State of Indian Agriculture

State of Indian
Agriculture
Anjani Kumar and Himanshu Pathak
National Academy of Agricultural Sciences

New Delhi
Citation:
Kumar A and Pathak H (2024). State of Indian Agriculture.
National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi, p xvi+92.
Published by:
National Academy of Agricultural Sciences
NASC Complex, Dev Prakash Shastri Marg
P.O. Pusa, New Delhi - 110 012, India
Email: [email protected]
2024
Copyright:
National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, India
ISBN: 978-81-931524-6-1
Printed at:
Malhotra Publishing House
B-6, DSIDC Complex, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi - 110020
Ph.: 011-41420246; Email: [email protected]
About the Authors
Dr Anjani Kumar is Senior Research Fellow at

International Food Policy Research Institute, South Asia
Office, New Delhi. He received his PhD (1999) and
Masters (1992) in Dairy Economics from National Dairy
Research Institute, Karnal, India. Before joining IFPRI,
he was Principal Scientist (Agricultural Economics) at the
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics, Hyderabad. He has also served as Principal
Scientist at the National Centre for Agricultural Economics
and Policy Research, New Delhi and as Senior Agricultural
Economist in the Asia Office of the International Livestock Research Institute,
Nairobi. He has also worked as a Consultant for many national and international
institutions including the FAO and the World Bank. He is the author of about
140 research papers published in national and international research journals on
various agricultural development issues. He has also contributed more than 70
papers/chapters to important books and proceedings. He is a Fellow of the National
Academy of Agricultural Sciences and the Indian Society of Agricultural Economics.
He has won a number of awards from national and international organisations,
including the prestigious Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Award (2017), Lal Bahadur Young
Scientist Award (2005), and the NAAS Young Scientist Award (2003).
Dr Himanshu Pathak is Secretary of the Department

of Agricultural Research and Education, Government
of India and Director General of the Indian Council of
Agricultural Research, New Delhi. He provides leadership
to one of the largest agricultural research and development
organisations in the world. Earlier, he served as Director
of ICAR-National Rice Research Institute, Odisha, and
as Director of ICAR-National Institute of Abiotic Stress
Management, Maharashtra, India. He has over three
decades of experience in the areas of agricultural research,
education, and extension. He has published about 250 research papers with an
h-index of 79, i10-index of 249, and more than 24,200 citations. He is a fellow of
the Indian National Science Academy; the National Academy of Sciences, India;
and the Humboldt Foundation. He is a recipient of the Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Award
of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and is a fellow and President of
the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
State of Indian Agriculture | iii

Executive
Council 2024
President
Dr Himanshu Pathak
Immediate Past President

Dr T Mohapatra
Vice Presidents
Dr K M Bujarbaruah
Dr P K Joshi
Secretaries
Dr W S Lakra
Dr Ashok K Singh
Foreign Secretary
Dr Rajeev K Varshney
Editors
Dr V K Baranwal
Dr R K Jain
Treasurer
Dr Rajender Parsad
State of Indian Agriculture | v

Members
Prof Bishwanath Chakraborty Dr (Ms) P D Kamala Jayanthi

Dr Anjani Kumar Dr B Mohan Kumar
Dr S K Pandey Dr R T Patil
Dr (Ms) Minakshi Prasad Dr E V S Prakasa Rao
Prof A S Raghavendra Dr C N Ravishankar
Dr D K Yadava Dr O P Yadav
Shri Sanjay Garg
Secretary (ICAR), ICAR Nominee
vi | Executive Council 2024

Contents
Preface xiii
Abbreviations xv
Introduction 1
1. Performance of Indian Agriculture 3

1.1. Contribution of Agriculture to GDP and Employment 3
1.2. Agricultural Growth and Diversification 5
1.3. Trends in the Production of Major Agricultural and
Allied Products 10
1.4. Sources of Agricultural Growth: Changing Role of
Commodities 13
1.5. Farmers’ Income and Its Main Sources 13
1.6. Agricultural Trade 17
1.7. Processing and Value Addition of Agricultural
and Allied Products 22
2. Input Utilisation Patterns in Indian Agriculture 25

2.1. Requirements and Availability of Quality Seeds 25
2.2. Investment and Mechanisation 25
2.3. Fertilizers 28
2.4. Pesticides 31
2.5. Irrigation 34
2.6. Land Use Patterns 36
2.7. Issues and Challenges of Input Utilisation Patterns 39
2.8. Opportunities for Efficient Input Utilisation 40
State of Indian Agriculture | vii

3. Agricultural Finance, Markets, and PM-KISAN 41
3.1. Institutional Credit 41
3.2. Insurance 43
3.3. PM-KISAN 44
3.4. Market Access 45
3.5. Procurement Operations and Minimum Support Price 47
3.6. Agricultural Price Movements 50
4. Climate Change and Sustainability 59

4.1. Groundwater Extraction 59
4.2. Salt-Affected Soils 61
4.3. Soil Erosion and Land Degradation 62
4.4. Climate Variations and Natural Calamities 65
5. Technology Development 66
5.1. Agricultural R&D Budget 66
5.2. Research Output 67
5.3. Challenges and Opportunities in Agricultural
Technology Development and Adoption 67
6. Way Forward for Sustainable and Inclusive

Agricultural Growth 71
6.1. Accelerate Public and Private Investments
in Agriculture 71
6.2. Bridge the Yield Gaps 72
6.3. Address Low Productivity and High Vulnerability 73
6.4. Promote Agricultural Diversification 74
6.5. Link Farmers with Markets 77
6.6. Strengthen Institutions and Improve Rural
Infrastructure 77
6.7. Harness Frontier Technologies and Agri-Startups 77
7. References 79
Appendix 91
viii | Contents
Figures
1. Share of agriculture in GDP and employment in India 4

2. Agricultural GVA as a percentage of GSDP, 2023 5
3. State-wise CAGR of agricultural GVA and GDP,
2011/12 to 2022/23 6
4. Share of different subsectors in gross value of
agricultural output 7
5. Share of foodgrains and horticulture in value of crop
output (percent) 7
6. Composition (percentage) of agricultural GVA, 2022/23 8
7. Area and production status of horticultural crops in India 11
8. Contribution of different subsectors to agricultural
growth (percent) 13
9. Growth in household income, all India 14
10. Growth in farm household income across sources,
all India, 2012/13 to 2018/19 15
11. Trends in the ratio of agricultural exports and imports 19
12. Trends in sales of tractors and power tillers 28
13. Fertiliser consumption in India: nitrogen (N), phosphorus
pentoxide (P2O5), and potassium oxide (K2O) 29
14. State-wise fertilizer consumption in India 31
15. Trend in biopesticide consumption between 2018/19
and 2022/23 33
16. State-wise chemical pesticide consumption 33
17. Major sources of irrigation across farm sizes 34
18. Average size of operational landholdings in states and
union territories 38
19. Ground-level credit targets for agriculture by
NABARD, 2023/24 42
20. Composition of total ground-level credit targets for
the allied sector, 2023/24 43
Contd...
State of Indian Agriculture | ix

21. Overview of premium and claims paid under the Pradhan
Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) insurance scheme
since its launch in 2016 44
22. Procurement of rice and wheat between 2003/04
and 2022/23 47
23. Procurement of rice and wheat from different states 48
24. Percentage of beneficiary farmers in different states
in 2022/23 48
25. Average annual increase in Minimum Support Price
(MSP) of various crops 49
26. Month-wise Wholesale Price Index changes for primary
commodities over the course of 2023 51
27. Percent change in Wholesale Price Index for all primary
commodities in 2023 52
28. WPI-based inflation of primary commodities over one year 53
29. Inflation rates based on CPI-General and CFPI (combined)
(base: 2011/12=100) 57
30. Expenditure on the Department of Agricultural Research
and Education (DARE) by the MoA&FW 66
31. Yield gap of major crops 72
32. Average yield of major food produce in India vis-a-vis
leading producer 74
33. State-wise distribution of districts experiencing high
vulnerability to climate change 75
34. Percentage share of area to gross cropped area in two
distinct periods 76
x | Contents
Tables
1. CAGR (percent) of different subsectors of agriculture,

2011/12 to 2022/23 9
2. Production status of major food crops 10
3. Production of major allied products in 2023 12
4. Composition of agricultural exports and imports, percent
of total, 1992 and 2022 17
5. India’s exports and imports of agricultural commodities 19
6. Share of food processing industries (FPI) on GVA at
constant 2011/12 prices 23
7. Loss of major agricultural produce in India 24
8. India’s agri and processed food exports, 2021/22 24
9. Requirement and availability of quality seeds, in
100,000 quintals 25
10. Public and private GCFA, GDPA (INR billions) and
annual rate of growth (percent) at 2011/12 prices 26
11. Extent of mechanization across farm operations 27
12. Fertiliser production status in India (2022/23) 29
13. State-wise fertilizer consumption, 2021/22 30
14. Pesticide consumption in India 32
15. State-wise area covered under micro-irrigation as of
March 31, 2022 35
16. Agricultural land use pattern in India 36
17. Number and area of operational holding across farm
categories 37
18. Disbursement of short-, medium-, and long-term
institutional credit to the agricultural sector 41
19. Period-wise details regarding the benefits released under
the PM-KISAN scheme since its inception on March 9, 2023 45
20. Overview of market access via e-NAM as of
November 11, 2023 47
Contd...
State of Indian Agriculture | xi

21. Wholesale Price Index numbers for major commodities 50
22. Index numbers and annual rate of inflation (base year:
2011/12=100) 53
23. Instability among major primary crops, 2014–23 54
24. Consumer Price Index numbers 55
25. Inflation rates based on CPI-General and CFPI, 2023 56
26. CPI for Agricultural Labourers and its growth rate (inflation) 57
27. Extent of groundwater extraction in various states of India 59
28. Extent and distribution of salt-affected soils in India 62
29. State-wise cultivable area affected by soil erosion in India 63
30. Assessment of land degradation in India by different
agencies/organisations 64
31. Number of extreme weather events in India over the
past five decades 65
32. Varieties developed by ICAR 68
33. Yield gap of major crops, 2021/22 73
Appendix
A1. State-wise progress under PMFBY and RWBCIS-combined,
2016/17 to 2022/23 91
xii | Contents
Preface
I ndia’s agricultural sector demonstrated robust resilience during the

COVID 19 pandemic, registering positive growth during that period
and the majority of the country’s population remains directly or indirectly
dependent on the sector. Ample evidence suggests that sustainable and
inclusive agricultural growth is best supported by investment in research
and that research managers and policymakers should have a clear and
sustained overview of the sector in order to optimally design and adjust
interventions. With this in mind, during a meeting with distinguished
fellows of the Academy, we recognised the need for an annual report on
the “State of Indian Agriculture”. Duly encouraged by the fellows and
executive members of the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences,
we embarked on this journey.
This document intends to highlight the impediments and challenges

within the sector with the aim of finding the most effective path toward
inclusive agricultural growth. We, acknowledge the need for more
in-depth studies and analysis, however we feel that the issues and
recommendations emerging from this publication can foster a better
understanding of the complexities inherent in Indian agriculture. We
feel that this improved understanding can contribute to alignment within
the policy and research framework and milieu. We believe that this will,
in turn, improve efficiency, help ensure equity and sustainability, and
address India’s concerns regarding food and livelihood security at the
national, regional, and household levels.
We thank all the resource persons, reviewers, and fellows of the National
Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS) who helped us decide on the
structure and contents of the paper and commenting on a draft version of
it. We received significant input from Dr Seema Bathla, Dr Raka Saxena,
Dr Sendhil R, and Dr P Shinoj. We are grateful to all of them. We would
like to particularly express our sincere thanks to Kriti Sharma, Manpreet
State of Indian Agriculture | xiii

Kaur, Sonali Katoch, and Soumya Subhashree Mohapatra for assisting
us in the analysis and drafting of the document. We place on record our
great appreciation for their unflinching support.
We would also like to convey our gratitude to the NAAS for pursuing
and bringing out this publication. We believe that this would help the
ICAR, the Government of India, and other stakeholders enhance the
performance of Indian agriculture and thereby improve the standard of
living of Indian farmers.
Authors
xiv | Preface
Abbreviations
APMC Agricultural Produce Market Committee

AWiFS Advanced Wide Field Sensor
CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate
CIPHET Central Institute of Post Harvest Engineering & Technology
CPI Consumer Price Index
CPIAL Consumer Price Index for Agricultural Labour
CSSRI Central Soil Salinity Research Institute
DAH&D Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying
DARE Department of Agricultural Research and Education
DES Directorate of Economics & Statistics
DoA&FW Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare
e-NAM Electronic National Agriculture Market
ESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
FCI Food Corporation of India
FPI Food Processing Industry
GoI Government of India
GSDP Gross State Domestic Product
GVA Gross Value Added
ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research
ICFA Indian Council of Food & Agriculture
Contd...
State of Indian Agriculture | xv

ICT Information and Communication Technologies
IPM Integrated Pest Management
ISRO Indian Space Research Organisation
KCC Kisan Credit Card
MAS Marker-Assisted Selection
mHa Million Hectares
mtons Million Tons
MoSPI Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation
MSP Minimum Support Price
NAAS National Academy of Agricultural Sciences
NABARD National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
NBSS&LUP National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning
NCAER National Council of Applied Economic Research
NFSM National Food Security Mission
NTM Non-Tariff Measure
PM-KISAN Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi
PMFBY Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana
PMKSY Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana
RKVY Rastriya Krishi Vikas Yojana
RWBCIS Restructured Weather Based Insurance Scheme
SMSP Sub-Mission on Seeds and Planting Materials
TE Triennium Ending
UT Union Territory
WPI Wholesale Price Index
xvi | List of Abbreviations

Introduction
I n 2022, India celebrated 75 years of independence from the British Raj.

This marked a watershed moment in the country’s history, the beginning
of its Amrit Kaal or ‘golden era’, the quarter century during which it
resolves to transform itself into a developed nation. In November of 2023,
India concluded its one-year term as president of the G20, a year that
was imbued with the spirit of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (One Earth, One
Family, One Future) and during which green, inclusive, and resilient growth
was endorsed as a priority. Tremendous geopolitical turmoil and natural
calamities in recent years have led to supply shocks, slowdown in growth, and
high inflation in several countries. India, during this period, demonstrated
remarkable resilience toward these uncertainties. The country’s growth
story has assumed a structurally more robust trajectory. It has geared up to
turn domestic and international challenges into opportunities, preparing a
blueprint to steer the economy toward a golden era.
India has regained its position as the fastest growing large economy in
the world. In fiscal year (FY) 2022/23, the gross domestic product (GDP)
grew by 7.2 percent in real terms. A favourable policy environment and
greater focus on capital expenditure together have resulted in a robust
growth of 11.4 percent in the investment-to-GDP ratio. The share of
capital expenditure in GDP (synonymous with capital formation) is high
at 34 percent. Increased investments in the infrastructure, technology,
manufacturing, and agricultural sectors have created the much-needed
momentum for faster and sustainable growth. The increase in capital
expenditure by 37.4 percent over FY2021/22,envisioned in the Union
Budget FY2022/23 will further boost investment and ensure long-
term economic growth. These and many more initiatives have laid the
groundwork for faster and more inclusive growth, better institutions, and
governance, and enhanced social welfare.
It goes without saying that the agricultural sector contributes significantly

to India’s socioeconomic growth and development (Pathak et al. 2022).
State of Indian Agriculture | 1

Being a principal source of income and livelihood for half the country’s
population, agriculture can help India achieve a developed nation status.
Significant transformations are taking place within the food system; these
range from shifts of traditional farming methods to modern capital-
intensive systems enabled by digital farm services, to the use of artificial
intelligence and drone technology. Efforts have also been made to link
farmers directly with markets in order to help them better assess changing
consumer food preferences. While moving to a higher growth trajectory,
agriculture faces numerous domestic and international challenges; these
include increasingly erratic rainfall, heat waves, the need to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, degradation of water and soil, high
volatility in yield and commodity prices, a surge in imports, global
slowdowns, and increased international conflicts such as that between
Russia and Ukraine and in Palestine.
It is against this backdrop that the National Academy of Agricultural

Sciences (NAAS) offers this report, which intends to delve into the state of
Indian agriculture. Its broad aim is to consider institutional, technological,
and digital interventions in terms of the efficacy with which they augment
farmers’ productivity and income. NAAS has entered its 33rd year as a
leading and successful science academy that is dedicated to the service
of Indian agriculture through scientific and policy-oriented interventions.
Taking stock of the progress that has been made on various fronts in
agriculture will be helpful to the Academy in suggesting appropriate
policies for a faster and more sustainable transformation of agriculture.
The following is the structure of the report. Sections 1 and 2 discuss the
achievements of the agricultural sector in terms of output growth at the
all-India level and across the states, input use patterns, farmers’ income,
and agricultural trade. It also analyses the changes in the structure and
composition of agricultural output and the implications of those changes
for the future of Indian agriculture. Section 3 highlights the farmers’ access
to institutional finance, agri-markets and key agricultural schemes. Section
4 brings forth pertinent issues relating to climate change, and section
5 highlights the technological developments in the Indian agriculture
sector. The final section suggests a way forward for agriculture during
the Amrit Kaal.
2 | Introduction
1
Performance of
Indian Agriculture
1.1. Contribution of Agriculture to GDP and

Employment
A ccording to the theory of economic development, as an economy

progresses the contribution of agriculture to GDP and employment
declines and that of the industrial and tertiary (service) sectors increases. In
1950/51, 69 percent of India’s total workforce was engaged in agriculture,
contributing 53 percent to the national income. Over the years, while
the share of agriculture has declined in terms of both national income
and employment, the reduction in employment share has not kept
pace with the decline in its share of total income. At the all-India level
in triennium ending (TE) 2022, for instance, the share of agriculture
in total employment was 44.8 percent while its share of GDP stood at
19.2 percent. As of FY 2022/23, India’s INR 297 trillion (about US $ 3.7
trillion) economy included 18.2 percent contributed by the agricultural
and allied sectors, 25.2 percent by industry, and 56.6 percent by the
service sector. Over the long term, the share of industrial GDP in total
GDP has hovered around 25-30 percent, despite a favourable policy and
incentive structure. The current 18.2 percent contribution by agriculture
to total GVA reflects its sizeable decline in response to growth in the share
contributed by the services sector.
However, it seems that neither the industry nor the service sector has
been able to pull people out of agriculture as 45 percent of India’s
520-million-person labour force continues to be employed in agriculture.
Though agricultural income is estimated to be INR 46 trillion (about
US $0.6 trillion) and is growing, low levels of labour productivity result
from the large numbers of people dependent on it (Figure 1). This
mismatch in income and employment shares may also indicate a neglect
of agriculture in the existing economic development model, which in

Figure 1: Share 1.
Figure of agriculture in GDP and
Share of agriculture employment
in GDP in India in India
and employment
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
Share (%)
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1952 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2022
Year (TE)
GDP Employment
Source: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (India, MoSPI2023a).

