You are on page 1of 121

Occasional Paper—16

p
Linkages Between Farm and Non Farm Sector
- Role of Processing of Horticultural
Products

K.V. Subrahmanyam

P
\J/
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
Mumbai

2000
Occasional Paper—16

I Linkages Between Farm and Non Farm Sector
- Role of Processing of Horticultural
Products

K.V. Subrahmanyam

National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
Mumbai

2000
I

^

Published by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Department of Economic
Analysis and Research, 4th Floor, "C" Wing, Plot No. C-24, "G" Block, P.O. No. 8121, Bandra-
Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051 and Printed at Karnatak Orion Press, Fort,
Mumbai -400 001.
CONTENTS

Page No.

List of Tables x
List of Figures xii

I. Impact of New Economic Policy on Growth of 1
Horticultural Sector

i) Introduction 1
ii) Measures/Govt. policies to boost Horticultural Sector 2
ill) Impact of Govt, policies/measures
a) Production of Fruits and Vegetables 5
b) Fruit and Vegetable Processing Sector 6

II. Linkages Between Producers and Processing Industry 15

i) Non avatterfaHity of rigfit processing Varieties of Fruits 15
and Vegetables
ii) High cost of raw material 15
ill) Paradoxical situation 15
iv) Earlier Attempts and Progress 16
a) Indo-Bulgarian Project in Karnataka 16
b) Pepsi experience in Punjab 17
v) Model-Factor linkages with processing 18
a) Production factors 18
b) Marketing factors 20

III. Contract Farming and its Role and Captive Farming 29
and Its Scope

i) Type of contract farming and its implications 29
ii) Methods of contract farming 29
iii) Case studies 30
a) Gherkins 30
b) Tomato 35
Page No.

Captive farming 37
a) Present Status 38
b) New Trends in Captive Farming 38
c) Future Scope 39

IV. Price Risk and Processing: Feasibility of Small 43
Scale Processing of Fruits and Vegetables
i) Economic implications of special characteristics 43
ii) Methods to overcome the price risk 44
iii) Economic feasibility of establishing the small scale units 46
a) Tomato Processing 46
b) Mango Processing 48
c) Grapes Processing 49

V. Export of Processed Horticultural Products 57
i) Share of Export of Fruits and Vegetables 57
ii) Trends in Export of Processed Fruits and Vegetables 58
a) Share of Processed Fruits and Vegetables in total 58
exports of Fruits and Vegetable
b) Share of exports in total production of Processed 58
Fruits and Vegetables
c) Trend in growth of export of Fruits and Vegetables 58
iii) Export projections 60
iv) Changes in composition of Export of Processed Fruits 60
and Vegetables
v) Destinations of Export of Processed Fruits and Vegetables 62
vi) Constraints 63

VI. Incentives to Producers in Establishing Processing Units 75
and Stepping up Processing
a) Ministry of Food Processing Industries (MFPI) 75
b) National Horticulture Board (NHB) 87
c) National Co-operative Development Corporation (NCDC) 89
d) The Agricultural and Processed Food Products
Export Development Authority (APEDA) 90

IV
Page No.
VII. Future Scope and Measures for Increasing Processing 95
of Horticultural Crops
i) Strengthening of Backward linkages 96
ii) Capacity creation 97
iii) Marketing 97
iv) Buiiding up Infrastructural Facilities 98
v) Food Parks 98
vi) Government policies 99
vii) Credit flow from financial institutions 99

VIII. Summary and Conclusions 101

IX. References 105
PREFACE

"The Americans eat what they can and can what they can not" clearly
brings out the importance of processing of fruits and vegetables for better
health and wealth. Unfortunately this has been neglected for a long time In
India and hardly 2 per cent of the total production of Fruits and Vegetables
are processed as against more than 70% in countries like Malaysia,
Phillipines, Brazil and USA. The post harvest losses of fruits and vegetables
are estimated to be a staggering Rs. 30,000 crores. Of late, the importance
of Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industry was recognised and identified as
the 'Sunrise Sector' for economic growth amd attracted the 'EXTREME
FOCUS' area by the Ministry of Commerce, Govt, of India.

Recently, the Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industry (FVPI) has
realised the importance and need for establishing durable linkages between
farm and non farm sectw-lor ensuring availability of quality raw material at
a reasonable price for processing. It is in this context that the present
paper assumes great significance and NABARD should be congratulated for
taking a timely and very useful step in bringing out this paper.

To give an overall picture of FVPI, the occasional paper is divided into
nine sections. Section I covers impact of New Economic Policy on growth
of Horticultural sector. Of late. Govt, of India has taken a number of steps
to help the FVPI and this section broadly covers all the measures taken
such as creation of MFPI, Seed Policy etc., and their impact on growth of
horticulture sector. Section H deals with the linkages between Producers
and Processors, the earlier attempts and the factors to be considered for
establishing sound linkages. Section I I I deals with contract farming and its
role and captive farming and its scope for ensuring the supply of quality
raw material to Industry. In this section case studies of contract farming are
presented to give an In-depth view of the arrangements, problems etc. It
also provides information on the Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industry
where captive farrnihg has been successful and also its future scope.
Section IV deals with price risk and feasibility of establishing small scale
fruit and vegetable processing units in production areas. It covers the

VI
results of feasibility studies on crops like tomato, mango and grapes.
Section V deals with the export of Processed Fruits and Vegetables and
their growth before and after the economic reforms. It also focuses on the
emerging new products for exports like gherkins, mushrooms etc. Section
VI deals with various financial assistance schemes offered by organisations
like Ministry of Food Processing Industry (MFPI), National Horticulture Board
(NHB), National Cooperative Development Corporation (NCDC) and
Agriculture and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority
(APEDA) for encouraging processing and export of Fruits and Vegetables.
Section V I I suggests measures for increasing processing of horticultural
crops followed by summary and conclusions (Section V I I I ) and list of
reference (Section IX).

I am sure that this occasional paper will prove to be very useful for
those who are interested in overall development of Fruit and Vegetable
Processing Industry and also for those who are planning to enter this
Industry.

Bangalore (K.V. Subrahmanyam)

VII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am highly grateful to National Bank for Agriculture and Rural
Development (NABARD), Mumbai and specially to Dr. A.K. Bandyopadhyay,
Chief General Manager, Department of Economic Analysis and Research,
NABARD for recognising my expertise and giving me this opportunity to
write an occasional paper on one of the most important aspects of
horticultural sector.

I also wish to thank the Director, Indian Institute of Horticultural
Research, Bangalore for his kind permission to undertake this assignment. I
am deeply indebted to my colleague Dr. T.M. Gajanana, Scientist (SS) of
Agril. Economics for his help in editing the manuscript on the computer. I
also wish to thank Mr. V. Dakshinamoorthy, Technical Officer, for data
collection and tabulation. The stenographical assistance provided by
Mrs. N.S. Nirmala is gratefully acknowledged.

I am highly thankful to the officers of the Sterling Agro Products
Processing Pvt. Ltd. and Hindusthan Lever Ltd., Bangalore, agents and
cultivators in the study area for providing the necessary information on
contract farming of gherkins and tomato.

I also wish to thank Dr. B.N. Kulkarni, Deputy General Manager,
NABARD, Mumbai for the keen interest he has taken and for the valuable
comments on the draft paper.

Bangalore (K.V. Subrahmanyam)

VIM
Author
Dr. K.V. Subrahmanyam
Phncipal Scientist, (Agril. Econ.)
Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA)
Santoshnagar, Saidabad P.O.
Hyderabad - 500 059. (A.P.).

The usual disclaimer about the responsibility of the National Bank as to the facts
cited and views expressed in this paper is implied.

IX
LIST OF TABLES

S. No. Table No. Title Page No.

1. 1.1 Impact of Post Harvest Losses (PHL) on Per Capita 7
Availability of Fruits and Vegetables
2. 1.2 Plan Allocations of Horticulture during Seventh and Eighth Plans 8
3. 1.3 Tomato Hybrids/Varieties suitable for Processing 8
4. 1.4 Countrywise Fruit Production in the World 9
5. 1.5 Countrywise Vegetable Production in the World 9

6. 1.6 India's Share in the World Production of different
Fruits and Vegetables 10
7. 1.7 Changes in Area and Production of different Fruits in India 10
during 1991-92 and 1995-96
8. 1.8 Changes in Area and Production of different Vegetables in 11
India during 1991-92 and 1995-96
9. 1.9 Revenue Generation from Taxable Inputs of Processed Fruit 11
and Vegetable Industry

10. 1.10 Growth of Fruits and Vegetable Processing Industry in India 12

11. 1.11 Statewise Distribution of FVPI and Percentage Change in 13
FPO Licences in India
12. 1.12 Growth of Fruit and Vegetable FPO Licences - By Category 14

13. 2.1 Ratio of Raw Material to Finished Product Requirements in 22
India and abroad
14. 2.2 Raw f\/laterial Cost in India and Abroad 22

15. 2.3 Comparison of Contract Price with Market Price and Cost of 23
Production in Different Seasons
16. 2.4 Cost of Cultivation of Tomato 23

17. 2.5 Estimated Cost of Cultivation of Gherkins with Modern Technology 24

18. 2.6 Influence of Production Factors on processing-Hybrid Vs Local 24
Tomato
19. 2.7 Cost incurred by the Cultivators for Marketing the Horticultural 25
Crops in Karnataka
20. 2.8 Fair Price of Tomato for Processing 25

21. 2.9 Grading of Gherkins and Price offered by Processing Industry 26

22. 3.1 Profile of Gherkin Sample Cultivators, 1999 39

23. 3.2 Details (opinion) of Contract by Gherkin Cultivators 40

24. 3.3 Cost of Cultivation of Gherkins, 1999 41

25. 3.4 Profile of Tomato Sample Cultivators, 1999 41
S. No. Table No. Title Page No.

26. 3.5 Details (opinion) of Contract by Tomato Cultivators 42

27. 4.1 Capital Requirements for Establishing a Small Scale Co- 50
operative Tomato Processing Unit

28. 4.2 Cost and Returns of Processing Tomato (ketchup) 51

29. 4.3 Break Even Output for Running a Tomato Processing Plant - 51

30. 4.4 Raw Material Requirement and Supply at Different Levels 52
of Utilisation/Processing

31. 4.5 Relative Economics of Fresh Sales Vs. Processing of Tomato 52

32. 4.6 Important Machinery and Equipment Required for a Mango 53
Pulping Unit

33. 4.7 Costs and Returns of Processing Mango into Pulp 53

34. 4.8 Costs and Returns of Raisin Making on Farm 54

35. 4.9 Brandwise Consumption Pattern of Tomato Ketchup/Sauce 55

36. 5.1 Share of Agricultural Exports in India's Total Exports 64

37. 5.2 India's Share in World Agricultural Exports 64

38. 5.3 Share of Fruits and Vegetables in Agricultural Exports 64

39. 5.4 Share of Processed Products in the Total Exports of Fruits 65
and Vegetables

40. 5.5 Share of Exports in Total production of Processed Fruits and 65
Vegetables

41. 5.6 Trend in Export of Processed Fruit and Vegetable Products 66

42. 5.7 Trend in Export of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables 66

43. 5.8 Export Growth Equations of Fruits and Vegetables 67

44. 5.9 Export Projections for Fruits and Vegetables based on Trend 67
during 1991-92 to 1997-98 ,

45. 5.10 Composition of Export of Processed Fruits and Vegetables 68

46. 5.11 Destination of Processed Fruits and Vegetables 68

47. 7.1 Commercial Bank Credit to Fruit and Vegetable Processing 99
Industries

XI
LIST OF FIGURES

S. No. Title Page No.

Fig. 1 Model Showing linkages of Processing with Production and 27
Marketing Factors

Fig. 2 Composition of Exports of Processed Fruits and Vegetables, 69
1997-98

Fig. 3 Export of Dried and Preserved Vegetables 1991-92 to 1997-98 70

Fig. 4 Export of Mango Pulp 1991-92 to 1997-98 70

Fig. 5 Export of Pickles and Ghutneys 1991-92 to 1997-98 71

Fig. 6 Export of Other Processed Fruits and Vegetables 1991-92 to 1997-98 71

Fig. 7 Export of Processed Cucumbers and Gherkins, 1994-95 to 1997-98 72

Fig. 8 Export of Dehydrated Onions (flakes/powder) 1993-94 to 1997-98 72

Fg. 9 Export of Dried Mushroom 1990-91 to 1997-98 73

Fig. 10 Export of Processed Mushroom 1990-91 to 1997-98 73

/

XII
SECTION - I

IMPACT OF NEW ECONOMIC POLICY ON GROWTH OF
HORTICULTURE SECTOR

I) Introduction

India has a great comparative advantage in growing a variety of
horticultural crops viz., Fruits, Vegetables, Flowers, Spices etc., as compared
to the other countries in the world. The diverse agro-climatic conditions
ranging from temperate, subtropical to tropical climate along with cheap
labour, can make growing these crops highly cost effective and competitive
and provide vast opportunities compared to other countries in the world
trade. But unfortunately these opportunities have not been exploited to our
country's advantage. Besides lack of foresight in seeing their scope and
developing infrastructural facilities to take care of their special characters like
perishability, seasonability etc., has resulted in huge post harvest losses
estimated to be around 30 percent and valued to the tune of Rs. 30,000
crores. The impact of these post harvest losses on per capita availability
can be seen from Table 1.1. If we could have prevented the post harvest
losses of 30 per cent, atleast in case of fruits, we could have attained the
recommended level of 120 grams of fruits per capita per day by now.

Not much attention was also paid to develop the Fruit and
Vegetable Processing Industry (FVPI), to properly utilise the domestic
production and prevent the post harvest losses due to perishability and
seasonal glut. Even today hardly 2 percent of the total fruits and
vegetables are used for processing in our country as against 70 per cent
in Brazil, 78 per cent in Philippines, 83 per cent in Malaysia and 60-70
percent in USA.

The Govt, of India and policy makers, of late, have realised the
importance of horticultural crops i.e., fruits, vegetables and flowers in Indian
economy especially as export earners with India losing its monopoly position
in traditional agricultural export crops like tea, coffee, spices etc. Even in
domestic agricultural economy, the need for developing sustainable
agricultural systems and crop diversification was realised and the horticultural
crops have been identified as most remunerative crops for replacing
subsistence crops because of their high productivity per unit area, high
returns and higher employment potential. The share of these crops in the
total net area and gross cultivable areas is increasing in the country. The
rate of coverage is expected to go from hardly seven per cent of the
cropped area to around 10.5 per cent of the net cropped area in 1996-97.

1
ii) Measures/government policies to boost horticultural sector

Only during the end of seventh five year plan and more so during
eighth plan period, some concrete measures were initiated by the Govt, of
India to boost the horticultural sector. These measures are aimed at both
strengthening the production base which is a must for increased processing,
exports etc., and to encouraging the development of Fruit and Vegetable
Processing Industries (FVPI). Some of the measures are discussed briefly
below : [61]*

1. Increased allocation of funds for horticultural sector :

Realising the vital role of horticultural sector, the Govt, of India has
substantially increased the allocation of funds during eighth plan period.
From hardly Rs. 232.1 million in seventh plan period (1985-90) the
allocation in the eighth five year plan has gone upto Rs. 10,000 million, a
significant jump of 4208 per cent. Besides increased allocation of 2094 per
cent for fruits and 742 per cent for vegetables in the ongoing programmes
of the eighth plan, funds are also allocated for new horticultural products
like floriculture, tuber crops, mushrooms and medicinal and aromatic crops
which were hitherto neglected. A sum of Rs. 975 million has also been
exclusively allotted for exports (Table 1.2) [23].

2. Liberalised seed and plant material import policy :

The Govt, of India came up with a new seed policy in 1988, which
provides for liberalised import of seed/plant material by private growers by
fulfilling the prescribed quarantine procedures. This has helped in
overcoming the constraints of the Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industry
viz., high cost of raw material due to low productivity and more raw
material to finished product ratio due to lack of suitable processing varieties
and also lack of quality material and varieties in demand abroad.

With this, some of the private companies have come up with hybrid
seeds in crops like tomato and cabbage which has increased the
productivity from 20 tonnes per hectare to 68-80 tonnes per hectare, which
has not only brought down cost of production but also helped in reducing
the area for supply of raw material [59]. The new tomato hybrids released
are also having high brix content compared to local varieties (Table 1.3)
resulting in lowering the raw material to finished product ratio. Now the
processing industries are also supplying the seed of varieties which are
suitable for processing.

• Figures in parenthesis are reference numbers.
Recently in 1993, the commerce ministry allowed the import of
mushroom spawn culture by 100 per cent export oriented units (EOU) and
dispensed with import permit which has helped to import mushroom
varieties which are in demand abroad [3].

3. Creation of separate Ministry of Food Processing Industries :

Realising the need for encouraging Fruit and Vegetable Processing
Industry, a separate ministry of food processing industries was created in
July 1988, exclusively to regulate, control and develop the processing sector
under a single roof with a single window approach. The creation of this
ministry has resulted in significant growth of FVPI which will be discussed
in subsequent sections. The ministry of food processing industries is also
formulating and operating several plan schemes for the development of
processed food sector in the country like schemes to encourage backward
linkages with farmers by food processing sector, financial assistance for
encouraging or upgrading fruit and vegetable processing within co-operative
sector etc., [6] which will be discussed at a later stage in a separate
section.

4. Establishment of the National Horticulture Board :

The National Horticulture Board (NHB) was established in 1984 for
development of horticulture sector. The major objectives of the board are :

i) To encourage and promote the development of horticulture
industry,

ii) To provide technological, financial and other assistance for
development of horticulture.

lii) To assist and develop infrastructure for post harvest management.

iv) To promote consumption of fruit and vegetables in fresh and
processed form.

v) To impart training to farmers and in-service officials.

vi) To assist in the establishment of farmers' co-operative societies to
improve the economic and social status of farmers and

vii) To assist and promote udayan pandit competition, fruit/vegetable/
flower shows.
The Board has formulated various schemes to achieve the above
objectives. It has also started collection and publication of statistical
information on area and production of horticultural crops like fruits,
vegetables, flowers and also market information on arrival and prices of
fruits, vegetables and flowers from various markets in India which will help
in proper planning in establishment of processing units.

5. Creation of Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export
Development Authority (APEDA) :

The body was established during 1986 by an Act of Parliament and
is entrusted with the responsibility of export promotion and development of
fruits, vegetables'and processed products besides twelve other schedule
products. It is managed by a high level body consisting of members of
Parliament, Planning Commission, several ministries of Central Govt., trade
and industry representatives. All exporters of fruits, vegetables, floricultural
and other schedule products have to register with this authority. The
APEDA has also formulated various schemes to assist exporters of fruits,
vegetables and other products.

6. New Industrial Policy of 1991 :

One of the bold and major steps taken by the Govt, of India in
implementing the economic reforms in India is the announcement of new
Industrial Policy during 1991. The new Industrial policy announced by Govt,
of India in 1991 has placed processed fruits and vegetables (F&V) in the
list of high priority areas and are eligible for automatic approval of foreign
technology agreements and for 51 per cent equity participation by foreign
firms. This combined with some tax concessions like abolition of excise duty
on processed foods to make them more competitive in the International
market and general economic policy programmes like adjustment in the
currency exchange rate has resulted in joint ventures with foreign
collaborators in FVPI, some of them with 100 per cent export commitment.
Seventy two proposals for setting up 100 percent export oriented units
(EOUs) involving an investment of Rs. 800 crores have been approved
since 1991. In addition, by the end of 1993, the Industrial Entrepreneur
Memorandum (lEM) involving investment of about Rs. 720 crores have been
filed. The Ministry of Food Processing has lined up projects worth Rs.
45000 crores for investment over the next four years. As many as 4000
MOUs have been signed and 15 per cent of the projects have already
been implemented. About Rs. 4000 crores worth of projects involving food
and agro processing have started commercial production [20a].

Besides, a number of domestic firms like Indo-Bhtain Agro Farms
Ltd., Agro-Dutch Foods Ltd., Jain Group of Industries, Moneshi-Agro Foods
Ltd., South-Asian Mushrooms Ltd., have started 100 per cent EOUs for
production, processing and export of mushrooms with technical and financial
foreign collaborations with firms like Macon-Agro Ltd., U.K.; Dalsam
Veciapbe Agro-Industries, Holland; South Star, Singapore; Mecon-Agri. Ltd.,
Northern Ireland; because of the new industrial policy.

Even state run industries like Haryana State Development
Corporation, Punjab Agro-Industries Corporation etc., have signed
Memorandum of Understanding in joint sector to set up 100 per cent
export oriented units for production and processing of mushroom.

Hi) Impact of government policies/measures

a) Production of fruits and vegetables

i) India's position in world production :

India has become the second largest producer of fruits and
vegetables next only to China accounting for 9.5 per cent of the total world
fruit production and 11.4 per cent of world vegetable production during
1996. As a matter of fact, we have surpassed Brazil in the production of
fruits which used to occupy first position during 1992. In 1994, we have
produced 38.98 million tonnes of fruits and occupied first position beating
China's production of 35.92 million tonnes, but China overtook in
subsequent years (Table 1.4). In case of vegetables, we have retained our
second position (Table 1.5). Among the different kinds of fruits, India is still
the largest producer of mangoes accounting for 52 per cent of total world
production in 1996, but its share has come down steadily from nearly 64
per cent during 1980. This is of great concern to our processing industry,
as mango is the largest item of processed product which is exported from
India (Table 1.6). Among the vegetables, India has accounted for nearly 38
per cent of the total world production of cauliflower during 1996 (Table 1.6).

ii) Changes in Area and Production of Fruits and Vegetables :

The thrust given by the Govt, of India for the development of
horticulture during the eighth plan period has started yielding results. At present
(1995-96), the total area under fruit crops is around 3.36 million hectares with
a production of 41.5 million tonnes. Mango, citrus, banana are the most
important crops. In case of vegetables, the total area is around 5.5 million
hectares with a production of 71.6 million tonnes, potato, brinjal, tomato, onion
and okra being the important vegetables. During the last five year period i.e.,
from 1991-92 to 1995-96, the total production of fruits and vegetables has
increased from 87 million tonnes to 113 million tonnes recording a growth of
30 per cent. The fruit crop area has increased by about 17 per cent and the
production by about 45 per cent. Most of the fruit crops have registered
positive growth both in area and production. Only in case of grapes the
production has fallen by about 10 per cent, whereas in case of citrus, though
the area has fallen marginally, there was substantial increase in production
(Table 1.7). In case of vegetables, the total areas have marginally decreased
by about 5 per cent and the overall production of vegetables has increased by
about 22 per cent. Very few vegetables like cauliflower and onion have
registered negative growth in production (Table 1.8). As a whole there has
been a substantial increase in production of fruits and vegetables during the
last five years.

b) Fruit and vegetable processing sector

The fruit and vegetable processing industry occupies a unique
position among the different sectors of the food processing industry. This
sector has been given a 'thrust area' status in recent years. Realising the
vast expansion of area and production of fruits and vegetables and the
concern for reducing the post harvest losses and increasing the exports,
this sector has been identified as a "sunrise sector" for economic growth.
This sector has a revenue generation of Rs. 945 crores through taxable
inputs of processed fruit and vegetable industry (Table 1.9). The recent
economic reforms also has helped the sector immensely.

Growth of Industry : Fruit and vegetable processing units require a
licence under the Fruit Products Order (FPO), 1955 issued under the
Essential Commodities Act. However, it does not cover fried products (such
as potato chips) and sun dried products (such as banana chips and
raisins). Except a few unauthorised units, the FPO licence is an indication
of the total number of manufacturing units.

