of best efforts, data of some of
the crops grown by beneficiaries could not be collected due to unavoidable circumstances. Thus most of
these parameters under study will be under estimated. Thus minimum impact observed on different
parameters is being presented in following paragraphs.
6.1 Cropping Intensity
The data reveals that during 2013-14, cropping intensity was 1.17 for beneficiaries which have increased
to 1.72 in 2016-17 registering an increase of 47%. Out of total 369 sample records only 9 samples (2.43%)
has stated that they have not received the pumps. Assuming these samples as “Non-Beneficiaries” a
comparison between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries could be possible But looking to the very small
sample size (2.43% of total sample) this idea was dropped. The estimates drawn from very small sample
will not be much reliable also.
27
Table 6.1 : Cropping Intensity Before and After Installation of Pump sets
Year Beneficiaries
Present (2016-17) 1.72
Before (2013-14) 1.17
Percentage change 47%
6.2 Percentage of Gross Irrigated Area:
Percentage of gross irrigated area to gross cropped area reveals the utilization of irrigation facility and
with availability of facility for irrigation, increase in proportion area of irrigated crops is expected. It found
to be true for all type of beneficiaries with varying degree. Percentage of gross irrigated area has increased
by 42.55 percentage points for benefited beneficiaries after the implementation of project.
Table 6.2 : Percentage of Gross Irrigated Area Before and After Installation of water pumps
Year All Beneficiaries
Present (2016-17) 41.54
Before (2013-14) 29.14
Increase in Percentage
Points 42.55
6.3 Productivity:
Increased cropping intensity and availability of ensured irrigation facility in form of installation of Pumps is
bound to increase productivity (i.e. production per hectare) and increased income per hectare of net
cropped area or per hectare of gross cropped area. The impact of scheme on Productivity and Income is
being elaborated in following paragraphs.
6.4 Area Under crops:
Major crops in study area are Paddy, Wheat, Gram, Soybeans, Urad and Arhar/Tuar. Coarse Cereals (i.e.
Kodo, Kutki, Jwar and Bajra etc.), Mustard, Maize and Til are being grown by smaller proportion of
beneficiaries. The increased proportion of irrigated area under different crops especially paddy, wheat,
gram and mustard is the impact of irrigation facility, which has been made available to beneficiaries. The
increase in percentage of irrigated area of kharif crops shows that beneficiaries are taking precautionary
measures to protect crops in case of failure of rain.
28
Table 6.3 : Percentage of Irrigated Area under Different Crops Before and after Installation of irrigation Pumps
Crops Benefited Beneficiaries
2016-17 2013-14
Dhan/ Paddy 84.77 65.31
Tuar 86.93 43.81
Urad 62.74 19.54
Mung 94.65 78.78
Chana/ Gram 92.94 73.38
Soyabeen 60.58 58.99
Gehu/ Wheat 96.72 89.11
Makaa/ Maize 88.19 78.39
MOTAAnaj/ Coarse Grains 89.92 80.15
Sarso/ Mustard 100.00 100.00
Til 0.00 48.39
Ram Til 100.00 0.00
Sabji/ Vegetables 100.00 85.73
All 83.60 71.60
6.5 Yield of Irrigated Crops:
Increase in yield depends upon number of factors such as irrigation, use of improved/ high yielding variety
of seeds, use of fertilizers etc. and cultivating practices (especially in case of Paddy) and other components
of package of practices for each crop. It is difficult to isolate the impact of irrigation. Thus assuming that all
other factors remain same, though not possible, the percentage change in yield observed for irrigated
crops has been estimated and same is exhibited below. It is observed that percentage change in yield of
various irrigated crops is higher for the beneficiaries with pump sets as compare to those not having for
most of the crops. Significant change has been observed in case of kharif crops as compare to rabi crops.
Irrigation is essential for rabi crops under all the circumstance may be reason for comparatively low
percentage increase in yield as compare to kharif crops.