Note: TE = Triennium Ending
Note: TE: Triennium Ending
turn has caused large disparities in income between the agricultural and
Figure 2: Agricultural
non-agricultural GVA asThis
sectors. a percentage
suggests of
anGSDP,
urgent2023
need to recognise the
importance of agriculture by, among other things, improving land and
35.0
labour productivity and creating off-farm jobs.
30.0
The25.0 share of agriculture and its allied sectors in the gross state domestic
product (GSDP) exhibits stark variations across the states (Figure 2).
Share (%)
20.0
At the all-India level, agricultural gross value added (GVA) constitutes
15.0
a 14.4 percent share of GDP. Among the states it varies from a meagre
3.3 percent share in Puducherry to a 33.3 percent share in Arunachal
10.0
Pradesh.5.0 A higher share indicates a more significant contribution of

agriculture
0.0 to state-level economic output and a slower pace of growth
in the industrial and services sectors. Madhya Pradesh follows closely
Tamil Nadu
Punjab
Manipur*
Odisha
Tripura
Assam
Meghalaya
Mizoram*
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Kerala*
Bihar
Haryana
Maharashtra*
Sikkim
Arunachal Pradesh*
West Bengal
India
Telangana
Himachal Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh
Rajasthan
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat*
Uttarakhand
Goa*
Uttar Pradesh
Puducherry*
Nagaland*
Andhra Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir-UT
on Arunachal Pradesh at 31.2 percent, which indicates the prominence

of the agricultural sector in that state’s economy. Andhra Pradesh,
Rajasthan, and Tripura also exhibit noteworthy percentage shares at
28.7 percent, 26.1 percent, and 22.9 percent, respectively. Agriculture
maintains a substantial share of 21.2 percent in both Punjab and Uttar
Pradesh, which emphasises the States and UTs importance of agriculture in
continued
their respective economies. Other states such as Bihar (19.5 percent),
Manipur
Source: Periodic (19.4
Labour Force percent),
Survey (PLFS),and Assam
July 2022 – June(18.1 percent)
2023 (India, also National
MoSPI 2023b); demonstrate a
Accounts Statistics
2023 (India, MoSPI 2023).
considerable reliance on agriculture.
Note: * = fiscal year 2021/22; GVA = Gross Value Added; GSDP = Gross State Domestic Product
4 | Performance of Indian Agriculture
1
Figure 2: Agricultural GVA as a percentage of GSDP, 2023

Figure 2. Agricultural GVA as a percentage of GSDP, 2022/23
35.0
30.0
25.0
Share (%)
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Tamil Nadu
Punjab
Manipur*
Odisha
Tripura
Assam
Meghalaya
Mizoram*
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Kerala*
Sikkim
Bihar
Haryana
Maharashtra*
Arunachal Pradesh*
West Bengal
India
Telangana
Himachal Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Goa*
Madhya Pradesh
Rajasthan
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat*
Puducherry*
Uttar Pradesh
Nagaland*
Andhra Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir-UT
States and UTs

Source: Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), July 2022 – June 2023 (India,
MoSPILabour
Source: Periodic 2023b);
ForceNational Accounts
Survey (PLFS), Statistics
July 2022 2023
– June 2023 (India,
(India, MoSPI
MoSPI 2023b);2023).
National Accounts Statistics
2023 (India, MoSPI*2023).
Note: = fiscal year 2021/22; GVA = Gross Value Added; GSDP = Gross State
Note: * = fiscal year 2021/22; GVA = Gross Value Added; GSDP = Gross State Domestic Product
Domestic Product
1.2. Agricultural Growth and Diversification

1
Despite global turmoil due to war, natural calamities, and pandemic-induced
disruptions, India has maintained an annual growth momentum of 6
percent for over a decade, and in 2022/23 it recorded a robust 7.2 percent
annual rate of growth. The agricultural sector has shown a remarkable
resilience under the prevailing uncertain conditions, as is evidenced by its
3.3 percent (2020/21) and 3.5 percent (2021/22) annual rate of growth
in real prices. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) during the past
12-year period ending 2022/23 is close to 4 percent (Figure 3). The rate
of growth, however, is not uniform across the states. Figure 3 reveals the
state-wise CAGR of overall GDP and GVA in agriculture over the decade
from 2011/12 to 2022/23. Among the eight states of India’s North-Eastern
Region, Mizoram’s progress is significant in terms of GDP growth (10.1
percent); this is followed closely by Gujarat’s 8.5 percent growth, and
Karnataka’s 7.5 percent growth. In terms of agricultural GVA, Andhra
Pradesh takes the lead with 8.6 percent CAGR, followed by Mizoram at
8.4 percent and Karnataka at 6.1 percent. These figures are indicative of

Figure Figure
3: State-wise CAGRCAGR
3. State-wise of agricultural GVAGVA
of agricultural and GDP, 2012
and GDP to 23 to 2022/23
, 2011/12
12.0
10.0
8.0
CAGR (%)
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Tripura
Jharkhand
Manipur*
Mizoram*
Karnataka
Haryana
Odisha
Punjab
Kerala*
Meghalaya
Gujarat*
Telangana
Sikkim
Assam
Tamil Nadu
Bihar
Maharashtra*
Himachal Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Madhya Pradesh
Rajasthan
Goa*
West Bengal
India
Arunachal Pradesh*
Chhattisgarh
Uttar Pradesh
Nagaland*
Puducherry*
Andhra Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir-UT

-2.0
States and UTs
GDP Agricultural GVA
Source: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (India, MoSPI 2023a).

Source: Ministry
Note:ofCAGR
Statistics=and Programme Implementation
Compound Annual Growth (India, MoSPI
Rate; GVA2023a).
= Gross Value Added; * =
Note: CAGR = Compound
fiscal Annual Growth Rate; GVA = Gross Value Added; * = fiscal year 2021/22
year 2021/22.
the4:economic
Figure dynamism
Share of different and agricultural
subsectors prowess
in gross value of these output
of agricultural states. Among
the states, Kerala has a negative CAGR in agriculture at -1.1 percent. A
number of other states (Tripura, Telangana, Sikkim) have demonstrated
90.0
consistent growth in both GDP and agricultural GVA.
80.0
70.0
Indian agriculture is on a high growth trajectory. One of the factors that
60.0
Share (%)
has contributed
50.0 to higher income growth is diversification toward allied
activities.40.0
At the time of independence, the crop sector dominated; in the
subsequent30.0 decades, however, especially after the 1980s, acceleration
20.0
was seen10.0in the share of livestock. The crop sector’s share in agricultural
GVA decreased
0.0 from 79.3 percent in TE 1952 to 54.8 percent in TE
2022 while the1952 share 1961
of livestock
1971 has
1981almost
1991 doubled
2001 from
2011 16.2
2022 to 29.8
Year (TE)
percent over the same period. The contribution of fisheries to total value
of agricultural output has also
Crop
increased
Livestock
from 0.6
Forestry
percent in TE 1952 to
Fisheries
6.6 percent in TE 2022. The share of forestry in total agricultural GVA
remains low (Figure 4).
Due to rising per capita income, growing urbanisation, and a rapid
increase in the integration of the domestic economy with the world
economy, consumers are diversifying toward more nutrient-rich diets and
the agricultural sector is able to meet their demand. Though the share of
the crop sector in total agricultural output has been declining, it remains

GDP Agricultural GVA

Note: CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate; GVA = Gross Value Added; * = fiscal year 2021/22
the principal source of income generation. Within the crop sector, the
share of horticulture has increased from 10.8 percent in TE 1952 to 33.5
percent in TE 2022 (Figure 5).
Figure 4: Share of different subsectors in gross value of agricultural output
Figure 4. Share of different subsectors in gross value of agricultural output

90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
Share (%)
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1952 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2022
Year (TE)
Crop Livestock Forestry Fisheries

Source: MinistryNote: TE =and
of Statistics Triennium Ending
Programme Implementation (India, MoSPI 2023a).
Figure 5: Share of foodgrains

Figure 5. Share of and horticulture
foodgrains in value in
and horticulture of value
crop output
of crop (percent)
output
(percent)
60.0
50.0
40.0
Share (%)
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1952 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2022
Year (TE)
Foodgrains Horticulture
Source: MinistryNote: TE =and
of Statistics Triennium Ending
Programme Implementation (India, MoSPI 2023a).

Figure 6: Composition (percentage) of agricultural GVA, 2022/23
40.0
Share (%)
30.0
20.0
Among the10.0 states, Sikkim, Manipur, Assam and Uttar Pradesh place
significant importance
0.0
on crops, which constitute a 87.1, 67.3, 66.6, and
65.4 percent share 1952in their
1961 respective
1971 1981 agricultural
1991 2001 GVA2011 totals.
2022 Livestock
Year (TE)
constitutes a significant share of agricultural GVA in Tamil Nadu (51.8
percent), Haryana (43.7 percent) Foodgrainsand Horticulture
Telangana (43.7 percent) . Fishing
and aquaculture activities are notable in Andhra Pradesh and Goa with 31.6
percent
Source: and
Ministry 27.0 percent
of Statistics share
and Programme in GVA,(India,
Implementation respectively.
MoSPI 2023a). Forestry holds significant
importance in the north eastern states, especially in Mizoram and Assam.

Figure 6: Composition
Figure (percentage)
6. Composition of agricultural
(percentage) GVA, 2022/23
of agricultural GVA, 2022/23
100.0
90.0
Composition (%)
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Assam
Manipur*
Haryana
Karnataka
Jharkhand
Kerala*
Meghalaya
Odisha
Mizoram*
Punjab
Bihar
Maharashtra*
Sikkim
Tamil Nadu
Tripura
Telangana
Uttarakhand
West Bengal
India
Arunachal Pradesh*
Chhattisgarh
Goa*
Himachal Pradesh
Gujarat*
Madhya Pradesh
Nagaland*
Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh
Puducherry*
Andhra Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir-UT

States and UTs
Crops Livestock Fishing and aquaculture Forestry and logging
Source: Ministry Ministry

Source: of Statistics of
andStatistics
Programmeand
Implementation
Programme (India,Implementation
MoSPI 2023a). (India, MoSPI 2023a).
Note: GVA = gross value added; * =fiscal year 2021/22.
Note: GVA = gross value added; * = fiscal year 2021/22.
Table 1 presents the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) in each of the
agricultural subsectors for the period 2011/12 to 2022/23 across states and
union territories. Notably, a positive and high rate of growth in GVA crops
can be observed in Madhya Pradesh (5.8 percent), Sikkim (5.4 percent) and
Karnataka (4.8 percent), and Andhra Pradesh (4.4 percent); A few states exhibit
a decline in the annual rate of growth of crop cultivation, including Arunachal
Pradesh (-3.9 percent), Kerala (-2.4 percent) and Goa (-0.3 percent). Livestock
GVA, on the other hand, shows a much higher rate of growth in Madhya
Pradesh (13.5 percent), Tripura (13.0 percent) and Assam (12.7 percent).
Fishing and aquaculture exhibit promising growth in Andhra Pradesh (19.1
percent), Meghalaya (15.0 percent) and Madhya Pradesh (14.5 percent).
These state-level growth trends provide valuable insights into the evolving
agricultural landscape, highlighting potential areas that may need attention
if higher agricultural growth and sustainable development is to be achieved.

Table 1. CAGR (percent) of different subsectors of agriculture, 2011/12 to 2022/23
State Compound annual growth rate (%) Horticulture$

2011/12 to 2022/23*
Crops Livestock Fishing and Forestry
aquaculture and
logging
Andhra Pradesh 4.4 8.6 19.1 1.9 8.1
Arunachal Pradesh* -3.9 6.2 5.5 10.4 -6.7
Assam 3.2 12.7 6.9 4.5 2.2
Bihar 0.0 8.4 7.6 5.1 0.6
Chhattisgarh 3.3 7.4 9.8 7.3 5.5
Goa* -0.3 2.4 1.7 26.5 1.7
Gujarat *
2.5 6.1 5.5 1.6 4.4
Haryana 1.6 8.0 9.1 2.1 5.1
Himachal Pradesh 1.0 9.1 7.7 3.6 4.9
Jharkhand 1.2 5.3 12.1 0.1 -2.7
Karnataka 4.8 10.3 6.3 5.7 6.0
Kerala* -2.4 -0.4 1.4 1.7 -1.7
Madhya Pradesh 5.8 13.5 14.5 5.3 11.5
Maharashtra* 2.4 6.5 0.8 7.4 3.0
Manipur* 7.5 1.0 3.5 2.3 2.4
Meghalaya 1.3 1.4 15.0 9.1 -0.2
Mizoram* 3.4 5.6 -0.2 16.4 0.6
Nagaland *
0.2 -10.3 3.2 7.6 2.6
Odisha 2.0 5.0 11.1 6.0 -1.6
Punjab 0.7 5.2 7.3 1.7 5.2
Rajasthan 2.0 11.0 8.2 3.3 4.9
Sikkim 5.4 5.6 7.6 0.0 1.4
Tamil Nadu 1.3 10.7 3.1 7.2 0.4
Telangana 3.8 8.3 6.7 1.4 -2.1
Tripura 4.2 13.0 9.5 5.6 2.0
Uttar Pradesh 3.3 4.2 7.1 3.8 6.3
Contd...