Table 1.10 indicates the growth of fruit and vegetablet processing
industry and shows the details of number of licences, installfed capacity,
production and capacity utilisation. The details are provided by covering two
periods viz., before economic reforms i.e., 1980-90 and after the introduction
of economic reforms i.e., 1991-97. As on 1.1.1998, there wme 4932 units
licenced under F.P.O. with the installed capacity of 2Q.4Q lakh tonnes
producing 9.10 lakh tonnes of processed products. The M^mteer of units
licenced has grown at a compound growth rate of 3.72 per cent in the last
seven years, as against 5.5 per cent during the decade 1980-9Q. The
installed capacity has grown by 14.17 per cent during the period 1991-97
as against 12.5 per cent during the period 1980-90. The capacity utilisation
has increased from hardly 29 per cent during the beginning of 9Q's to
around 50 per cent by 1996. The sharp decrease in production during
1997, according to industry, is due to imposition of 8 per cent excise duty
on F&V products in 1997. From this it is clear that the economic reforms
had a positive effect on the growth of F&V processing industry. The
statewise distribution of FPO licences of FVPI also clearly shows that there
is a tremendous growth in registration after the introduction of reforms
(Table 1.11). The F&V processing units are concentrated in commercially
important states like Maharashtra (19%), U.P. (10%), Tamil Nadu (9%),
Kerala (8%), Punjab (6%), Delhi (6%) and Andhra Pradesh (6%) based on
the FPO licences during the year 1997.

The F&V processing industries are also classified based on the scale
of operation and there are six categories viz., large scale, (>250 tonnes per
annum), medium (100-250 tonnes per annum) small (50-100 tonnes per
annum), cottage scale (10-50 tonnes per annum) home scale (1-10 tonnes
per annum) and re-labellers (<1 tonne per annum). The re-labelling category,
strictly speaking, are not manufacturers of F&V products. The licence
holders of the units are authorised to market F&V products under his own
brand name after purchasing the consignment from licenced manufacturers.

The small, cottage and home scale units still dominate the F&V
processing industry. Though their share has come down marginally from 65
per cent during 1980 to 63 per cent by 1995, a tremendous growth of re-
labelling units has taken place between 1980 and 1990 and they are
accounting for nearly 16 per cent of F&V industry during 1995 (Table 1.12).

From the above discussion it is clear that the economic reforms and
the development programmes undertaken by Govt, of India during the
eighth plan period had a tremendous impact on the production of fruits and
vegetables which form the raw material for the fruit and vegetable
processing sector and also on the growth of Fruit and Vegetable
Processing Industry (FVPI) as evidenced by the growth of FPO licences,
production and capacity utilisation.

Table 1.1 : Impact of Post-Harvest Losses (PHL) on Per Capita
Availability of Fruits and Vegetables*
(grams per capita per day)

Items Based on Less 30% Difference compared to recommended**
production PHL Production PH Loss

Fruits 121 85 +1 -35
Vegetables 209 146 -91 -154
Total 330 231 -90 -189

Based on 41.5 million tonnes of fruits and 71.6 million tonnes of vegetables during 1995-96 and
projected population of 937 million in 1995 based on 2.11 per cent CGR

Recommended at 120 g of fruits and 300 g of vegetables per capita per day.
Table 1.2 : Plan Allocations of Horticulture during
Seventh and Eighth Plans
(Rs. millions)
Item Seventh Plan (actual) Eightti Plan

Ongoing programmes
Fruits 38.80 850
Vegetables 17.70 150
Coconut 77. iO 1000
Spices 20.10 1500
Cashew 29.00 650
Cocoa 1.40 30
N.H.B. 48.00 2000
Sub total 232.10 6180
B. New programmes
Floriculture 100
Tubercrops 25
Mushroom 100
Arecanut 50
Medicinal & Aromatic plants 50
Betelvine 20
Plastics 2500
Exports 975
Sub total 3820
Grand total 232.1 10000

Source ; Ref. No. 23.

Table 1.3 :: Tomato Hybrids/Varieties Suitable for Processing
HybridA/ariety Average yield (t/ha) T.S.S. (%)

NAVEEN 57.50 6.20

RAJANI 72.25 5.3—5.5

RUPALI 79.50 5.6—5.8

RASHMI 67.50 5.50

IAHS-88-3 82.50 5.8—6.0

ROMA 31.20 4.0-5.0

Note: Required T.S.S. for processing is 5-6 per cent.
Table 1.4 : Countrywise Fruit Production in the World
(000 M.T.)

Country 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
China 23102 31758 35923 42016 45462
India 30037 38274 38978 39197 39197
Brazil 32279 31807 31590 33689 35928
USA 29956 29022 28908 29216 28841
Italy 19820 18980 18288 16652 17182
Spain 14524 12976 11959 10826 12095
Others 291800 225935 226501 230124 235227
Total World 369518 388752 392147 401720 413932
Source : FAO Production Year Book, 1992, 1993, 1996.

Table 1.5 : Countrywise Vegetable Production in the World
(000 M.T.)

Country 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
China 119786 12556 189870 201825 202155
India 59194 63460 . 64614 64671 64672

USA 30438 31371 35189 34162 34393

Turkey 19054 18533 19645 21731 20796

Japan 13737 13664 13419 13589 13589
Italy 14120 14090 13883 13555 13555

Spain 10106 10158

Others 189735 309775 208395 216834 216363

Total World 456170 473607 545015 566367 565523
Source : FAO Production Year Book, 1992, 1993, 1996.
Table 1.6 India's Share in the World Production of different
Fruits and Vegetables
(000 MT)

Item 1980 1996

World India India's World India India's
Share (%) Share (%)

A. Fruits
Apple 3376.00 770.00 2.28 53672.00 1200F 2.24
Banana 40007.00 4830.00 12.06 55787.00 9935F 17.81
Grapes 4470.00 20.00 0.45 57410.00 600F 1.05
Grape Fruit & Pomello 5004.00 70F 1.40
Lime & Lemons 9104,00 1700F 18.67
Meingo 13091.00 8363.00 63.88 19215.00 10000F 52.04
Oranges 38463.00 1160.00 3.02 59558.00 2000F 3.36
Papaya 1862.00 265.00 14.23 5867.00 490F 8.35
Pineapple 7843.00 549.00 7.00 11757.00 820F 6.97
Total Fruits 289462.00 18462.00 6,38 413932.00 39197F 9.47
B. Vegetables
Cabbage 34539.00 470.00 1.36 46656.00 3300F 7,07
Cauliflower 4462.00 660.00 14.79 12725.00 4800F 37.72
Brinjal 4531.00 11981.00 434* 3,60
Peas 2263.00 41.00 1.81 5214.00 270F 5.18
Tomato 50998.00 750.00 1.47 84873.00 4800F 5,66
Potato 230263.00 8327.00 3.62 294834.00 17942F 6,09
Onion 20349.00 2504.00 12.31 35644.00 4058F 11.35
Garlic 10401.00 350F 3.37
Total Vegetables 565523.00 64672F 11.44
F - FAO Estimates. - Based on NHB Statistics.

Table 1.7 : Changes in Area and Production of Different Fruits in
India during 1991-92 to 1995-96
Area (ha) Production (IVI.T,)

Fruits 1991-92 1995-96 % change 1991-92 1995-96 % change

Apple 194561 217146 11.61 1147743 1214652 5,83
Banana 383938 433019 .12.78 7790030 13095087 68.10
(Citrus 386929 454062 17.35 2821740 3798271 34.61
• Grapes 32365 35620 10.06 668243 603596 -9.67
CGuava 93977 131625 40.06 1095145 1501296 37.09
Lltchi 49277 48570 -1.43 243811 364613 49.55
'Mango 1077621 1283030 19.06 8751622 10810957 23.53
iRapaya 45239 60921 34.66 805342 1329668 65.11
Pineapple 57059 71275 24.91 768513 1071168 39.38
Sapota 27248 47735 75.19 396262 569651 43.76
Others 526194 574280 9.03 4143528 7148052 72.51

Total 2874408 3357283 16.80 28631975 41507011 44.97
Source : Ref. No. 29.

10
Table 1.8 : Changes in Area and Production of Different Vegetables
in India during 1991-92 to 1995-96
Vegetable Area (ha) Production (M.T.)

1991-92 1995-96 % change 1991-92 1995-96 % change

Brinjal N.A. 434202 — N.A. 6443062 — •

Cabbage 177306 218381 23.17 2771204 3861684 39.35

Cauliflower 202787 220025 8.50 2998061 2473987 -17.48

Okra 221993 430525 93.94 1886486 4031811 113.72

Onion 331760 395500 19.21 4705827 4080000 -13.30

Peas 177680 223965 26.05 1296010 2341313 80.66

Potato 1135075 1109000 -2.30 18194976 18843300 3.56

Tomato 289077 355684 23.04 4243376 5441969 28.25

Others 2601051 1948165 -25.10 22436098 24077438 7.32

Total 5592632 5335447 -4.60 58532038 71594564 22.32

Source: Ref. No. 29.

Table 1.9 : Revenue Generation From Taxable Inputs of
Processed Fruit and Vegetable Industry

Year Production in Average Value Average Tax Revenue
lakh tonnes (Rs./kg) on inputs generated
(Rs. Crore)

1991 3.60 19.34 0.394 274.30

1992 4.69 20.36 0.394 376.20

1993: 5.59 21.43 0.394 472.00

1994 6.76 22.56 0.394 600.90

1I9K 8.50 23.75 0.394 795.40

1996 9.60 25.00 0.394 945.60

Source : Ref. No. t 2 ; p. 76.

11
Table 1.10 : Growth of Fruit and Vegetable Processing
Industry in India

Year No. of units installed capacity Production1 % Capacity utilisation
(licenced) (000 t) (000 t) change (%)

A. Before EconomicI Reforms (1980-1990)
1980 2026 275 69.60 25.30
1981 2394 275 90.00 29.31 32.70
1982 2611 300 136.10 51.78 45.50
1983 2809 330 119.80 -12.30 36.30
1984 3006 379 131.61 9.43 34.60
1985 3093 405 179.20 36.69 40.80
1986 3137 447 161.50 -9.88 36.10
1987 3213 556 186.50 15.48 33.50
1988 3367 599 210.00 12.60 35.10
1989 3629 708 240.00 14.28 33.90
1990 3846 894 260.00 8.33 29.10

Compound 5.50 12.50 12.44 -0.06
Growth
Rate (%)

B. After Economic Reforms ([1991-1997)
1991 3925 950 360 38.46 37.89

1992 4057 1108 469 23.24 42.33

1993 4132 1260 559 19.19 44.37

1994 4270 1402 676 20.93 48.22

1995 4368 1750 850 25.74 48.57

1996 4674 1910 960 12.94 50.26

1997 4932 2040 910 -5.21 44.61

Compound 3.72 14.17 18 3.83
Growth
Rate (%)

12
Table 1.11 : Statewise Distribution of FVPI and Percentage Change in
FPO Licences in India
State/UT 1982 1993 1997 % change % change % change
in 1993 in 1997 in 1997
over 1982 over 1993 over 1982

Andhra Pradesh 95 252 300 165.26 19.05 215.79

Assam 12 23 25 91.67 8.70 108.33

Bihar 16 53 58 231.25 9.43 262.50

Gujarat 109 224 260 105.50 16.07 138.53

Haryana 55 143 151 160.00 5.59 174.55

Himachal Pradesh 45 81 90 80.00 11.11 100.00

J & K 36 80 83 122.22 3.75 130.56

Karnataka 117 230 253 96.58 10.00 116.24

Kerala 161 327 387 103.11 18.35 140.37

Madhya Pradesh 40 93 104 132.50 11.83 160.00

Maharashtra 904 817 934 -9.62 14.32 3.32

Meghaiaya 5 11 14 120.00 27.27 180.00

Manipur 3 7 9 133.33 28.57 200.00

Nagaland 3 4 5 33.33 25.00 66.67

Orissa 10 22 43 120.00 95.45 330.00

Punjab 135 175 309 29.63 76.57 128.89

Rajasthan 44 90 110 104.55 22.22 150.00

Sil<l<im 1 2 3 100.00 50.00 200.00

Tamil Nadu 215 385 452 79.07 17.40 110.23

Tripura 3 3 4 33.33 33.33

Uttar Pradesh 218 415 494 90.37 19.04 126.61

West Bengal 192 260 298 35.42 14.62 55.21

A & N Islands 1 1 3 200.00 200.00

Amnachal Pradesh 1 2 3 100.00 50.00 200.00

Chandigarh 18 29 54 61.11 86.21 200.00

Dadra-Nagar Haveli 2 6 7 200.00 16.67 250.00

Delhi 115 245 302 113.04 23.27 162.61

Goa 48 140 160 191.67 14,29 233.33

Mizoram 3 2 3 -33.37 50.00

Pondicherry 4 10 14 150.00 40.00 250.00

Total 2611 4132 4932 58.25 19.36 88.89

13
Table 1.12 : Growth of Fruit and Vegetable FPO Licences -
By Category
Category Scale 1980 1990 % change in 1995 % change in
(t/annum) No % No % 1990 over 1980 No % 1995 over 1990

Large (>250) 218 10.76 442 11.49 102.75 497 11.38 12.44

Medium (100-250) 236 11.65 331 8.61 40.25 343 7.85 3.63

Small (50-100) 163 8.05 323 8.4 98.16 371 8.49 14.86

Cottage (10-50) 398 19.64 768 19.97 92.96 854 19.55 11.2

Home (1-10) 763 37.66 1303 33.38 70.77 520 34.8 16.65

Re-labeller (<1) 248 12.24 676 17.65 172.58 783 17.63 15.83

Total 2026 100 3846 100 89.83 4368 100 13.57

14
SECTION - 11

LINKAGES BETWEEN PRODUCERS AND PROCESSING
INDUSTRY

As early as 1974 the FAO expert Dr. Mittenndorf [25] had pointed
out that one of the problems faced by the Fruit and Vegetable Processing
Industry in Asia is the supply of raw material. Even at present the same
problem persists. In case of Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industry (FVPI)
in India, the main problems faced are :

(i) Non availability of right processing varieties of Fruits and Vegetables:
According to the Industry, because of the non-availability of suitable
varieties for processing, the raw material to finished product ratio is very
high in India as compared to abroad. As against 4 tonnes of tomato
required for one tonne of tomato paste concentrate of 28° Brix, abroad, in
India, 7 tonnes of tomatoes are needed for making one tonne of tomato
paste concentrate of 28° Brix, because of non-availability of suitable
processing varieties of tomato. Similar is the situation in the case of fruits
like orange and pineapple (Table 2.1).

(ii) High cost of raw material: The Industry also claims that the cost of
raw material in India is also two to three times higher as compared to
International prices, which makes them difficult to compete in International
markets (Table 2.2). Besides, they also claim that the prices of other raw
materials like sugar, are also increasing.

(iii) Paradoxical situation

Regarding the high cost of raw material, if one looks at the price
situation of fruits and vegetables there is a very wide price fluctuation
because of the seasonality of these crops. During the peak season, the
prices of these commodities dips so low that the cultivators sometimes feel
that it is not even worth harvesting and sending the produce to the market.
For example the price of tomato in Bangalore market during the peak
season is as low as Rs. 50-60 per quintal which makes harvesting and
transporting the produce uneconomical. On the other hand the same tomato
price goes up to as high as Rs. 1000 to 1200/- per quintal during the off
season. But the processing industries are unable to take this seasonal
advantage and complain of high raw material cost.

The second reason why the processing industry has to pay a high
price is due to the procurement of raw material from market intermediaries

15
rather than from the producers directly. For example in case of mango,
most of the crop is procured by the preharvest contractors and then sold
through agents to the processing factories resulting in high price to
processing industries and low price to cultivators.

To overcome the above problems of both the producers who are the
suppliers of the raw material and the FVPI there is a need to develop
strong industry-agriculture linkages.

(iv) Earlier attempts and progress

As early as 1970's some attempts were made by the Government of
India to foster the linkages through operational projects with foreign
collaboration and one of them is the Indo-Bulgarian project.

a) Indo-Bulgarian project in Karnataka : The Indo-Bulgarian project
which was started as a follow-up of the protocol signed on March 7, 1974
between India and Bulgaria, was aimed at linking production, processing
and marketing. Both the countries felt that there was a considerable scope
for collaboration in the field of horticulture development and food processing
to the mutual advantage of both the countries. Consequently, a team of the
Bulgarian experts visited India from 13th January to 5th February, 1975 for
assisting Indian experts in the development of project reports for the
establishment of Agro-Industrial complexes. The team located two sites in
the states of Bihar and Karnataka for the establishment of the proposed
complexes.

Impressed by the concept and practical achievements of Agro-
Industrial complexes in Bulgaria, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(ICAR) made a modest beginning by sanctioning a scheme costing Rs.
5,03,000 for Karnataka and Rs. 5,84,100 for Bihar. The total fund of these
schemes has been put under the direct disposal of the concerned state
Governments and under the technical supervision of ICAR. In Karnataka the
technical support was provided by the Indian Institute of Horticultural
Research (IIHR) Hessaraghatta, Bangalore in close collaboration with the
University of Agricultural Sciences, Hebbal, Bangalore.

The main concept behind this scheme was to follow the ideal of the
integration of production, processing and marketing.

The scheme was proposed to be implemented in three phases and
the important objectives of the phase I are :

i) to make the growers familiar with the concept of the Agro-Industrial
complex and ii) to arrange for processing the available produce along with

16
other objectives like laying demonstration plots to get higher yields and
testing of the promising varieties of Bulgaria and India for processing.

In Phase II, it is envisaged to have a main Agro Industrial Complex
to cover Bangalore and Kolar districts. In phase III the scheme is to be
extended to other districts in Karnataka viz.. South Kanara, North Kanara
and Coorg.

The programme realised the importance of rural participation and
hence proposed to involve rural communities viz., cultivators and encourage
them to grow vegetables and fruits for processing purposes by establishing
a processing unit.

As a beginning to fulfill the above objective, during kharif season,
1976 an arrangement was made with the Karnataka State Agro-Industries
Corporation (KSAIC) to process the tomatoes grown by the cultivators in
the 42 demonstration plots with the existing facilities. The growers were
asked to deliver the produce at their own cost to the factory and KSAIC
agreed to pay at the rate of 60 paise per kg for the produce (19).

Unfortunately, most of the cultivators failed to deliver the produce
and all the arrangements made by KSAIC for processing the tomatoes
resulted in wasteful expenditure. But, during the same year rabi season, the
same cultivators approached the KSAIC to sell their produce but the unit
was not ready to accept the same. The analysis of the main economic
reasons for this behaviour of the cultivators has shown that during 1976
Kharif season, the market prices were very high compared to 60 paise for
kilogram offered by KSAIC whereas the situation was reverse during 1976
rabi season (Table 2.3).

From the above it is clear that price plays an important role in
influencing the decision of the cultivators and hence it needs to be taken
care of.

b) Pepsi experience in Punjab: In Punjab a joint venture with Punjab
Agro Industries Corporation (PAIC), Pepsico, a U.S. based multinational and
Voltas, a company belonging to the Tata Group as a junior partner was
started during 1988, with the aim of processing 25 per cent of fruits and
vegetables grown in Punjab and help in diversification of agriculture and
shifting of the area in favour of fruits and vegetables. The company has
also tried to establish linkages with the cultivators by entering into contract
with 107 farmers covering an area of 1600 hectares of tomato. But this
arrangement has also run into troubles [17, 40].

17
The main reason for failure of the above attempts to establish
linkages between Producers and Processors is lack of understanding of the
importance of various factors that are involved in the linkages which will
have an effect on the decision making process of the players. In view of
this, a model which explicitly brings out the various factors, their
interdependence and their role is discussed below.

v) Model - Factor linkages with processing

The model showing the factor linkages that exist between production,
marketing and processing of Fruits and Vegetables is presented in Fig. 1.

a) Production Factors

There are six production factors which influence the processing
industry:

1) Variety: One of the main complaints even today by the FVPI is the non-
availability of suitable varieties for processing purposes, which makes the
ratio of raw material to finished product high and results in escalating the
cost of finished product. (Table 2.1).

Though the New Seed policy of 1988 has helped the processing
industry by allowing the import of germ plasm/seed of crops like tomato in
overcoming the problem to certain extent, still the problem exists, as finally
the cultivators have to be convinced to grow the crop and supply the
produce. Hence, it is necessary to influence the cultivators to take up
growing varieties suitable for processing with proper incentives. The farmers
will definitely respond and grow them. In this connection, the farmers
around Bangalore in Karnataka, taking up the cultivation of 'Gherkins' a
cucumber variety which is an imported variety, suitable for processing as a
pickle is a fine example as the crop is new and has no domestic market.
At present some 20 companies, mainly export oriented units, are engaged
in the 'Gherkins' trade. 'Gherkins' are cultivated in states of Karnataka,
Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh with an estimated area of 6000 hectares
[9]. The variety of a crop also influences the cultivation practices and cost
of cultivation.

ii) Cultivation practices and cost of cultivation: Depending upon the variety,
some of the cultivation practices also need modification which ultimately
may have a bearing on the cost of cultivation. For example take the
cultivation of local and hybria tomatoes. The hybrid tomato crop requires
staking which will be a major item of expenditure, which is not required in
case of local varieties.

18
The cost of hybrid seed of tomato is also very high compared to local
seed. Besides, for every crop season, new seed has to be purchased in
case of hybrids, whereas in case of local varieties, the seed from previous
crop can be used. Hence the cultivators have to spend more than three
times the amount in case of hybrid seed compared to local varieties of
tomato. Similarly the cultivators of hybrid seed crop need to spend more
towards plant protection because of their susceptability to disease and pests
and also require higher doses of fertilization. All these factors push up the
cultivation cost of these varieties compared to local variety. The cost of
cultivation (cost of inputs) is around Rs. 16,000/- in case of hyt>rid tomato
as against around Rs. 3,500/- in case of local variety which is nearly four
times the local variety cost (Table 2.4). In case of Gherkins, a cultivator
needs to spend around Rs. 70,000/- per hectare, compared to the
negligible amount he will be spending for local cucumbers (Table 2.5). The
processing Industry needs to keep the above factors in mind while
advocating the growth of new varieties suitable for processing and provide
financial assistance to the cultivators for taking them up.

iii) Yield. Cost of Production and Returns :

The ultimate aim of the cultivators in growing a crop is to make
profit and the cultivation of especially fruits and vegetables is for
commercial purposes. The returns obtained by a cultivator depend upon i)
yield, ii) price and iii) cost of cultivation/cost of production. This can be
symbolically expressed as :

NR = GR - C and GR = Y. Py where
NR = Net returns per unit area (Rs./ha.)
GR = Gross returns per unit area (Rs./ha.)
C = Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha.)
Y = Yield per unit area (t/ha.)
Py = Price of the produce (Rs./t)

So, for the cultivator to take up the new crop varieties, both the
yield and price play an important role.

Higher the yield of the variety it is better for the cultivator as well
as the Industry, as cost of Production will be less. For example, because
of higher yield of 45 t/ha of hybrid tomato, the cost of Production of
tomato was only Rs. 917/t as against Rs. 1032/t in case of local variety
(Table 2.4).

The higher yield also will make the area requirements for the
production of raw material and the number of cultivators required also less,

19
enabling the processing unit to enter into contract with less number of
cultivators.

Influence of Production Factors on Processing

The influence of above production factors and its implication can be
seen from Table 2.6 in case of tomato crop. The processing units can
save a substantial amount not only in case of raw material but in terms of
area to be cultivated for the raw material. The fact that hardly one third of
the cultivators need to be contracted, itself saves a lot of time, energy and
costs to the processing unit.

b) Marketing Factors

i) Marketing costs : The returns realised by the cultivator are also
influenced by the expenditure he incurs towards the marketing of the
produce. Hence, of late, it is felt that the marketing costs need to be
treated as a part of cost of production [45]. The marketing costs are
directly influenced by the marketing channels followed by the cultivators.
The most popular channel of marketing followed by the cultivators in case
of Vegetables is: Producer - Commission Agent - Retailer - Consumer
and in case of Fruits it is : Producer - Pre-harvest contractor -
Commission Agent/Wholesaler - Retailer - Consumer.