29
Table 6.4: Percentage Change in Yield of Irrigated Crops Before and After Installation of Pump sets
CROPS YIELD in KG per Hectare
2013-14 2016-17 %CHANGE
Dhan/ Paddy 2339.99 2985.57 27.59
Tuar 950.91 1159.59 21.95
Urad 739.30 934.22 26.37
Mung 793.72 909.52 14.59
Chana/ Gram 1104.66 1347.55 21.99
Soyabeen 1167.01 1239.11 6.18
Gehu/ Wheat 2349.89 2877.82 22.47
Makaa/ Maize 2193.48 2115.52 -3.55
MOTA Anaj/ Coarse Grains 1473.06 1650.47 12.04
Sarso/ Mustard 1354.73 1694.95 25.11
Til 831.65 494.21 -40.57
Ram Til 0.00 247.11 0.00
Sabji/ Vegetables 8090.38 9615.30 18.85
Similar trends in percentage change in yield has been observed for crops grown (irrigated and
unirrigated) as that of irrigated crops. Thus ensured availability of irrigation through pump sets
has shown positive impact on yield of various crops.
Table: 6.5: Percentage Change in Yield of(Irrigated and Unirrigated) Crops Before and After Installation of Pump sets
CROPS YIELD in KG per Hectare
2013-14 2016-17 %CHANGE
Dhan/ Paddy 2848.30 3342.39 17.34678
Tuar 856.99 1268.96 48.07108
Urad 516.13 944.98 83.08893
Mung 874.37 955.60 9.289534
Chana/ Gram 1219.15 1390.37 14.044
Soyabeen 1116.04 1231.25 10.32345
Gehu/ Wheat 2493.35 2945.36 18.12832
Makaa/ Maize 2184.63 2161.64 -1.052328
MOTA Anaj/ Coarse Grains 1490.74 1757.89 17.9207
Sarso/ Mustard 1354.73 1694.95 25.11312
Til 576.58 0.00 -100
Ram Til 0.00 247.11 0
Sabji/ Vegetables 8408.85 9615.30 14.34735
30
6.6 Rate of return (Income per Acre):
Income from agriculture is sum of sale value of different crops minus expenditure incurred on all inputs
like seeds, manure, fertilizers, irrigation etc., hired labour and transportation from preparation of field to
sale of produce including imputed value of family labour put in raising crops.
Rate of return (income per acre) can be calculated in two ways i.e. Rate of return per acre of net sown
area and Rate of return per acre of gross sown/ cropped area.
Rate of return per acre of net sown area represents the per unit return irrespective of number of times it
is cultivated. In other words, the maximum return can be received from one acre of land. While, Rate of
return per hectare of gross sown/ cropped area, represents the per unit return realized considering each
crop cultivated by the household i.e. average return per hectare of all crops.
In general, rate of return per hectare of net sown area should be more/ higher than rate of return per
hectare of gross cropped area. The percentage change in rate of return per acre of net sown area (119%)
is significantly higher. The results are presented in table below:
Table 6.6 : Percentage Change in Rate of Return per acre of net sown area for period before and after Installation of Pump sets
Year Rate of return per acre of
net sown area
Before (2013-14) 7971.70
Present (2016-17) 17460.51
Change in Percentage 119.03
Crop wise rate of return during 2013-14 and 2016-17 has been presented for both irrigated crops and for
crops (i.e. irrigated and unirrigated combined) for assessing the impact of pump sets on individual crops. It
reveals that rate of return (income per acre of crop) turned out to be increased positively for most of
irrigated crops and The same phenomenon are found to be true for crops (irrigated and unirrigated).
Table 6.7 : Percentage Change in Rate of return per acre of gross sown/cropped Irrigated area. for after Installation of Pump sets for Irrigated Crops:
CROPS
Rate of return per acre of gross sown/cropped Irrigated area.