State Compound annual growth rate (%) Horticulture$
2011/12 to 2022/23*
Crops Livestock Fishing and Forestry
aquaculture and
logging
Uttarakhand 0.2 2.9 5.0 3.9 -2.6
West Bengal 1.5 4.9 2.6 2.7 1.5
India 1.7 7.6 4.6 8.6 3.5
Note: CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate; * = Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22; $ =
FY 2019/20.
1.3. Trends in the Production of Major Agricultural

and Allied Products
Over the past five years, both the area and production of major food
crops have shown an increasing trend (Table 2). Between 2019/20
and 2022/23, total food grain production increased from about 298
million tons to 330 million tons: an increase of about 11 percent. Rice
Table 2. Production status of major food crops

(Million tons)
Crops 2019/ 20 2020/ 21 2021/ 22 2022/ 23 2023/ 24*

Rice 118.9 124.4 129.5 135.8 106.3
Wheat 107.9 109.6 107.7 110.5
Nutri-cereals 17.3 18.0 16.0 17.3 12.7
Total cereals 274.5 285.3 288.3 303.6
Total pulses 23.0 25.5 27.3 26.1 7.1
Total foodgrains 297.5 310.7 315.6 329.7 NA
Oilseeds 33.2 35.9 37.9 41.4 21.5
Sugarcane 370.5 405.4 439.4 490.5 434.8
Cotton** 36.1 35.2 31.2 33.7 31.6
Jute and Mesta# 9.9 9.4 10.1 9.4 9.2
Source: APY, Statistics, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Department of Agriculture
and Farmers Welfare, GoI
Note: * = First advance estimates, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Government
of India; ** = million bales of 170 kgs each; #= million bales of 180 kgs each.

registered an incremental production about 17 million tons, while wheat
production increased by about 3 million tons during this period. Total
pulse production also witnessed an increase of 3 million tonnes.
Climate change has begun to adversely affect the agricultural sector

(Pathak 2023a). During the 2022/23 Rabi season, a heat wave due to
delayed monsoon and erratic rainfall caused farmers to incur heavy
losses, including a 3.7 percent decline in paddy production (Goswami
et al. 2023).
Within the crop sector, horticulture contributes significantly to the economy

with a 33 percent share in agricultural GVA. India currently shows a record
production of 351.9 million tonnes of horticultural products which is
produced on 28.1 million hectares (mHa) of land; this surpasses the area
and production of food grains (Figure 7). The productivity of horticulture
crops has increased by 50 percent over the past two decades; it now
stands at 12.5 tons per hectare (t/ha), far exceeding the productivity of
food grains (2.2 t/ha) (Jha et al. 2019). India is the world’s second-largest
producer of fruits and vegetables, with crops such as spices, plantation
crops, and aromatic crops contributing significantly to the development of
the country’s horticultural sector. The Indian horticultural sector ensures
Figure 7: Area and production status of horticultural crops in India
Figure 7. Area and production status of horticultural crops in India

29.0 355.0
Production (million tonnes)
350.0
28.0
Area (million ha)
345.0
340.0
27.0
335.0
26.0 330.0
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23*
Year
Area (mHa) Production (mT)
Source: Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, GoI.
Source: MinistryNote:
of Agriculture & Farmers
* = second Welfare,
advance GoI.
estimates for year 2022/23 released by Ministry of
Note: * = second advance estimates for year 2022/23 released by Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare
Agriculture & Farmers Welfare
Figure 8: Contribution of different subsectors in agricultural growth (percent)

90.0
nutritional security and also provides crop diversification activities,
employment opportunities, and improved farm income; however,
increasing population, uncertain supply and demand, and climate change
impose challenges and constraints on horticultural production systems.
The livestock and fisheries sectors of the economy have been playing
a vital role in improving the socioeconomic conditions of farmers,
especially those operating at a small and marginal scale. In the last
decade, the livestock sector has shown a continuous and stable CAGR
of 7.6 percent. India is the world’s largest milk-producing country, with
a record production of 230.6 mT in 2022/23. Globally, it is also the
largest producer of buffalo meat, the second-largest producer of goat
meat, and the third-largest producer of eggs and fish (Table 3). At 9.8 mT
annually, India stands eighth in the world for overall meat production.
Poultry contributes significantly to the overall growth of the livestock
sector, with a sustained increase observed in egg and poultry meat
production. India’s annual fish production has increased to a record
17.4 mT in 2022/23 from 14.2 mT in 2019/20, a 23 percent increase
over a three-year period (Figure 3). It presently holds the distinction of
being the world’s second-largest aquaculture producer and fourth-largest
capture fishery producer. During the past decade, fish production has
registered an annual growth rate of about 6.6 percent. Inland fisheries
currently contribute about three-fourths of the total fish production,
with the remainder coming from marine capture fisheries. Over the past
decade, fish production from capture fisheries (both marine and inland
capture) has experienced stagnation; aquaculture, in the same period,
has exhibited a robust performance, thereby driving most of the sector’s
growth. The major cultured species of inland freshwater fish include the
major carps (Catla, Rohu, Mrigal) as well as other minor and exotic carps,
Table 3. Production of major allied products in 2023
Year Milk Meat Egg Wool Fish

(mT) (mT) (millions) (million kg) (mT)
2019/20 198.4 8.6 1,14,000 36.8 14.2
2020/21 210.0 8.8 1,22,000 36.9 14.7
2021/22 221.2 9.3 1,30,000 32.9 16.2
2022/23 230.58 9.8 1,38,000 33.6 17.5
Source: Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics (India, DAH&D 2023); Handbook on Fisheries
Statistics 2022 (India, Department of Fisheries 2022).
Note: mT = million tons.

murrels, and catfish. Marine capture fish production consists mainly of
Indian29.0
oil sardines, Indian mackerel, threadfin breams, tuna, penaeid
355.0
prawns,
29.0croakers, sharks, and skates. Mariculture involves the355.0
culture of
marine species in enclosed structures; it is fast emerging as a prospective
tonnes)
350.0
avenue for future marine production. Some of the promising mariculture
tonnes)
350.0
28.0
ha)ha)
enterprises include cage culture, seaweed culture, mussel and oyster

345.0
(million
28.0
(million
culture, and ornamental fish culture (Jena et al. 2023). 345.0
(million
(million
340.0
1.4. Sources of Agricultural Growth: Changing Role
Production
27.0
Area
340.0
Production
27.0
Area
of Commodities 335.0
335.0
The crop sector, despite contributing significantly to the overall
26.0 330.0
agricultural
26.0
growth, is declining in
2020/21 importance, moving
2021/22 2022/23* from about
330.0
83.6
percent in the 1970s 2020/21to 56.4 percent in
2021/22
Year the 2000s; by 2023,
2022/23* it contributed
only 23.9 percent to theArea total growth
(mHa) Year inProduction
agriculture (mT)sector. Livestock, in
contrast, has almost quintupled Area (mHa)and now accounts
Production for more than half of
(mT)
agricultural
Source: Ministry of Agriculturegrowth.
& FarmersFisheries’ contribution has also increased, moving
Welfare, GoI.
Note: * =Ministry
Source: second
fromadvance
of estimates
Agriculture
4.5 percent for
inyear
& Farmers 2022/23
theWelfare, released
1950sGoI.to 16 by Ministryin
percent of the
Agriculture & Farmers Welfare
2011-to-2022 period.
Note: * = second advance estimates for year 2022/23 released by Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare
Over this period, forestry has exhibited a fluctuating trend (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Contribution of different subsectors in agricultural growth (percent)
Figure 8: Contribution of different
Figure 8. Contribution subsectors
of different in agricultural
subsectors to agriculturalgrowth (percent)
growth (percent)
90.0
90.0
80.0
80.0
70.0
70.0
60.0
(%)(%)
60.0
50.0
Share
50.0
40.0
Share
40.0
30.0
30.0
20.0
20.0
10.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 1950/59 1960/69 1970/79 1980/89 1990/99 2000/10 2011/22
1950/59 1960/69 1970/79 1980/89
Year 1990/99 2000/10 2011/22
Year
Crop sector Livestock Forestry Fisheries
Crop sector Livestock Forestry Fisheries
Source: Base data: National Accounts Statistics 2023 (India, MoSPI 2023c).
1.5. Farmers’ Income and Its Main Sources
The Government of India’s paramount objective is the elevation of
farmers’ economic well-being. While Indian agriculture contributed only

18.2 percent to the country’s GVA in FY 2022/23 (India, MoA&FW 2023),
it remains the primary sector for livelihood and employment, with over
45.5 percent of the nation’s workforce engaged in agricultural and allied
activities (India, MoSPI 2023). Notably, a higher growth is observed
when real incomes are calculated using the Consumer Price Index for
Agricultural Labour (CPIAL) as the deflator. Agricultural households
generate income from various sources including crop cultivation, animal
husbandry, wages and salaries, and non-farm business pursuits. The
real income, adjusted with the GDP deflator, witnessed a growth of 2.47
percent per year between 2002/03 and 2012/13, but this slowed down
to 1.5 percent in the 2012/13 to 2018/19 period (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Growth in household income, all India

Figure 9. Growth in household income, all India
Nominal Income
Household income
Real Income with CPIAL
Real Income with GDP Deflator
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Growth (%)
Year: 2002/03 to 2012/13 Year: 2012/13 to 2018/19

Source: Base data: Situation Assessment Surveys (2002/03; 2012/13 and 2018-19),
NSSO,
Source: Base data: (India, Assessment
Situation MoSPI 2023c).
Surveys (2002/03; 2012/13 and 2018/19), NSSO, (India, MoSPI 2023c).
While overall income of agricultural households has increased (INR

2,115 to INR 10,218) a notable shift has occurred in the composition of
Figure 10: Growth in farm household income across sources, all India, 2012/13 to 2018/19
income sources, specifically a decline in the proportion derived from crop
cultivation.
12000.0
The surge in total income of farming households observed
between 2012/13 and 2018/19 can be attributed mainly to substantially
10000.0 earnings from wages and animal farming; there has been,
increased
however,
8000.0a worrisome 2.7 percent annual decline in income from crop
Income (INR)
cultivation (Saxena et al. 2023b) (Figure 10).

6000.0
Concerted efforts have been made to address this trend; these include
4000.0
the introduction of enhanced crop varieties, micro-irrigation initiatives,
2000.0
14 | Performance
0.0
of Indian Agriculture
2002/03 2012/13 2018/19
Source: Base data: Situation Assessment Surveys (2002/03; 2012/13 and 2018/19), NSSO, (India, MoSPI 2023c).
Figure 10. Growth in farm household income across sources, all India,
Figure 10: Growth in farm household income across sources, all India, 2012/13 to 2018/19
2012/13 to 2018/19
12000.0
10000.0
Income (INR)
8000.0
6000.0
4000.0
2000.0
0.0
2002/03 2012/13 2018/19
Year
Wages Crop production Farming of animals

Leasing of land Non-farm business
Source: Base data: Situation Assessment Surveys (2002/03; 2012/13 and 2018-
Source: Base data:
19),Situation
NSSO,Assessment Surveys (2002/03; 2012/13 and 2018/19), NSSO, (India, MoSPI)
(India, MoSPI)
risk management strategies, and price support programmes specifically

designed to bolster the crop sector. Ensuring sustained growth, however,
requires the effective implementation of these measures coupled
with robust farm linkages. Animal and fish farming are, at the same
time, emerging as promising sectors with significant growth potential.
This positive shift underscores the need to explore and capitalise on
opportunities within these domains, including the diversification of
income sources within agricultural households. Nurturing these sectors
through strategic policies and supportive frameworks can contribute not
only to the resilience of the agricultural economy but also to the overall
prosperity of farming communities.
A supportive policy environment is crucial for enhancing agricultural

incomes and nutrition security. Its focus should be on the encouragement
of off-farm activities, especially for smallholders. Agricultural households,
irrespective of their landholding size, demonstrate a commendable
level of financial inclusion, with nearly all possessing a bank account;
this reflects the significant strides that have been made in financial
accessibility. Challenges persist in specific domains, however, such as in
crop insurance, where coverage under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima
Yojana (PMFBY) remains dismally low for marginal farmers. This gap
in insurance protection constitutes a considerable level of vulnerability
for this already-vulnerable segment of the farming community. Targeted

interventions to enhance coverage and effectively mitigate risks are thus
necessary.
At the same time, the landscape of registered farm organisations reflects

the stark reality that only a tiny percentage of agricultural households
are members of such organisations. This underscores a potential gap in
collective empowerment and collaborative initiatives and signals the need
for strategies that enhance farmers’ participation in such organisations
so as to foster a sense of community and amplify their collective voice.
The involvement of marginal and small landholders in initiatives such as
the Soil Health Card Scheme and Animal Health Card Scheme is also
notably limited. These programmes are designed to empower farmers by
providing crucial information and resources; they thus need to be more
inclusive and to ensure that smallholders have access to vital tools for
optimising soil and animal health. Bridging these participation gaps is
integral to realising the comprehensive benefits of these schemes across
all tiers of the agricultural community.
The potential industrialisation of rural areas hinges on prioritising labour-

intensive agro-based industries, necessitating a booming rural non-farm
economy to alleviate employment pressure on agriculture. Effective
market intelligence is pivotal for enhancing farmers’ income, urging
the development of domestic marketing linkages and the adoption of
electronic trading platforms such as the Electronic National Agriculture
Market, or e-NAM. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, successful government
interventions, support payments, and enhancements to supply chains
underscored the importance of addressing challenges and ensuring food
security. Post-pandemic, however, global markets imposing stricter food
safety requirements necessitate India’s investment in food quality and
safety infrastructure. The impact of the Russia–Ukraine war on global
commodity prices underscores the uncertainty in global economic prospects
and suggests an urgent need for a robust domestic food production and
trade strategy.
Amidst these challenges, climate change emerges as a critical factor

requiring immediate attention and strategic planning (Pathak 2023a).
Collaborative efforts at local, regional, and national levels are imperative to
develop adaptive strategies that mitigate the impacts of climate change on
Indian agriculture. This necessitates not only robust research collaborations
but also dedicated funding for the development and implementation of
climate-smart technologies, ensuring the sector’s long-term sustainability
(Pathak 2023a).

In embracing these challenges and proactively seizing opportunities, India’s
agricultural sector has the potential to foster resilience, sustainability, and
improved livelihoods for its farming community. A holistic approach,
encompassing strategic policy initiatives, technological advancements,
and global competitiveness can pave the way for a thriving and resilient
future for Indian agriculture.
1.6. Agricultural Trade

Historically, India’s agricultural exports were characterised by spices, tea,
fish and fishery products, cashew nuts, and other distinctive commodities.
Evolving trade dynamics, however, have witnessed the ascendance
of new export leads including basmati rice, meat (particularly buffalo
meat), soybean meal, and groundnut seed. This diversification in export
commodities signifies the adaptability and dynamism of India’s agricultural
trade, including its ability to respond to shifting global demands.
Table 4 compares the composition of agricultural sector exports and

imports in 1992 and 2022. This period saw an increase in the export
Table 4. Composition of agricultural exports and imports, percent of total,

1992 and 2022
Particulars 1992 2022

Exports Imports Exports Imports
Cereals and cereal products 8.1 28.7 26.0 1.0
Coffee, tea, spices, mate and cocoa 11.9 1.5 6.9 3.8
Cotton and silk 26.4 15.6 11.7 5.3
Fishing and aquaculture 13.2 0.0 11.0 0.4
Horticulture and horticultural products 24.0 29.4 12.8 23.5
Livestock and livestock products 3.0 1.7 8.7 0.3
Miscellaneous products *
2.1 10.6 6.0 59.8
Oilseeds 2.3 1.0 3.2 2.4
Sugars and confectionery 2.8 0.4 10.5 1.0
Tobacco and tobacco products 3.6 0.1 2.0 0.2
Other products** 2.6 11.0 1.2 2.2
Source: World Integrated Trade Solutions (WITS), 1992, 2022.
Note: * =animal or vegetable fats and oils, miscellaneous edible preparations; ** =wool,
vegetable textile fibres, paper yarn, animal hair, and other fabrics.

share of cereals, livestock, sugar and sugar products. As India moved
toward and beyond self-sufficiency in these crops it began to export greater
quantities, resulting in a significant increase in total agricultural exports.
A decline was registered, on the other hand, in the share of exports of
cotton, coffee, tea, spices, mate and cocoa, products and preparations
of vegetables, and fruits and nuts. As for cotton, both its production and
exports have exhibited fluctuations over the years, however a decline in
cotton yield and the emergence of competitors like Vietnam has reduced
the attractiveness of India’s cotton in the international market (Mukherjee
2023; OEC 2023). Among imports, the share of animal or vegetable fats
and oils in total agricultural imports has increased significantly during the
period. India’s demand for vegetable oil has been on the rise over this
period and domestic production has not been able to satisfy this demand
(Damodaran 2023). A decline has been registered, on the other hand,
in the share of imports of vegetables, fruits and nuts, cereal and cereal
products, cotton, coffee, tea, mate, cocoa and spices. Over this period,
India’s dependence on cereal imports has fallen significantly, as its domestic
production has increased due to the introduction of improved varieties.
Despite rising domestic demand for vegetables, fruits, and nuts,the share
of imports of these commodities has declined, indicating that Indian
farmers are gradually moving from food grains to horticultural crops (The
Economic Times 2023).
In the overall trade landscape, where India has consistently maintained

a negative trade balance since the initiation of planned development in
1950/51, the agricultural sector’s consistent trade surplus stands out as
a beacon of success. In 2022/23, India garnered net foreign exchange
earnings of approximately US$17 billion from agricultural trade. The
trajectory of both agricultural exports and imports has been noteworthy,
albeit with distinct growth rates. Between 1992/93 and 2022/23,
agricultural exports experienced a commendable annual growth of 9.5
percent, highlighting India’s prowess in catering to international markets.
Agricultural imports, in contrast, surged more rapidly, recording an annual
growth rate in excess of 15 percent. This divergence has contributed to
a substantial reduction in the ratio of agricultural exports to imports,
dropping from 7.4 in 1992/93 to a modest 1.6 in 2022/23 (Table 5 and
Figure 11).
Crucially, the country’s capacity to generate exportable surpluses emerges

as a pivotal determinant in shaping its export prospects. This capacity
is subject to fluctuations influenced by macro-economic shifts (mainly