Both the cultivators and processing units will be benefited by
establishing a direct link between them. In case of cultivators, among the
important items of marketing cost, commission charges account for 40-60
per cent in case of fruits and vegetables followed by transport charges
which account for 40 per cent (Table 2.7). By establishing a direct link, the
cultivators will be able to save the commission charges and also transport
cost in some cases which is a substantial amount. The processing unit also
will be benefited, as they can get the produce at a cheaper rate than
procuring from the market or through agents.

ii) Fair Price: Price plays an important role for both the producers as
well as processing units. The price offered/prevailing will influence the
decision of the cultivators regarding the place of sale as well as the
agency to whom to sell. Hence, it is important that the price offered by the
processing unit should be reasonable and attractive to the cultivators. The
main problem faced by the processing units is how to determine the price
which will take care of their interest of getting the produce at a cheaper
rate as well as be sufficiently attractive for the cultivators.

20
In this context, the results of economic analysis of a case study of
tomato crop is presented in Table 2.8 which has taken into account the
three important factors viz., prevailing market price, the price offered by the
processing units and cost of production and come up with fair price
determination. Between Feb. 90 to May 90, the period when tomatoes were
processed by one of the processing units studied in Bangalore, the price
offered by the processing unit (P.U.) was lower by 51 to 91 per cent as
compared to the prevailing wholesale price in the Bangalore market. The
same when compared to the cost of production incurred by the cultivators
was hardly 8 to 20 per cent higher whereas the market price was higher
by 80 to 101 per cent. This clearly indicates the reason why the cultivators
are not enthusiastic for supply to the processing units. Considering that the
cultivators have to pay commission charges ranging from 10 to 15 per cent
and also incur loading and unloading charges etc., it was felt that around
20 to 30 per cent less than the prevailing market price, which will result in
around 40 per cent more than the cost of production, was considered
reasonable procurement price. The earlier case study under Indo-Bulgarian
project has also recommended a fair price of 40 per cent over cost of
production, which will meet the profit expectation of the cultivators [43].
Thus, Rs. 129/q was considered a fair price during that period.

iii) Price fixation based on quality: The price offered by the Industry
should also take into consideration the quality of produce and vary the
price offered based on quality parameters required for processing like TSS,
tenderness etc., as is done in case of sugar industry. This type of fixing
prices seems to be working very well, as evidenced by the 'Gherkin'
Industry in Bangalore. The Gherkins (the pickle cucumber for exports) are
graded based on tenderness and small size. Generally cucumbers are
graded into four sizes at the time of procurement at farmers' field and the
processing units are offering different prices for different grades. The price
ranges from Rs. 8.50/kg in case of first grade which gives more than 100
fruits/kg to Rs. 0.50/kg in case of 4th grade which contains crooks and
Nibbins (Table 2.9).

This type of grading and accepting all the produce and paying them
based on quality will not only satisfy the cultivators, but also make them
take utmost care and produce quality material for processing purposes.

iv) Influence of price of competitive crops: It is a well established
fact that the cultivators will respond to price changes and adjust the
acerage of their crops. Higher prices of a commodity in one season will
make more cultivators take up the crop in the next season which will result
in gluts and this once again will bring down the acreage in the next
season. This cobweb phenomenon is much more marked in case of

21
commercial crops like fruits and vegetables. The processing industry has to
take this into consideration while offering procurement prices to the
cultivators. This was very clearly observed in case of 'Gherkins' industry.
According to the 'Gherkin' industry "We have observed that there is a
clear cut link between the prices of other vegetables in the market and the
farmers' willingness to grow gherkins. If the prices of the vegetables in the
market are high, the farmer is not interested to grow gherkins for which
there is hardly any local demand. If the fresh vegetable market is down the
farmer is willing to grow more gherkins. In the latter, there are more,
farmers to grow gherkins than we are interested to purchase. They come
and que up before our agricultural extension officers' house in the village
and try to win over him to get a chance to cultivate gherkins for that
season" [34].

From the above it is clear that the procurement price fixation by the
processing units has to be done very carefully taking into consideration all
the above marketing factors.

So, the raw material supply and management which will affect the
costs and returns of fruit and vegetable processing units in the short as
well as long run needs to take into consideration both the production and
marketing factors and come up with a procurement price policy which will
establish an enduring linkage between the producers and processors and
the model developed will be very useful in this regard.

Table 2.1 : Ratio of Raw Material to Finished Product Requirements
in India and Abroad
(Tonnes)

Product Requirement per tonne of finished product
India Abroad

Orange juice 14 10 (Brazil)
Concentrate (65° brix)
Pineapple juice 16 8 (Philippines, Hawaii)
Concentrate (65° brix)
Tomato paste 7 4 (Italy)
Concentrate (28° brix)

Source : Ref. No. 21.

Table 2.2 ;; Raw Material Cost in India and Abroad
(Rs/t)
Product India Intemational
Tomato 1000 300-600
Pineapple 1000-1500 250-400
Orange 1500-1800 400
Source : Ref. No. 21.

22
Table 2.3 : Comparison of Contract Price with l\/larket
Price and Cost of Production in Different Seasons
Season Contract Price Market Price Cost of Difference between
(Rs./kg) (Rs./kg) production contract price
(RsVkg) market price
Kharif 1976 0.60 0.76 0.53 0.16
(+13) (+43) (30)
Rabi 1976 0.60 0.47 0.41 0.13
(+46) (+15) (32)
Note Figures in parentheses indicate differences expressed as compared to cost of production.
+ Indicates higher than cost of production.
Source Ref. No. 43.

Table 2.4 : Cost of Cultivation of Tomato
(Value in Rs/ha.)

Item Hybrid Local

A. MATERIAL COST
1. Seed 1848.40 511.10
2. FYIVI 2205.00 2175.00
3. Fertiliser 3994.23 396.00
4. PPC 2728.00 300.00
5. Staking* 5543.05
6. Irrigation 79.87 79.87
Sub-total 16398.55 3461.97
B. LABOUR
1. Human
a) Family 2300.30 2250.00
b) Hired 3040.70 3100.00
2. Bullock 784.69 375.00
Sub-total 3125.69 5725.00
C. INTEREST ON WORKING CAPITAL 1576.69 643.09
©14% p.a. for 6 months
COST 1 (A+B+C) 24100.93 9830.06
D. MARKETING COST 13658.85 7325.00
COST II (COST 1 + D) 37759.78 17155.06
E. FIXED COST 3500.00 3500.00
COST III (COST II + E) 41259.78 20655.06
F. YIELD (T/HA) 45.00 20.00
G. COST OF PRODUCTION (based on Cost III) 917.00 1032.00
* One fourth of the total cost, taking four seasons as the total life of stakes.
Source : Ref. No. 59.

23
Table 2.5 : Estimated Cost of Cultivation of Gherkins with
l\/lodern Technology
items Quantity Rs/ha.

1. Seed (F1 Hybrid), Calpso variety 1250 g 5550

2. FYM 75 CL 10000

3. Fuiradon granules 7.5 kg 2500

4. Oil cakes (Neem oil cake) 17.5 t 11250

5. Chemical fertiliser like CAN, MOP and 5000
Ammonium Sulphate

6. Land development and preparation of rows and furrows 7500

7. Staking material used for 6 crops 5000

8. Plastic wire used for 6 crops 112.5 kg 9000

9. PP measures 3750

10. Harvesting commenced from 36th day aifter sowing 13925

Total 73475

Source : Ref. No. 8.

Table 2.6 : Influence of Production Factors on Processing -
Hybrid vs Local Tomato
(Per 100 t of finished product)

Item Local Hybrid

1. Raw material required (t) 600 400
2. Cost of raw material (Rs) )000 520000

3. Area required (ha) 30 9
4. No. of cultivators required 67 20

1. The raw material to finished product ratio is 4:1 in case of hybrid Ijecause of high brix content and
6:1 in case of local varieties.

2. At the rate of Rs. 1300 per tonne

3. Hybrid tomato yield is taken as 45 t/ha and local tomato yield as 20 t/ha.

4. Based on the average area of 0.45 per cultivator under tomato.

24
Table 2.7 : Cost incurred by the Cultivators for marketing
the Horticultural Crops In Karnataka
(Rs/q)
Crops Transport Loading & Commission Packing Market entry Grading Total
unloading fee etc.
VEGETABLES

Tomato 6.87 1.52 11.71 1.33 0.32 21.75
(31.59) (6.99) (53.84) (6.11) (1.47) (100)

French! beans 8.58 1.35 11.84 0.59 0.33 22.69
(37.81) (5.95) (52.18) (2.60) (1,46) (100)

Brinjal 7.54 0.92 10.23 0.66 0.44 19.79
(38.10) (4.65) (51.69) (3.34) (2.22) (100)

Cabbage 8.63 1.42 10.71 0.59 0.11 21.46
(40.21) (6.62) (49.91) (2.75) (0.51) (100)
Bfiendi 5.66 0.64 10.82 0.67 0.37 18.16
(31.17) (3.52) (59.58) (3.69) (2.04) (100)

Carrot 9.21 1.55 8.82 0.61 0.17 20.36
(45.24) (7.61) (43.32) (3.00) (0.83) (100)
Cauliflower* 9.21 2.99 10.60 1.06 23.86
(38.60) (12.53) (44.43) (4.44) (100)

FRUITS

Mandarin® 11.77 2.42 13.09 1.31 1.51 30.13
(39.06) (8.03) (43.45) (4.35) (5.11) (100)

Banana# 0.68 0.43 0.20 1.31
(51.91) (32.82) (15.27) (100)

Pineapple 30.00 2.00 24.24 1.00 57.24
(52.41) (3.49) (42.35) (1.75) (100)

* : Per 100 flowers. @ : Per 1000 fruits # : Per bunch
Source : Ref. No. 51

Table 2.8 : Fair Price of Tomato for Processing
SI. Month Monthly ave- Price offered Difference bet- Difference bet- Fair
No. rage whole- by process- ween M.P. and ween cost of price"*
sale market ing unit P.U. price production* (Rs/q)
price (M.P.) (P.U.)
(Rs/q) (Rs/q) Rs. % over MP. P.U.
P.U. Price (%) (%)

1 February 1990 166 110 56 51 80 20
2 March 1990 167 100 67 67 82 9 129
3 April 1990 181 100 81 81 97 9
4 May 1990 185 97 88 91 101 8
• Tfie cost of production of tomato during ttiat period was Rs. 92/q based on survey worl<.
" Based on around 40 per cent of cost of production
Source : Ref. No. 59.

25
Tabie 2.9 : Grading of Glierkins and Price Offered by
Processing Industry
Grade No. of fruits per kg Price offered by the industry (Rs/kg)

Grade I >100 8.50
Grade II 60-100 6.50
Grade III <60 1.50
Grade IV* <60 0.50

* Is called C & N (crooks and nubbins)
Source : Data from Case Studies, Section of Economics and Statistics.

26
Fig. 1 : iVIodel Shiowing Linl(ages of Processing witli
Production and Marl(eting Factors
PRODUCER

• CROP •

VARIETY CULTIVATION
PRACTICES
PRODUCTION
FACTORS

YIELD COST OF
CULTIVATION

COST OF
PRODUCTION

RETURNS

-^^
PRICE BY MARKETING MARKET PRICE OF
PROC. UNIT COSTS PRICE COMP. CROPS
MARKETING
FACTORS
RAW MATERIAL
COST

RAW MATERIAL INVESTMENT/
TO PROC. CAPACITY
PRODUCT RATIO UTIL

COSTS AND RETURNS
PROCESSING
PROCESSING
FACTORS
RAW MATERIAL
REQUIREMENT

CROP AREA
REQUIRED

27
SECTION - III

CONTRACT FARMING AND ITS ROLE AND
CAPTIVE FARMING AND ITS SCOPE

Of late it has been realised that it is beneficial for both the
processing industries and the producers to have linkages. Out of the three
types/forms of linkages viz., contract farming, captive farming and co-
operative farming, most of the processing industries feel that contract
growing of fruits and vegetables with farmers, needs to be promoted on a
large scale with Government help. It is in this context that the contract
farming has come into being as a Horti-Business proposition. The Ministry
of Food Processing has also formulated a scheme to encourage contract
farming. Under this scheme "a particular processing Industry should enter
into a contract with a group of farmers for purchase of their produce at a
specified price. The Government would provide financial assistance upto
Rs. 10 lakhs as a grane in aid for each of the project of contract farming.
An official release said.... 'State owned undertakings, co-operatives, joint
sector and private sector enterprises engaged in contract farming at least
with 25 farmers were eligible to avail the financial aid' [4].

Contract farming

I) Type of contract farming and its implications

The contract farming is a type of forward contract between producers
of a commodity and processing units which involves an agreement for
supply of a commodity of a type at a time and in quantity required by
buyer. It basically involves three components

i) Pre agreed fixed price
II) fixed quantity (minimum/maximum)
ill) fixed quality

ii) Methods of contract farming

1. Oral or written: The contract arrangements in most cases of fruits and
vegetables are of oral type and in some cases, from farmers the written
agreement is also executed.

2. The contract arrangements may be of the following types:

i) Purchase contract for produce from the cultivators at a fixed price.

29
il) Supply of some inputs like seed and/or technical know how for
cultivation of a crop besides the purchase agreement.

Both the above types of contract arrangements are practiced in India
with varying degrees of success.

i) Purchase contract: This type of contract was tried in the beginning by
some of the processing firms. In this type of contract the firm only agrees
to purchase the produce at a pre fixed price. The risk of non-fulfillment of
the agreement is very high in this type of contract as was experienced in
case of Indo-Bulgarian project. The main reason for this is the large
difference between the contract price and the prevailing market price at the
time of supply of the produce. Similarly, as the processing units are not
giving any input needed by the cultivators, there is also no moral obligation
for supplying the produce.

ii) Supply of inputs: Most of the processing units which are now engaged
in contract farming are following this type of contract farming. In most of
the cases the processing units are supplying seed only. By supplying the
seed, the processing units will be assured of the quality of produce
required by them and in some cases, as in 'Gherkins', the crop itself is
cultivated exclusively by the cultivators for supplying to the processing units.

iii) Case studies

To know more about the system of working of contract farming, the
section of Economics and Statistics of Indian Institute of Horticulture
Research, Bangalore has undertaken in-depth case studies of the two
important vegetables viz., 'Gherkins' and 'tomato' for which contract farming
is practiced by the Processing firms located in and around Bangalore. The
cultivators growing tomato for Hindustan Lever Ltd. (Kissan) and gherkins
for Sterling Agro-product Processing Pvt. Ltd. in one of the taluks near
Bangalore were contracted during 1999 and brief findings of the case
studies are presented below.

a) 'GHERKINS' contract farming

Background: The 'Gherkin' which was recently imported to India belongs
to cucurbitacae family grown in the west for pickle purpose. Of late,
because of the rising cost of cultivation due to its labour intensive nature,
its cultivation has shifted to the third world. The 'Gherkin' cultivation was
initiated by Oceania Penisular Pvt. Ltd. in the nineties on experimental
basis. From 1992 onwards the commercial cultivation of 'Gherkin' was
started. At present some 20 companies, mainly export oriented units

30
(EOU's) are engaged in cultivation of 'Gherkins'. Most of the companies are
located in Bangalore. It is cultivated mainly in southern states of Karnataka,
Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh and the present area is estimated to be
around 6000 hectares. India has emerged as the largest bulk supplier of
'Gherkins'.

Contract arrangements: To know more details about the contract
arrangements, we have contacted a 'Gherkin' export company and also the
cultivators growing the 'Gherkins' around Bangalore.

The activities of the company are :

1. Organising the farmers through field officers
2. Procurement of the produce
3. Processing and exporting

The contract arrangement for growing the 'Gherkins' is
Processing unit - Field officers of the unit - Growers

Selection of the farmers: The field officers employed by the firm who are
mostly local people contract the farmers in the villages and make them
enter into contract for growing the 'Gherkins'. In the surveyed taluk viz.,
Bagepalli near Bangalore, 50% of the cultivators have been approached by
the firm and about 43 per cent of sample cultivators themselves have
approached the firm for growing 'Gherkins'. The criteria for selecting the
farmers are i) Irrigation facilities ii) Suitability of the soil iii) Size of the
family (generally more than 3) as it is a very labour intensive crop, the
number of adult members in the household is an important criteria for
selecting the cultivators.

General Profile

The general profile of the selected sample cultivators for the study is
presented in table 3.1. It can be observed that nearly 65 per cent of the
cultivators are illiterates and 50 per cent of them are having less than one
hectare of land. But majority of the farmers are having 100 per cent
irrigated area and there are none having no irrigated area. Of course this
is expected as one of the criteria for selection for growing 'Gherkins' by the
Processing unit is the availability of irrigation facilities.

Agreement

Both written and oral agreements seem to be prevalent with the
sample cultivators, with more than 50 percent having written agreement.

31
Area under 'Gherkins'

The area to be cultivated under 'Gherkin' crop by each cultivator is
decided by the processing firm itself. As it is a very labour intensive crop
and right time of harvesting is of paramount importance for maintaining the
quality, the processing firm is not allowing any growers to put more than
one acre under the crop. The minimum area is 0.25 acres. Majority of the
farmers (86%) were allotted 0.5 acres only. Each field officer arranges to
grow the 'Gherkins' in about 45 to 50 acres in each season. This company
above is employing around 18 field officers operating from 4 extension
zones, viz., Bangalore South, Chikkaballapur, Kolar and Tumkur.

Supply of inputs

As 'Gherkin' is an imported vegetable crop, the concerned companies
themselves are supplying the seed to the cultivators for growing the crop
which is 200 grams per 0.5 acre. The charges towards the seed which is
Rs. 270/- per 100 grams is deducted at the time of payment to the
cultivators. No other inputs like fertiliser etc., nor any credit facility is
extended by the company. Only technical guidance regarding Plant
protection, harvesting and grading is given by the field officers. Most of the
farmers who are growing the crop for two or three years are quite familiar
with the crop and hence they are not even taking the technical guidance
for the cultivation of the crop (Table 3.2).

The firm also supplies sieves for grading the produce on cost basis
(Rs. 240/- per set) which is refunded after returning the same.

Costs and returns

The costs and returns details of gherkin cultivation is detailed in
Table 3.3.

i) Cost of cultivation: A cultivator has to spend around Rs. 48,000/- per
hectare towards the inputs for cultivation. Cost towards human labour itself
accounts for 65% of the total input cost showing the labour intensive
nature of the crop. Most of the labour is supplied by the family itself and
size of family is one of the criteria employed by the firm for selecting the
cultivation.

ii) Yield: The produce is separated into different grades using the sieves
supplied by the company. There are four grades based on the number of
fruits per kg. Higher the number of fruits, they are considered as best
grade as it shows the smallness and tenderness of the fruits, which is

32
required for processing, as they are used as a whole fruit. The grades
prescribed by the company are :

SI. No. Grade No. of fruits/kg

1. S-1 200 +
2. S-2 160-200
3. S-3 100-160
4. S-4 60-100
5. S-5 30-60

<30 = crooks/nubbins

At present the first two grades (S-1 and S-2) and third and fourth
grades (S-3 & S-4) are combined making them into four grades including
crooks/nubbins.

The average yield obtained by the sample cultivators was around 11
tons, out of this 53 percent was of first grade, 22 per cent of second
grade, 19 percent of third grade and 6 per cent of last grade.

iii) Returns: The company fixes the rates for each of the above grades
and pays them accordingly. The rate fixed by the company for April-May
1999 season crop are

Grade-! - Rs. 8.50/kg
Grade-ll - Rs. 6.50/kg
Grade-Ill - Rs. 1.50/kg
Grade-IV - Rs. 0.50/kg

Based on the above yields and rates, a cultivator growing 'gherkins'
can expect a net return of around Rs. 23000/-, which may be less
compared to the return one can expect from hybrid crops like tomato. But
most of the cultivators said that they are entering into contract because of
assured prices, which is not guaranteed in case of crops like tomato which
may fall very low making them incur loss. Besides as only 0.5 acres is
allotted to the crop, they feel that atleast some income is assured from this
area and it seems to be economically sound crop diversification strategy.

Marketing

The biggest advantage the cultivators are facing in this contract is
hassle free marketing. The company itself arranges transport (trucks) and

33
collects the produce from the cultivators from their fields and charges only
Rs. 250/- (flat rate) per crop. The vehicle goes to all the farmers with
weighing machines and collects the produce. Because of this arrangement
the cultivators save major portion of marketing costs viz., transport cost and
commission charges which account for more than 75 per cent of marketing
costs incurred by the vegetable cultivators as revealed by many studies [46,
50, 51, 52].

Mode of payment

Each farmer is given a pass book in which date wise grade and
quantity of the produce supplied is entered. The payment is made in the
field officers' office on 10th, 20th and 30th of each month by the
processing firm in the study area. The final payment is made after 15 days
from the date of submission of the pass book.

Problems

a) Faced by the cijltivators: Most of the sample cultivators have no major
problems in this contract arrangement. But 50 per cent of the farmers
expressed dissatisfaction regarding the price offered by this firm. The main
reason was that the earlier processing firm which stopped processing
gherkins due to its closure was paying higher prices. The present firm also
at present revised the prices offered for first grade and now Grade-I
fetches Rs. 10.50/kg instead of Rs. 8.50/kg.

b) Processing firm: According to the Industry persons [34] problems faced
by them are :

1) Mixing of low grades with higher grades: According to the Industry,
the farmers try to put bigger (size) grade fruit into smaller grade lot and it
is difficult to check and make sure of the grades as the quantity handled
is around 16000 kg per day. But the Industry has to give a receipt to the
farmer on whatever they pick up at his doorstep and that is treated as
final and cannot later go back and return.

2) Red farmers: Some farmers after the firm advances seeds,
chemicals, fertilizers, etc., failed to supply the produce and due to this, one
firm has lost about Rs. 8 lakhs during the first year of operation. This
situation was unfortunately due to the fact that not every firm in the
Industry is as ethical as it should be.

3) Holding up of vehicles: Some times, the farmers held up vehicles in
the villages demanding that they should be paid higher prices even though

34
the agreement does not say so and sometimes insist that whatever grade
of fruits they give has to be bought.

b) TOMATO

Among the vegetables tomato is the largest processed one and also
one of the important vegetables consumed in fresh form.

The contract farming for supply of tomato is practiced in Bangalore
by one of the most important fruit and vegetable processing factories viz.,
'Kissan' presently run by the Hindustan Lever Limited.

Method of contracting: Unlike in case of 'Gherkins' in case of
tomato, the processing factory is not entering into contract directly with
growers for supply of the produce. The channel followed is :

Processing firm - Agent - Cultivators

The firm identifies agents in each village for supply of the produce.
The agents in-turn contact the cultivators for growing the crop and procure
the produce and supply to the factory. Unlike the field officers in case of
'Gherkins' the agents are not employees of the Processing firm. Most of
the agents are local people (Big cultivators) and all of them have close
contact with the growers in the villages. To know the details from the
cultivators who are supplying tomato to agents of the factory, a survey was
conducted in Bagepalli taluk, the same taluk where gherkin cultivation is
also practised.

General profile: The general profile of sample tomato cultivators is
presented in Table 3.4. Most of the cultivators (73%) chosen by the agents
are literate farmers, as against large number of illiterate farmers chosen in
case of 'Gherkins'. Similarly most of the tomato cultivators are medium and
large farmers having more than one hectare of land.

Agreement: There is no written agreement between the agent and
the farmers.

Area : Majority of the sample cultivators have reported that area to
be put under the tomato crop was left to their discretion and only 33 per
cent of the cultivators reported that the agent had specified the area.

Supply of inputs: The factory supplies the seed to the agent who in
turn supplies either seed or seedlings to some of the selected cultivators.