2013-14 2016-17 %CHANGE
Dhan/ Paddy 11041.40 14468.84 31.04
Tuar 11255.19 7623.88 -32.26
Urad 2427.50 7254.31 198.84
Mung 5235.01 11080.43 111.66
Chana/ Gram 11617.83 11813.88 1.69
Soyabeen 6190.63 7542.36 21.84
Gehu/ Wheat 7184.89 11219.50 56.15
Makaa/ Maize 3724.96 7156.81 92.13
MOTA Anaj/ Coarse Grains 1934.51 8991.31 364.78
Sarso/ Mustard 11800.59 14491.93 22.81
Til 10666.67 0.00 -100.00
Ram Til 0.00 4000.00 0.00
Sabji/ Vegetables 19202.98 18391.85 -4.22
31
It reveals that on the both the methods rate of return turned out to be increased positively. If
entire available land was not being cultivated prior to fencing, then these findings are
encouraging.
Table 6.8 : Percentage Change in Rate of Return for period before and after Installation
of pump sets for Irrigated and Unirrigated Crops:
CROPS
Rate of return per acre of gross sown/cropped for Irrigated and
Unirrigated Crops.
2013-14 2016-17 %CHANGE
Dhan/ Paddy 9180.271 13331.47 45.22
Tuar 7395.233 7182.619 -2.88
Urad 5273.586 7684.531 45.72
Mung 5025.741 10543.84 109.80
Chana/ Gram 9762.358 11502.18 17.82
Soyabeen 6925.606 7358.267 6.25
Gehu/ Wheat 6672.876 10968.31 64.37
Makaa/ Maize 3854.323 7072.218 83.49
MOTA Anaj/ Coarse Grains 2249.418 8343.279 270.91
Sarso/ Mustard 11800.59 14491.93 22.81
Til 8326.965 8796 5.63
Ram Til 0 4000 0.00
Sabji/ Vegetables 17323.95 18391.85 6.16
6.7 Economic and Financial Viability of Installation of pump sets:
The average cost of installation of water pump, including maximum subsidy of Rs. 10000, has been estimated
at Rs.21949. The average net cropped area for the universe under study is estimated at 4.94 acre per
beneficiary. The return per acre of net sown area in 2016-17, for beneficiaries has estimated at Rs. 17460
which is 119.03% higher than return per acre of net sown area in 2013-14 as shown in tables given above.
As rate of return has taken in account all the expenditure for running the pump sets and
maintenance etc., therefore rate of return calculated per acre is net return.
To work out the Economic and Financial Viability of pump sets following assumption has been made.
1. This investment, for installation of pump sets borne by beneficiary and subsidy provided by
government earns interest of 12% per annum. Average investment per pump set is Rs. 21949
as estimated.
32
2. The difference in rate of return per acre of net cropped area between 2013-14 and 2016-17
has been taken as maximum benefit beneficiary has drawn over the year.
3. Average net cropped area per beneficiary is 4.92 Acre.
4. Taking same benefit over the base year for years to come.
Based on these assumptions, total capital and interest thereon is likely to be recovered in one year. If
subsidy is accounted as not part of investment of beneficiary than break even may be achieved in
same year.
Table 6.9 : Economic and Financial Viability of pump sets
Year Investment Interest @ 12% per annum
Additional income (change in rate of
return per acre of net cropped area)
Average Net
cropped area
(in Acre)
Total amount at beginning of next year
(2+3-4*5)
1 2 3 4 5 6
2015-16 21949 2634 0 4.92 24583
2016-17 24583 2950 9489 4.92 -18883
In case, only 50% of additional income (changebetween two periods) is available for repayment of
cost of pump, The viability of owning pump sets has been worked out and found that total capital
and interest thereon is likely to be recovered in two years.
Table 6.10 : Economic and Financial Viability of pump set
Year Investment Interest @ 12% per annum
Additional income (50% of
change in rate of return per acre of net cropped area)
Average Net
cropped area
(in Acre)
Total amount at
beginning of next year (2+3-4*5)
1 2 3 4 5 6
2015-16 21949 2634 0 4.92 24583
2016-17 24583 2950 4745 4.92 4188
2017-18 4188 503 4745 4.92 18654
Thus owning pump set is found to be economically and financially viable.