Table 5. India’s exports and imports of agricultural commodities
(US$ billion)
national imports
national exports
imports to total
exports to total
Percent of agri
Percent of agri
Trade balance
merchandise
merchandise
Agri imports
Agri exports
Agri trade
balance
imports
exports
Total
Total
Year
2011/12 286 458 -172 36 14 22 3.0 12.5

2012/13 299 488 -189 42 18 24 3.6 13.9
2013/14 317 452 -135 44 14 29 3.2 13.8
2014/15 305 440 -135 39 20 19 4.4 12.6
2015/16 256 372 -116 32 21 11 5.6 12.6
2016/17 273 381 -108 33 24 9 6.4 12.3
2017/18 284 435 -151 36 22 14 5.1 12.9
2018/19 330 514 -184 39 20 20 3.8 11.9
2019/20 297 450 -153 34 20 14 4.4 11.4
2020/21 292 394 -102 42 21 21 5.3 14.3
2021/22 422 612 -191 50 31 19 5.1 11.9
2022/23 451 716 -265 53 36 17 5.0 11.8
Source: Latest Trade Figures Department of Commerce (India, Ministry of Commerce
and Industry 2023)
Figure 11: Trends in the ratio of agricultural exports and imports
Figure 11. Trends in the ratio of agricultural exports and imports

8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
Ratio
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1992/93 2001/02 2011/12 2016/17 2022/23
Year (TE)
Source: Latest Trade Figures Department of Commerce (India, Ministry of Commerce

and Industry
Source: Latest Trade2023)
Figures Department of Commerce (India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry 2023)
Figure 12: Trends in sale of tractors and power tillers State of Indian Agriculture | 19
1200.0 56.0
exchange rate) and changes in the production environment (Singh and
Sain 2003). As India continues to navigate the complexities of the global
market, sustaining and enhancing its export competitiveness will be
pivotal for leveraging the full potential of its agricultural prowess on the
international stage.
On the import front, a substantial 72 percent of India’s agricultural imports

in 2023 are in the categories of edible oils, pulses, and fresh and dried
fruits. The escalating import of edible oils stands out as a major concern;
in this, vegetable oils take the lead, constituting a significant 51.9 percent
of the country’s total agricultural imports and making India the world’s
largest importer of vegetable oils. Imports are also expected to double
to an estimated US$20.8 billion in 2023/24 from US$10.8 billion in
2017/18 (GTRI 2023).
This surge in imports poses challenges, but at the same time offers a
compelling opportunity for India to bolster its self-sufficiency in edible
oils. Despite a substantial yield gap of over 50 percent in oilseeds, there
exists immense potential for enhancing domestic production through
strategic technological interventions (Pathak 2023b). Most of these crops
are cultivated under rainfed conditions on marginal lands and research
shows that climate change is likely to have a negative impact on oilseed
production (Birthal et al. 2021). Effectively addressing this multifaceted
challenge thus necessitates a concerted effort, including an expansion
of irrigation infrastructure, the provision of high-quality seeds, and the
implementation of effective agricultural management practices. These
measures will be instrumental in bridging yield gaps in both oilseeds and
pulse production within India, fostering a more resilient and sustainable
agricultural landscape (Balaji and Sharma 2023).
In recent decade, supply chain disruptions stemming from global

uncertainties have impacted trade and trade costs, leading to higher
inflation. Government interventions have been commendable in ensuring
supplies through new contracts and domestic policy interventions. Efforts
have been made to explore new suppliers and import destinations,
successfully averting the most adverse effects of the Russia–Ukraine
conflict. To alleviate inflationary pressures on domestic prices, exports
of wheat, rice, and sugar were restricted. As a result, in 2023/24 major
commodities such as non-basmati rice, pulses and sugar have exhibited
negative growth, with basmati rice proving an exception. Although this
negative trend began before trade restrictions, the ban on rice exports
and the imposition of a 20 percent export tax on parboiled rice have

acted as further contributing factors. The government also resorted
to imposing a 40 percent export tax on onions in order to curb rising
domestic prices. India’s repeated attempts to restrict the export of major
agricultural commodities such as the sona masuri rice variety, sugar,
and onions have led to sharp spikes in the international prices of these
commodities, however global economic prospects remain uncertain.
The Russia–Ukraine conflict has motivated the opening up of avenues
for new food trade, import substitution of edible oils, and innovations in
fertiliser production and use.
India’s presence in the global agri-food market is on the rise, demonstrating

export competitiveness in commodities such as basmati and non-basmati
rice, spices, and shrimps. Despite this, the untapped export potential of
a number of commodities indicates scope for expanding the share of
agricultural exports (Saxena et al. 2023a, 2023b). Lack of a well-developed
infrastructure, however, poses a significant obstacle as it results in the
spoilage of perishable goods and a reduction in export competitiveness.
Transportation presents a major challenge, including congestion, the
absence of dedicated cold chain transport corridors, and inefficient logistics
management; these further impact the country’s export capabilities by
increasing costs and causing delays.
The second major challenge revolves around the quality and traceability
of agricultural produce. Indian agricultural products often face difficulties
in meeting rigorous international quality and traceability standards, which
undermines their reputation and export potential. Ensuring consistent
product quality is made more difficult by diverse farming practices and
variations in quality across farms. The complex and opaque nature of
supply chains coupled with multiple intermediaries makes tracking the
origin and handling of products more complicated; this heightens the risk
of fraud and adulteration, which in turn impacts consumer trust and food
safety. Despite ongoing efforts to implement farm-to-fork and traceability
systems for various agricultural products, challenges persist in terms of
scalability, cost, and infrastructure. A third challenge is related to non-tariff
measures (NTMs) in export markets; these impact major Indian exports
such as chilies, tea, basmati rice, milk, poultry, and bovine meat. Countries
such as those of the EU, as well as Japan, China, the USA, South Korea,
and Russia impose high NTMs in order to respond to factors such as
higher pesticide levels and the presence of pests, and contamination issues
such as foot and mouth disease. These issues often lead to the rejection
of export consignments. Addressing these challenges requires upgrading

domestic systems, reducing pesticide levels in food products, and ensuring
adherence to international quality standards (Jha and Bathla 2021).
The fourth and final challenge is that which India faces at the World Trade
Organization (WTO) regarding its agricultural policies. While maintaining
a large public stockholding of staple food grains for food security,
particularly rice and wheat, India’s practices have been challenged at the
WTO by developed countries, notably the US. The argument revolves
around the perceived distortion of global agricultural markets, with India
countering that its public stockholding programme is crucial for fulfilling
its constitutional mandate of ensuring food security; it further argues that
the Agreement on Agriculture provisions on domestic support are biased
against developing countries. Successfully navigating these challenges
is imperative if India is to sustain and enhance its position in the global
agricultural landscape (Dhar 2023).
1.7. Processing and Value Addition of Agricultural

and Allied Products
India holds a prominent position globally as a leader in food production,
however there is a noticeable gap when it comes to efficiently processing its
vast agricultural output. At 11.6 percent, the GVA of India’s food processing
industry (FPI) ranks among the lowest globally, compared to 30 percent in
China and 60 to 80 percent in developed economies (Dhanya et al. 2020).
India’s evolving FPI nevertheless holds untapped potential which could have
a substantial impact on its economy. Over the five years ending in 2020/21,
the food processing sector has demonstrated remarkable growth, boasting
an average annual growth rate of approximately 8.4 percent. This growth
surpasses that of the agricultural and allied sector, which stood at around 4.9
percent (at 2011/12 prices) during the same period. This robust performance
underlines the resilience of the food processing sector and its increasing
role in shaping India’s economic landscape. It has emerged as a crucial
player, contributing significantly and strategically to key economic indicators
including GDP, employment generation, and attracting foreign investment.
In 2020/21, it constituted 10.5 percent of GVA in the manufacturing sector
and 11.6 percent of the agricultural sector’s GVA (Table 6).
To position itself as a frontrunner in food processing, India must elevate

its current food processing standards. It must also address the harvest
and postharvest loss of 25 to 30 percent of the country’s total agricultural
produce (Jha et al. 2015). This level of wastage makes the country unable

Table 6. Share of food processing industries (FPI) on GVA at constant 2011/12
prices
Year GVA- Percent share Percent share Percent share of FPI

FPI of FPI in of FPI in GVA in GVA agriculture,
overall GVA manufacturing forestry, and fishing
2012/13 1.3 1.5 8.7 8.5
2013/14 1.3 1.4 8.3 8.1
2014/15 1.3 1.4 8.0 8.3
2015/16 1.6 1.5 8.5 10.0
2016/17 1.8 1.6 8.7 10.4
2017/18 1.9 1.6 8.7 10.5
2018/19 2.4 1.9 10.1 12.6
2019/20 2.3 1.7 10.0 11.4
2020/21 2.4 1.9 10.5 11.6
Source: Annual Report 2022/23, Ministry of Food Processing Industries, GoI. (2023)
Note: GVA = Gross Value Added.
to fully capitalise on its significant output of agricultural commodities.

Light was shed on the magnitude of the issue by an extensive 2022 study
conducted by NABARD Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd (NABCONS)
which encompassed 54 agricultural products across 292 districts in 15
agro climatic zones. This NABARD study built on a previous examination
by Indian Council of Agricultural Research–Central Institute of Post
Harvest Engineering and Technology (ICAR–CIPHET), Ludhiana, in
2015, which assessed harvest and postharvest losses for 45 agricultural
crops spanning 107 districts in 14 agro climatic zones. Table 7 draws on
both study reports to present a comparative analysis of the postharvest
losses for major agricultural crops and commodities in India.
Also relevant is the fact that developed nations predominantly export

high-value-added food products while a considerable proportion of
India’s food exports consist of low-margin raw materials. There is thus
a crucial need for India to shift its focus toward the export of more
value-added processed food products rather than raw materials. Such
a shift should be driven by the food processing industry, which holds
the potential to bring about transformative changes in the agricultural
sector. Enhancements in food processing capabilities can play a pivotal
role in reshaping the composition of India’s food exports. As shown in
Table 8, the value of processed food exports in 2021/22 accounted for

Table 7. Loss of major agricultural produce in India
Crops/commodities Cumulative wastage (percent)

As per ICAR–CIPHET As per NABCONS
study (2015)* study (2022)**
Cereals 4.7 - 6.0 3.9 - 5.9
Pulses 6.4 - 8.4 5.7 - 6.7
Oilseeds 3.1 - 10.0 2.9 - 7.5
Fruits 6.7 - 15.9 6.0 - 15.1
Vegetables 4.6 - 12.4 4.9 - 11.6
Plantation crops & spices 1.2 - 7.9 1.3 - 7.3
Milk 0.9 0.9
Fisheries (inland) 5.2 4.9
Fisheries (marine) 10.5 8.8
Meat 2.7 2.3
Poultry 6.7 5.6
Eggs 7.2 6.0
Source: Ministry of Food Processing Industries, GoI (2022)
Note:*Jha et al. (2015) Report on assessment of quantitative harvest and post-harvest
losses of major crops and commodities in India; **NABARD Consultancy Services (2022)
Study to determine post-harvest losses of agri produce in India.
Table 8. India’s agri and processed food exports, 2021/22

(US$ millions)
Year Agrifood Processed Percent share of processed
exports food exports food in food exports
2017/18 35467.9 5273.9 14.9
2018/19 35302.5 6389.2 18.1
2019/20 32732.0 6264.0 19.1
2020/21 38654.7 8565.6 22.2
2021/22 46113.3 10420.0 22.6
CAGR (%) 5.4 14.6
Source: Annual Report 2022/23, Ministry of Food Processing Industries, GoI.
Note: CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate.
22.6 percent of total food exports, and processed food exports have
shown a robust 14.6 percent rate of growth, significantly outpacing the
5.4 percent growth observed in agricultural food exports.

Input Utilisation
2
Patterns in Indian
Agriculture
2.1. Requirements and Availability of Quality Seeds
V arious interventions under the National Food Security Mission

(NFSM), the Sub-Mission on Seeds and Planting Materials (SMSP),
and the Rastriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) have been undertaken by
the central and state governments to distribute quality seeds to farmers
in order to bring about sustainable improvements in production and
India now enjoys a surplus of certified seeds (Table 9). The Government
of India, in consultation with ICAR, ensures uniform prices for breeder
seeds to minimise the cost of seed production.
Table 9. Requirement and availability of quality seeds, in 100,000 quintals
Year Requirement Availability Surplus

2019/20 387.3 431.0 43.7
2020/21 443.2 483.7 40.5
2021/22 465.4 498.8 33.5
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2022 (India, MoA&FW 2022).
2.2. Investment and Mechanisation

In the 1960/61 to 1969/70 period, the average gross capital formation in
agriculture and allied activities (GCFA) at constant 2011/12 prices was INR
314 billion (about US$4 billion). In the 1980/81 to 1989/90 period, this
increased to INR 566 billion (about US$ 7 billion). It remained somewhat
stagnant for many years and then again began to increase from the early
2000s, reaching INR 1,583 billion (about US$ 20 billion) in the 2000-2009
period and then INR 2,639 billion (about US$ 33) in the decade from
2010/11 to 2017/18. The change in stock varies but constitutes roughly
5 to 9 percent of total GCFA. The private GCFA that is mainly by farm
households witnessed a steady increase relative to public GCFA (Table 10).

Table 10. Public and private GCFA, GDPA (INR billions) and annual rate of
growth (percent) at 2011/12 prices
Average INR billions Annual rate of growth (%)

GCFA GCFA GCFA GDPA GCFA GCFA GCFA GDPA
Public Private Public Private
1960/61 to 314 106 209 4,145 8.4 2.6 11.6 1.5
1969/70
1970/71 to 478 174 304 5,215 5.9 8.9 4.4 1.7
1979/80
1980/81 to 566 234 332 6,716 1.6 -3.9 5.4 2.9
1989/90
1990/91 to 770 175 595 9,245 2.7 -0.2 3.4 3.3
1999/00
2000/01 to 1,583 287 1,296 11,926 7.9 11.3 7.2 2.5
2009/10
2010/11 to 2,639 401 2,238 16,450 0.4 6.7 -0.7 4.1
2017/18
Source: National Accounts Statistics, MoSPI, GoI
Note: GDPA = Gross Domestic Product for Agriculture, represented by Gross Value
Added for Agriculture (GVAA);GCFA = Gross Capital Formation in Agriculture.
Private household investment accounts for 83 percent of total investment.