35
The factory also supplies wooden crates at a subsidised rate of
Rs. 14/- to the agents and also sometimes plastic crates free for the
produce.

Costs and Returns

In the study area, the sample cultivators were growing 'Roma' variety
of tomato which is one of the oldest processing variety used by the
factory. The details of costs and return is briefly discussed below.

Cost of cultivation: The cultivator has to spend around Rs. 12,000/-
per hectare towards cultivation of the crop.

Yield: Around 21 tonnes/ha of tomato was obtained by the sample
cultivators unlike in case of 'Gherkins' where there is no grading system.
Some quality standards like borer free fruits, no white patches etc., are
followed while taking the produce by the agents from the cultivators.

Returns: The cultivators are getting less price than offered by the
processing firm as they have no direct dealing with firm. The agent acts as
a middleman and keeps a margin and pays a lower price to the cultivators.

As against the price offered by the factory of Rs. 1.80 to 2.20/kg
depending upon the season, the agent pays a uniform price of Rs. 1.40/kg
to the cultivators, thus keeping a margin of Rs. 0.40 to Rs. 0.80/kg.

Marketing

The cultivators sell their produce at the field itself to the agents and
hence do not incur any marketing cost. The agent himself arranges the
transport and takes to the factory. Avoiding the trouble of taking to the
market seems to be one of the important reasons why cultivators are
preferring to sell to the agents and the other being the assured price
(Table 3.5).

Problems

a) Cultivators: Most of the cultivators have expressed that there is no direct
weighing and the produce is filled in crates whose actual capacity is 18 kg
but the agent takes it as 16 kg and pays them.

Hence some of the sample cultivators feel that balances should be brought
to the field and the produce should be weighed instead of filling them in
crates.

36
b) Agents: The main problem the agents are facing with the factory is the
delay in unloading at the factory which increases their costs. During the
season sometimes they have to wait for 2 to 3 days to unload the
produce.

The second problem faced by the agents is that at the time of taking the
produce, the factory also rejects some produce which may vary from 1% to
9% also. This is the reason offered by agents for recording less weight at
farmers' level.

c) Processing firm: The firm claims that they are not facing any problem
with the agents in getting the Produce. The firm enters the quantity of
seed given to each agent in a register and accepts the produce from only
registered agents/farmers. The firm says it is operating through both agents
and farmers and at present there are 28 agents and 150 farmers
registered with the firm.

Conclusions

Froniilftftt'case studies the following conclusions can be drawn.

1. Only in casff <3f *Ghefkins' the real contract farming is practiced.

2. The contract;farming practiced through agents in case of tomato is
resulting in creatibh of a new set of middlemen.

3. The real benefit expected through contract farming viz. savings in
transport cost and commission charges will not accrue to the cultivators
unless the produce is picked up at the fields by the processing firms, even
if it means charging.

4. Though in case of 'Gherkins' there is no fresh market, it also faces the
'Red farmers' according to the industry. Hence the question of honouring
the contract is by developing good rapport with the cultivators by creating
an extension wing with officers employed by the company who can guide
them.

5. The supply of other inputs besides seed like pesticides, helps to prevent
the drop out of farmers due to crop failures.

Captive farming

Captive farming is a system in which the Industry itself tries to grow
the raw material required by it, by acquiring (leasing) large areas of land.
By this method, the Industry need not depend on others (cultivators) and
can get assured supply of requisite quantity and desired quality.

37
a) Present Status

At present this type of farming is successfully practiced only in case
of processing industry where (i) Uncultivated land can be made use of for
erecting structures, (il) Where there is very high intensive cultivation
requiring a small area of cultivated land.

Mushrooms

Among the Processed Vegetables, captive cultivation is highly
successful only in case of mushroom processing industry. Most of the 100%
Export Oriented Units (EOUs) which are started by big firms with foreign
collaboration are following captive farming rather than contract farming for
supply of mushrooms for processing. This was done mainly because the
cultivation of mushroom does not require large cultivated area and even
uncultivated area can be used for erecting structures required for their
cultivation. With liberalisation of import of mushroom spawn during 1993
most of the mushroom processing units are importing the spawn of varieties
popular in foreign markets and cultivating them on a large scale and using
the produce.

Seed and Flower cultivation

The other area where captive farming is successfully followed is
protected cultivation under polyhouses. The commercial poly houses are
around 5 to 10 hectares in area and are mainly used for cultivation of
flowers and production of seed of vegetables and flowers for export.

b) New Trends in captive farming

On late a new trend has emerged which is close to the concept of
captive farming. In this type of captive farming some Plantation firms like
Maxworth Orchards, Anubhav Plantations, Asra India Ltd., etc., are trying to
develop large areas under fruit crops. In this, the firms.advertise and sell
small areas (0.5 to 1 acre) to individuals as an investment proposal by
promising good returns/value in future as raisihg the plantations,
maintenance and management and disposal of produce etc., is by the
company itself. These plantation companies may not be directly using for
their own processing purposes but large areas are cultivated under a single
management and hence they are close to captive farming.

38
c) Future scope

With the existing land ceiling laws, it is not possible for the big
processing units to adopt captive farming for supply of raw material. It is
also not desirable to adopt in Indian conditions, where rural areas consist
of large number of small cultivators whose main occupation is cultivation.
But the small scale processing units which will be discussed in detail in the
next section, have a large scope for following captive farming for supply of
raw material, as area required is comparatively small and can be leased
without breaking the existing land ceiling laws.

The other area where modified captive farming can be tried with
some success is acqutring and developing fallow land or cultivable wastes.
For example Maxworth Orchards (India) is planning to develop two new fruit
orchards which will have 75 acres of fallow land in Raigad district and
Borda near Nagpur in Maharashtra [20b].
Table 3.1 : Profile of Gherkin Sample Cultivators, 1999
(Rs/ha)

Particulars Percentage of Cultivators
1. Educational Status
I) Illiterates 64.29
ii) Literates (5th - 9th) 35.71
2. Size of the Farm
i) < 1.00 ha 50.00
ii) 1.00 - 2.00 ha 21.43
ill) > 2.00 ha 28.57
3. Percentage of Irrigated Land of the Farmer
i) < 50% —
ii) > 50% and < 100% 35.71
ill) 100% 64.29
4. Type of Contract
i) Written 57.14
ii) Oral 42.86
5. Area Under Gherkin Crop
i) 0.40 ac (0.80) 7.14
ii) 0.50 ac (0.24) 85.72
iii) 0.75 ac (0.25) 7.14
6. Variety Grown
i) Not Known 64.29
ii) Known 35.71

Figures in parenthesis shows the % of total irrigated area of the famn.

39
Table 3.2 : Details (opinion) of Contract by Gherkin Cultivators

Particulars Percentage of Cultivators

1. Source of Contract
i) Through neighbouring fanner who is already having contract 7.14
with the processing firm
ii) Processing firm approached the farmer 50.00
ill) Farmer approached the processing firm 42.86

2. Number of Years of Association with the Processing Firm
i) Since one year 14.28
ii) Since two years 7.14
iii) Since three years 14.29
iv) Since four years 42.86
v) Since five years 21.43

3. Area Cultivated
i) Specified by the Proc. firm 100.00

4. Violation of Contract by the Cultivator
i) Not violated 100.00

5. Violation of Contract in Price by the Processing Firm
i) Not violated 100.00

6. Inputs Supplied by the Proc. firm
i) Only seed 100.00

7. Supplying Loans/Advance by the Proc. Finn
I) Nil 100.00

8. Technical Advice
i) P.P. Measures 14.29
ii) P.P. Measures, harvesting and grading 21.42
iii) Not needed 64.29

9. Price Offered by the Processing firm
i) Satisfied 42.86
ii) Not Satisfied 57.14

10. Rejection of Produce by the Firm
i) Nil 100.00

11. Farmer Stopped Supplying to Proc. Firm 100.00
12. Packing and Transport
i) Arranged by the Proc. Finn 100.00

13. Problem in Payment for the Produce
i) Nil 100.00

40
Table 3.3 : Cost of Cultivation of Gherkins, 1999
(Rs/ha)
Item Unit Quantity Cost
Inputs
1. Seed grams 996.50 2690.56
2. FYM T. Load 12.59 5384.62
3. Cfiemical fertilisers
i) N Kg 154.51
Ji) P Kg 67.62
ill) K Kg 108.25 3336.57
4. P.P. Measures No. 3.14 1247.20
5. Staking
i) Sticks* No. 2937.00 979.00
il) Plastic wire Kg 20.98 853.15
ill) Gunny thread Kg 24.48 538.11
6. Human labour M. days 859.39 31407.67
7. Bullock labour P. days 17.48 1486.01
Total Cost 47922.89
Yield Kg 11366.08
Gross Returns
Grade I @Rs. 8.50/kg Kg 6003.50 51029.75
Grade II @Rs, 6.50/kg Kg 2454.54 15954.51
Grade III @Rs 1.50/kg Kg 2178.32 3267.48
Grade IV 0.50/kg kg 729.72 364.86
Total kg 11366.08 70616.60
IV. Net Returns Rs. 22693.71
As the life span is three seasons, the total cost is divided by 3.

Table 3.4 : Profile of Tomato Sample Cultivators, 1999

Particulars Percentage of Cultivators

1. Educational Status

i) Illiterates 26.67
ii) Literates (5th - 10th) 73.33
Size of the Farm
i) < 1.00 ha 20.00
ii) 1.00 - 2.00 ha 33.33
ill) > 2.00 ha 46.67
Percentages of Irrigated Land of the Farmer
i) < 50% 20.00
ii) > 50% and < 100% 53.33
iii) 100% 26.67
Type of Contract
i) Oral 100.00
AreaI under Gherkin Crop
i) 0.50 ac (100.00) 6.67
ii) 1.00 ac (50.00) 46.67
iii) 1.50 ac (75.00) 6.67
iv) 2.00 ac (34.78) 26.67
V) 3.00 ac (42.86) 6.67
vi) 5.00 ac (100.00) 6.67
Variety Grown
i) Known (Roma) 100.00
Figures in parenthesis shows the % of total inigated area of the fanrt.

41
Table 3.5 : Details (opinion) of Contract by Tomato Cultivators
Particulars Percentage of Cultivators
1. Source of Contract
1) The agent approached the fanner 60.00
ii) The farmer approached the agent 40.00
2. Number of Years of Association with the Processing Firm
i) Since two years 6.67
ii) Since three years 6.67
ill) Since four years 33.33
iv) Since five years 1.33
v) Since six years 6.67
vi) Since seven years 13.33
vii) Since eight years 6.67
viij) Since nine years 6.67
Ix) Since ten years 6.67
3. Area Cultivated
I) Specified by the agent 33.33
II) No specified by the agent 66.67
4. Violation of Contract by the Cultivator
1) Not violated 100.00
5. Violation of Contract In Price by the Agent
1) Not violated 100.00
6. Inputs Supplied by the agent
I) Seedling 13.33
II) Seed 53.33
ill) Nil 33.33
7. Supplying Loans/Advance by the Agent
I) Nil 100.00
8. Technical Advice
i) Not needed 46.67
II) Nil 53.33
9. Price Offered by the Processing firm
1) Satisfied 86.67
ii) Not satisfied 13.33
10. Rejection of Produce by the Agent
1) Nil 100.00
11. Fanner Stopped Supplying to Agent
I) Nil 100.00
12. Packing and Transport
i) Arranged by the agent 100.00
13. Problem in Payment for the Produce
i) Nil 100.00
14. Problem with the Agent
I) Weighing is not proper 26.67
II) Nil 73.33
15. Suggestions
i) Minimum price of Rs. 2.00/kg 13.33
ii) Balance should be brought to field 6.67
ill) Nil 80.00
16. Advantages in having contract
i) Price Is less In the market 6.67
ii) Avoiding the trouble of going to the market 46.67
ill) Assured price/sale of produce 46.67

42
SECTION - IV

PRICE RISK AND PROCESSING: FEASIBILITY OF SMALL SCALE
PROCESSING OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

The price risk viz., the highly fluctuating prices associated with Fruits
and Vegetables is of great concern for both the Producers and Processors.
This risk mainly occurs because of the special characteristics of fruits and
vegetables which distinguishes them from other agricultural commodities viz.,
their highly seasonal, perishable and bulky nature. These special
characteristics have economic implications for both the producers and
processors.

i) Economic implications of special characteristics

1) Seasonal nature

Most of the fruits and vegetables are available for a few months in
a year. For example the peak period of availability of mango is hardly for
a two month period i.e., May-June, oranges during November to January.
Similar is the case with respect to most of the vegetables. The economic
implications of this nature are :

The harvest of the crop in a short period results in glut in the
market during the main season resulting in low prices, which sometimes do
not cover even the harvesting and transport cost. For example the recent
experience of the Karnataka tomato growers (July/August 1997) who were
forced to throw their tomatoes on the roads due to the rock bottom prices
offered in the market speaks volumes of the neglect of this problem [67].
During the peak season the prices of tomato are as low as 50 paise per
kilogram where as during the offseason they will be as high as Rs. 11 to
12 per kilogram.

The seasonability also affects the processing industry as 1) the
availability of raw material will be for a short period and ii) it cannot take
advantage of the low priceis during the season. Because of this, a
paradoxical situation exists with the processors complaining of high raw
material cost and the producers complaining of unremunerative prices during
the season.

2) Perishability

Most of the fruits and vegetables cannot be stored for long at room
temperatures because of their biological activity even after harvest.

43
As the produce can not be stored for long, the producers are forced
to dispose of the produce at the prevailing prices, even though the price
may not be attractive.

The cultivators are also forced to use quick mode of transport to
prevent the spoilage, resulting in high transport cost. The studies on
marketing cost have clearly brought out that next to commission charges,
the transport cost accounts for major share of the marketing cost borne by
the producers [54]. Besides this, the transport and handling losses are also
high due to the perishability.

Because of the perishable nature, the processors also cannot take
advantage of seasonal gluts and low prices, by purchasing them when
prices are low and storing them. Because of this, the processors have to
purchase raw material at a high cost during the offseason to keep their
supplies in the market.

3) Bulky nature

The bulHy n i t u r e of the produce will result in high packing and
transport costs for pfoduoers and will push up the raw material cost due to
high volume.

ii) Methods to overcome the price risk

Generally two methods are recommended to overcome the above
problems of the perishable crops:

1) Cold storing of the produce: To extend the shelf life of fruits and
vegetables and create time and space utility the cold storing of fruits and
vegetables is recommended. As a matter fact, this is one of the most
important infrastructural facilities which people consider highly essential and
lacking for preventing post harvest loss and increasing the exports. There is
also an ambitious plan by Govt, of India to set up 'Cold chains' in the
country to give access to the small food processors to preserve their raw
material so that they could process the food continuously round the year
and store the finished product to sell at an appropriate time.

At the national level, Potato is the single largest vegetable stored In the
cold stores accounting for more than 60 percent of the capacity. Very
negligible quantity of other fruits and vegetables are cold stored and at
regional level only a few fruits like apples and grapes/raisins are stored in
cold stores in some states [26, 71].

44
The cold storage of fruits and vegetables also does not guarantee the full
prevention of losses. During 1994, potatoes worth Rs. 1.5 crores grown by
Karnataka growers stored in two private cold storages near the border town
Punganur in Chittor district of AP got spoiled because of power cut/
technical breakdown, dashing the hopes of 20 farmers of realising higher
prices by storing them in cold stores. Even otherwise, losses do occur in
cold storage due to lack of proper maintenance of temperature and
humidity which differs from commodity to commodity. In a DMI study on
cold storage of Nagpur oranges the extent of rotting varied from 10 to 27%
depending upon the number of days stored [14]. From this it is clear that
cold storing of produce may not be a viable proposition as a price risk
aversion strategy for most of the fruit and vegetable growers.

ii) Increasing Processing of Fruits and Vegetables: Establishing Small Scale
Units in Rural Areas:

The establishment of small scale processing units in production areas
is one of the best ways to strengthen the linkages between producers and
processors which will also help the cultivators to overcome the price risk
due to seasonal gluts. The producers can increase their income by diverting
at least a part of the produce towards processing.

With the limited processing capacity and prior contract commitments
the existing large scale units may not be able to absorb all the excess
produce to push up the prices to a remunerative level. Besides, it was also
observed from many studies that the location of fruit and vegetat)le
processing units bear no relation to raw materials and there is absolutely
no economic rationale in choosing the location and other factors like
availability of credit, transport facilities are the factors which have influence
on the location [32, 4 1 , 74]. Hence, it is necessary to establish these
processing units in production areas, which will help the cultivators in
realising better returns by avoiding the sale to middlemen like preharvest
contractors, and will also help reduce the cost of processing by avoiding
high transport cost of raw material to the factories located far away from
places of production.

The small scale units need not also manufacture the finished product
but can process into semi finished/intermediate product in bulk which can
be used by the large scale manufacturers in urban areas for conversion to
various product types and also for export market. This will help both the
cultivators as well as the processors in saving transport cost, supply and
price problems of raw materials.

45
iii) Economic feasibility of establishing the small scale units

At present most of the fruit and vegetable processing Industries are
in private hands and very few are in public or co-operative sector. One of
the main reasons for this may be lack of detailed information on economic
feasibility of starting small scale units. A few studies conducted during 1970
and 1980 [11, 16] do not provide full details regarding investment, scale of
operation, raw material requirements etc. Hence, the economics section of
Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Bangalore has undertaken
detailed studies on the economic feasibility to provide all relevant
information for starting small scale processing units in production areas by
the cultivators [58, 60, 63, 64]. The three crops which were selected for
this purpose were tomato, which is the most widely processed vegetable
and mango which is the main fruit used by the fruit and vegetable
processing industry and grapes which is the latest important fruit crop
exported.

a) Tomato processing

Tomato is by far the most important vegetable processed in India
which accounts for more than 50 per cent of the vegetables processed.
Tomato at present [1995-96] is cultivated in 3.56 lakh hectares with a
production of 54.42 lakh tonnes accounting for 7 per cent of area and 7.6
per cent of production of vegetables in the country. The area and
production of tomato is also growing at a fast rate and it has increased by
23 percent in terms of area and 28 percent in terms of production as
compared to year 1991-92 [29].

Economic feasibility

The economic feasibility of establishing a small scale tomato
processing unit of 150t/annum capacity is presented below.

i) Capital requirements:

Around Rs. 10 lakhs is required towards land, buildings and
machinery and equipment, as one time investment. Thereafter around Rs.
one lakh is required each year towards payment for salaries, electricity,
office establishment etc. So total investment of Rs. 12 lakh is required
(Table 4.1).

ii) Cost of processing:

For processing one tonne of finished product around Rs. 17^900 is
to be spent towards raw material, chemicals and preservatives, labour and

46
packing charges and around Rs. 8800/- net profit can be expected. The
raw material cost itself accounts for 40 per cent followed by packing
accounting for 30 per cent of the total cost of processing.

ill) Break even output: The minimum quantity to be processed for the unit
was worked out by using the break even analysis.

AFC
Q =
P-VC

Where Q = Minimum output of processed product (tonnes)

AFC = Annual fixed cost of the unit (depreciation and interest on buildings,
machinery, equipments and recurring expenses for staff etc.)

P = Price of the finished product (Rs./t)

VC = Variable cost of production of the processed product (Rs/t).

Based on the above formula, 150 t/annum capacity unit, with an
investment of around Rs. 12 lakhs should produce at least 33 tonnes of
finished product per annum to run at no profit no loss stage (Table 4.3).

Raw material requirement and supply :

The raw material requirements based on finished product to raw
material ratio of 1:4 and 1:6 at various levels of utilisation of the
processing plant and the number of cultivators required to produce them is
presented in Table 4.4.

From the table it can be observed that hardly around 200 tonnes of
tomato are required based on the highest ratio of 1:6 for producing the
break-even output of 33 tonnes of finished product. This quantity can be
supplied from hardly 5 to 10 ha depending upon the variety i.e., local or
hybrid and about 10 to 20 cultivators can join hands and start the
processing plant very easily as a cooperative venture.

Fresh sales vs processing: To help the cultivators take a decision about
whether to go in for processing or to sell the produce as a fresh
vegetable, tha relative economics of fresh sale vs processing was worked
out and presented in Table 4.5. It can be seen from the table that the net
returns of the processing units can be increased atleast 4 times at around
Rs. 3,00,000/- from processing as against Rs. 1,00,000 from fresh sales
from 100 tonnes of tomatoes.

47
From the above it is clear that :

1) It is economically feasible to run a small scale tomato processing plant.

2) The processing plant can be started even at taluq level as it hardly
requires 20-50 hectares to run at almost full capacity.

3) It can be started by a minimum of around 7-20 cultivators which shows
that it can be started as a cooperative venture.

b) Mango processing

Mango is one of the most important fruits used for processing by
the Industry. India accounts for more than 50 per cent of the world
production. At present (1995-96) mango is cultivated in 12.83 lakh hectares
with a production of 108.11 lakh tonnes.

The most important mango product exported from India is mango
pulp and most of the processing units are engaged in making pulp.

Establishment of intermediate product (pulp) processing units in
production areas in case of perishable crops like fruits and vegetables was
suggested by many studies to overcome the problems of seasonal gluts
and resulting low prices [54]. The establishment of these units also helps
the cultivators to realise better returns by avoiding selling to pre-harvest
contractors, which was found undesirable [44, 49]. Such units also save
transport costs both for cultivators and processors. Though a few units
manufacturing intermediate products in case of mango viz., pulp, were
started in production centres like Chittor District in Andhra Pradesh and
Ratnagiri District in Maharashtra [72], this idea has still not caught on in
other mango production centres, and large quantities of mango are still
transported from production centres in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to distant
places like Bhopal, Delhi and Mumbai.

Economic of l\/lango Pulp malting

For establishing a mango pulping unit with an annual capacity of
1200 tonnes around Rs. 8.5 lakhs is required towards machinery etc.,
(Table 4.6) besides the land and building which may cost another Rs. 6
lakhs.

With a net return of around Rs. 500/t for making pulp (Table 4.7),
the break-even output was estimated to be around 500 tonnes of finished
product i.e., pulp arid the raw material requirement would be around 1000
tonnes of mangoes.

48
Based on the All India average yield of 8.5 t/ha, hardly 118 ha
would be required to supply the raw material. From this it is clear that a
mango pulping unit can be established at talul</district level in mango
growing areas where processing varieties like alphonso, totapuri etc., are
grown.

c) Grapes processing

Raisins, the processed form of seedless grapes have high
commercial value as dry fruits. India, inspite of the highest productivity level
in the world at 30 t/ha for grapes, depends on imports from countries like
Afganisthan and Iran for its domestic demand for raisins, as the domestic
production of raisin has been negligible. It is only since last few years, that
about 10% of the total production of seedless grapes is being diverted
towards raisin production as against more than 86% consumed in the fresh
form [10]. Though research efforts on raisin making are in progress for
more than a couple of decades towards standardising techniques for their
production [2], their successful adoption has been limited due to constraints
like high initial capital requirement. However, the grape growers from
Maharashtra have been successfully producing raisins on farm using a
technique which is both easy to adopt and requires very less capital.

The information on raisin making pertains to the agricultural year
1993-94 and has been collected from grape growers from Solapur District
of Maharashtra State.

Method of Raisin Production

The most commonly used methods for raisin making are i) Sun
drying and ii) Solar dehydration using specially designed dehydrators. In
both these methods Sulpher is used for fumigation purposes [37]. The
growers from Maharashtra also follow sun drying but using Australian
dipping oil, with Ethyl oleta as its main ingredient.

Costs and Returns

The costs and returns of raisin making from 10 tonnes of grapes
i.e., yield from an acre is presented in Table 4.8. Around Rs. 8,500/- is
required for erecting drying structures, which consists of shelves made from
casurina poles and polypropylene net and sheets for spreading and
covering the grapes for drying. One can expect around Rs. 80,000/-
additional income per acre from raisin making as compared to fresh sales
of grapes.