33
Chapter 7: Perception on Impact of Pump sets
The perception of beneficiaries, about the impact of tube well on economic status (income) and
Crop is proposed and presented in this chapter.
7.1 Perception of Beneficiaries about Economic Impact of pump sets:
On the perception of economic impact i.e. increase in income, five options were provided to the farmers
to tick one option which was applicable to him. These five options were
1. Impacted Most (Increase in income by more than 25%)
2. Impacted Significantly (Increase in income between 15 to 25%)
3. Impacted Slightly (Increase in income between 5 to 15%)
4. Impacted Insignificantly (less than 5% increase in income)
5. Not Impacted (No increase in income)
7.2 Perception of Benefited Beneficiaries:
23.76% of the beneficiaries have reported that their income has increased by more than 25% after having
pump sets. 40.79% of beneficiaries have reported significant impact on income i.e. increase in income in
the range of 15 to 25%. More than 20% of beneficiaries reported increase in income more than 5% and
less than 15%. The no impact on income was reported by 9.38% of them. About 86% of the beneficiaries,
reported increase in income more than 5% due to installation of pump sets. The magnitude of increase in
income shows significant impact of pump sets to their income.
Table 7.1 : Perception of Beneficiaries about impact on income
Perception of Beneficiaries about impact on income % of
Beneficiaries
1-Impacted Most (Increase in income by more than 25%) 23.76
2-Impacted Significantly (Increase in income between 15 to 25%)
40.79
3-Impacted Slightly (Increase in income between 5 to 15%) 22.06
4-Impacted Insignificantly (less than 5% increase in income) 4.02
5-Not Impacted (No increase in income) 9.38
Total 100.00
34
Figure 7.1 : Perception of farmers about Economic Impact
7.3 Perception of farmers about Impact on Crops: On the perception of impact on crops, five options, as approved by the department, were provided to the
farmers to tick one option which was applicable to him. These five options were
1. Easy to take water from river/nala for irrigation
2. Irrigation facility developed
3. Stability in production of crop specially in drought season
4. Increase in production due to availability of water for irrigation
5. Any other
7.4 Perception of Beneficiaries: More than half of the beneficiaries have reported that Irrigation facility is developed due to
installation of water pumps. Around 16% of beneficiaries have reported increase in crop production
due to availability of water for irrigation. Easy to take water from river/nala for irrigation was reported
by 13.41% beneficiaries. Around 7.97% of beneficiaries were of the opinion that stability of production
of crop during drought condition has been ensured while 12.12 % were of the opinion that installation
of pump sets has impacted by other ways.
Table 7.2 Perception of farmers about Impact on Crops
Perception of farmers about Impact on Crops % of
Beneficiaries
Easy to take water from river/nalla for irrigation 13.41
Irrigation facility developed 50.39
Stability in production of crop specially in drought season 7.97
Increase in production due to availability of water for irrigation 16.11
Any other 12.12
Total 100.00
01020304050
23.76 40.79
22.06 4.02 9.38
35
Figure 7.2 : Perception of beneficiaries about Impact on crops (in Percentage):
7.5 Impact on crop and Economic (income) status:
Perception of Benefited Beneficiaries on Impact of pump sets on Economic and crops status:
Irrigation facility developed was emerged as major perception of beneficiaries on impact on crop among
those who have reported economically benefited most, significantly and slightly.