Although many private companies are making forays into agriculture, their
share in total GCFA remains low and stagnant at under 3 percent. Public
GCFA pertains mainly to major, medium, and minor irrigation systems
and its share has fallen steadily from 44 percent during the 1960s to 20
percent in the most recent decade. The steady decline in the share of
public GCFA in total expenditure has been attributed to the diversion
of government expenditure toward revenue accounts in the form of an
increase in input subsidies (close to INR 1,000 billion/US$ 13 billion
at 2011/12 prices) as well as day-to-day expenses, inadequate funds,
and the low priority placed by the government on agriculture and rural
development (Bathla and Hussain 2022).
In terms of annual growth rate, during the 2000/01 to 2009/10

period,public and private GCFA was considerably higher at 11.3 percent
and 7.2 percent, respectively; it then declined to 6.7 percent and -0.7
percent, respectively, in the subsequent decade. A revival of private
GCFA since the 2000s can be explained by a big push in public GCFA,
26 | Input Utilisation Patterns in Indian Agriculture

complemented by favourable terms of trade, good weather conditions,
and adequate flow of institutional credit. Other factors may include a
growing number of holdings due to fragmentation, diversification toward
high value crops, and an increase in the demand for processed foods.
It is likely that these factors in combination helped agriculture sustain
a steady annual 3 to 4 percent rate of growth after 1980 and into the
2000s. The GCFA share in gross domestic capital formation (GDCF) in
the economy, however, has been declining steadily, moving from 16.6
percent in the 1960s to its current level of 6.0 percent, a situation that
should be addressed.
As per the Government of India, Committee on Doubling Farmers’

Income (2016), the required rate of growth in public investment (weighted
agriculture, irrigation, rural roads/transport, and rural energy) must be
14.2 percent per year (base 2015/16), and about 7.9 percent for private
investment. The growth rate of investments is currently much lower at 6.7
percent and -0.7 percent, respectively. The marginal returns from public
investment under these social and economic expenditure headings (that is,
increased agricultural income and reduced rural poverty) are estimated to
be very high, and are even higher for public spending on R&D at nearly 9
percent (Bathla, Joshi, Kumar 2020). Notably, that low public investment
will not necessarily “crowd in” private investment (by households or
corporates). One of the outcomes is the slow pace of mechanisation, which
negatively affects productivity. India lags in crop productivity compared to
most developed nations. Farm mechanisation in India ranges from 40 to
45 percent, as compared to 95 percent in the United States, 75 percent in
Brazil, and 57 percent in China (Alagusundaram et al. 2017).
Table 11 shows that the highest level of mechanisation in paddy and wheat
production in India is in harvesting and threshing operations and that
sowing, planting, and plant protection operations are least mechanised,
perhaps due to the involvement of manual operations in these practices
Table 11. Extent of mechanization across farm operations
Operations Mechanisation (%)

Ploughing and seedbed preparation 40
Sowing and planting 29
Plant protection practices 34
Harvesting and threshing 60 to 70 (mostly for paddy and wheat)
Source: National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER 2023).

7.0
6.0
5.0
Ratio
4.0
(NCAER 2023). India’s farm mechanisation is often characterised by its
level of3.0“tractorisation” due to the extensive adoption of tractors in crop
2.0
production, especially in the northern states. Tractors and power tillers
are widely
1.0 used, with an adoption rate of more than 50 percent across
the states (DoA&FW 2023). The steady increase in the sale of tractors
0.0
and power tillers
1992/93in recent years 2011/12
2001/02 has also improved
2016/17 demand
2022/23 for other
machinery such as transplanters, rotavators,
Year (TE) threshers, weeders, and
laser levellers (Figure 12). India should make special efforts to turn its
agricultural sector into a mechanisation-driven sector. The setting up of
Source: Latest Trade Figures Department of Commerce (India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry 2023)
“Custom
Note: TE: Triennium Hiring Centres” in various states and the policy of “Sub-mission
Ending
on Agriculture Mechanization” can go a long way toward improving the
extent of mechanisation among small and marginal farmers (ICFA 2017).
Figure 12: Trends

Figure in
12.sale of tractors
Trends in sales and powerand
of tractors tillers
power tillers
1200.0 56.0
54.0
1000.0
52.0
Number ('000)
Number ('000)
800.0
50.0
600.0 48.0
46.0
400.0
44.0
200.0
42.0
0.0 40.0
2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22
Year
Tractors (thousands) Power tiller (thousands)

2.3. Fertilizers
India is increasingly reliant on Nitrogen-based fertilizers in its agricultural
practices (Bora, 2022). Among the three pivotal nutrients used in crop
production, that is, nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K), the
use of nitrogen exhibits a distinct upward trajectory, moving from 173 lakh
tonnes in 2017/18 to 194.4 lakh tonnes in 2021/22. The consumption of
phosphorus, by comparison, witnessed a more variable pattern with no
clear trend, ranging between 56.3 lakh tonnes and 89.8 lakh tonnes. The

consumption of potassium remains unchanged at about 25.7 lakh tonnes
in 2017/18 and 25.3 lakh tonnes in 2021/22 (Figure 13).
Going by the current status of production, import, and consumption of

different categories of fertilizers in India, it is clear that urea has a dominant
place among all farmers (Table 12). The requirement for potassium is
completely met by imports of 15 lakh tons. There is no domestic production of
potassic fertilisers as glauconitic (a potassium-bearing green mica) sandstone
is commercially unexploitable in India (India, Ministry of Mines 2019).
Figure 13: Fertilizer consumption in India: nitrogen (N), phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5),
and potassium oxide (K2O)
Figure 13. Fertilizer consumption in India: nitrogen (N), phosphorus
pentoxide (P2O5), and potassium oxide (K2O)
350.0
Fertiizer consumption (lakh T)
300.0
250.0
200.0
K
150.0 P
100.0 N
50.0
0.0
2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22
Year
Source: India, Department of Fertilisers (2022).
Source: India, Department of Fertilisers (2022).
Table 12. Fertiliser production status in India (2022/23)

(lakh tons)
Figure 14: State-wise fertilizer consumption in India
Fertilisers Urea DAP MOP NPK SSP Total
Production 187.2 27.4 - 67.2 38.9 320.8
Imports 46.1 47.8 15.0 19.4 - 128.4
Consumption 232.5 83.5 11.2 74.2 - 401.5
Pe rc e n t s h a re o f 19.8 57.2 133.7 26.2 - 32.0
imports in fertiliser
consumption
Source: India, Department of Fertilizers (2022).
Note: DAP = di-ammonium phosphate; MOP = muriate of potash; NPK = nitrogen,
phosphorus, potassium; SSP = single super phosphate.

Table 13 and Figure 14 depict total state-wise consumption of fertilisers,
which helps understand its India-wide consumption pattern. Uttar Pradesh
consumes the highest amount of fertilisers, that is, 51.7 lakh tons (17.3
percent); this is followed by Maharashtra (10.5 percent), Madhya Pradesh
(8.9 percent), Karnataka (7.4 percent), and Gujarat (6.7 percent).
Northern and western states are heavy consumers of fertilisers due to
their focus on paddy/rice and wheat-related cropping patterns; these two
Table 13. State-wise fertilizer consumption, 2021/22
State Total consumption Net sown area Fertiliser

of fertilizers (lakh (‘000 ha) consumption
tons) (kg/ha)
Uttar Pradesh 51.7 16368 315.8
Maharashtra 31.4 16722 187.5
Madhya Pradesh 26.5 15512 171.0
Karnataka 21.9 10804 202.9
Punjab 19.9 4127 482.2
Gujarat 17.0 9787 173.7
Andhra Pradesh 17.0 5884 288.9
Telangana 16.4 5500 297.5
Bihar 16.1 5077 317.7
Rajasthan 16.1 18032 89.3
West Bengal 15.4 5250 293.9
Haryana 13.7 3552 386.8
Tamil Nadu 11.3 4738 238.5
Chhattisgarh 7.6 4635 163.5
Odisha 5.9 4102 143.1
Assam 2.6 2699 97.1
Jharkhand 2.0 1291 156.5
Kerala 1.7 2026 81.9
Uttarakhand 1.3 638 208.5
Jammu & Kashmir 1.2 720 166.7
Himachal Pradesh 0.6 530 105.7
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2022 (MoA&FW 2022).

Figure 14. State-wise fertilizer consumption in India
Fertilizer
consumption (kg/ha)
482.2
81.9
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2022 (MoA&FW 2022); Fertilizer Statistics

2021/22 (The Fertiliser Association of India 2022).
crops consume 37 percent and 24 percent of total fertiliser consumption

in India, respectively (Usama and Khalid 2018). It is suggested, however,
that fertilisers be applied in a balanced and integrated manner that
involves biofertilizers and vermicompost; this may reduce the harmful
effects of chemical fertilisers on the environment and improve soil health
and nutrient use efficiency (Pathak and Fagodiya 2022).
2.4. Pesticides
Pesticide usage fluctuates, suggesting that its application is influenced by
factors such as pest pressures, weather conditions, and evolving farming
practices (Tudi et al. 2021). Notably, in the period from 2018/19 to
2022/23, the highest consumption is observed in 2021/22 at 51.9 ‘000
tons (Table 14). Chemical pesticides ranges from 89 to 92 percent of total
pesticide consumption. Chemical pesticide consumption may remain
stable due to the increased use of biopesticides and biocontrol agents
as part of integrated pest management (IPM) practices (Devi,Thomas,
Raju 2017).
Figure 15 presents the increase in share of bio-pesticides in total pesticide

consumption. The decrease in chemical pesticide consumption is due to
an enhanced focus on the popularising of biopesticides and their inclusion

Table 14. Pesticide consumption in India
(‘000 tons)
Pesticides Crops Total

Cereals Vegetables Pulses Oilseeds Fruit Plantation Cash Fibre Other
Year
crops crops
Chemical 17.3 3.9 5.8 4.9 2.5 0.4 5.0 3.6 1.1 44.3
Biopesticides 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 3.8
2018/19
Total 18.1 4.4 6.4 5.8 2.8 0.6 5.3 3.6 1.1 48.0
Chemical 14.9 3.9 4.4 4.6 2.2 0.3 4.8 4.3 0.9 40.3
Biopesticides 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 3.7
2019/20
Total 15.9 4.4 4.7 5.4 2.4 0.5 5.0 4.6 1.1 44.0
Chemical 17.2 4.8 4.6 4.7 1.7 0.3 6.1 4.0 1.4 44.7

Biopesticides 1.3 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.7 5.4
2020/21
Total 18.4 5.6 5.3 5.7 1.8 0.5 6.7 4.1 2.1 50.1
Chemical 19.4 4.6 6.1 4.9 2.2 0.3 5.9 3.4 1.0 47.7
Biopesticides 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 4.2
2021/22
Total 20.8 5.3 6.4 5.6 2.3 0.5 6.4 3.5 1.1 51.9
Chemical 17.2 4.0 3.8 3.0 1.8 0.2 6.4 1.9 3.5 41.8
Biopesticides 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.1 1.9 5.0
2022/23
Total 18.4 4.5 4.1 3.2 2.0 0.3 6.8 2.0 5.4 46.8
Source: Statistical database, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, GoI.
in IPM packages (Singh and Narayanan 2015). Figure 16 shows state-
wise consumption of pesticides.
Figure 15: Trend in biopesticide consumption between 2018/19 and 2022/23
Figure 15. Trend in biopesticide consumption between 2018/19 and 2022/23
60.0 12.0
Figure 15: Trend

50.0 in biopesticide consumption between 2018/19 and 2022/23 10.0
40.0
60.0 12.0 8.0
Share (%)
'000 tons
30.0
50.0 10.0 6.0
40.0
20.0 8.0 4.0
Share (%)
'000 tons
30.0 6.0
10.0 2.0
20.0 4.0
0.0 0.0
2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23
10.0 2.0
Year
0.0 0.0
Biopesticide
2020/21 ('000T)
2021/22Total 2018/19
Pesticide ('000T)
Share of biopesticide (%)
2022/23 2019/20
Year
Source:
Source: Statistical Statistical
database, database,
Directorate of PlantDirectorate of Plant and
Protection, Quarantine Protection, Quarantine and
Storage, GoI
Storage, GoI.
Total Pesticide ('000T) Biopesticide ('000T) Share of biopesticide (%)
Figure 16: State-wise chemical pesticide consumption
Source: Statistical database, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, GoI
1400.0
FigureFigure
16: State-wise chemicalchemical
16. State-wise pesticidepesticide
consumption
consumption
Pesticide consumption (kg/ha)
1200.0
1400.0
1000.0
Pesticide consumption (kg/ha)
1200.0
800.0
1000.0
600.0
800.0
400.0
600.0
200.0
400.0
0.0
200.0
Madhya Pradesh
KeralaGoa
Kerala
Kashmir
Pradesh
Assam
Bengal
Bihar
Maharashtra
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Haryana
Tamil Nadu
Odisha
Uttarakhand
Gujarat
Punjab
Pradesh
Karnataka
Telangana
Pradesh
Rajasthan
0.0
Pradesh
Goa
Pradesh
Bengal
Assam
Bihar
Jammu & Kashmir

Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Odisha
Uttarakhand
Haryana
Tamil Nadu
Maharashtra
Punjab
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Karnataka
Telangana
Pradesh
Rajasthan
West
Himachal
Uttar
Andhra
Madhya &
West
Himachal
Uttar
Jammu
States and UTs

States and UTs
Source: Statistical database, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and
Storage, GoI.

2.5. Irrigation
Across all categories of farmers, tubewells are the main source of irrigation
water. Almost 7.8 million hectares (mHa) is irrigated by marginal farmers,
6.3 mHa by small farmers,6.6 mHa by semi-medium-sized farmers, 6
mHa by medium-sized farmers, and 2.5 mHa by large landholders (Figure
17). Besides tubewells, canals and wells also contribute to irrigation,
and tanks and other sources represent a smaller proportion of overall
irrigation infrastructure. Canals and electric tubewells constitute the highest
proportion of the total irrigated area, which indicates both the popularity
of flood irrigation among farmers and the availability of power subsidies
to India’s small and marginal farmers (Jain, Kishore, Singh 2019).
Figure 17:Figure
Major17.
sources
Majorofsources
irrigation across farm
of irrigation sizes
across farm sizes
8000.0
7000.0
Irrigated area ('000 ha)
6000.0
5000.0
4000.0
3000.0
2000.0
1000.0
0.0
Canal Tanks Wells Tubewells Others
Sources of Irrigation
Marginal Small Semi-medium Medium Large
Source: Agricultural Census, 2015/16 (India, DoA&FW 2018).

In recent years, micro-irrigation has been a focus and has gained limited
Figure 18: Average
coverage size of mainly
among operational holdingsand
the eastern in states and unionstates.
northeastern territories
In, these
areas the quality of groundwater is good, and the water table is shallow.
6.0
Micro-irrigation- more than flood irrigation or a check basin method of
5.0
Land Holding (ha)
irrigation—constitutes a capital-intensive choice (Chand et al. 2020). It

4.0is therefore important to justify the economics of micro-irrigation systems
3.0and to determine the threshold value that determines whether or not it is
2.0implemented. Across India, micro-irrigation (drip and sprinkler) systems
1.0are currently emphasised mostly as a way to improve water use efficiency
0.0
Punjab
arnataka
eghalaya
Goa
Nagaland
Haryana
harkhand
l Pradesh
Odisha
Delhi
Sikkim
Assam
elengana
a Pradesh
mil Nadu
r Pradesh
ducherry
Tripura
Bihar
andigarh
Kashmir
harashtra
Manipur
Gujarat
Mizoram
arakhand
st Bengal
shadweep
India
l Pradesh
a Pradesh
attisgarh
ajasthan
an & Diu
Kerala
ar Islands
ar Haveli
and maintain groundwater levels. The western and southern Indian states
of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra have
large areas under micro-irrigation because of water scarcity and uneven
rainfall distribution patterns (Viswanathan, Kumar, Narayana moorthy
2016) and efforts are also being made in hilly northeastern regions such
as Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu & Kashmir to increase
the area covered under micro-irrigation (Patel et al. 2023). Drip and
sprinkler irrigation needs to also be expanded in high-value crop regions
that are currently dependent on flood and well irrigation. In 2018/19,
the Government of India launched the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee
Yojana (PMKSY): Per Drop More Crop scheme, whose objective was to
ensure a dependable supply of good quality irrigation water to farmers’
fields and improve sustainable water management practices. To date,
only 14.5 mHa is under micro-irrigation (Table 15).
Table 15. State-wise area covered under micro-irrigation as of March 31, 2022
(million ha)
States Drip Sprinkler Total
Andhra Pradesh 1.4 0.5 1.9
Arunachal Pradesh 0.0 0.0 0.0
Assam 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bihar 0.0 0.1 0.1
Chhattisgarh 0.0 0.3 0.4
Goa 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gujarat 0.9 0.8 1.7
Haryana 0.0 0.6 0.7
Himachal Pradesh 0.0 0.0 0.0
Jammu & Kashmir 0.0 0.0 0.0
Jharkhand 0.0 0.0 0.0
Karnataka 0.8 1.6 2.4
Kerala 0.0 0.0 0.0
Madhya Pradesh 0.4 0.3 0.7
Maharashtra 1.4 0.6 2.0
Manipur 0.0 0.0 0.0
Meghalaya 0.0 0.0 0.0
Contd...