49
Constraints and suggestions

Marketing is the main problem faced by most of the small scale fruit
and vegetable processing units. Besides the main constraints of low
domestic demand, these units have to face stiff competition for marketing
their produce from established big manufacturers whose brand names are
familiar with common household consumers. The results of the survey
conducted during 1981 and 1991 in two metropolitan cities of Mumbai and
Delhi is presented in Table 4.9 which clearly shows that big brand names
like Kissan, Maggi etc., are the preferred ones. The recent studies
conducted in three towns/cities i.e., Pantnagar, Rudrapur and Haldwani and
three villages Jawahar Nagar, Shantipuri and Haldi in U.P. also have
confirmed the above findings viz., Kissan brand is most preferred for jam
and squash and Maggi for sauce [36].

Hence, there is a need for a few adjoining rural processing units to
manufacture a common product and sell it under a common brand name
as in Lijjat papads. Alternatively they should manufacture an intermediate
product like pulp/paste and supply the same to big manufacturers as was
done in case of mango by some units in Chittor District of Andhra
Pradesh.

The units can also take the help of government organisations like
Khadi and Gramodyog Fair price shops etc., as market outlets.

Table 4.1 : Capital Requirements for Establishing a Small Scale
Cooperative Tomato Processing Unit

(150t/annum)

Particulars Value (Rs.)

I. FIXED CAPITAL
1. Land and Buildings 400000
2. Machinery & Equipments 62^100

Sub Total - I 1029100

RECURRING EXPENDITURE
1. Payment to permanent staff 81000
2. Office Establisfiments 2250
3. Electricity/Diesel etc. 7500

Sub Total - II 90750

TOTAL INVESTMENT (l+ll) 1119850
Source: Ref. No. 60.

50
Table 4.2 : Cost and Returns of Processing of Tomato (Ketchup)

Items Values % to total
(Rs./t)* cost

I. Variable costs :
1. Raw material cost :

a) Fresh Tomatoes 7200 40.16
b) Chemical & Preservatives 2980 16.62
2. Utilities (Power & Diesel electricity etc.) 820 4.57
3. Labour 1250 6.97

4. Packing material cost 5430 30.28
5. Others (Miscellaneous) 250 1..39
Total 17930 100.00
II. Gross returns (Rs/t) 26788 —
III. Net returns (Rs/t) 8858

' Rs. per tonne of finished product.

Table 4.3 : Break-Even Output for Running a tomato
Processing Plant
(150 t per annum)

Items Amount (Rs.)

1. Annual fixed cost (Depreciation, interest on machinary, annual 292800
recurring costs, etc.)

2. Net returns from processing 1 tonne of the product 8858

3. Breal< even output (t) (Item 1/ltem 2) 33

51
Table 4.4 : Raw Material Requirements and Supply at
Different Levels of Utilisation/Processing

Item Quantity produced in tonnes at different levels

33® 40 60 80 100 120 140

1. Raw material required 1:4 132 160 240 320 400 480 560
(tonnes) 1:6 198 240 360 480 600 720 840

2, Area required (ha)

(a) Based on hybrid" 1:4 2.88 3.56 5.33 7.11 8.89 10.67 12.44
1:6 4.40 5.30 8.00 10.70 13.30 16.00 18.70

(b) Based on local 1:4 6.60 8.00 12.00 18.00 20.00 24.00 28.00
1:6 9.90 12.00 18.00 24.00 30.00 36.00 42.00

No. of cultivators
required to join"

(a) Based on hybrid 1:4 7 8 12 16 20 25 29
1:6 10 12 18 24 30 36 42

(b) Based on local 1:4 15 18 28 37 46 55 64
1:6 22 27 40 53 67 80 93

Breakeven output
Hybrid tomato yield is taken as 45 t/ha and the local tomato yield as 20 t/ha
Based on the average area of 0.45 ha/cultivator under tomato.

Source: Ref. No. 59.

Table 4.5 : Relative Economics of Fresh Sales vs.
Processing of Tomato
(Quantity = 100 M.T.)
Items Amount (Rs)
A. FRESH SALES :
I. i) Cost of production @Rs. 536/t 53600
ii) Marketing costs like transport, packing, commissions etc. @Rs. 304/t 30400

Total Cost 84000
II. Gross returns @Rs. 2000/t 200000
III. Net returns 116000
B. PROCESSING :
I. i) Cost of processing like chemicals, labour, packing material etc. 268250
ii) Interest on working capital of processing @15% p.a. 40238
iii) Fixed cost @Rs. 2440/t* 61000
Total cost of processing 369488
II. Gross returns from sale of 25 t of finished product @Rs. 26788/t 669700
III. Net returns from processing 300212
" ; Based on annual fixed cost of Rs. 292800 towards depreciation, interest on machinery, working capital
for salary etc., and on assumption of 120 tonnes of finished products per annum.

52
Table 4.6 Important Machinery and Equipment Required for a
Mango Pulping Unit
Item Quantity (Number) Value (Rs.)
A. MACHINERY

1. Boiler 1 175000
2. Pulpers 2 130000
3. Electric hoise with beams 1 25000
4. Steam jacketted kettles with tilting capacity 3 90000
5. Retards (400 cans) 2 20000
6. Rotopumps (for pumping products) 2 50000
7. Fruit washing tank 1 10000
8. Weighing Scales & Lab. Equipment 20000

520000
Installation charges @10% of total cost 52000

572000
B. WORKING EQUIPMENT
1. Trays, Spoons, S. Steel tanks, wooden ladles etc. 25000
TOTAL (A+B) 597000
C. OPTIONAL
1. Canning and refomning unil 250000
Source : Re* jJo. 58.

"^^^le 4.7 : Costs and Returns of Processing Mango Into Pulp
Items Value (Rs/t)* % to total

A. INPUT COSTS
1. Raw materials" (fresh fruits) 3790.48 82.41

2. Utilities (electricity, diesel etc.,) 245.48 5.33

3. Packing material

4. Latiour
1. upto pulping 212.88 4.63
2. canning 30.00 0.65

Total input cost 4278.89 93.02

B. INTEREST ON WORKING CAPITAL SI5% p.a. per 6 months) 320.89 6.98

C. TOTAL COST (A+B) 4599.39 100

D. GROSS RETURNS 5095.67

E. NET RETURNS (D-C) 496.28

Rs/t of finished product
Very rarely chemicals and preservations are used.
Supplied by the buyer
Ref. No. 58.

53
Table 4.8 : Costs and Returns of Raisin making on Farm
(10 tonnes of fresh Grapes)

Particulars Quantity/Unit Amount (Rs.)

Cost of Erection of Drying Structure (2 tonnes capacity)

1. Cost of Wooden Poles 6 No. 250
2. Nylon net for making shelves 15 Kg. 2700
3. Shedding net 30 feet 500
4. Labour and other charges 800

4250

Total investment 2* 8500

II. Cost of Inputs (Chemical and packing material etc.)

1. Australian Dipping oil 22 litres
ms. 200 4400
2. Packing Material 1200
3. Labour charges 2400
4. Transport and Cold storage 4000

Total cost 12000

Total processing costs (t. cost + fixed & marketing costs) 17750

III. Yield of raisins and returns

1. Grade A 2000 kg @ 80/kg 1,60,000

2. Grade B 400 kg @ 60/kg 24,000

3. Grade C 100 kg @ 25/kg 2,500

Total 2500 kg 1,86,500

IV. Net returns from the sale of raisins (lll-ll) 1,68,750

V. Income from selling as fresh grapes 10 tonnes @Rs. 8.75/kg** 87,500

VI. Additional income due to processing (IV-V) 81,250

A minimum of two such structures are required for making raisins from an acre or 10 tonnes of
fresh grapes.

Fann gate price.

Source : Ref. No. 64.

54
Table 4.9 : Brandwise Consumption Pattern of Tomato Ketchup/Sauce
Percentage Consumption in

Mumbai Delhi

Brand Name 1989 1991 1989 1991
Kissan 54 52 55 51
Maggi 28 30 27 32
Dippys 5 2 1 —
Noga 5 4 — —
All seasons 2 — 1 —
Vol farm 1 1 4 3
NAFED — — 2 3
Others 5 11 10 11

Source : Indian Food Industry, 1992, 11(3) : 55.

55
SECTION - V

EXPORT OF PROCESSED HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS

Though agricultural sector as a whole has been an important
contributor to the country's exports, of late Its contribution has come down.
From nearly 31 per cent during the year 1980, the contribution of
agricultural sector has come down to 20 per cent of total Indian exports by
the year 1996-97 (Table 5.1). This was mainly due to its losing ground in
traditional export crops like tea, cashew, spices etc., in which it used to
command virtual monopoly. For example, India used to command upto
1970's more than 90 per cent share of world trade in cashew kernels, now
accounts for hardly 64 per cent with the entry of Brazil [24]. Tea exports
also have faired badly due to stiff competition from Sri Lanka. India's share
in tea exports has come down from 33.4 per cent during the year 1970 to
13.6 per cent by the year 1994 in the world agricultural exports. Similarly
the share of spices has come down from 20.5 per cent to 9.1 per cent
during the same period (Table 5.2). Because of this situation along with
precarious position of balance of payments during early 1990's an urgent
need was felt for diversifying the agricultural produce basket for exports. In
this context, the horticultural crops viz.. Fruits, Vegetables and their products
are identified as the most suitable group of crops in view of our country's
prime position in the world production and fast growing demand in
international markets. However, India's share in total world export of fruits
and vegetables has registered a declining trend. From 1.2 per cent in
1970, it has come down to 0.8 per cent by 1990 and once again
increased to 1.7 per cent (Table 5.2).

It was also recognised that one of the main constraints for the low
exports of fruits and vegetables is the huge post-harvest losses. Hence it
was felt that value addition by processing them will not only result in
prevention of post-harvest losses but also help to realise better returns
through export of processed product. This was the reason why the New
Industrial Policy of 1991 of Government of India has placed Processed
Fruits and Vegetables (F&V) in the list of "High Priority Area" and lot of
encouragement was given to FVPI by way of duty concessions. The
Ministry of Commerce, Govt, of India has also identified Processed Foods
for "EXTREME FOCUS" area.

i) Share of export of fruits and vegetables

The share of fruits and vegetables in the total agricultural exports is
also steadily Increasing. From 3 per cent during the year 1980, it has
reached more than 5 per cent, the peak being during the year 1992-93

57
with 5.85 per cent and the share at present is 4.4 per cent (Table 5.3).

Ii) Trends in export of processed fruits and vegetables

a) Share of processed Fruits and Vegetables in total exports of Fruits
and Vegetables: The share of Processed Fruits and Vegetables in the
export of Fruits and Vegetables was fluctuating between 27 per cent to 57
per cent during the period 1980-81 to 1997-98. The highest of 57 per cent
was recorded during the year 1997-98 and the lowest of 27 per cent was
during the year 1984-85. During the last five years i.e., from 1993-94
onwards it was constantly more than 40 per cent (Table 5.4).

b) Share of exports in total production of Processed fruits and
vegetables: The share of exports which was around 31 per cent of total
production during 1985 came down to 18 per cent by the year 1996,
showing over years that there has been a decline (Table 5.5). The increase
in the share during 1997-98 to 33 per cent was mainly due to decreased
production, which, according to industry, was due to imposition of excise
duty during 1997 which resulted in reduced installed capacity by 8.1 per
cent due to closure of units. The increase in consumption of processed
fruits and vegetables over the years, as evidenced by reduced share in
exports in total production in the domestic market was mainly due to (i)
changes in taste and preferences of the consumers who are more and
more switching over to convenience foods, (ii) increase in disposal income
especially of middle class people by their moving into higher income groups
due to opening up of the economy to foreign Institutions and (iii) availability
of increased range of products in convenient packs.

c) Trend in growth of export of Processed Fruits and Vegetables: The
trend of growth of exports was worked out taking the time series data of
quantity and value of exports of both processed and fresh fruits and
vegetables for the last 18 years I.e., 1980-81 to 1997-98.

The period was divided into two phases.

I. Phase - I : Pre-New Industrial Policy period i.e., from 1980-81 to 1990-
91.

II. Phase - II : Post-New Industrial Policy period i.e., from the year 1991-
92 to 1997-98.

The growth trend was worked out by fitting the equation of the following
type.

58
Y = AB'

where

Y = Quantity/value of exports

A = constant

B = Regression coefficient showing the growth rate

t = time in years

The above equation was fitted by the method of least squares by
making appropriate log transformation.

The export data along with compound growth rate (CGR) for
processed fruits and vegetables is presented in Table 5.6 and for fresh
fruits and vegetables in Table 5.7 for the two phases.

a) Comparison of trend in Phiase i and Phase ii

During the Phase-!, i.e., Pre New Industrial Policy period, the
quantity of exports of processed fruits and vegetables (F&V) has grown at
a CGR of 5.13 per cent which was higher as compared to Fresh Fruits
and Vegetables at 3.92 per cent. But in value terms the CGR for fresh
fruits and vegetables was higher at 13.54 per cent as compared to
Processed F&V at 9.32 per cent.

During Phase II i.e.. Post New Industrial Policy period, the export of
Processed Fruits and Vegetables has grown at a very fast rate compared
to export of fresh fruits and vegetables. The export of processed fruits and
vegetables has registered a CGR of 22 and 28 per cent in terms of
quantity and value respectively as against 3.33 per cent and 13 per cent.
This clearly shows that the New Industrial Policy has a definite and positive
impact on the export growth of Processed fruits and vegetables.

b) Overaii growth

When we take the entire period of 18 years into consideration, the
growth rate was higher in case of export of processed fruits and vegetables
as compared to fresh fruits and vegetables. As against CGR of 7 and 17
per cent in terms of quantity and value exported in case of fresh fruits and
vegetables respectively, the CGR in case of Processed Fruits and
Vegetables was 12 and 20 per cent during the period 1980-81 to 1997-98.

59
From the above it is clear that the export of processed fruits and
vegetables is growing at a faster rate as compared to fresh fruits and
vegetables and Phase II i.e., post New Industrial Policy period is having a
definite and positive impact on processed fruits and vegetable exports.

Mi) Export projections

The growth equations fitted based on the model explained for the
export data of Processed and fresh fruits and vegetables for the three
periods i.e.. Phase I, Phase II and combined Phase I and Phase II is
presented in table 5.8. Except in case of a few variables viz., quantity of
vegetables in Phase I and II and overall quantity of fresh fruits and
vegetables, in the other cases all the growth coefficients are statistically
significant and the R^ is also high showing that time variables could explain
the changes over the years.

The export projections were made based on the Phase - II growth
equations, as it was felt that trend of export during this period is more
relevant for projection due to changes in policy carried out during this
period which are continued compared to Phase - I. The results of the
projections for the year 2000 and 2005 is presented in table 5.9.

From the present level, i.e., during 1997-98, the export earnings from
processed fruits and vegetables can be increased by more than 50 percent
by the year 2000 and we can reach a figure of Rs. 4000 crores by the
year 2005 if the same trend is continued. The export of total fruits and
vegetables can reach a level of Rs. 2000 crores by the year 2000 and Rs.
5600 crores by the year 2005, which is nearly 300 per cent more than the
earnings in 1997-98.

iv) Clianges in composition of export of processed fruits and
vegetables

i) Growth of different products: The export of Processed Fruits and
Vegetables is classified into four main categories viz.. Dried and Preserved
vegetables. Mango pulp, pickles and chutneys and other processed fruits
and vegetables and the share of each is presented in Fig. 2. Substantial
increase in export has taken place in the Dried and Preserved category
followed by mango pulp, pickles and chutneys and other processed fruits
and vegetables. The value of export of Dried and preserved vegetables has
increased from Rs. 64 crores during 1991-92 to Rs. 480 crores by 1997-98
registering a growth of 650 per cent whereas the export of mango pulp
has registered an increase of 230 per cent from Rs. 38 crores to Rs. 125
crores during the same period. Plckl6s and chutneys increased by 192 per
cent from Rs. 26 crores to Rs. 77 crores and the other processed fruits

60
and vegetables by 169 per cent from Rs. 30 crores to Rs. 80 crores (Fig.
3, 4, 5 & 6).

ii) Share of different products: During the year 1997-98, Dried and
Preserved vegetables group has accounted for nearly 67 per cent of
quantity and 63 per cent of value of the total processed fruits and
vegetables exported as against 38 and 40 per cent during 1991-92. The
share of mango pulp exports has come down from 29 per cent during
1991-92 to 15 per cent by 1997-98 in terms of quantity and 24 per cent
to 16 per cent by value. Similar trend of decreasing share was noticed in
case of pickles and chutneys and other fruits and vegetables (Table 5.10).
The increase in share of dried and preserved vegetables was mainly due
to increase in export of items like Gherkins, Dried Onions, Dried
Mushrooms etc.

The changes in the individual performance of some of the processed
fruits and vegetables which of late have got importance has been examined
below.

(a) Gherkins: A new and imported vegetable which was introduced during
1992 and became one of the important items of export under Dried and
Preserved vegetables is 'Gherkins'. The Gherkin belongs to the family
cucurbitaceae and it is mainly processed into pickles in the west. The
commercial cultivation of Gherkins was started in 1992 in South India and
now India has emerged as the second largest exporter. The Gherkins were
exported in fresh form in a small quantity of 80 metric tonnes,valued at
Rs. 9.88 lakhs during 1991-92 and at present it is exported both in fresh
as well as processed form. At present i.e., 1997-98 nearly 15962 tonnes of
processed Gherkins are exported valued at Rs. 3179 lakhs, which is more
than double the quantity and value of exports during 1994-95 (Fig. 7).

(b) Dried Mushrooms: The second important item under Dried and
Preserved Vegetable category whose exports, of late, has picked up is
'Dried Mushrooms'. With the increase in the production of mushroom from
hardly 100 tonnes during 1970's to around 25000 tonnes by 1995, there is
a tremendous increase in export of mushrooms. With the growing of oyster
and paddy straw mushrooms picking up in Southern states like Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, the export of dried mushrooms has
picked up as they are most suited for this purpose. The export of dried
mushrooms during 1997-98 was nearly 148 tonnes valued at Rs. 3512
lakhs as compared to 44.5 tonnes valued at Rs. 74.53 lakhs exported
during 1990-91 (Fig. 9).

61
(c) Dehydrated onions: India, though'^the second largest producer of onion,
could not fully exploit its potential for export of dehydrated onions which is
in great demand in European countries. The world trade in dehydrated
onion and garlic is estimated at around 100,000 tonnes per annum. The
total use of dehydrated onions and garlic in Western Europe amounts upto
50,000 tonnes per year, of which 35,000 to 40,000 tonnes are imported.
The demand is still increasing. During the last five years, the export of
dehydrated onion has picked up and at present 4941 metric tonnes of
dehydrate.d onion valued at around Rs. 24 crores is exported, which is
nearly 4 times the value of exports during 1993-94 (Fig. 8).

(d) Processed mushrooms: Along with the New Industrial Policy of 1991 of
Govt, of India which allowed foreign collaborations, the relaxation of rules
for import of mushroom spawn culture by the Ministry of Commerce, Govt,
of India for the 100% Export Oriented Units during the year 1993, a
number of joint ventures have come into existence. Most of them are
having more than 2000 t/annum capacity with around Rs. 20 crores
investment each. At present there are about 30 EOUs with a capacity of
85000 metric tonnes. Most of these units are producing button mushrooms
and exporting them in processed form [31, 39, 65]. Hence, the export of
processed mushrooms has increased from hardly 126 tonnes valued at Rs.
76 lakhs in 1990-91 to 6883 tonnes valued at Rs. 2593 lakhs by 1995-96,
though there is a set back in export of processed mushrooms in
subsequent years (Fig. 10). The reason for drastic fall in exports of
processed mushrooms during the year 1997-98 was due to the levy of anti
dumping duty by USA, which is the major importer of processed
mushrooms and also the increase of exports by China.

v) Destination of exports of processed fruits and vegetables

The destination of exports of processed fruits and vegetables duhng
the years 1991-92 and 1997-98 is presented in Table 5.11. In case of
dried and preserved vegetables, Egypt and Sri Lanka have emerged as the
important importers during 1997-98 instead of UAE and Switzerland during
the year 1991-92. In case of mango pulp, the USSR is no more the
important importer next to Arab countries as was the situation during the
year 1991-92. Instead, Germany and U.S.A. have emerged as new markets
besides the Netherlands and UK. Similarly in the case of other processed
fruits and vegetables, instead of USSR as the major importer during the
year 1991-92, the Netherlands, Indonesia and Germany have emerged as
important markets and Russia could occupy only 7th place. For pickles and
chutneys, U.K. and U.S.A. remained the major importers from India.

Spain (24.26%), USA (16.25%), Belgium (15.74%), France (14.43%)

62
are the major importers of the new product produced vis., 'Gherkins' based
on value of exports during the year 1997-98 from India. Germany (27.97%),
U.K. (26.39%), Netherlands (8.98%) are the major markets for dehydrated
orvion (flakes/powder) based on the value of exports during 1997-98. USA
(84.71%) is the major importer of processed mushrooms, whereas
Switzerland (47.57%), France (27.50%) and Germany (17.50%) are the
important markets for dried mushrooms from India based on the value of
exports during the year 1997-98.

From this it is clear that to certain extent we are able to diversify
our export markets and catch new countries for exporting the processed
products of fruits and vegetables.

vi) Constraints

Besides the usual constraints of lack of infrastructural facilities, high
air freight charges, lack of refrigerated trucks etc., the Industry claims that
the reimposition of excise duty on Processed products in 1997 has resulted
in closure of some units thus reducing the installed capacity by 8.1 per
cent.

The anti dumping duty levied by U.S.A. for import of mushroom
products has resulted in low exports of this commodity.

The Europe levies a duty of 16.5 percent on Indian Gherkins as
compared to no duty at all on the Produce of Turkey (the largest exporter
of Gherkins in the world in bottled form). Similarly, the duty of 9.9 per cent
on Indian Produce by USA while no duty on the Mexican Produce (the
main competitor to India in the American market) have created problems for
the Gherkin Industry [9].

These and other problems like lack of infrastructural facilities, high
taxes etc., which are facing the processing industry of fruits and vegetables
need to be solved for increasing the exports of Processed Products of
Fruits and Vegetables from India.

63
Table 5.1 : Share of Agricultural Exports In India's Total Exports
(Rs. crores)
Year Total Exports Agrll Exports % share of Agri. in
Total Exports

1980-81 6711.00 2057.00 30.70
1985-86 10895.00 3018.00 27.70
1990-91 32553.00 4879.00 15.00
1991-92 44042.00 8288.00 18.70
1992-93 53688.00 9457.00 17.60
1993-94 69547.00 12528.00 18.00
1994-95 82674.00 13712.00 16.60
1995-96 106353.00 21138.00 19.90
1996-97 117525.00 23988.00 20.40

Table 5.2 : India's Share in World Agricuiltural Exports

(Percentage)

Commodity group 1970 1S80 1990 1994
Tea 33.4 27.7 22.1 13.6
Spices 20.5 14.5 7.7 9.1
Coffee & Its substitutes 1 2.1 1.7 2.4
Tobacco 3.5 4.4 0.8 0.4
Cereal & Cereal Preparations 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.9
Fruits & Vegetables 1.2 1.1 0.8 1.7
Sugar & its Preparations 1 0.3 0.1 0.2
Meat & its Preparations 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3
Fish & Fish Products 2 1.6 2.7
Source : GOI, Economic Survey, 1996-97 (New Delhi, Ministry of Finance, 1997), Ref. No. 18.

Table 5.3 : Share of Fruits and Vegetables in Agricultural Exports
(Rs. crores)

Year Agril Exports Fruit & Vegetable % share of Agri. in
exports* Total Exports

1980-81 2057 64.42 3.13
1985-86 3018 137.76 4.56
1990-91 4879 283.36 5.81
1991-92 8288 452.26 5.46
1992-93 9457 553.00 5.85
1993-94 12528 653.93 5.23
1995-96 21138 1022.74 4.84
1996-97 23988 1056.11 4.40

Includes processed fruits and vegetables.