Table 7.3 : Perception of Beneficiaries on Impact on Economic and crops status: (in %)
Perception of farmers about Impact on Crops Easy to take
water from river/nala for
irrigation
Irrigation facility
developed
Stability in production of crop specially
in drought season
Increase in production
due to availability of
water for irrigation
Any other
Total Perception of
Beneficiaries about impact on income
1-Impacted Most (Increase in income by
more than 25%) 2.99 13.97 1.35 4.50 0.34 23.16
2-Impacted Significantly (Increase in income between 15 to 25%)
5.33 22.89 1.82 6.94 2.84 39.82
3-Impacted Slightly (Increase in income between 5 to 15%)
3.21 9.83 2.65 4.09 1.76 21.54
4-Impacted Insignificantly (less than 5% increase in income)
1.00 1.78 0.86 0.00 0.23 3.88
5-Not Impacted (No increase in income)
1.16 1.05 1.00 0.00 8.39 11.60
Total 13.69 49.52 7.69 15.54 13.56 100.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Easy to takewater from
river/nalla forirrigation
Irrigationfacility
developed
Stability inproduction ofcrop specially
in droughtseason
Increase inproduction
due toavailability of
water forirrigation
Any other
13.41
50.39
7.97 16.11
12.12
36
7.6 Problems of pump sets:
The perception of beneficiaries on economic impact and impact on crop has been discussed above. After
having pump sets and using for more than three seasons, beneficiaries are facing problem. Around 43.29%
of beneficiaries has problem of increased electricity bill and 12.14% reported increased in expenditure on
repair and maintenance. This expenditure is to be there when pump sets used for irrigating crops.
Beneficiaries are reaping the benefits of increased production but paying towards electricity and
maintenance of water pumps is being treated as problem. It is the state of mindset of the beneficiaries,
which need to be changed otherwise there won’t be any end. The drop in water level has been recognized
as problem by 23.70% of beneficiaries and around 23.70% of beneficiaries have reported the problem of
falling water level. Another 20.87% have problem other than discussed above. Details are exhibited in
figure below:
Table 7.4 : Problem faced by Beneficiaries
Problem faced % of
Beneficiaries
Increased expenditure due to electricity/diesel consumption
43.29
increased in expenditure on repair and maintenance
12.14
drop in water level 23.70
Any other 20.87
Total 100.00
7.7 Delivery of Services:
The department, after the approval of beneficiaries by the committee, has to release of grant etc., for
installation of pump sets through set procedures. Beneficiaries were asked whether they have faced any
problems in getting the benefit of scheme. About 87.79% beneficiaries has reported no problem. It has
been observed that around 12.21% of beneficiaries have faced problem in getting water pumps installed
or in getting the subsidy. The problems faced by the beneficiaries in getting services in this regard from
the department are presented below:
37
The problems reported by the beneficiaries are mostly regarding the subsidy. Either they have not
received the subsidy or received very late and beneficiaries has to visit the concern office many times.
Some have received less amount of subsidy and some have reported non receipt of grant till date of
survey.
7.8 Suggestion for Increasing Income of Farmers:
In response to suggesting methods for increasing income of the farmers, good number of beneficiaries
suggested that right price of produce should be ensured by the government. Some of them having opinion
of prise double to the cost prise. It should be noted that government has taken up the “Bhavantar”
scheme to ensure that farmer should get right price of the produce. Some have suggested timely
availability of quality seeds, fertilizers and other inputs required. Reduce the burden of electricity bill as
measures for increasing income of farmers have been suggested by beneficiaries. Some have suggested
subsidised rates of electricity and diesel for cultivators. More modern and mechanical equipment
including equipment for micro irrigation should be provided by government. In addition, of beneficiaries
suggested for providing more economic help in form of subsidy. Adoption of modern and scientific
techniques, organic farming, and information should reach farmers in time (department official should
maintain constant contact with farmers), adoption of right crop rotation and crop safety from stray and
wild animals are the other measures suggested by beneficiaries.
7.9 Membership of Groups:
It is observed that 19.52% of beneficiaries are the members of self help groups and 6.63% associated with
interest groups (Farmer Interest Group) and 4.29% are the members of farmers producing companies/
organizations. Around 70% of beneficiaries are associated with other groups (Other than SHGs, FIGs and
FPO). A lot of efforts need to be put in associating beneficiaries with SHGs, FIGs and FPO for economic
upliftment of farmers.