States Drip Sprinkler Total
Mizoram 0.0 0.0 0.0
Nagaland 0.0 0.0 0.0
Odisha 0.0 0.1 0.2
Punjab 0.0 0.0 0.1
Rajasthan 0.3 1.8 2.1
Sikkim 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tamil Nadu 0.9 0.4 1.3
Telangana 0.2 0.1 0.3
Tripura 0.0 0.0 0.0
Uttar Pradesh 0.1 0.2 0.3
Uttarakhand 0.0 0.0 0.0
West Bengal 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total 6.7 7.8 14.5
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2022 (MoA&FW, 2022).
2.6. Land Use Patterns

Land resources in India are categorised into several forms such as
agricultural land, pasture, forest, and wasteland. Table 16 shows that the
Table 16. Agricultural land use pattern in India

(million ha)
Classification 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20
Geographical area 328.7 328.7 328.7 328.7 328.7
Reporting area for land 307.5 308.1 307.5 307.5 306.5
utilisation
Gross cropped area 198.1 201.2 200.9 201.2 211.4
Cropping intensity (%) 142.6 144.7 144.7 145.3 151.1
Gross irrigated area (GIA) 97.8 99.4 101.3 104.5 112.2
Net irrigated area (NIA) 67.8 69.2 70.1 72.2 75.5
Net sown area (NSA) 138.9 139.0 138.8 138.4 139.9
NIA (%) 48.8 49.8 50.5 52.2 53.9
GIA (%) 49.3 49.4 50.4 51.9 53.1

geographical area and reported area for land utilisation have been stable
over the past five years; however, between 2015/16 and 2019/20 gross
cropped area shows a 7 percent increase, moving from 198.1 mHa to
211.4 mHa. There has also been a 6 percent increase in cropping intensity
in that period which is attributed to the increased crop diversification, and
the introduction of more advanced production techniques (Sharma et al.
2018). The area under irrigation has also increased significantly over this
period, which indicates the effectiveness of irrigation promotion schemes
such as PMKSY and the Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Program (AIBP).
India has about 146 million farmers. Most landholdings belong to marginal
and small farmers; this is followed by the number held by semi-medium,
medium, and large farmers (Table 17). Since 2005/06, the total number of
holdings has increased by 14 percent. In contrast, between 2005/06 and
2015/16 the total area of landholdings has decreased from 158.3, mHa to
157.8 mHa. Over the past two decades the average size of landholdings
has also declined, moving from 1.2 ha to 1.1 ha; this points out the
extent of land fragmentation in India. Table 17 provides a comprehensive
overview of land distribution and the prevalence of small-scale agricultural
operations in India. A considerable number of India’s farmers are tenants
of their land, mainly in the small and marginal categories.
Table 17. Number and area of operational holding across farm categories
No. of holdings Area (mHa) Average size of

Category
holdings
(millions) holdings (ha)

of
2005/ 2010/ 2015/ 2005/ 2010/ 2015/ 2005/ 2010/ 2015/

06 11 16 06 11 16 06 11 16
Marginal 83.7 92.8 100.3 32.0 35.9 37.9 0.4 0.4 0.4
(64.8) (67.1) (68.5) (20.2) (22.5) (24.0)
Small 23.9 24.8 25.8 33.1 35.2 36.2 1.4 1.4 1.4
(18.5) (17.9) (17.6) (20.9) (22.1) (22.9)
Semi- 14.1 13.9 14.0 37.9 37.7 37.6 2.7 2.7 2.7
medium (10.9) (10.0) (9.6) (23.9) (23.6) (23.8)
Medium 6.4 5.9 5.6 36.6 33.8 31.8 5.7 5.8 5.7
(4.9) (4.2) (3.8) (23.1) (21.2) (20.2)
Large 1.1 0.9 0.8 18.7 16.9 14.3 17.1 17.4 17.1
(0.8) (0.7) (0.6) (11.8) (10.6) (9.1)
All 129.2 138.3 146.4 158.3 159.6 157.8 1.2 1.2 1.1
holdings (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)
Source: Agriculture Census 2015-16 (MoA&FW 2018).
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage share out of total landholdings/area.

In the agricultural landscape of India landholding is categorised by the size
of the operated area. A majority of landholdings (60 percent) are occupied
by small and marginal farmers, who collectively manage 50 percent of
total landholdings. Medium and large farmers together constitute only
18 percent of total farm holdings, which illustrates the extent of India’s
inequality of land distribution, fragmentation of landholdings, and small-
scale agricultural practices. Policy efforts are necessary to encourage
collective farming practices that ensure higher remuneration for farmers.
Both
Figure 17: the number
Major of irrigation
sources of landholdings and sizes
across farm the area
Figure 17: Major sources of irrigation across farm sizes
of operational holdings
under 8000.0
marginal and small farmers have experienced a sharp increase
8000.0
between 2005/06 and 2015/16. Since 2005/06,the number of holdings
7000.0
has increased by 3 percent; this land fragmentation should be considered
7000.0
a major6000.0
reason
6000.0 for the low level of productivity poor mechanisation, and
the reduced
5000.0
income from agriculture.
5000.0
4000.0
4000.0
Analysis by
3000.0
state and union territory shows that Nagaland has the largest
average size of landholdings (4.9 ha); this can be attributed to its vast
3000.0
2000.0
land area2000.0 of 1.7 mHa and its relatively small population of 1.5 million.
Punjab1000.0 has the second-largest average land area, at 3.6 ha, followed by
1000.0
Arunachal Pradesh,
0.0
0.0 Canal Rajasthan, Tanks
andWells
Haryana. Other northeastern
Tubewells Others
states
also have larger per capita landholdings
Canal Tanks than
Wells
Sources of Irrigation other states
Tubewells due to
Others their vast
Sources of Irrigation
geographical area and smaller populations. States such as Telangana,
Marginal Small Semi-medium Medium Large
Himachal Pradesh,Marginal Odisha, Bihar,
Small and Kerala,
Semi-medium Mediumon theLargeother hand, show
average landholdings that are smaller

Source: Agricultural Census, 2015/16 (India, DoA&FW 2018). than the all-India average (Figure 18).
Figure 18. Average size of operational landholdings in states and union

Figure 18: Average size of operational holdings in states and union territories
Figure 18: Average size of operational holdings in states and union territories
territories
6.0
6.0
5.0
Land Holding (ha)
5.0
Land Holding (ha)
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
Punjab
Karnataka
Meghalaya
Goa
Nagaland
Haryana
Jharkhand
Himachal Pradesh
Odisha
Delhi
Sikkim
Assam
Telengana
Chandigarh
Andhra Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
Puducherry
Tripura
Bihar
Maharashtra
Manipur
Uttarakhand
West Bengal
Jammu & Kashmir
Lakshadweep
India
Arunachal Pradesh
Gujarat
Rajasthan
Madhya Pradesh
Mizoram
Chhattisgarh
Daman & Diu
Kerala
Andaman & Nicobar Islands
Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Punjab
Karnataka
Meghalaya
Goa
Himachal Pradesh
Nagaland
Haryana
Jharkhand
Odisha
Delhi
Sikkim
Assam
Telengana
Andhra Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
Puducherry
Tripura
Bihar
Maharashtra
Chandigarh
Manipur
Uttarakhand
West Bengal
Jammu & Kashmir
Lakshadweep
Arunachal Pradesh
Rajasthan
Gujarat
Madhya Pradesh
Mizoram
Andaman & Nicobar Islands
Chhattisgarh
Daman & Diu
Kerala
India
Dadra & Nagar Haveli
States and UTs

States and UTs
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2022 (MoA&FW 2022)
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2022 (MoA&FW 2022)

2.7. Issues and Challenges of Input Utilisation
Patterns
Imbalance and irrational use of agricultural inputs and input
services: Across regions and landholding sizes, it is often reported that
the use of agricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilisers, plant protection
chemicals, and irrigation water is not rational or balanced. Indeed,
the overuse of scarce resources such as groundwater for irrigation can
degrade the environment. Over time, higher use of fertilisers and plant
protection chemicals can cause a deterioration in soil quality, can lead to
water pollution, and can undermine the health of farmers and consumers
(Sharma, Chatrath, Sendhil 2013; Sendhil et al. 2018).
Fragmentation and small landholdings: Owing to land fragmentation,

the average farm landholding size continues to decline, moving from 2.3
ha in Agricultural Census 1970-71 to 1.1 ha per farmer in Agricultural
Census 2015/16 (India, MoA&FW 2018). According to the 2015/16
agricultural census, 87 percent of the total 146.4 million landholdings
are in the “small” category; this makes it a challenging to adopt modern
crop production technologies (Singh 2019; Gulati and Juneja 2022).
Heavy reliance on monsoons: Indian farmers rely heavily on

monsoon rains for crop production. Climate change related uncertainties
in the monsoon such as erratic rainfall and temperature anomalies are
increasingly affecting resource use planning and farm profitability.
Access to technological interventions and innovations: Social and

economic restrictions on access to modern crop production technologies
and resources affect production efficiency and thereby profitability. Access
to technologies is also limited by distance and farm location.
Escalating input costs: As 87 percent of farmers are small holders, the

rising cost of inputs such as seeds, fertilisers, plant protection chemicals,
labour, and energy will reduce farmers’ net returns and economic
sustainability and will thus erode their interest in continuing to farm.
Reliable information: With the advent of the Internet of Things (IoT)

and the transformation of day-to-day life brought out by information
and communication technologies (ICT), farmers have begun to get
information from multiple sources including unverified social media.
This can create confusion as to the most optimal and judicious use of
resources. Multilateral- and multistake holder-based extension advisories
and services are thus crucial.

2.8. Opportunities for Efficient Input Utilisation
Adoption of integrated technologies: Integration of validated
technologies with a data analytics platform will enhance resource use
efficiency. Possible innovative new technologies include precision farming,
satellite imaging, micro-irrigation, and IoT-based interventions such as
block chain technology.
Diversification: Promoting crop and enterprise diversification and

encouraging high-value crop production will reduce the risks of farming
and will increase business opportunities with gross capital formation
and better market access (Chand and Kumar 2004; Bathla 2014); it will
also optimise and enable judicious resource use and improve overall
livelihoods.
State intervention: Government initiatives and interventions such

as providing incentives, supplying quality seeds, facilitating credit, and
improving technology transfer through, for example, demonstrations will
increase access to and adoption of technologies.
Organic production: Increasing consumer interest in organic practices

and products creates an incentive to reduce the use of agricultural
chemicals. Organic produce earns premium prices in the market and
promotes a sustainable ecosystem.
Input management: Efficient technologies can help in the judicious

use of scarce resources. Micro-irrigation techniques such as sprinkler and
drip irrigation, for example, can increase water productivity and water
use efficiency, and the use of good quality seeds from authentic sources
can address the problem of poor rates of germination.
Capacity building: If they are to take advantage of available

opportunities, farmers need to be educated on recent technological
interventions and innovations and on new practices. Such knowledge
transformation requires appropriate investment and the involvement of
extension personnel.

Agricultural
3
Finance, Markets,
and PM-KISAN
3.1. Institutional Credit
P roduction credit, a key indicator of financial support to the

agricultural sector, has displayed a consistent upward trajectory in
the last two decades and medium- and long-term credit has at the same
time undergone a notable expansion. The aggregate total credit
has experienced a significant surge, advancing from INR 5,110 billion
(US$ 64 billion) in 2011/12 to an impressive INR 15,894 billion
(approx. 200 billion US$) in 2022/23 (Table 18). This trend
underscores the integral role of institutional credit in supporting the
agricultural sector.
Table 18. Disbursement of short-, medium-, and long-term institutional credit

to the agricultural sector (INR billions)
Year Production (ST credit) MT/ LT credit Total credit
2011/12 3,961.6 1,148.7 5,110.3
2012/13 4,735.0 1,338.8 6,073.8
2013/14 5,484.4 1,816.9 7,301.2
2014/15 6354.1 2,099.2 8,453.3
2015/16 6,653.1 2,501.9 9,155.1
2016/17 6,894.6 3,762.9 10,657.6
2017/18 7,532.1 4,094.0 11,626.2
2018/19 7,522.1 5,046.2 12,568.3
2019/20 8,251.5 5,675.8 13,927.3
2020/21 8,937.6 6,816.4 15,753.9
2021/22 10,996.8 7,636.9 18,633.6
2022/23 10,144.4 5,749.6 15,894.0
Source: Annual report 2022/23 (NABARD 2023).
Note: ST = short-term; MT = medium-term; LT = long-term.

During 2022/23, INR 21.7 trillion was disbursed provisionally against the
target of INR 18.5 trillion, registering a 117 percent achievement. The
agriculture credit target for 2023/24 has been fixed at INR 20 trillion. So
far, crop loans comprised more than 60 percent of the total credit disbursed
to the sector; this has come from commercial banks (60.3 percent),regional
rural banks (20.7 percent), and rural cooperative banks (19.8 percent)
(Figure 19).
Figure 19: Ground-level credit targets for agriculture by NABARD, 2023/24

Figure 19. Ground-level credit targets for agriculture by NABARD, 2023/24
14.0
12.0
Amount (Trillion INR)
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Crop Loan Term Loan
Commercial Banks Rural cooperative banks Regional Rural Banks

Source:
Note:Annual report =
NABARD 2022/23 (NABARD
National 2023).
Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
Note: NABARD = National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
Despite20:
Figure Composition
these of total
developments, ground-level
there credit disparity
is a huge regional targets for the allied sector,
in access
to credit, with eastern and northeastern states lagging behind. A high
proportion of total agricultural credit needs (40 percent) are met by
informal credit; this is problematic as it involves high interest rates, which
ultimately worsen farmers’ economic welfare 8%
(NABARD 2023).Across the
country, the dominance of informal credit is particularly notable in the
marine fisheries sector, where most of the day-to-day credit requirement of
the fishers is met by auctioneers and other informal agents. 36%Even though
informal financing provides considerable flexibility in disbursement as well
Dairy
as repayment and has been an important source of credit in the agricultural
Poultry
sector measures such as greater coverage by Kisan Credit Cards (KCC)
Animal husbandry
and strengthening of fishery cooperatives
46% are needed to enhance financial
Fisheries
inclusion within the marine fishery sector given the increasing requirement
for investment in fishing and allied activities (Parappurathu et al. 2019)
10%
42 | Agricultural Finance, Markets, and PM-KISAN

Amou
4.0
2.0
0.0
Figure 20Loan
Crop illustrates the composition of ground-level credit targets for
Term Loan
the allied sector in the fiscal year 2024, with a total credit target of INR
Commercial Banks Rural cooperative banks Regional Rural Banks
2,930 billion. These financial targets represent a significant investment in
rce: Annual reportthe allied
2022/23 sector,
(NABARD which in turn plays a vital role in supporting livelihoods
2023).
e: NABARD = National Bank for Agriculture
and contributing toand Ruralsecurity
food Development
and economic growth.
gure 20: Composition of total ground-level credit targets for the allied sector, 2023/24
Figure 20. Composition of total ground-level credit targets for the allied
sector, 2023/24
8%
36%
Dairy
Poultry
Animal husbandry
46%
Fisheries
10%
rce: Annual report 2022/23 (NABARD 2023).

3.2. Insurance
Insurance in agriculture holds significant importance owing to India’s
increasingly uncertain climatic conditions. To minimise economic losses
and safeguard farmers’ welfare, several government agricultural insurance
schemes are in place such as the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY)
and the Restructured Weather Based Insurance Scheme (RWBCIS).
(Table A1 in the Appendix presents an overview of progress under the key
government agricultural insurance schemes.)
Despite its critical role, crop insurance coverage in India is still low. In
2014, only 6.7 percent of farmers were covered, highlighting the need
for increased awareness and uptake (Alawadhi 2023). In 2016, the
government launched PMFBY, however its implementation has been
riddled with problems.
Every year, protests are organised by farmers over non payment or delayed
payment of claims. Gross premium collections have fallen gradually since
2019/20, while at the same time there has been a drastic decline in the
amount paid out in claims (Figure 21). According to experts, there is no

Figure 21.
Figure 21: Overview of Overview
premiumofand claimsand
premium paid under
claims theunder
paid Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima
the Pradhan
Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) insurance
Yojana (PMFBY) insurance scheme since its launch in 2016 scheme since its launch
in 2016
350.0
300.0
Amount (in billions)
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2021/21 2021/22 2022/23
Year
Gross Premium Claims Paid
Source: PMFBY, Progress and Achievements, 2016/21 Ministry of Agriculture and
Farmers Welfare, GoI.
Source: PMFBY, Progress and Achievements, 2016/21 Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, GoI
direct contact between the insurance company and the farmers, due to
Figure 22: Procurement of rice and wheat between 2003/04 and 2022/23
which farmers do not know whom to contact within 72 hours of crop
loss (Choubey 2023).
70.0
There is also a need to strengthen and widen the coverage of livestock
60.0
and fisheries insurance in the country. Several technologies have become
50.0
Quantity (million tons)
available in recent times that can be used to increase livestock insurance.