64
H o
H
c o c o c o c o c o c D c o c o c o c o c o c o c o
<
0)
(D COCOCDCOCOCOCDCOCOCOCOCO
cococococococooooooooooo
CO CO CO CO
CD 00 00 03
-<
(D
0)
CT
cj)Cn*.coN3-'OCDCo-gc35cn CO P>0 - ' O
t O ( p t en
£ > (* O
. C03O ( ^3
O < -^
O C O 0 CD
D 0 00
3 C ^0 C D
05 C 0
01
D) U1 to
(P
-g 3) •" " ' " "" - — — . _ .-
U1
U1
^
(A • •
3-
ai (0
cn cn cji & CO 05 3-
(D cs 00 CO CO m S CO cn N5 0 K5 05 cn Tl
cn ^3 -^ CO § cn V I 0
0
05 ::j 05 cn cn 05
Tl 0)
cn ^ 0
tfo CD
?s •0 M A O cn 00 0 00 cn "^
g *. g < cn3- A
CJ5 ^5
^ CO r>o ro ro -k -J. -1 6 O 00 CO -NJ CO cn CO 05 CO
, _. O) 05 00 *. 05 CO O) ^ 8 a.
05
O) CO (O O O
en -» -vi - ' <D 2 G
m 0
o o o o o o o o o o o o
H 0 X ^
3 •D T l •n
"1
O C 0
» W T) 0
<-• (D
vl * . 05 ^5 r>o -» -» w (0
1 a- 05 vl K05ocnocj)cni..cncn.t^A0505ro •nX
Po CD fi) (0
_ i CO cn o
1^0o cn
c D
COc n v i MCOO jC- J' 5S- vi Ci c
Oo0 0v -i »cAn- c' o S o 3 (D
cn vi _ . . _ • ' • • ^
~sivi-»~jcoooa)-' < (15 a Q.
O) O 09 CO l\5 O CO a.
'S °
£ S2. < -0
(D
a> tn "^
0
o
m E "O (D a
00 ui
CO K5
CO
03
Ol
^ ^5
o
oi
CO
Ul (0
05
CO
t\5
C71
en CO
o
•11.
o
05
Cfl

r\5
s s X
S 0
•0 (D
(0
1-^
r
D) 0
fS ^3 00
CO
en CO CO CO CO 3
H cn a or ^¥
(0
(T>
co O O v l c : 5 C n * . | O N 5
^cn^50ocncncnoD^5vJXk05co•vl^5(j5g5C5
a 5 5 5 ^ 5 - ' C o c o ^ 5 c o ^ 3 c o S - ' v l c o t o - S K J ^ T- In -- tt
BO^ 0o 0)
^.
vj 3
0' g ^ < Si
3 (D
H
O
m •-»
o
2! o Tl
3.
(D
(0 0 s«
m
1^ T J cn
W n
CD X
00
cn
N>
O)
-g
cn
-J
cji
05
-^
^
5 s M D>
(D c n ^ ' ^ ' ^ - i ^ c o u c o h o i v i c
C 3 5 S 0 0 5 - ' v j S 0 5 C 0 C J 5 O 0
o c o ^ M u c n ^ c o
i C 0 v l 5 , - » O I > 0
cn
^ •D
r (15 Dl
ti 0^ a g b o b c n b N i b o c o b o o o * . c
c35c:5CJ505*i.cocococn
D * . K 3 b K 5 b o c o
oooo-jcooovioo a. CIJ J) O
0 cn
•n 0
-> (5
-n 00 O
< o
(0 cn
CO
t>
c: o
CO C )
-:i o
:^ o
9S 33 2 33
g CD Q
2 3)
o
00- COCOCOCDCOCDCOCOCDCOCD (D
g. CO CO CO CO CO CO CO0003000000Q000000000
n O CO CO CO CO CO CO _ ocpoD-vicncn^cjro-'cp D> en
lU _ j . •vj S> C71 S CO N ) -^^ CDCO0000000000O3C000(30 CO CO CD CO CD CD CO CDCDCOCDCOCDCDCOCOCDCO
(i> CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO -•.ocooo^cTicn-t^coro-^ cooooooooo(x>(x>oooooom
CD (D CO CD CO CO CD CD CO oepoo-vicj)cnKCf3N)-^o
•-J 03 -vi S (71 ^ CO r o cbcb(io(3o(io(9(x>(S(io(3o(io
•sj (35 en 5 CO M
• > CO -'Ocooo^jcsien^eoro-i
T) 03 CD CD CO CO CD CO ^
ni 00 ->i (3) en *- cj ro (D
n CO -^ o CO a> CO 09 cn^4^cn^coArororoco 3
> .^ ->-COQj^MrO-'->l®K0C3) D
o
l\}
o
Oi
-^
^ CO
VI -g
5
-J
S c;i
go -I
o
CO
~ g 5 o 3 - ' - ' O e n o - ' 0 > o
coovicno-c^cooococTico
•< a
(D
m CO ^ u u o> S
3
m
a X
•a
ro
ro ro ro -* -» -^ -t
-4*.co*»cocjen-k-'-*-'
r o - i c n c o o o o ^ ^ r o o
o

O)* •-J -I CO en ^ Q <3> bcococncp'A^iibtnbo m
i\) rococnroS-tvcoM-'O-'
*. -g 35 CO S o ~J X
C35 a i •b.
.- *^. en
_. oi
. . *^- Ji.
^ en * • ro
o CO ro en CO en -p! CD
CO _.
& c o o - ' J - - ' e n o o o 5
- N i o w t o s i n c o c o ^ ^
CO en -I ro i>o ^ en ^(j5S(35^co-'enooo
ooScovjo-'-'CO(35ro
-^ ro o 00 ro 05 i\3
o
^ u «>. ^ ^o^^3-v^3-^^o^o^o^o^o
OJOcnenencDQp — - ' Q - '
o
^ i > o e n ^ * . - ' 5_.5 00
0 oJi
ji_Q-' (0
tn oi CD ro -» i en CO o> 'Ci. (0
CO o -» ^ CO o -^ ro C3) ^ 5
en g CD O ^ l>0 CO ^ CO -I
< v>
00 *. 05 -J ho cj) *>. en -^ o
-- <D go o ^ ro o en ^3 CD
CD (0 a
S
CO u CO i\} ro ro -^ CD
Ol -i. :K Q ^ o o ^
L

05 -1. -1 00 en -^ cji CO g> en -» ro -tk 00 ji 00 ^ -J
-J ^ ^ ^ CO en
(0

I
In ^ ^ ^ CO o CO 00 Jk O -* O CO
CO (3) CO en CO •>! CD
3
Ol Oi V\ U\ t^ (J> -t^
CJ) -k i. Ul ^ -i CD
co*k^o^o^o^3eo^o^3^3^3 a <
(31 g O) S *. en N) CO
O) -1 en CO CO c:>
-i.i.CO-'CDIViNJJ^^.M*.
ooen(3)M~-ico^cncocp^
D
< ~g
(35
*. ji. (j3 ro i>o -i
~j CO 5 03 o en 0(35en-i^cncn4^4^(35<j5

<D -^ O ^ W CD -* cnco-'*>.eocorococj5S^
f8g
— o^cooocooo^cnM-' •< (D _L CO -» 00 05 en ^ l\3(35-'*.^CD-g(3)(0S
<

I
<3) O) cn c3) ro (3) o C3)0-'cocna)0co-'cn en '~j bi Kj en CD <i
(Q o 00 CO ro o CJ3 00 c o c o b ' - ' c o b o ^ ^ - ' ^
SL ^+ C35^^-i'vlCOOOCX)-'I>0
fi)
o D
-^ en en en *. CO CO M o o e n r o o o ^ r o - ^ o e n j i M
-v| 00 00 CO cj 00 :^ cp oen-joco^cncnenpco
4i.cn"*.b)^QobboboK3cn o
g en
Ks
to
CO
-^
^
CO
Ks
en
-b
c<5 S
b -fe
o^enco*.MCJj-'Ooco(3) ac
00 S5 en 00 CO ^ 00
o
§•*
V)
Table 5.8 : Export Growth Equations of Fruits and Vegetables
item 1980-81 to 1990-91 1991-92 to 1997-98 1980-811 to 1997-98
1nA InB R^ InA InB R^ InA InB R'

1. Processed fruits
and vegetables
Quantity 10.4372 0.0500 0.46 11.0780 0.2016 0.94 10.0990 0.1141 0.85
Value 3.3950 0.0891 0.30 4.8335 0.2498 0.97 2.9040 0.1859 0.88
II. Freshi fruits
and vegetables
a) Fruits
Quantity 10.1584 0.0606 0.56 11.1585 0.0874 0.94 9.9800 0.0972 0.90
Value 2.3598 0.1636 0.79 4.7115 0.1323 0.96 2.2200 0.1957 0.94
b) Vegetables
Quantity 12.1633 0.0339NS 0.21 12.9057 0.0196NS 0.29 12.0693 0.0579 0.71
Value 6.4751 0.1104 0.80 5.0574 0.1146 0.93 3.3320 0.1412 0.95
c) Total fresti
fruits and
Vegetables
Quantity 12.2889 0.03842NS 0.23 13.0605 0.0328 0.64 12.1725 0.0640 0.81
Value 3.7593 0.1270 0.86 5.5891 0.1228 0.97 3.6095 0.1598 0.96
NS = Non significant and rest are significant at 1% or 5% level.

Table 5.9 : Export Projections for Fruits and Vegetables based on
trend during 1991-92 to 1997-98
Quantity in M.T.
Value in Rs. Crores
Item Actual in Projection % change over 1997-98
1997-98 2000 2005 2000 2005

1. Processed products
Quantity 298931 397281 1088597 32.90 264.16
Value 761.50 1189.99 4149.32 56.27 448.89
II. Fresh Fruits and Vegetables
a) Fruits
Quantity 135198 154060 238494 13.95 76.40
Value 268.74 365.84 708.89 36.13 163.78
b) Vegetables
Quantity 431698 480268 529718 11.25 2.71
Value 316.53 440.89 781.96 39.29 147.05
c) Total
Quantity 566896 631403 743928 11.38 31.23
Value 585.28 807.79 1492.64 38.02 155.03
III. Total Fruits and Vegetables
Quantity 865827 1028684 1832525 18.81 111.65
Value 1346.78 1997.78 5641.96 48.33 318.92

67
Table 5.10 Composition of Export of Processed
Fruits and Vegetables
Quantity in M.T.
Value in Rs. Crores

Items 1991-92 1997-98 % change over
1991-92
Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value

Dried and Preserved Vegetables 30474.83 63.98 200262.70 479.89 557.16 650.06
(38.12) (40.55) (66.99) (63.02)

Mango pulp 23212.74 37.95 45874.54 125.31 97.63 230.20
(29.03) (24.05) (15.35) (16.46)

Pickles & Chutney 11004.96 26.28 24372.28 76.71 121.47 191.89
(13.76) (16.66) (8.15) (10.07)

Other processed fruits & vegetables 15259.58 29.57 28421.80 79.59 86.26 169.16
(19.09) (18.74) (9.51) (10.45)

Total processed fruits & vegetables 79952.10 157.78 298931.29 761.50 273.89 382.63
(100) (100) (100) (100)

Note : Figures in parentheses are percentages to total.
Source : APEDA.

Table 5.11 : Destination of Processed Fruits and Vegetables
Group 1991-92 1997-98

Dried and Preserved UAE, Switzerland. USA, UK, Egypt (21.09), Sri Lanka (20.3)
Vegetables Germany UAE (10.63), USA (9.9) Turkey (5.45)
UK (4.99)

Mango Pulp S. Arabia (17.05), Yemen (16.53), S. Arabia (18.2), USA (17.27)
USSR (11.98), Netherlands (11.16) Netherlands (9.87), Kuwait (9.29)
UAE (8.86), UK (5.6), Kuwait (3.72) Germany (6.76), UK (5.97),
USA (4.57).

Pickles & Chutneys UK (22.1), USA (14.41), UK (17.57), USA (10.51), UAE (9.35),
S. Arabia (12.47), UAE (12.02) Spain (7.71), S. Arabia (6.71)
Germany (4.75), Netherlands (4.16), Netherlands (5.42), Kuwait (5.34),
Canada (4.08), France (4.13) Germany (5.33), France (4.76).

Other processed fruits & USSR, USA, UAE, UK, Netherlands (15.66), Indonesia (12.65),
Vegetables S. Arabia UK (10.42), USA (9.7), UAE (8.44)
Germany (5.32), Russia (4.88).

Note : figures in parentheses are percentages of total value of exports.
Source : APEDA (Ret. No. 1).

68
Fig: 2.Composition of Bxpot-t of ptocdssQd Ftuits ond
VagQtoblaS - 1997-98
(Petcantoga bosza on Yo/UQ cf £xpofts)

63 oz'A

10.4.S

Total : Rs I61.50 coy<za

SOURCE: APBDA

69
48000-, Fig:3-Export of Dried andpraeetvea Vegetables ATseg
1991-92 to l097-9e
4./).000

4/0000.

36OO0

32OO0 .

03000 _
24-765
•3AOOO 2^IOT

20CXD0_

I
«?
I6000 _

nooo .
Mcsa

loroe
e59S
eooo . £39a

4000

-r T— —r -r
92-93 3S-9^ 9^- OeS 9 5 - B6 96-97 97-98
91-92
( Yizors) souRce: APEOA

(3790 - i-iy. tt- c > CT" /viongo nuip.
/99/
- 9 2 t o /997'-9€
12531
Q500 -

<IOIE>0 -
»050(
loooo _

6 7 SO , e^6\
eo7i
7500 .

1 eiBO .
5834" S79d

6 BOOO.
(P
*< 5795
3750 .

2500 .

12 5 0 .

••"I 1 1 T • 1 97-96
9<-92 93-93 93-d4 9^-06 99-9« 96-97
f V<zar«)

70
Fiq: 5- Export ofpicH/as and chutnztjs
1991-OS to 1997-90 7STI
7500

67 60

6000
5K--*3
6ZVS
4^7S
j*eoo.

97SO - 3613

in 3000. 2.ees
a63d
^ Z.ZSO

^ IBOO _

7-50-

&-9Z- S?93 93 0 4 94-95 0^-9S 96-97 97-98

F^: &.Export of othzr proc(2ss<zcr Fruits and
iiaoo.
yagztoblzQ
rSOhOSi. to/997-98 I0677
loooo.

9000-
ei^s 7959
9000-
7/a3
7000^ 6731

^ SOOO -

^ SOOO -
^
•4-000 _
3295
3000 _ a95rr

2000 _

fOOO _

T -r si-S-f^ -r
94-9S
T
9S-9e 96-97 97- 96
9I-9X oa-93
( y<2a f s ) SOURCE: A, PB CV\

71
F/g:7expor6 c^pfocaesad cucumbar one/
3300.
3<79
3ooo_J /dO4-05 t o /097-9a

2.700 J

a^oo
2IOO _J

>
i©oo _1

i»oo _|
n
6
me
ooo-J
ffOO

3 0 0 _J

9<*-S5 T^
95-9<S 9ff-97 97-9S
Cyzari)

F/g. e export of oahtjatatad onions (FloHas/pouudzr)
2500
X-b79
1903-9^ to 1997- 93

1781

lies

1
n
c!^'

S26-

X
93 94 91-95 ©5-96 T^
Stf-ST^ «7'-9a

eoufice: APEDA

72
3500 Fiq:9- Export of DHad MuGhroom 35 ra

330O iooo-o( to losr-99

3000

XTOO.

3JOO . aO09
(996
la^s
leoo
I500-

I . /222

903 ©(fO
9 laoo-
900-
$ T^-B^
600-

300-

90'-9( 91-91 9i-93 93-9^ ©4-95 95-96 96-97 97-9©
( years)

Fig:tO.BKpotb of proc<z&s(za Mushrooms
I9SO-31 t o \92>7-S>B 29<?3-27
2500
a3«9
aaso .
aooo_ 1932

I750-
I9l6
isoo-
o aso-
loei
5 lOOO-

TSO-

900 -
318
172
76
r—1 T T ± T -r
90-©l 91-92 92-93 93-S4 94--96 ©396 96-97
97-36
cyzara) &DUPICE: ^^PBD^^
SECTION - VI

INCENTIVES FOR PRODUCERS IN ESTABLISHING PROCESSING
UNITS AND STEPPING UP PROCESSING

With a view to developing the horticultural Industry, a number of
Govt, organisations viz. The Ministry of Food Processing Industry (MFPI),
National Horticulture Board (NHB), National Cooperative Development
Corporation (NCDC) and Agricultural and Processed Food Products Exports
Development Authority (APEDA) have formulated a number of schemes
under which, financial assistance is given as a grant in aid, and in some
cases as subsidy and in some cases as a soft loan. A brief outline of the
schemes is presented based on the information collected from these
organisations [1, 7, 28, 70].

a) Ministry of food processing industries

The Ministry of Food Processing Industries was constituted in June
1988 with a view to regulate, control and develop the processed food
sector. The Ministry of Food Processing Industries had been operating
several plan schemes for the development of processed food sector in the
country since the inception of Eighth plan period (1992-97) taking into
account the recommendations of the working group of Planning Commission,
the constraints faced by Industry in order to accelerate growth of this sector
and the priority status accorded to it by the Government, the Ministry of
Food Processing Industries proposes to operate the following plan schemes
during the Ninth Plan commencing in 1997 [7]. The schemes pertaining to
Food Processing Industry are presented below.

1. Schemes for development of infrastructural facilities

The scheme aims to support creation of infrastructural facilities in
various sectors of food processing industries.

(a) Establishment of post-harvest infrastructure and cold chain
facilities for food processing,

(b) Infrastructure facilities for integrated projects of cultivation and
processing of mushrooms, hops, gherkins and baby corn.

Establishment of post harvest infrastructure and cold-chain facilities for food
processing and integrated projects of mushrooms, hops, gherkins and baby
corn.

75
Objectives

(a) Provide/develop post harvest infrastructure like establishment of cold
storage and cold chain facilities etc. (b) Build up efficient post harvest
handling system right from the farm to retail marketing, (c) Develop setting
up pre-cooling facilities, refrigerated transportation system and refrigerated
retail outlets, (d) Develop cold storage system etc. (major ports and airports
for food products meant for export), (e) Establishment of infrastructural
facilities for mushroom cultivation and processing would consist of :

(i) Composed pasteurization units

(ii) spawn lab

(ill) Other processing facilities

(iv) marketing support etc.

(f) In the case of hops, establishment of infrastructural facilities would
include setting up hops processing plants, procurement of pipes and
supporting structures, support for cultivation practices etc.

Pattern of Assistance

PSUs/Joint Sector/NGOs/ 50% of the cost of capital equip- Grant
Cooperatives ment and technical civil works upto
Rs. 25 lakhs in general areas and
upto 50 lakhs in difficult areas.

Assisted/Private Sector 50% of the cost of capital equip- Loan
ment and technical/civil works upto
Rs. 50 lakhs in general areas and
Rs. 75 lakhs in difficult areas.

PSUs/Joint Sector 50% of the total equity subject Loan
to a maximum of Rs. 150 lakhs
in general areas and Rs. 200
lakhs in difficult areas.

An organisation can avail of only one form of assistance, i.e., either
grant or loan.

76
Establishment of food processing industrial estates/food parks

Objectives

To help establish Food Processing Industrial Estates/Parks by
providing assistance for common facilities such as analytical and quality
control laboratories, cold storages/modified atmosphere cold storages,
warehousing facilities, supplementary pollution control facilities etc.

Pattern of Assistance

PSUs/Joint Assisted/ Upto Rs. 4 crore for creation of Grant
Private Sector/NGOs common facilities

2. Scheme for setting up/expansion/modernisation of food processing
industries

Setting up/expansion/modernisation of food processing units

Objectives

Provision of assistance for setting up of food processing units
including those of spices, coconut, walnut and cashew nut or upgradation
and expansion of such units.

Pattern of Assistance

PSUs 50% of cost of capital equip- Loan
ment and technical civil works,
upto Rs. 150 lakhs in general
areas, and Rs. 200 lakhs in
difficult area

or
50% of cost of capital equipment Grant
and technical civil works upto
Rs. 50 lakhs in difficult areas

Joint Sector 25% of cost of capital equip- Grant
ment and technical civil works
upto Rs. 25 lakhs in difficult
areas

or

77
50% of cost of capital equip- Loan
ment and technical civil works
upto Rs. 150 lakhs in general
areas and upto Rs. 200 lakhs
in difficult areas

An implementing agency can take either loan or grant, not both

Private/Assisted Sector 50% of the cost of capital equip- Loan
ment and technical civil works,
upto Rs. 50 lakhs in general
areas and upto Rs. 75 lakhs in
difficult areas

NGOs/Cooperatives 50% of cost of capital equipment Grant
& technical civil works upto
Rs. 25 lakhs in general areas
and upto Rs. 50 lakhs in difficult
areas.

All implementing Agencies All implementing agencies will get Loan
50% of the cost of capital equip-
ment and technical civil works
upto Rs. 75 lakhs in both general
and difficult areas for innovative
projects

Setting up of mobile fruit and vegetable processing unit

Objectives

To propagate the concept of mobile fruit and vegetable processing
facilities which takes the facility of processing to the doorsteps of the
farmers. •

Pattern of Assistance

PSUs/State Nodal 50% of the project cost (exclud- Grant
Agencies/NGOs/ ing pre-operative expenses and
Co-operatives margin money for working capital),
upto Rs. 40 lakhs in general areas
and Rs. 60 lakhs in difficult areas

78
Dissemination of low cost preservation technology

Objectives

To encourage setting up units using low cost preservation technology
developed by National Institutions.

Pattern of Assistance

NGOs/Cooperatives/PSUs Actual cost of technology Grant
(charged by CFTRI/other
national R&D institutes) and
plant and equipment upto
Rs. 5 lakhs in both general
and difficult areas

Joint/Assisted/Private Actual cost of technology Loan
Sector (charged by CFTRI/other national
R&D institutes) and plant and
equipment upto Rs. 5 lakhs in
both general and difficult areas.

3. Scheme for research and development in food processing industries

1. Undertake specific R&D Projects on/relating to :

(i) Processing of cereals, coarse grains and millets and also for
improving traditional/regional foods made from them.

(ii) Utilization of by-products of primary food processing like paddy husk,
paddy straw, pulses-corn, peri carp brokens etc.

(ill) Study prevailing post-harvest technology of millets like ragi, jowar and
bajra and devise improvements thereto and develop technologies for the
purpose suited to our conditions.

(iv) Development of processing technology for the production of
intermediate and finished food product/production including design and
building or prototype equipment/pilot plants;

(v) Traditional Foods of various regions of the country.

2. Update processing, packing and storage technologies for all major
processed food products so that they meet International Standards.

79
3. Financial assistance would be available for setting up of Quality Control
Laboratory for all processed foods. Such assistance will be limited to the
entire cost of capital equipment required for setting up such laboratories.
The facilities thus created will be common and may be availed of by other
food processing units in and around the area. All implementing agencies
would be eligible for such assistance.

Eligibility

(i) Agricultural Universities, Research Institutions including Central Food
Technologies Research Institute, Veterinary Colleges, Cooperatives, National
Dairy Research Institute (Karnal), Indian Institute of Packaging, Defence
Food Research Laboratory and other reputed national institutions of
research and development.

(ii) Industry Associations, NGOs, Voluntary Agencies and Private
Entrepreneurs, where common facilities need to be established for the use
of industry.

(iii) Private, Public and Joint Sector Companies taking up Research and
Development projects individually or jointly with government laboratories, NTs,
Universities or on the basis of a consortium of companies.