38
Chapter –8: Findings and Suggestions
8.1 Physical Achievement of scheme:
Program was implemented in 38 districts out of proposed 51 districts.
Remaining non implementing districts were Damoh, Hoshangabad, Tikamgarh, Vidisha, Harda, Burhanpur, Umaria, Panna, Datia, Alirajpur, Singrauli, Anuppur and Bhind
Distribution of pump sets were reallocated to other districts having more demand which is evident from districts which have achieved more than proposed targets.
The total target allocation was 10000 pump sets
8.2 Status of Implementation:
Against the target of distribution of 10000 pump sets 7584 pump sets were distributed thus achieving 75.84% of the targets.
Out of 38 districts in which program were finally implemented, 12 districts achieved more than proposed target,
21 districts have performed better than overall state performance.
For 14 districts the performance was below 50%
8.3 General Profile of Households in Project area:
The universe under the study consisted of 339 farming sample households who have been benefited under the scheme as per list provided by the department.
General profile is representative of 369 beneficiaries' households and Total 30 households were missing or not found.
92.48% of the universe was under study excluding 7.52% of beneficiaries’ households could not be traced.
8.4 Socio-Economic Status of Households:
58% of beneficiaries’ households are BPL households and APL households’ accounts for 42%.
Majority of beneficiaries households are of other backward classes (OBC) accounting for 47.11%.
The households belonging to scheduled tribe constitutes 24.44%
The general category households constitute 17.87% of total beneficiaries.
39
8.5 Household Size:
Average household size of beneficiaries’ households is 6.1.
8.6 Educational Status of Head of Household:
Around 22.14% of households are headed by illiterates,
29.64% of households headed by those who have attained education up to primary.
Around 20.12% of households are headed by upper primary passed.
Almost one fifth of households are headed by high school/ higher secondary passed
Graduate and post graduates are head of 7.77% of the households.
Educational level of head of household living above poverty line (APL) is relatively better than BPL households
33.67% of households of APL category are headed by having qualification of high school and above
20.28% of households of BPL category are headed by having qualification of high school and above
8.7 Land Ownership:
Around 71.49% of beneficiary households are marginal and small ownership.
Marginal and small ownership constitute 83.72% and 62.8% Among BPL and APL households respectively.
28.52% of beneficiaries’ households belong to medium and large category which owned more than 2 hectare of land (or more than 5 acre of land).
The proportions of such farmers are higher among APL and 2.28 times the proportion among BPL.
8.8 Number of persons per household working in agriculture:
On an average 2.89 persons per household are working in crop production activities.
Awareness about programs of Agriculture Department:
Various development programs of agriculture department have reached up to 70.7% of the beneficiaries’ households.
More than two third (62.1%) of total households were aware of RKVY “Rashtariya Krishi Vikas Yojana”.
8.9 Source of information:
“Gram Sewak” was major source of information for 61.98% households.
About 12.57% households have reported to have information through “KrushiRath”.
40
8.10 Irrigation Facilities in the Universe under Study:
79.8% of beneficiaries’ households have their own source of irrigation.
4.6% beneficiaries purchase water or use rented source of irrigation.
6.6% beneficiaries take water for irrigation from sources owned by community.
9.9 % beneficiaries take water for irrigation from government sources.
30.9% own tube well, 59% have well, 1.4% have tank and remaining 8.7% have other source of irrigation.
8.11 Modern Agriculture Equipment:
Sprayer owned by 2.0% of beneficiaries and 68.34% of them received subsidy
Sprinkler owned by 8.6% of beneficiaries and 32.84% of them received subsidy
Drip owned by 3.85% of beneficiaries and 51.45% of them received subsidy
Tractor owned by 12.27% of beneficiaries and 1.53% of them received subsidy
Planter / seeder owned by 5.2% of beneficiaries and 7.5% of them received subsidy
8.12 Status of Installation of Pump sets:
71.06% beneficiaries has received Electric Pumps and 25.36% has received Diesel pumps.