40.0 of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology, for example,
The use
can replace
30.0 retagging of animals at the time of policy renewal. Portability
of tag numbers
20.0
across insurers can be operationalised for continuation
of insurance. Index-based insurance schemes and ICT technologies can
10.0
be piloted in both the livestock and fishery sectors. There are, however,
0.0 institutional and policy issues related to livestock and fisheries
several
insurance that need to be addressed (Aggarwal et al. 2016).
Year
3.3. PM-KISAN
Rice Wheat
Over the last three years, the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-
KISAN) scheme has successfully provided more than INR 2.4 trillion
of assistance
Source: Statistical to over of80
data, Food Corporation million needy farmers (Table 19). Varshney
India
et al. (2020) conducted an empirical study which found that the PM-

Table 19. Period-wise details regarding the benefits released under the PM-
KISAN scheme since its inception on March 9, 2023
Financial year Period Amount (INR billions)

2018/19 Dec–March 63.2
2019/20 April–July 132.7
Aug–Nov 175.3
Dec–March 179.3
2020/21 April–July 209.9
Aug–Nov 204.7
Dec–March 204.7
2021/22 April–July 223.3
Aug–Nov 223.9
Dec–March 223.2
2022/23 April–July 225.5
Aug–Nov 179.8
Dec–March 171.1
Total 2,416.5
Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, GoI.
KISAN scheme has successfully addressed the liquidity constraints

experienced by farmers when buying agricultural inputs. The scheme
has also helped small and marginal farmers meet their other expenses
including purchase of consumer goods, education fees, and health
care costs.
Despite its success, some eligible farmers have failed to receive payments
due to, for example, technical issues around Aadhar verification or network
failure (Kancharla 2021).
3.4. Market Access

There are 2,477 principal markets and 4,843 sub-market yards Agricultural
Produce Market Committee (APMC) markets in India. The trade (value
and quantity) that takes place in these markets runs into tens of millions
of rupees. The GoI is in the process of linking APMC markets with the
Electronic National Agriculture Market (e-NAM)in order to respond to the

various anomalies in these markets such as poor price discovery, large
inefficiencies due to multiple intermediaries, and low prices received
by the farmers. As of November 11, 2023, 1,389 mandis (markets) are
connected with e-NAM. These mandis are distributed across 23 states and
four union territories, forming a robust network for trade in agricultural
commodities. Within this system, a significant number of stakeholders are
involved, with 17.6 million farmers participating in e-NAM transactions,
alongside 245, 000 traders. Notably, the volume of traded commodities
is vast, amounting to 79.7 million tons, with a total trade value of INR
2.8 trillion (Table 20).
Success Story
Vidyasagar, resident of Balkonda Mandal,
Telangana, owns 7 acres of land and has 20 years
of experience in agriculture and marketing. Shri
Vidyasagar cultivates paddy, maize, and soybeans.
He recently sold 26.2 quintals of soya white through
e-NAM (Direct Purchase Centre) and saved a
substantial amount. He accumulated INR 1,427
through additional commission and INR 1,501 via
reduced hamali (loading) charges. He received
a benefit of INR 2,929 in a single transaction of
produce worth about INR 70,000. By selling 270
quintals of soya, Vidyasagar earned more than INR
30,000 that otherwise would have gone to fill the
coffers of commission agents. The online transaction
platform also ensured that Vidyasagar received
payment for his produce within 24 hours of the sale,
further enhancing the efficiency of his agricultural
endeavours.
Source: e-NAM website, Success Stories, Ministry of Agriculture

and Farmers Welfare, GoI.

Table 20. Overview of market access via e-NAM as of November 11, 2023
Particulars Value
Figure 21:Number
Overview of premium and claims paid under the Pradhan
of mandis 1,389 Mantri Fasal Bima
Yojana (PMFBY) insurance scheme since its launch in 2016
Number of states 23
350.0of union territories
Number 4
300.0of farmers (million)
Number 17.6
Amount (in billions)
250.0of traders
Number 245,000
200.0
Volume of commodities (million tons) 79.7
Value150.0
of trade (INR trillion) 2.8
100.0
Source: e-NAM website, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, GoI.
50.0
3.5. P0.0
rocurement Operations and Minimum Support
2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2021/21 2021/22 2022/23
Price
Year
Over the last two decades, the trends in the procurement of two prime
commodities, wheat andGross Premium
rice, have exhibited Claims Paid
a fluctuating pattern. In
2022/23, the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and state government
agencies procured 56.9 million tons of rice, provided benefits of more
thanProgress
Source: PMFBY, INR 1.6 trillion to over
and Achievements, 11.2
2016/21 million
Ministry farmersand(Figure
of Agriculture Farmers22).
Welfare, GoI
Figure 22: Procurement of rice and wheat between 2003/04 and 2022/23
Figure 22. Procurement of rice and wheat between 2003/04 and 2022/23
70.0
60.0
50.0
Quantity (million tons)
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Year
Rice Wheat
Source: Statistical data, Food Corporation of India.
Source: Statistical data, Food Corporation of India

One of the challenges surrounding foodgrain procurement is how to
implement it across states so as to maximally benefit farmers. Figures 23
and 24 illustrate disparities between states in terms of how the procurement
system is implemented. In the case of rice, Punjab, Telangana, Chattisgarh,
Odisha,
Figure and Uttar Pradesh
23: Procurement constitute
of rice and 60different
wheat from percentstates
of the procurement share,
which benefits a high proportion of farmers from these states. In the case of
wheat, more than 90 percent of the procurement
(A) RICE (TE 2022/23)
is from Punjab, Madhya
(B) WHEAT (TE 2023/24)
Figure 23:23:
Figure Procurement of rice
Procurement and
of rice
Assam wheat
and from
wheat different
from states
different states
UK Others
Figure 23. Procurement
UK0.5% of rice and wheat from different states
0.2% 0.3%
1.2%
(A)(A)
RICE (TE(TE
RICE MH
2022/23)
2022/23) (B)(B)
WHEAT (TE
WHEAT 2023/24)
(TE Raj
2023/24)
WB 2.1% UP 3.2%
3.7% Punjab 7.0%
Others Assam 21.9%
Assam Others
UKUK Others
Bihar UK UK 0.5%
Bihar
TN 1.9% 0.5% 0.2%0.3%
0.2% 0.3%
0.5%
4.7% 1.2%
MP 4.1% 1.2%
MH RajRaj Punjab
MH
5.0% WBWB 2.1%2.1% Haryana
UPUP 3.2%
3.2% 39.6%
3.7%3.7% Punjab
Punjab 7.0%
21.5%
7.0%
Hy Others
Others 21.9%
21.9% Bihar
Bihar
Bihar Bihar
TN 1.9%
6.6%
4.7%4.7% TN 1.9% TG 0.5%
0.5%
4.1% 4.1% Punjab
Punjab
MPMP 14.7%
AP
5.0% Haryana
Haryana 39.6%
39.6%
5.0%
7.4% 21.5%
21.5%
Hy Hy
6.6% UP
6.6% CG TGTG
7.6% Odisha 14.7%
9.6%14.7% MP
AP AP
7.4%
7.4% 8.9% 27.8%
UP UP CGCG
7.6% Odisha 9.6%
7.6% 9.6% MPMP
Odisha
Punjab TG CG
8.9% Odisha UP 27.8%
AP Hy
8.9%
MP Bihar TN Punjab 27.8%MP Haryana UP
WB MH Others UK Assam Raj Bihar UK Others
Punjab TG TG
Punjab CG CG Odisha UP UP
Odisha Punjab MPMP
Punjab Haryana UPUP
Haryana
AP AP Hy Hy MP MP Bihar TNTN
Bihar Source: Statistical data, Food Corporation of India
WBWB MHMH Others UKUK
Others Assam
Assam RajRaj Bihar
Bihar UKUK Others
Others
Source: Statistical data, Food Corporation Source:
of Source:
India. Statistical
Statistical data,
data, Food
Food Corporation
Corporation of India
of India
Note:
Note: TE: TE: Triennium
Triennium Ending
Ending
Figure 24: Percentage

Figure of beneficiary
24. Percentage farmersfarmers
of beneficiary in different states in 2022/23
in different states in 2022/23
Figure
Figure 24:24: Percentage
Percentage of beneficiary
of beneficiary farmers
farmers in in different
different states
states in in 2022/23
2022/23
(a) Rice (b) Wheat
100.0 (a)(a) Rice
Rice 90.0 (b)(b) Wheat
Wheat
90.0
100.0 90.0
80.0
Beneficiary farmers (%)
100.090.0
80.0 90.0
80.0
90.080.0 80.0 70.0

70.0
80.070.0 70.0
60.0
60.0 70.0
60.0
70.060.0
50.0
60.050.0 60.0 50.0
50.0
40.0
50.040.0 50.0 40.0
40.0
30.0
40.030.0 40.0 30.0
30.0
30.020.0
20.0 30.0 20.0
20.0
20.010.0
10.0 20.0
10.0 0.0 10.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 10.00.0
0.0 0.0
Punjab
Chattisgarh
Hyderabad
Odisha
Pradesh
Telangana
Nadu
Maharashtra
TamilPradesh
India
Bengal
Pradesh
Punjab
Chattisgarh
Hyderabad
Odisha
Nadu
WestPradesh
Telangana
Maharashtra
Madhya Pradesh
AllIndia
Bengal
Pradesh
Punjab
Chattisgarh
Hyderabad
Odisha
Pradesh
Telangana
Nadu
Maharashtra
Pradesh
All India
Bengal
Pradesh
Tamil
AndhraAll
West
Tamil
Andhra
Uttar
Madhya
West
Andhra
Uttar
Uttar
Madhya
States States
States
States States States

Source:
Source: StatisticalStatistical data, Food
data, Food Corporation of India Corporation of India.

Pradesh, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh, which illustrates the low coverage
of procurement operations in the majority of states. The percentage of
farmers benefitting from rice procurement ranges from 6.5 percent in
Uttar Pradesh to 99.1 percent in Punjab. In the case of wheat, out of all
farmers selling to government agencies, the largest share of beneficiary
farmers is from Punjab at 85.6 percent and the smallest share is from
Bihar at 0.3 percent.
The government has undertaken various measures in order to shift

production from environmentally taxing and low-nutrient grains such
as rice and wheat to healthier coarse grains such as millets, pulses, and
oilseeds. The United Nations, at the behest of the Government of India,
has recognised 2023 as the “International Year of Millets”.
On the policy front, the average rate of growth in Minimum Support Price
(MSP) has been much higher for millets, pulses, and oilseeds than for rice
and wheat (Figure 25). The central government has initiated procurement
of pulses, onions, and maize at pre-announced or market prices through
the National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India
(NAFED) and the National Cooperative Consumers’ Federation of India
(NCCF). With the aim of making India self-reliant in pulses by 2027, a
Figure 25. Average annual increase in Minimum Support Price (MSP) of

Figure 25: Average annual increase in Minimum Support Price (MSP) of various crops
various crops
12.0
Average annual increase in MSP (%)
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Crops
Source: Commission of Agricultural Costs and Prices, Ministry of Agriculture &

Farmers
Source: Commission Welfare, GoI
of Agricultural Costs and Prices, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, GoI
Figure 26: Month-wise Wholesale Price Index changes for primary commodities over
the course of 2023 State of Indian Agriculture | 49
higher MSP announced for pigeon pea (toor dal), which will be followed
in due course by a similar announcement for black gram (urad), lentils
(masoor) and maize. This is expected to incentivise farmers to grow and
sell to these new procurement initiatives. Proceeds from a sale will be
registered in the portal and will go directly into the seller’s bank account.
This move will increase pulse production in India and also help ensure
nutritional security, soil fertility, and water conservation.
3.6. Agricultural Price Movements

3.6.1. Wholesale Price Index (WPI)
The Wholesale Price Index (WPI) is an important tool for monitoring the
ever-changing landscape of price dynamics at the wholesale level. WPI
stands out as a crucial instrument employed by policymakers, economists,
and businesses to assess inflationary pressures and trends within the
economy. The WPI data presented in Table 21 makes it apparent that the
WPI number for “all commodities” has experienced a modest 0.3 percent
increase. Notably, a surge is observed in the primary articles category,
particularly pulses and vegetables. In other categories, by contrast, WPI
numbers show a decline. This dip in the index may be attributed to
various factors including global market dynamics and shifts in demand
and supply patterns.
The graphical representation in Figure 26 illustrates the monthly WPI

numbers for major primary articles over the span of a year. The data
Table 21. Wholesale Price Index numbers for major commodities
Commodities November November Percent change

2022 2023* over year
All commodities 152.5 152.9 0.3
I. Primary articles 178.4 186.9 4.8
A. Food articles 181 195.8 8.2
Cereals 182.7 195.7 7.1
Pulses 178.4 217 21.6
Vegetables 232.8 257.1 10.4
Fruits 173.3 187.8 8.4
Milk 167.3 180.6 8.0
Contd...

12.0
Average annual increase in MSP (%)

10.0
8.0
6.0
Commodities November November Percent change
2022 2023* over year
4.0
Eggs, meat & fish 166.8 169.2 1.4
2.0
B. Non-food articles 168.8 163.4 -3.2
0.0
Oilseeds 199.7 185.4 -7.2
II. Fuel & power 162.8 155.3 -4.6
III. Manufactured products 141.3 140.4 -0.6
Food products Crops
164.6 161.9 -1.6
Beverages 129.1 131.7 -18.4
Source: Commission of Agricultural Costs and Prices, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, GoI
Source: Latest trade figures, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, GoI.
Figure 26: *Month-wise
Note: =provisionalWholesale
figures. Price Index changes for primary commodities over
the course of 2023
Figure 26. Month-wise Wholesale Price Index changes for primary

commodities over the course of 2023
400.0
Wholesale Price Index
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
Cereals Pulses Vegetables Fruits Milk Eggs, meat & fish Oilseeds

Source: Latest trade figures, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, GoI
reveals that, apart from vegetables, the WPI has maintained stability
throughout the year. Vegetables, specifically tomatoes, experienced a
significant surge in prices in 2023, particularly during the monsoon season.
This unprecedented increase in vegetable prices made a key contribution
to the substantial overall rise in the index numbers.
Figure 27 depicts the monthly fluctuations in WPI over the course of

2023. It offers a comprehensive perspective on the evolution of the

Figure 27. Percent change in Wholesale Price Index for all primary
Figure 27:commodities
Percent change in Wholesale Price Index for all primary commodities in 2023
in 2023

WPI for primary articles over this time span. The large change that
occurred
Figure 28: in July
WPI-based reflectsofa primary
inflation significant surge in theover
commodities prices
oneofyear
food articles.
The continuous month-to-month change in the WPI for primary articles
100.0
signals a noteworthy shift in the pricing dynamics during the period. This
serves as an important indicator of the economic landscape, prompting
80.0exploration into the factors influencing these fluctuations and
further
contributing to a deeper understanding of the trends observed in the
60.0
primary articles market.
Inflation (%)
40.0
The calculation of the inflation rate based on the movement of the
Wholesale Price Index serves as a crucial measure for monitoring the
dynamic20.0 shifts in prices. In November 2023, the annual (provisional)
inflation rate as derived from the All-India Wholesale Price Index is recorded
at 0.3 0.0
percent compared to November 2022. This positive inflation rate
is primarily attributed to a rise in the prices of food articles. Notably, the
-20.0
inflation rate of the food index encompassing “food articles” from primary
food items and ‘food products’ from manufactured items increased from
-40.0
1.1 percent in October 2023 to 4.7 percent in November 2023. Table
22 provides index numbers andPulses
Cereals inflation rates for all commodities
Vegetables and
individualFruits
components of the WPI over a three-month period.
Milk Eggs, meat & fish
Oilseeds
Figure 28 encapsulates the WPI-based inflation trends for primary
commodities
Source: Latest over the
trade figures, Ministry course and
of Commerce of aIndustry,
year. GoI
The graph illustrates the dynamic

Figure 27: Percent change in Wholesale Price Index for all primary commodities in 2023
Table 22. Index numbers and annual rate of inflation (base year: 2011/12=100)
(Percent)
Major groups Weight September October 2023 November

2023 2023*
Index Inflation Index Inflation Index Inflation
All commodities 100.0 151.8 -0.1 152.1 -0.5 152.9 0.3
I. Primary articles 22.6 183.6 4.4 184.5 1.8 186.9 4.8
II. Fuel & power 13.2 153.1 -3.4 154.1 -2.5 155.3 -4.6
III. M
anufactured 64.2 140.4 -1.3 140.3 -1.1 140.4 -0.6
products
Food index 24.4 178.4 1.9 179.6 1.1 183.1 4.7
Note: * = provisional; annual rate of WPI inflation is calculated over the corresponding
month of the previous year.
Figure 28:Figure
WPI-based inflation of
28. WPI-based primary
inflation commodities
of primary over one
commodities year
over one year
100.0
80.0
60.0
Inflation (%)
40.0
20.0
0.0
-20.0
-40.0
Cereals Pulses Vegetables

Fruits Milk Eggs, meat & fish
Oilseeds
patterns exhibited by vegetables, oilseeds, and eggs, meat, and fish,

highlighting their significant contribution to the overall inflation in the
food index.