Pattern of assistance

Laboratories/MTs/Universities 100% of the project cost Grant
NGOs and similar non-profit
organisations

Public Sector/Joint Sector 1/3rd of the Project cost Grant
Assisted Sector/Private Sector

Ownership of know-how and intellectual property and other conditions

1) It will be one of the pre-conditions for sanction of any R&D Project that

(i) where the project-executing institution is a laboratory/IIT/University, the
know-how and all other aspects of Intellectual property generated as a
result of the project will be owned wholly by MFPI.

(ii)" where the project-executing institution is a commercial company, the
Intellectual property (in all forms) generated as a result of the project will
be jointly owned by MFPI and the company(s).

80
2) In cases where assistance for R&D activities is sought by commercial
companies of any type - public, joint or private or by an entrepreneur,
MFPI will reserve the right to license the know-how developed under the
project to other companies, after a mutually negotiated period of exclusive
right of product and sale by the company which undertook the project.

3) Where assistance is sought for quality control laboratories, an
undertaking should be given that the facilities thus established would be
allowed to be used by other industrial units also.

4. Scheme for personpower development in food processing industries

(i) Personpower development in rural areas (Food Processing and
Training Centres or FPTCs).

(ii) Creations of infrastructure facilities

(iii) Training programme sponsored by MFPI.

Personpower development in rural areas (food processing and training
centres or FPCTS)

Objectives

Development of rural entrepreneurship and transfer of technology for
processing of food products by utilising locally grown raw materials and
providing 'hands on' experience at such production cum training centres,
while according priority to SC/ST/OBC and women.

Eligibility

Central or State Government Organizations, Educational and
Technical Institutions, NGOs and Cooperatives, provided the implementing
agency is willing to make available the required accommodation,
personpower and other infrastructural facilities.

Pattern of Assistance

Grant-in-aid would be available to the FPTCs to the following extent.

Single Product Line Centre (for Rs. 2.00 lakhs for fixed Grant
any one group of processing Capital Cost and Rs. 1.00
activities) lakh as revolving seed
capital.

81
Mult! Product Line Centre Rs. 7.50 lakhs for Fixed Grant
(For more than one group Capital cost and Rs. 2.00
of processing activities): lakhs as revolving seed
capital.

For training the trainers Upto Rs. 0.50 lakhs one Grant
at recognised institutes such time assistance, subject to
as CFTRI, Mysore actuals on TA/DA etc.

Recurring expenditure needed for the revolving seed capital on raw
materials and consumables (Preservative/additives/packaging) is expected to
be recouped from sale proceeds products processed at the centre and the
processing fees paid by the growers of raw materials.

5. Scheme for generic advertisement on processed foods and
marl<eting assistance

Objectives

Build awareness among consumers about the advantages of processed
foods, and their quality assurance mechanism, both through (i) Generic
Advertisement and Publicity and (ii) Market Promotion Campaign for New
Product Mix and Brand name support.

Pattern of Assistance

Central/State Govt. 50% of the cost of cam- Grant
Organisation paign upto Rs. 25 lakhs.

NGOs/Cooperatives 50% of the cost of cam- Grant
paign upto Rs. 10 lakhs
per annum for a maxi-
mum period of 2 years

Industry/Association Will be entitled to assistance Grant
for generic advertisement only.
The assistance will be offered
on a tapering basis, at 90%
of the project Cost for the
first two years (99/2000 &
2000/2001) and 70% of the
last year of the Ninth Plan
(2001/2002)

82
All Agencies 50% of the cost towards Grant
implementing Total Quality
Management (TQM) includ-
ing obtaining ISO-9000
certification HACCP
etc. upto Rs. 10 lakhs.

6. Scheme for strengthening of backward linkages of food processing
industries

Objectives

Increase capacity utilization of fruits and vegetables processing as
well as grain and coarse grain, by ensuring regular supply of raw materials
through contract farming. Ensure remunerative price to farmers by creating
direct linkage between farmer and processor. Provide high quality seeds/
fertilizers/pesticides and planting materials to farmers also with technical
know-how etc., through the processor.

Pattern of Assistance

Joint/Assisted/Private Incentives in the form of Grant
Sector/NGOs/Cooperatives/ reim bursement will be
PSUs available upto 5% of the
total purchases made by
processor in a given year,
limited to Rs. 10 lakhs
per year, for a maximum
period of three years.

Terms and Conditions

Processing companies would be required to supply high quality seeds/
fertilizers/pesticides and technology to contracted farmers, along with
necessary extension work at reasonable charge. The group to contracted
farmers shall not be less than 25 in number. The processing unit should
enter into a contract with the farmers atleast for a period of 3 years and
the units should also keep the Ministry informed in advance of such
contracts.

7. Scheme for promotion of food processing industries

(i) Strengthening of the Directorate of Fruit and Vegetable Processing for
information, education and quality systems.

83
(ii) Participation in National/International Exhibition/Fairs.

(iii) Promoting studies, surveys, etc., in the Food Processing Sector.

(iv) Performance Awards.

Strengthening of the directorate of fruit and vegetable processing

Objectives

Strengthening the Directorate of Fruit and Vegetable Processing
including computerisation. Compilation of information on different aspects of
technology, machinery, packaging etc.. Preparation of short-films on these
aspects.

Pattern of Assistance

100% grant to Government Organizations/Industry Associations/Private Sector

Participation in national/international exhibition/fairs

Objectives

Dissemination of information regarding Industry, familiarising the existing and
prospective entrepreneurs with modern techniques of production and
packaging, development of market and popularisation of products.

Pattern of Assistance

The Ministry in close association with APEDA, CFTRI, Industry Associations
etc., would participate in exhibitions/fairs. Expenditure incurred in this
connection would cover publication of literature, holding of seminars, space
rentals and other miscellaneous items for setting up of theme pavilion etc.
Quantum of financial assistance would be decided depending upon the
merits of the proposal.

Promoting studies/surveys in the food processing sector

Objectives

To undertake studies and surveys for assessment of potential for food
processing industries on sectoral and regional basis. Activities include
organising seminars, workshops, symposia of focus attention on the
development of food processing industries. The scheme envisages financial
assistance for Entrepreneur Development Programmes (EDP)

84
Pattern of Assistance

Assistance is extended to government or academic bodies, industry
associations, non-governmental organisations etc., in the following manner.

(i) The amount provided for studies/feasibility reports/surveys etc., shall not
exceed Rs. 3 lakhs.

(ii) The support for seminars/meetings/entrepreneurial development
programmes etc., shall not exceed Rs. 1 lakh.

(iii) When the Ministry commissions such studies or sponsors seminars/
symposia, there would be no ceiling to financial assistance provided.

(iv) Maximum assistance of Rs. 1 lakh for EDP which should be atleast for
a period of 2 weeks and the number of trainees should not be less than
15.

Performance award

Objectives

Provide encouragement/recognition to outstanding achievements of units in
the food processing sector and for augmenting efficiency through a healthy
competitive spirit through annual awards.

Pattern of Assistance

The National Productivity Council (NPC) has been the designated Agency
for the purpose of implementation of this Scheme Component. Assistance in
the form of grant-in-aid will be provided to them.

8. Scheme for strengthening of nodal agencies

Objectives

Strengthen the State level Nodal Agencies for food processing industries,
designated by the State Governments, by providing financial support for
installation of basic office hardware including computer system and internet
for collection of detailed field information, preparation of data base,
monitoring of assisted projects, coordination of agro food business etc.

85
Pattern of Assistance

All Nodal Agencies Lumpsum grant of Rs. 3 lakhs Grant
for purchase of hardware. Addi-
tional sum upto Rs. 50,000/- per
Nodal/Agency per year for meet-
ing the expenses on engaging per-
sonnel for preparation of data base,
publication of profiles, office consu-
mables etc.

Additional Financial assistance for
collection of detailed field information,
preparation of data base etc., would
be considered on merits and no
amount is prefixed for this purpose.

Explanations

1. General and Difficult Areas: The scheme provides for differential scale of
assistance for projects to be setup in general and difficult areas of the
country. It envisages enhanced rate of assistance for difficult areas, i.e.,
Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, North Eastern States,
Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and integrated Tribal
Development Project (ITDP) areas.

2. Soft loan: Provision of loan, wherever indicated, envisages loan at
concessional rate of 4%, where the repayment will be made in 5 years,
after a moratorium of one year. Implementing Agencies availing soft loan
will be required to furnish irrevocable and unconditional Bank Guarantee
from any of the public sector banks in favour of the Ministry of Food
Processing Industries (MFPI) for due repayment of loans and payment of
interest and other money thereon in a form prescribed by NFPI. No
guarantee commission shall be paid to the guarantor(s).

3. Release of Assistance : Assistance in the form of grant or soft loan
would be released directly to the concerned implementing agencies, except
in the case of projects in the private sector where it would be released
through the concerned bank or financial institution providing the term loan
to the project.

4. Recommendations : The proposals are required to be recommended by
the concerned State Government or the Nodal Agency designated by them.
The PSUs and R&D institutes, however, would not need such

86
recommendations. In case of areas under autonomous bodies such as
Gorkha Hill Development Council, Jharkhand Autonomous Area Development
Council and Bodo Development/Council, such recommendations can be
made by their competent Authority.

5. Joint and Assisted Sectors : A Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) would
atleast hold 26% of the equity, for a company to be in the Joint Sector. If
the equity is less than 26%, but more than 11%, the company would be
deemed to be in Assisted Sector.

b) National Horticulture Board

The Board has formulated a number of schemes for development of
infrastructure for post harvest management for improving the marketing of
produce. The financial assistance under the schemes will be very helpful for
the cultivators who are the suppliers of the raw material for F&V processing
industry.

1. Integrated Project on Management of Post Harvest infrastructure of
Horticultural crops : Under the scheme, assistance is provided to
cooperatives, registered farmers/organisations engaged in marketing of
horticultural produce. Initially, assistance was being provided in the form of
subsidy limited to Rs. 15 lakhS/beneficiary. However, due to practical
difficulties, the pattern of assistance has been changed from subsidy to soft
loan during the 8th five year plan.

Soft loan upto Rs. 1.00 crore per beneficiary at a service charge of
4 per cent is given by the Board. The loan is given with a moratorium of
upto 3 years and repayment in another 5 years. The main components of
the scheme are :

(i) grading and packing centre, (il) retail outlets, (ill) specialised transport
vehicles, (iv) pre-cooling units and cold storage, (v) auction platform, (vi)
ripening/curing chamber, (vii) maturity kits, (viii) rigid plastic container
(subsidy @Rs. 70/crate or 50 per cent of the actual cost whichever is
less).

The 8th plan outlay is Rs. 47 crore.

Though the promoters contribution should not be less than 20 per
cent, it is relaxed in case of cooperatives upto 10 per cent.

The pattern of assistance and the components under this scheme
are as below:

87
Description/ Existing pattern Approved pattern of
Component of assistance assistance during 8th plan

Eligible Cooperatives, Regd. Far- No change
Organisations mersA/oluntary organisations/
Public sector organisations

Pattern of a) 50% subsidy subject to Interest free loan to the
assistance a limit of Rs. 15 lakh extent of Rs. 50% of the
per beneficiary project cost subject to a
organisation ceiling of Rs. 1 crore per
beneficiary with a mora-
torium upto 5 years.

b) For plastic crates 50% 50% subsidy of actual
subsidy on actual cost cost or Rs. 70 per crate
or Rs. 50 per crate whichever is less
whichever is less

Component Assistance (Rs. lakhs)
Maximum NHB Assistance

Grading/packing centre 0.50 1.10
Retail outlet (Ordinary) 0.10 0.18
Transport vehicle 1.00 1.70
Short duration cool store 1.00 5.00
Retail outlet (Air-conditioned) — 0.75
Refrigerated van — •
5.00
Mechanical grading/packing/waxing line — 5.00
Auction platform — 0.50
Ripening/curing chamber —, 5.00
Maturity kits — to be decided
Quality testing equipment — on case to case
Improved packaging — basis
Plastic crates Rs. 50/- per crate Rs. 70/- per crate

2. Development of marketing of horticultural oroduce throuoh oarticioation in
soft loan: The scheme was introduced in 1993-94. A financial assistance of
upto 40 per cent of the project cost subject to a maximum of Rs. 1.00
crore at a service charge of 4 per cent per annum is given for integrated

88
projects to cooperatives, public sector organisations, NGOs and corporate
sector. The 8th plan outlay is Rs. 50 crore.

The components of the scheme are :

(i) building including land on which infrastruciure is to be created, (ii)
equipment and facilities (ill) payment of technical knowhow, (iv) working
capital (margin), promotional expenditure for commercial launching of the
product.

3. Installation of juice vending machines: With a view to pupularising the
use of processed products as also to ensure the proper utilisation of B-
grade fruits which virtually brings much less returns to the producers, the
Board has initiated a scheme "Alternative structure for Marketing of Fruit
Juices and Fruit based beverages" during 1987-88 which is to continue
through the 8th five year plan. Under the scheme, assistance is provided to
cooperative/Agro-horticultural Societies for juice vending machines
@Rs. 25000/- per machine with 25 per cent subsidy, 75 per cent loan @9
per cent per annum.

The 8th plan outlay is Rs. 1.35 crore. So far 20 beneficiaries have availed
of the assistance and a total of 1023 machines have been installed.

c) National Cooperative Development Corporation

in 1963 NCDC was created by an act of parliament for planning,
promoting and financing certain specified rural economic activities on
cooperative principles. The NCDC Act was further amended in 1974 to
pave the way for broadbasing its constitution, resources and for
diversification in its objectives and activities on the basis of the
recommendation of an expert committee of GO!. NCDC's main functions are
to plan, promote and finance programmes of agricultural inputs, processing,
storage and marketing of agricultural inputs, processing, storage and
marketing of agricultural produce as also supply of consumer goods in rural
areas. Over the years, NCDC has emerged as the developmental financing
institution for cooperatives.

The NCDC has been the main agency for financing the F&V
Marketing cooperatives under different schemes.

1. Strengthening the share capital base and expansion of fruit and
vegetable marketing activities: The NCDC provides financial assistance upto
Rs. 5 lakh for strengthening the share capital base of cooperatives and
margin money is provided for improving the working capital base of the

89
societies. Under the corporation sponsored scheme, the NCDC provides
financial assistance for purchase of transport vehicles and construction of
godowns. Under NCDC III, loan is given for expansion of F&V marketing
activities.

2. Cooperative cold storage: As per the recommendation of NCA (1976)
NCDC has been giving financial assistance for construction of cold storages
in cooperative sector. Almost the entire cold storage capacity in the
cooperative sector has been created with the financial and technical
assistance of NCDC and the capacity is being utilised by the small and
marginal farmers.

"The corporations have availed of the World Bank assistance under NCDC-
II IDA Project for expanding the network of cooperative cold storages and
marketing of potatoes. In order to make the cooperative units Viable and
help the cooperatives to create additional cold storage capacity, the NCDC
has liberalised the pattern of assistance. Under this pattern, 90% of the
project cost is financed. This consists of 40% term loan to cooperatives
and 50% investment loan to be provided by the state government as share
capital and the remaining 10% to be borne by the beneficiary society. With
a view to accelerate the pace of development relating to the establishment
of cold storage and ice plants and their rehabilitation, modernisation and
modification by the weaker sectioins in the cooperatively underdeveloped/
least developed states/UTs the pattern of assistance has further been
liberalised during 1994-95. Under this pattern, cooperatives in the
underdeveloped states/UTs are provided 40% loan, 35% share capital and
17.5% to 20% subsidy of the block cost of a cold storage/ice plant.

3. Cooperative processing units: Under the project 'Post Harvest
Management of Horticultural Crops' NCDC provides financial assistance for
setting up of the processing units. It has so far assisted the cooperatives
to organise 33 processing units of which 30 are already installed. NCDC
has sanctioned assistance to cooperative mostly in the North Eastern region
for marketing and processing activity.

d) The Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development
Authority (APEDA)

This organisation has been giving financial assistance for the
promotion of export of horticultural products through systematic lending for
the development of infrastructure and promotion of transfer laboratory. Most
of the schemes are designed for promotion of export of horticultural
products. As there is good scope for increasing the export of processed
products some of the schemes can be taken advantage of by the
processing industry.

90
1. Scheme for development of infrastructure: Under this scheme financial
assistance is given to cooperatives, government and private organisations
for establishing infrastructural and post harvest facilities. The scheme has
the following components.

(a) Financial assistance upto 25 per cent of the capital cost subject to
a ceiling of Rs. 1.5 lakh per beneficiary is given for purchase of specialised
transport unit for horticulture.

(b) Financial assistance upto 50 per cent of the capital cost subject to
a ceiling of Rs. 5 lakh is given to exporters/cooperatives organisations and
federations for (i) establishing pre-cooling facilities (ii) setting up mechanised
post harvest handling facilities and sheds for grading, sorting, quality control
and packaging, (iii) establishing Vapour Heat Treatment/Fumigation/Screening
machines for exports, (iv) establishing cold stores at ports/sea ports for
export purposes. The activity components and the pattern of assistance
under the scheme are presented below :

Activity component Pattern of assistance

a) Purchase of specialised transport 25% of the capital cost subject
units for meat, horticulture and to a ceiling of Rs. 1.5 lakh per
floriculture sector. unit.

b) Assistance to exporters/cooperatives/
federations for :

(i) establishing pre-cooling facilities 50% of the capital cost subject
with proper air handling system to a ceiling of Rs. 5 lakh.

(ii) Setting up of mechanised post -do-
harvest handling facilities and
sheds for grading, sorting,
quality control and packaging
2. Scheme for assistance to promote quality and quality control: Upto 50
per cent of the cost subject to a ceiling of Rs. 5 lakh per beneficiary is
given to exporters producers' associations etc., for settingup/strengthening of
quality control activities and laboratories. An assistance of upto 50 per cent
of the cost subject to a ceiling of Rs. 2 lakh per beneficiary is provided to
exporters and producers for specialised consultancy services towards
installing ISZO 9000 or other recognised international quality control systems
and for developing quality control manuals. The actual activity components
and the pattem of assistance given under the scheme are presented below:

91
Activity component Pattern of assistance

a) assistance to exporters, producers, 50% of the cost subject to a
trade associations, public institutions ceiling of Rs. 5 lakh per
etc., for setting up/strengthening beneficiary.
of quality control activities and
laboratories.

b) Assistance to exporters and 50% of the cost subject to a
producers for specialised consultancy ceiling of Rs. 2 lakh per
services towards installing ISO-9000 beneficiary
or other recognised international
quality control systems and for
developing quality control manuals

3. Scheme for export promotion and market development: In order to
encourage planned and organised effort for export promotion and market
development and hence enhanced exports of agricultural and processed
products APEDA provides financial assistance to the exporter, the scope of
the activities and funding under the scheme is presented below :

Activity component Pattern of assistance

a) Supply of product samples for test Cost of samples or freight or
marketing, product information and both, to be decided on case to
promotion case basis to ceiling being of
Rs. 50,000 per beneficiary

b) Publicity and promotion through 40% of the cost subject to a
preparation of product literature, ceiling of Rs. 1 lakh per bene-
publicity material etc. ficiary.

c) Brand publicity through 40% of the cost subject to a
advertisements ceiling of Rs. 50000 per bene-
ficiary

d) Product/market promotion by APEDA APEDA's internal scheme

e) Participation in international trade Assistance on space rentals
fairs abroad in which APEDA is to be decided on fair to fair
participating directly. fair basis.

4. Scheme for organisation building and HRD: In order to upgrade the
skills and managerial capabilities, and also create awareness about the

92
export production and marketing techniques specialised training programmes
can be organised by the exporters/grower's associations with the help of
financial assistance from APEDA. The scope of activities and the funding
under this scheme are as follows :

Activity Components Pattern of assistance

a) Assistance for upgradation of Upto 50% of the cost of the
technical skills of supervisory, approved training programme
technical and managerial personnel
through training in India.

b) Assistance to recognised associa- 50% of the cost of publications
tions of growers/exporters for for the purpose of information
information dissemination dissemination subject to a
ceiling of Rs. 10,000 per
Association.

93
SECTION - VII

FUTURE SCOPE AND MEASURES FOR INCREASING
PROCESSING OF HORTICULTURAL CROPS

The working group of 9th plan in the Ministry of Food Processing
Industries for agro and Processed based industry projections noted that the
total volume of fruits and vegetables processed by the units covered under
Fruit Product Order (FPO) is still approximately 1.6% of the total production.
Although there has been quantum jump from 0.5 per cent processing in
1990-91 to 1.6% in 1995 still is very insignificant compared to other
countries. The factors identified for this low processing activity/high losses
are [35] :

1. Inadequate policy support in the past.

2. Ndn availability of Processing varieties of raw material over a long
period of time at reasonable prices to the Industry.

3. Inadequate post harvest processing infrastructure

4. Inadequate linkage between the growers and Industry.

5. High incidence of taxes and duties particularly state levies, duties on
packing material etc.

6. Shortage of finance from financial institutions.

7. Inadequate marketing efforts and market expansion

8. Complicity of food laws :

In the 9th plan proposal it suggested an investment of around Rs.
10,000 crores in the areas of.

A. Processing of Fruits and Vegetables

I) Capacity creation
ii) Backward linakges

95
B. Infrastructure Development

1. Post harvest infrastructure
2. Food parks
3. Quality control labs

C. Man power development

D. R & D studies

Based on the discussions and material presented in the previous
section on some of the areas, the following suggestions are made.

i) Strengthening of backward linkages

As this is one of the areas identified by the working group for
promotion of fruit and vegetable processing industry based on the case
studies, the following measures can be taken to strengthen them.

1. The processing units should have a separate extention wing (Field
officers etc) as in the case of Gherkin Industry which will keep in close
touch with the cultivators. The wing should also help in procurement of
important inputs. It is necessary to motivate the cultivators by the firm
through a combination of technology services and net working.

2. The processing firm should encourage the cultivators to form growers
cooperatives/associations and can have contract with them rather than
appointing agents.

3. As the price is the most important factor there is a need to declare the
procurement price in advance and also keep a price adjusting clause in
agreements.

4. As in case of sugarcane, the main fruits and vegetables processed by
the processing factories should be identified and notified so that the
cultivators can supply directly to the processing factories.

5. The processing factories should systematise the contract, through not
only signied agreements, but by issuing pass books and entering the
quantity, payments etc., as in case of Gherkins so that the cultivators will
have moral confidence.

6. The processing units should be located in growing areas to have better
linkages between processing units and growers.

96
7. There is a need to institutionalisation of contract farming by bringing
some accountability to the system so that the mutuality of benefits between
the processor and the farmer is ensured.

8. The public sector processing units should be asked to procure the
material as far as possible through contract farming.

ii) Capacity creation

To increase the utilisation of fruits and vegetables for processing
purpose, there is a need to create additional capacity. In this context the
location of the unit assumes great significance. Even big firms like Godrej
Foods Ltd. have realised that it makes business sense to expand capacity
in an area where the company could also cut down transport cost. So
instead of sending mangoes procured from in and around Karnataka to
their Bhopal Plant, they decided to start a Fruit (Mango) Processing unit at
Bangalore itself [20 d].

It was also observed that one of the reasons for high cost of
production of processed products is starting of Processed Food Plants
based on foreign technology including imported Plant and equipment. There
often are over capitalised because of the high cost of the foreign inputs
[30].

From the above it is clear that the future Fruits and Vegetables
Processing Plants should be started in growing areas and on a small scale
with the minimum capital. It is in this context that the feasibility studies
reported in this paper assume significance.

There is a need to encourage small scale processing plants in
growing areas, as they are found to be economically viable.