About 2.36% has indicated that they have not received any pump sets.
8.13 Year of Installation:
Installation of pumps were done for 42.62% of beneficiaries in 2014, for 26.65% in 2015 and for 2.75% in 2016 or after.
About 5.45% has reported that the pump installation was done before 2013 or before.
8.14 Receipt of Subsidy:
About 77.46 percent beneficiaries have received the subsidy.
The 22.54 percent of beneficiaries has reported that they have not received the subsidy.
41
8.15 Average subsidy and cost of pump sets:
Average amount of subsidy is Rs.9994
The 79.03 percent of beneficiaries has received subsidy equal to Rs.10000
The average cost of pump set is found to be Rs.21949
More then half (56.85%) beneficiaries has opted to have a pump set of the cost more then Rs. 20000
8.16 Impact of Pump sets on Productivity and Income Cropping Intensity
During 2013-14, cropping intensity was 1.17 for all beneficiaries which increased to 1.72 in 2016-17 registering an increase of 47%
8.17 Percentage of Gross Irrigated Area: Percentage of gross irrigated area has increased by 42.55 percentage points
8.18 Area Under crops:
Percentage of Irrigated Area under Different Crops Before and After Installation has increased from 71.6 to 81.6
8.19 Yield of Irrigated Crops:
The percentage change in yield of various irrigated crops is 18.85
8.20 Rate of return (Income per Acre): Percentage Change in Rate of Return per acre of net sown area for period before and after Installation of
Pump sets is 119.03.
Rate of return turned out to be increased positively.
8.21 Economic and Financial Viability of Installation of Pump sets: Owning pump sets is found to be economically and financially viable
If 50% of additional income is available for repayment, then total capital and interest thereon is likely to be recovered in two years.
8.22 Perception of Beneficiaries:
23.76% of the beneficiaries have reported that their income has increased by more than 25% after having pump set.
40.79% of beneficiaries have reported significant impact on income i.e. increase in income in the range of 15 to 25%.
More than 22.06% of beneficiaries reported increase in income more than 5% and less than 15%.
The no impact on income was reported by 9.38% of them.
42
8.23 Perception of farmers about Impact on Crops:
More than half of the beneficiaries have reported that Irrigation facility is developed due to installation of water pumps.
Around 16% of beneficiaries have reported increase in crop production due to availability of water for irrigation.
Easy to take water from river/nala for irrigation was reported by 13.41% beneficiaries.
Around 7.97% of beneficiaries were of the opinion that stability of production of crop during drought condition has been ensured
12.12 % were of the opinion that installation of pump sets has impacted by other ways.
8.24 Problems of Pump sets:
Around 43.29% of beneficiaries has problem of increased electricity bill
12.14% reported increased in expenditure on repair and maintenance.
The drop in water level has been recognized as problem by 23.70% of beneficiaries
Around 23.70% of beneficiaries have reported the problem of falling water level.
8.25 Delivery of Services:
About 87.79% beneficiaries has reported no problem.
Around 12.21% of beneficiaries have faced problem in getting water pumps installed or in getting the subsidy.
8.26 Suggestion for Increasing Income of Farmers:
Good number of beneficiaries suggested that right price of produce should be ensured by the government.
Some of them having opinion that the price of produce should be double to the cost price.
Some have suggested timely availability of quality seeds, fertilizers and other inputs required.
Reduce the burden of electricity bill as measures for increasing income of farmers
Some have suggested subsidized rates of electricity and diesel for cultivators.
More modern and mechanical equipment including equipment for micro irrigation should be provided by government.
Beneficiaries suggested for providing more economic help in form of subsidy.
Adoption of modern and scientific techniques, organic farming, and information should reach farmers in time (department official should maintain constant contact with farmers), adoption of right crop rotation and crop safety from stray and wild animals are the other measures suggested by beneficiaries.
43
Prepared by
Planning and Policy Support Unit
State Planning Commission, Government of Madhya Pradesh