This has been recognised by the State Government and they are
planning to set up fruit processing plants. Recently, the Tamil Nadu Chief
Minister has announced that Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation
(TIDC) was considering the possibility of setting up a mango pulping unit at
Krishnagiri or Dharmapuri in Tamil Nadu. This district has an area under
mango of around 23,270 ha and produces 2,32,530 tonnes [20c]. A
number of states are also planning to set up fruit processing plants [20a].

iii) l\/larketing

As discussed in this paper, the biggest problems the small scale
processing units face is stiff competition from the big firm with reputed
brand names. This may be one of the reasons for the phenomenal growth
of re-labellers in this industry.

97
Some of the steps/suggestions to overcome this problem are :

1) The big processing firm/export units should encourage the small scale
units to Produce intermediate products under this technical supervision with
buy back arrangements as it is practiced in case of mango by some firms.

2) The Government organisations like State Govt. Agro-Industrial
Corporations should take up the marketing of the small scale unit products.

3) The small scale units should be encouraged to form co-operative
societies and sell their produce under a single brand name as in the case
of Lijjat papads.

iv) Building up Infrastructural facilities

1. The utilisation of the financial assistance under various schemes offered
by various Government Organisations like Ministry of Food Processing
Industry (MFPI), N.H.B., APEDA and NCDC should increased through more
publicity.

2. The small scale processing units/cooperative sector units should be
given more preference.

3. The contract farmers should be encouraged to form growers
cooperatives and assist them in availing the loans/subsidies.

4. The Processing firms should encourage the contract farmers to avail the
subsidiaries offered by NKB, NCDC etc., for purchasing plastic crates,
starting of grading centres, transport vehicles etc.

5. The Govt, should set up 'cold chains' in growing areas, so that more
number of farmers should be able to use them.

6. The private organisations should be encouraged for creating
infrastructural facilities. The expert group during the 8th Plan period has
suggested an investment of Rs. 185.50 crores out of which Rs. 68.90
crores should come from private investment for development of
infrastructural facilities for horticultural crops [61]. Already some foreign firms
like Mitsubishi have come forward to set up cold storage chains in India
[20a].

v) Food parks

The state govt., should start establishing food parks, processing

98
industrial estates by availing financial assistance provided by the Ministry of
Food Processing Industries in 9th Plan schemes.

vi) Government policies

The imposition of the excise duty on processed foods has adversely
affected the Food Processing Industry and the Govt, itself has admitted the
same [20c].

Hence, there is a need to have a comprehensive National Policy on
Food Processing Industry which can be followed on a long term basis for
the healthy growth of the industry.

If some of the above measures/suggestions are implemented there is
a good scope for increasing the processing of fruits and vegetables.
Establishing more units in Production areas also will result in healtheir and
strong linkages between Producers and Processors which will be mutually
beneficial to both processors and growers o* fruits and vegetables.

vii) Credit flow from financial institutions

One of the constraints identified for low processing activity by the
Working Group was shortage of finance from financial institutions. Table 7.1
presents the credit advanced by the scheduled commercial banks to FVPI.
The credit support has increased by 574 per cent between 1990 and 1998.
The outstanding amount has increased from Rs. 41.39 crores in 1990 to
Rs. 278.56 crores by 1998. The share of fruit and vegetable processing in
total outstanding amount in food processing industries has gone up from
0.97 per cent in 1990 to 2.23 per cent by 1998. This clearly shows that
there has been a substantial increase in the flow of credit to this sector
after the economic reforms.

Table 7.1 : Commercial Bank Credit to Fruit and Vegetable
Processing Industries
Year No. of Accounts Outstanding Amount Share of FVPI In total
(Rs. Crores) Food Processing Credit (%)

1990 683 41.39 0.97
1991 810 71.27 1.45
1992 989 66.44 1.25
1993 1152 77.47 1.29
1994 1414 102.44 1.56
1995 1691 178.56 2.28
1996 2089 201.21 1.98
1997 2324 270.54 2.35
1998 2403 278.56 2.23

99
SECTION - VIII

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The key role the Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industry (FVPI) can
play in presenting the huge post harvest losses of furits and vegetables
was recognised of late by the Govt, of India. This sector has been
identified as the 'Sunrise Sector' of economic growth and has attracted the
"EXTREME FOCUS" area by the Ministry of Commerce, Govt, of India.

The need for establishing durable linkages between farm and non-
farm sector for supply of quality raw material at reasonable prices has
caught the attention of FVPI only recently. It is this context the present
paper assumes great significance and the study was taken up with the
following objectives which will give a comprehensive coverage of FVPI.

a) Impact of new economic policy on the growth of horticultural sector,
b) Linkages between the producers and the processors,
c) Contract farming, its role and captive farming, its scope,
d) Risk associated with prices and feasibility of small scale processing,
e) Export performance of processed horticultural products,
f) Incentives to producers in establishing processing units and
g) Future scope and measures for increasing processing of horticultural
crops.

Based on the above objectives, the paper has been divided into
seven sections, each section covering one objective.

A number of measures aimed at both strengthening the production
base which is a must for increased processing, exports etc., and also to
ensure the development of FVPI were initiated by the Govt, of India during
the end of Seventh Five Year Plan period and more so during the eighth
five year plan period. The increased allocation of Rs. 10,000 million for
horticultural development which is a wopping jump of 4208 per cent over
the seventh plan allocation, the liberalised seed and plant material import
policy, creation of separate Ministry of Food Processing Industry (MFPI),
establishing of National Horticulture Board (NHB) and Agricultural and
Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) and the
New Industrial Policy of 1991 have given a real boost to horticultural sector
in general and FVPI in particular.

As many as 4000 MOUs have been signied and 15 per cent of the
projects have been implemented. About Rs. 4000 crore worth of projects
involving food and agro-processing have started commercial production.

101
All these above measures have resulted in India becoming the
second largest producer of fruits and vegetables in the world. During the
last five years i.e., 1991-92 to 1995-96, the total production of fruits and
vegetables has recorded a growth of 30 per cent.

The measures, especially the economic reforms, also have a positive
effect on the FVPI. The analysis of data revealed that the post economic
reforms period i.e., 1991 to 1997 had a definite and positive impact on
FVPI compared to pre economic reforms period of 1980-90. The installed
capacity taken by 14.17 per cent during the period 1991-97 as against
12.5 per cent during the period 1980-90. The capacity utilisation increased
from hardly 29 per cent during the beginning of 90s to around 50 per cent
by 1996.

A paradoxical situation exists in India with FVPIs claiming high cost
of raw material and the producers of fruits and vegetables getting a very
low price during the peak season which can not cover even the harvesting
and transport cost as has happened recently during 1997 with the tomato
growers in Karnataka.

One of the main reasons for this situatioin is lack of direct link
between producers and the processing industries. The earlier attempts to
integrate production-marketing-processing made during the 1970s under Indo-
Bulgarian project in Karnataka and the recent attempts by Pepsi in Punjab
have failed mainly due to the lack of proper understanding of the various
factors in the linkages. In this paper a model is developed showing the
factor linkages that play a crucial role in establishing direct contact between
producers and processors. This model discusses the production factors like
variety, cost of cultivation, yield, return, marketing factors like market price,
price offered by FVPI and processing factors like raw material - finished
product ratio etc., and their interlinkages.

The two alternatives envisaged for ensuring the supply of quality raw
material at reasonable prices are to have contract farming with the
producers or to go for captive farming by the firm itself. The contract
farming and its implications as practiced by some FVPI's were discussed in
this paper with the help of case studies on two processed vegetables viz..
Gherkins, which is an imported vegetable and a traditional vegetable,
tomato around Bangalore. Problems faced by the cultivators and also the
processing firms like 'Red Farmers', holding up of vehicles etc., were
brought out from the case studies. The captive farming was found to be
practiced successfully by processing industry in case of horticultural crops
which have very high capital requirements with intensive farming and with
less land requirements such as mushroom cultivation and hitech floricultural

102
projects. The new trends in captive farming by the private companies like
Maxworth orchards Ltd., Anubhav plantations etc., was also discussed.

The best way of establishing linkages between producers and
processors is to encourage establishment of small scale processing units in
production areas at farm/taluq or district levels. This will also help to
overcome the price risk faced by the cultivators. Hence, in this paper an
attempt was made to give information on feasibility of establishing small
scale processing units in case of two fruits viz., mango and grapes and
one vegetable viz., tomato. The analysis showed that an investment of
around Rs. 12 lakhs towards machinery etc., with a production base of 5
to 10 hectares in case of tomato and around 200 hectares in case of
mango is sufficient to successfully establish and run a small scale
processing unit. Similarly it was observed that converting grapes into raisins
at farm level was found to be more profitable compared to sale as fresh
grapes.

Most of the FVPIs are able to run profitably mainly through exports
rather than on domestic demand. Hence, the export performance of
Processed Products in the two periods i.e., before and after Industrial Policy
of 1991 i.e.. Phase I and Phase II was studied in detail by analysing the
time series data to know the impact of economic reforms on the export
performance. It was observed from the analysis that the volume of export
of processed fruits and vegetables has grown at a higher rate with a CGR
of 22 percent in Phase II as against 5.13 per cent during Phase I. The
export projections made for the year 2000 and 2005 have shown that the
export of processed fruits and vegetables can increase by more than 50
per cent by the year 2000 and can reach a figure of Rs. 4000 crores by
the year 2005 if the same trend is continued and that of total fruits and
vegetables can reach about Rs. 2000 crores by the year 2000 and Rs.
5600 crores by the year 2005 which is nearly 300 per cent more than
earnings during 1997-98. A marked change was also observed in
composition and destination of exports. New items like Gherkins, Dried and
Processed Mushroom and Dehydrated Onion etc,, have become the
important contributors to export of processed fruits and vegetables.

A number of financial assistance schemes were formulated in the
9th Plan by Govt. Organisation like Ministry of Food Processing Industries
(MFPI), NHB, APEDA, NCDC etc., for encouraging processing and also for
establishing linkages. These were presented in detail in this paper so that
they can be utilised by the concerned people.

The factors responsible identified by the working group of 9th plan
in the Ministry of Food Processing for low processing and high losses were
presented and steps to overcome them were discussed.

103
From the detailed discussions on various aspects, the following
suggestions are made.

i) There is a need to strengthen the backward linkages with the growers
by the processing units by establishing separate extention wing witti
field officers etc., as in the case of Gherkin Industry.

ii) The producers should be encouraged to form growers' associations to
avail the financial assistance for the schemes from organisations like
APEDA, NHB and MFPI.

iii) The areas around FVPIs can be notified as in the case of sugarcane
which will help to establish linkages between producers and
processors.

iv) There is a need to encourage small scale processing units in growing
areas at farm/taluq/district levels.

v) There is a need to disseminate the information about Govt, financial
assistance schemes, especially to small scale processing units, so that
they can be availed by them.

vi) The state governments should establish Food Parks, processing
industrial estates by availing Central Govt. Assistance.

vii) The Govt, should relax land ceiling acts to encourage large scale
plantation of perennial fruit crops like mango, ber, pomegranate on
marginal lands.

viii) The Govt, should formulate a long term National Policy on Food
Processing Industries to encourage their proper growth.

104
SECTION - IX

REFERENCES
1. Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), Export Statistics
for Agra & Food Products, India, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1995-96, 1996-97 & 1997-98 and
Financial Assistance Schemes, APEDA, New Delhi.

2. Ambadan, S.N. Pandey and J.C. Anand, 1977, Studies on raisin Production from grapes (Vits
Vinifere) grown under Delhi Conditon, Indian Journal of Horticulture, 34:215-49.

3. Anon, 1993, "No import needed for mushroom" observer dated 26-6-93 as given in Indian Food
Packer, 47(4) : 152, 23 August, 1993.

4. Anon, 1993, Scheme to help Farm, Food Processing Sector, The Observer dated 23-6-1993 as
given in Indian Food Packer, 47 (4) : 52.

5. Anon, 1995, Data Bank, Indian Food Industry, 14 (6) : 64.

6. Anon, 1995, Assistance schemes of Ministry for Food Processing Industries" Indian Food Insutry, 14
(5) : 19.

7. Anon, 1998, Outline of Assistance under schemes of the Ninth Plan, 1997-2002, Ministry of Food
Processing Industry, Government of India, Nov. 98.

8. Anon, 1998, 'Gherkins-Modern technique of cultivation'. Agriculture and Industry Survey, B (8) : 35.

9. Anon, 1998, "Gherkins in the world market", Agricluture and Industry Survey, 8 (8) : 36.

10. Arve, Vasanth Rao, 1992, Grape Industry in India - Export strategy and constraints. In Souvenier of
the Inernationat Symposium on recent Advances in Viticulture and Genology, 14 and 17th February
1992. Hyderabad.

11. Baisya, R.K. 1980, "Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industry in Rural India. Its Problems and
Prospects, Indian; Food Packer, 34 (6) : 29-32.

12.:; Bansal, R.K.. 1998, Fruit and Vegetables Processjing Industry in India, Indian Food Packer, 52 (5) :
33-35.

Ilii Barua, Pranatl^ 1997, Raw Mlatorial Procurement for Food Praoessing Industries.;- Issues and
Interfaces, Imibn Food Packer, 51 (6) : 39-4rt.

14. Directorate^ of Marketing aiRd Inspection 1982, 'Results of the Nagpur Mandarinaamainges, Trade
DevelopmfflM Project, 1982, Experimentation!!'. Govt, of India, ttlagpur Unit, Report NSB 23, December
1982.

15. Eipesoni, W.E. and S.R. Bhowmik, 1992, Indian Fruit ar)0, Vfegefable Processirig Industiy-Potential and
Challenges', Indian Food Packer, 46 (5) : 7-12.

16. Geonge, M.V. and A.J. Singh, 197(3, 'Development; off i!u»al Industries - A case study for vegetable
processing at farm level', Journal; o. Research, {FM))k 7 (3) : 388-39*.

17. Gill, Kanwaljit Kau and Such Singh Gill, 1 9 ^ v "^ricultural Devejopm^nt and Industrialisation in
Punjab. Som® issues related to the Pepsi UteJel", Economic and Politieat Weekly, 25 (45) : 2507-
2509, November 10, 1990.

18. Gupta, M:.S. 1998. Tronc.'s in Indian Agricultural Export', The Bihar Joumal of Agril. Marketing 6 (2):
171-178.

105
19. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) 1976, Rural Agro-Industrial Complex of Karnataka, A
joint -effort of India and Peoples Republic of Bulgaria. Brochure released on the occasion of the visit
of His Excellency the President of Bulgaria to inaugurate the Agro-Industrial Complex of Karnataka,
Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore, pp. 1-20.

20. Indian Food Packer. 1997, a) 51 (1): 68, 72, 84-85, 88; b) 51 (2) : 69; c) 51 (3) : 74-75; d) 51 (4)
: 68, e) 51 (6) : 126-127.

21. Jasol, Kr Tateh Singh, 1989, Export of Fresh and Processed Horticultural Products - Present Satus
and Future Strategies, Proceedings of the National Symposium on Production and Post-harvest
Management of Vegetables, March 27-28, 1989. National Horticulture Board, Gurgaon - 122001, PP
86-117.

22. Kajriwal, N.M. 1992, Development of Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industries and their export
potential' Indian Food Packer. 46(5) : 13-17.

23. Kaul, G.L. 1993, 'Development of Horticulture a boost in the VIII Plan', Indian Horticulture 38 (1) : 9-
13.

24. Kaul G.L. 1997, Horticulture in India - Production, Marketing and Processing' Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 52 (3) : 561-573.

25. Mittendorf, H.J. 1974, 'Marketing aspects in Planning agricultural processing enterprises in developing
countries' Indian Food Packer, 28 (4) : 37.

26. Mohandass, V., Mruthunjaya and K.V. Subrahmanyam. 1981, "A Study of fruits and vegetable cold
storage units in Bangalore city" Agricultural Situation in India, 35 (10) : 765-772.

27. Naik, Kurade, G. Anand, 1997, Food Processing Industries in India, India Food Packer, 51 (6) : 93-
97-

28. NCDC, Anjual Reports of different years.

29. National Horticultural Board (NHB), 1998, Indian Horticulture Data Base, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt,
of India, Gurgaon - 122015.

30. Parlhasarathi, Ashok, 1997, Presidential Address, Seminar on Raw Material for Food Processing
Industries - 50 years of Indenpendence, Indian Food Packer, 51 (6) : 20-23.

31. Rai, R.D. and Sharma, R.S. 1994, Prospects for Production and Processing of Mushrooms in India:
Souvenir of the Golden Jubilee celebrations, All India Food Preservers Association, Vaigyan Bhavan,
New Delhi, 2-3rd December, 1994, pp. 35-42.

32. Roy, B.C. 1997, 'Growth and Prospects of Fruits and Vegetable Processing Industry in India', The
Bihar Journal of Agricultural Marketing, 5 (3) 356-365.

33. Roy Susanta, K., and R.K. Pal, 1994, 'Data Base for Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industries in
India', Souvenir of Golden Jublee Celebrations, All India Food Preservers Association, Vigyan
Bhavan, New Delhi, 2-3 December 1994, pp 87-106.

34. Sanghani, Sanjay, 1999, 'Inside story of an Exporter' (Gherkins), Agriculture and Industry Sun/ey, 9
(3 & 4) : 19-22.

35. Sarin, K.P., 1997, Food Processing Industry needs Infrastructure, Indian Food Packer, 51 (5) : 56-59.

36. Saxena, R and V.P.S. Arora, 1996, Behavioural pattern of consumer - Buyers of Processed
Horticultural Products", The Bihar Journal of Agril. Marketing 4 (4) : 352-360.

37. Sharma P.C.^ K.D. Sharma and R.S. Prasher, 1992, Prospects of raisin production in tribal areas of
HImachal Pradesh, Indian Food Packer, 17-19.

106
38. Sinha Sanjay and Saurabh Singh, 1992, 'Small Scale Fruit and Vegetable Processing: Dynamics of
Development', Economic and Political Weekly, 27 (26) : A93-A99, June 27, 1992.

39. Singh Sudhir, Ganesh Kumar, C. and Singh, Shivashrayas, 1995, Production, Processing and
Consumption pattern of mushrooms' Indian Food Industry, 14 (6) : 38-42.

40. Singh Sukh Pal, 1997, 'New Arrangements in Horti business implications of contract farming', Indian
Journal of Agril. Economics, 52 (3) ; 608.

41. Singh, Charanjit, G.S. Poonia and M.S. Toor, 1994, Distribution Pattern of Fruit Processing Industries
in Punjab, 'Indian Food Packer, 48 (1) : 47-52.

42. Subrahmanyam, K.V. and Mruthumjaya, 1978, "Marketing of Fruits and Vegetables around Bangalore:
Problems and Prospects", Indian Journal of l^arketing, 9 (1) : 9-16.

43. Subrahmanyam, K.V. and Mruthunjaya, 1979, "Economics of Production and Marketing of Tomato
around Bangalore", The Indian Journal of htorticulture, 36 (3) 294-300.

44. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1981, "Marketing Fruits: self marketing vs. contracting" Indian Journal of
(Marketing, 11 (7) : 13-17.

45. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1981, "Effect of Marketing costs on cost of production and returns : Case
study of Vegetables", Agricultural Marketing, 24 (3) : 7-9.

46. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1982, "Economics of Production and marketing of Important Vegetable in
Karnataka", Ttie Lal-Baugh, 27 (2) : 7-16.

47. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1985, "Mango Exports: Problems and Prospects", Agricultural Situation in India,
40 (6) : 507-514.

48. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1986, "Post-harvest losses in Horticultural Crops: An appraisal", Agricultural
Situation in India, 41 (5) : 339-343.

49. Subrahmanyam, K.V, 1986, "Marketing of Fruits: Self Marketing Vs. Contract sale - Case study of
Mango Marketing in Madurai Dist. (Tamil Nadu)", Agricultural Marketing, 29 (3) : 21-24.

50. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1987, "Economics of Production and Marketing of Some Important Vegetables
in Karnataka", The Lal-Baug, 29 (1) : 43-52.

51. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1988, "Marketing of Horticultural Crops in Karnataka - Present Status and
future requirements", Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing, 2 (1) : 15-22.

52. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1988, Marketing of Vegetables : An interstate comparison of practices and
associated costs". The Indian Journal of Horticulture, 45 (1 & 2) : 153-159.

53. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1989, "Export of Horticulture crops : Problems and Prospects", Banking
Finance, 19 (2) : 5-8.

54. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1989, Economics of Cultivation of Horticultural Crops in South India, Technical
Bulletin No. 7, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore - 89.

55. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1989, "Export of fruits and vegetables: Problems and Prospects", In Indian
Agro Exports, edited by Tateh Singh Jasol, Viva Photolithographers, New Delhi, pp 189-198.

56. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1989, "Production and export potential of Pineapple: Present status and Future
scope", Agrii Situation in India, 43 (12) : 1035-1044.

57. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1990, "International trade in Mango: India's Role, Acta Horticulture 269:89-90.

58. Subrahmanyam, K.V. and M. Sudha, 1992, Establishing ao Intermediate Fruit Processing Unit : Case
Study of Mango (Bangalore), IIHR Contribution No. 74/92, Bangalore.

107
59. Subrahmanyam, K.V. and 1^. Sudha, 1993, "Economics of Linking Tomato Processing with Production
and Marketing", Indian Food Packer, 47 (3) : 25-33.

60. Subrahmanyam, K.V. and Sudha, 1993, "Economic Feasibility of Establishing a Small Scale
Cooperative Processing Unit in Rural Area : Case Study of Tomato", Indian Journal of Agricultural
Marketing,, 7 (1) 23-31.

61. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1994, "Impact of New Agriculture and Economic Policies on Export of
Horticulture Produce from India", Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing, Conference Special Number,
pp. 30-38.

62. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1995, "Marketing of Perishable Commodities - Role of F & V Processing
Industry", Agricultural Economics Research Review, 8 (2) : 39-47.

63. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1995, "Feasibility of Small Scale Processing of Intermediate Products at Farm
Level, Krishipete (Kannada), 21(7) : 22-25.

64. Subrahmanyam, K.V. and M. Sudha, 1996, Economics of Raisin Making, Con. No. 10/96, IIHR,
Bangalore.

65. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1997, "Mushroom Exports: Problems and Prospects, Indian Journal of
Agricultural Marketing. 11 (1 & 2) : 1-5.

66. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1997, "Rapporteur's Report on "Horticulture in India: Organisation of Production,
Marketing and Processing" Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52 (3) : 688-692.

67. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1997, Contract Farming and Its Implications for Fruit and Vegetable Processing
Industries, Proceedings of National Seminar on Fruit and Vegetable handling, storage and processing,
6th December, 1997, pp. 55-59.

68. Subrahmanyam, K.V. 1998, "Horticulture in India: Organisation of Production, Marketing and
' Processing", Summaries of Group discussion, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53 (1) : 23-
26.

69. Uppal, D.K., 1994, Status Paper on Hotticulture-mid Role of NHB in Creationr0fi Infrastructure,
Souvenir, Golden Jubilee Celebrations of J«lll ilndia l^eod Preervers' Association, Deoember 1j3, 1994,
New Delhi, pp. 1074116.

70. Veena, U.M. 199fi„ UStowth Dimensions e^ HHottieMure in Karnataloa: An econcmic analysis'
Unpublished Ph.D. *e8fS submitted to Dept., jiff ,%rtl. ^Economics University of Agricultural Sciences,
iDharwad.

71. Veerkar, P.D. and S.G. ©orude, 1990, "Comparaii»e lEeonomics of Scaie iP^oceesing Alplnonso
Mango into Pulp in Raliragiri District (MS), 'Indian Jemmal of Agril. Merketing, 4 (I) : 8Dt85.

72. Vi^katraman, R.S. 1998, The pioneer in Gherkin IratosSi^'', Agriculture and Indmtif Survsy, B C
26.

73. Viswanathan, K.U, and K.J.S. Satya Sal, 1997, "Fruits arid Vegetables: Production Trends and Roi
of linkages", Indian Journal of Agril. Economics, 52 (3) : 574-583.

108