This behaviour is often associated with a degree of price volatility where
these specific commodities experience notable price fluctuations over
time. This association between dynamic behaviour and price volatility is
further affirmed by Table 23, which unveils the price volatility observed in
key primary commodities. Calculated using the Cuddy-Della Valle Index
Table 23. Instability among major primary crops, 2014-23
Groundnut
Sunflower
Soybean
Tomato
Masoor
Moong
Potato
Wheat
Onion
Arhar
Rice
Jan 5.7 3.4 24.8 13.5 15.1 8.7 12.9 14.5 21.1 47.5 20.3
Feb 5.8 3.4 22.8 13.0 14.0 8.4 12.6 13.9 11.1 35.2 14.7
Mar 4.6 3.4 21.5 13.2 13.8 9.0 14.5 16.1 11.1 27.4 15.8
Apr 4.7 3.9 22.1 13.8 13.5 8.8 15.6 17.1 16.9 19.6 20.5
May 5.1 3.8 22.8 13.9 13.9 9.1 17.5 18.8 38.9 16.9 19.3
Jun 4.5 3.7 23.0 13.0 14.4 9.2 17.8 19.0 38.4 20.8 19.7
Jul 4.5 4.0 23.7 12.6 15.2 9.3 16.5 18.2 49.6 24.9 22.7
Aug 4.9 4.5 22.5 12.1 15.6 9.3 16.2 17.8 50.9 31.7 26.8
Sep 4.9 5.3 22.6 11.9 16.1 9.1 15.5 16.9 27.3 40.5 31.5
Oct 4.7 5.2 26.8 13.7 16.4 8.9 15.3 16.3 23.2 37.4 32.3
Nov 4.7 5.2 28.1 14.3 15.9 8.6 15.1 16.2 29.1 38.7 35.1
Dec 5.0 5.1 27.5 14.0 15.4 7.9 13.7 15.2 30.0 61.4 28.4
Source: Author’s own calculation based on data from Price monitoring division, Ministry
of Consumer Affairs, GoI.
and utilising monthly data spanning from January 2014 to December

2023, Table 23 highlights that while cereal prices demonstrate a relatively
stable pattern, pulses, oilseeds, and vegetables exhibit significant levels of
instability. The alignment between the insights provided by the graphical
representation and the quantified volatility in Table 23 reinforces the
understanding that certain commodities contribute to overall price
volatility, influencing market dynamics.
3.6.2. Consumer Price Index

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a crucial benchmark that serves as
a key measure of inflation. It provides insights into the average changes

in the prices paid by consumers for a basket of goods and services. The
General Index, on the other hand, encompasses a broader spectrum of
economic sectors, offering a holistic view of overall price movements.
Table 24 offers a comprehensive overview of key economic indicators;
Table 24. Consumer Price Index numbers

(base: 2011/12=100)
Year General index (all groups) Consumer food price index

2012/13 102.5 103.4
2013/14 112.2 115.9
2014/15 118.9 123.2
2015/16 124.7 129.2
2016/17 130.3 129.2
2017/18 135 137.1
2018/19 139.6 137.3
2019/20 146.3 146.5
2020/21 155.3 157.8
2021/22 165.1 165.0
CAGR (%) 5.0 4.6
Note: CAGR = compound annual growth rate.
it features the General Consumer Price Index (CPI-General) and the

Consumer Food Price Index (CFPI). Notably, since 2012/13 there has
been an increase of approximately 5.0 percent. This increase indicates
a favourable trend, commonly referred to as inflation, which represents
the evolving price dynamics that consumers encounter over time when
paying for a basket of goods and services.
The inflation rate calculated based on the CPI-General and CFPI

categorised for rural and urban monthly has been presented in Table 25.
In July 2023, the inflation rate in rural areas stood at 7.6 percent while
in urban areas it was recorded at 7.2 percent; during the same period,
by contrast, the CFPI, which specifically gauges inflation in food prices,
reached record highs of 11.0 percent in rural areas and 12.4 percent in
urban areas.
Figure 29 presents a month-by-month graphical representation of both

inflation rates and indexes for combined (rural and urban) set for 2023.

Table 25. Inflation rates based on CPI-General and CFPI, 2023
(base: 2011/12=100)
Particulars January February March April

Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban
Index
CPI-General 177.8 174.9 177.9 175.6 178.0 176.3 178.8 177.4
CFPI 173.3 177.4 172.9 177.4 173.0 178.4 173.7 180.0
Inflation
CPI-General 6.8 6.0 6.7 6.1 5.5 5.9 4.7 4.8
CFPI 6.6 4.8 6.6 5.1 4.7 4.8 3.9 3.7
Particulars May June July August
Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban
Index
CPI-General 179.8 178.2 181.9 179.9 187.6 184.7 187.6 184.5
CFPI 175.1 181.1 179.2 186.4 190.1 200.7 189.4 198.2
Inflation
CPI-General 4.2 4.3 4.8 4.9 7.6 7.2 7.0 6.6
CFPI 3.3 2.4 4.7 4.3 11.0 12.4 9.7 10.4
Particulars September October November*

Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban
Index
CPI-General 185.8 182.2 187.0 183.4 188.2 184.2
CFPI 186.1 192.5 188.1 194.7 190.1 196.7
Inflation
CPI-General 5.3 4.7 5.1 4.6 5.8 5.3
CFPI 6.7 6.4 6.6 6.6 8.4 9.3
Source: CPI data, MoSPI,GoI.

Note:* =provisional; CPI-General = General Consumer Price Index; CFPI = Consumer
Food Price Index.
The Consumer Price Index for Agricultural Labourers (CPIAL) serves

as a pivotal economic indicator, offering insights into changes in the
average prices of goods and services. This index is specifically tailored

Figure 29: Figure
Inflation rates based
29. Inflation on CPI-General
rates based on CPI-General and CFPI(combined)
and CFPI (combined) (base:
2011/12=100)
(base: 2011/12=100)
200.0 14.0
195.0 12.0
190.0
Inflation rate (%)

10.0
185.0
8.0
Index
180.0
6.0
175.0
4.0
170.0
165.0 2.0
160.0 0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Months
CPI-General CFPI CPI-G Inflation CFPI Inflation

Source: CPI data, MoSPI, GoI.
Source: CPI data, MoSPI, GoI.
Figure 30:to Expenditure on the Department

reflect the consumption of Agricultural
patterns and Research of
expenditure behaviour andthisEducation
(DARE) by the MoA&FW
demographic, providing a more accurate representation of the cost
of living for those engaged in agricultural work. Table 26 provides a
10000.0
comprehensive snapshot of inflation trends over the years, underscoring
9000.0 evolution in the economic landscape. The data reveals a
a notable
Expenditure (INR 10 million)
significant
8000.0 increase from negative inflation reported in 2014/15 to levels
of 6.07000.0
to 7.0 percent in 2022/23. These percentages are calculated using
the base year of 1986/87, which serves as a reference point for assessing
6000.0
the relative
5000.0
changes in price levels.
Table 4000.0
26. CPI for Agricultural Labourers and its growth rate (inflation)
3000.0
(base: 1986/87=100)
2000.0
1000.0
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
2021/22
2022/23
Weight
0.0
2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24
Year
799 822 849
877 884 902 958 1021 1061 1131
Jan
(-5.9) (2.9)
Source: Budget Documents, Ministry of Finance.(6.7) (0.8) (2.0) (6.2) (6.6) (3.9) (6.6)
Note: Actual expenditure and budget allocations are net of recoveries; MoA&FW = Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers
Welfare. 843 808 832 876 894 907 965 1026 1066 1140
Feb
(-4.2) (3.0) (5.3) (2.1) (1.5) (6.4) (6.3) (3.9) (6.9)

Contd...

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
2021/22
2022/23
Weight
843 811 839 873 893 910 976 1037 1067 1149
Mar
(-3.8) (3.5) (4.1) (2.3) (1.9) (7.3) (6.3) (2.9) (7.7)

848 813 849 876 901 913 987 1052 1081 1159
Apr
(-4.1) (4.4) (3.2) (2.9) (1.3) (8.1) (6.6) (2.8) (7.2)

860 813 853 878 905 914 1000 1060 1092 1167
May
(-5.5) (4.9) (2.9) (3.1) (1.0) (9.4) (6.0) (3.0) (6.9)

869 807 853 876 900 913 1014 1047 1097 1167
Jun
(-7.1) (5.7) (2.7) (2.7) (1.4) (11.1) (3.3) (4.8) (6.4)

877 804 849 870 895 915 1016 1038 1095 1170
Jul
(-8.3) (5.6) (2.5) (2.9) (2.2) (11.0) (2.2) (5.5) (6.8)

876 803 843 869 889 917 1010 1037 1095 1171
Aug
(-8.3) (5.0) (3.1) (2.3) (3.1) (10.1) (2.7) (5.6) (6.9)

873 803 843 866 887 924 1007 1035 1098 1175
Sep
(-8.0) (5.0) (2.7) (2.4) (4.2) (9.0) (2.8) (6.1) (7.0)

876 805 848 870 888 932 1014 1041 1108 1180
Oct
(-8.1) (5.3) (2.6) (2.1) (5.0) (8.8) (2.7) (6.4) (6.5)

878 811 860 872 891 940 1019 1049 1119 1186
Nov
(-7.6) (6.0) (1.4) (2.2) (5.5) (8.4) (2.9) (6.7) (6.0)

876 820 869 877 894 950 1018 1057 1125 1196
Dec
(-6.4) (6.0) (0.9) (1.9) (6.3) (7.2) (3.8) (6.4) (6.3)

Source: Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour and Employment, GoI.
Note: Figures in parentheses show percentage growth rate (inflation) of Consumer Price
Index for Agricultural Labourers.

4
Climate Change
and Sustainability
H ow agricultural activities are practised has a serious effect on natural

resources such as land, soil, air, and water. The Indian agricultural
sector accounts for about 80 percent of water use and 40 percent of land
use; it thus significantly affects the quality of natural resources across the
country. In most of the states where a wheat–paddy rotation is followed and
sugarcane is cultivated, the water table has been in a consistent decline.
Overuse and imbalance in nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK)
fertiliser use have negatively affected soil and water quality (Pathak and
Fogodiya 2022). Soil erosion and land degradation have also occurred in
many states (Gulati, Kapur, Bouton 2020). In a population-rich country
like India where food surplus and security are of prime concern, the
conservation of natural resources is of utmost importance (NAAS 2010).
4.1. Groundwater Extraction

In India, water withdrawal exceeds water recharge, which has already
led to a 36 percent decline of the groundwater table. Table 27 shows
Table 27. Extent of groundwater extraction in various states of India
State Total units Extent of extraction (%)

assessed
Safe Semi- Critical Over- Saline
(no.)
critical exploited
Andhra Pradesh 667 82.6 6.0 2.3 3.5 5.7
Arunachal Pradesh 11 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Assam 28 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bihar 534 88.2 9.6 0.9 1.3 0.0
Chhattisgarh 146 75.3 18.5 6.2 0.0 0.0
Delhi 34 8.8 20.6 20.6 50.0 0.0
Contd...

State Total units Extent of extraction (%)
assessed
Safe Semi- Critical Over- Saline
(no.)
critical exploited
Goa 12 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gujarat 248 73.4 9.7 1.6 10.1 5.2
Haryana 141 21.3 9.9 8.5 60.3 0.0
HP 10 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Jharkhand 259 94.2 3.9 0.8 1.2 0.0
Karnataka 227 57.3 15.4 4.4 22.9 0.0
Kerala 152 79.0 19.1 2.0 0.0 0.0
MP 317 73.5 15.8 2.5 8.2 0.0
Maharashtra 353 76.8 17.9 2.3 2.8 0.3
Manipur 9 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Meghalaya 12 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mizoram 26 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Nagaland 11 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Odisha 314 96.2 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.9
Punjab 150 11.3 6.7 4.0 78.0 0.0
Rajasthan 295 12.5 9.8 7.8 68.8 1.0
Sikkim 4 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tamil Nadu 1166 35.1 19.3 5.4 37.3 2.9
Telangana 589 54.5 30.6 7.5 7.5 0.0
Tripura 59 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Uttar Pradesh 830 65.2 21.0 5.9 8.0 0.0
Uttarakhand 18 77.8 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
West Bengal 268 71.3 28.4 0.4 0.0 0.0
A&N 36 97.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8
Daman & Diu 2 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0
J&K 20 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ladakh 2 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lakshadweep 9 77.8 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
India 6965 63.6 15.2 3.9 16.0 1.4
Source: Ministry of Jal Shakti, GoI.
60 | Climate Change and Sustainability

states and union territories that are experiencing significant stress on their
groundwater resources. A number of areas record large declared critical
areas due to over-exploitation of groundwater; these include Punjab (78.0
percent), Haryana (60.3 percent), Rajasthan (68.8 percent) and Tamil
Nadu (37.3 percent). Other states, on the other hand, are considered
“safe” in terms of water use efficiency, including states of the northeast,
Goa, and Himachal Pradesh. The union territories have shown varying
trends in groundwater extraction, with Delhi and Daman & Diu having
exceeded the groundwater extraction limit and being classified as “critical”
zones. Groundwater extraction does not follow any particular regional
trend and varies across states and union territories. Emphasis must thus be
given to tailored water management strategies to control over-extraction
of water and maintain the groundwater table.
4.2. Salt-Affected Soils

Increasing land degradation in the form of salt-affected (either saline or
sodic) soils in India imposes serious threats to the national food supply
in terms of production and monetary losses (CSSRI-NAIP 2014). India
has over 6.7 mHa of salt-affected lands, which cause an annual loss of
about 16.84 million tons of farm produce with a value of over INR230
billion (CSSRI 2015).
Soil salinity is most extensive in Gujarat (1.2 mHa); this is followed by

Maharashtra (0.2 mHa) and Haryana (0.04 mHa) (Table 28). Alkali
soils with elevated levels of sodium are particularly widespread in Uttar
Pradesh (1.3 mHa), Gujarat (0.5 mHa), and Maharashtra (0.4 mHa).
Salinity of coastal soils is significant in Gujarat (0.5 mHa), West Bengal
(0.4 mHa), and Andhra Pradesh (0.1 mHa). Among the states, Uttar
Pradesh reports the highest production loss (7.7 million tons), followed
by Gujarat (4.8 million tonnes). Gujarat faces challenges from all three
types of soil degradation, with a total affected area of 2.2 mHa and a
monetary loss of INR 100.63 billion (Mandal et al. 2018). Gujarat and
Uttar Pradesh have the largest salt affected area (>50% of cultivated
area) in the country. Gujarat is experiencing a loss of 74 percent of
its total income from agricultural production and UP is experiencing
a 79 percent loss (Sharma and Chaudhari 2012). The adverse effects
of problematic soils can be reversed by introducing a combination of
crop management practices and interventions of surface and subsurface
drainage in affected regions.

Table 28. Extent and distribution of salt-affected soils in India
(in hectares)
State Saline soils Alkali soils Coastal Total

saline soil
Andhra Pradesh 0 196,609 77,598 274,207
A &N Islands 0 0 77,000 77,000
Bihar 47,301 105,852 0 153,153
Gujarat 1,218,255 541,430 462,315 2,222,000
Haryana 49,157 183,399 0 232,556
J&K 0 17,500 0 17,500
Karnataka 1,307 148,136 586 150,029
Kerala 0 0 20,000 20,000
Madhya Pradesh 0 139,720 0 139,720
Maharashtra 177,093 422,670 6,996 606,759
Odisha 0 0 147,138 147,138
Punjab 0 151,717 0 151,717
Rajasthan 195,571 179,371 0 374,942
Tamil Nadu 0 354,784 13,231 368,015
Uttar Pradesh 21,989 1,346,971 0 1,368,960
West Bengal 0 0 441,272 441,272
India 1,710,673 3,788,159 1,246,136 6,744,968
Source: Vision 2050, ICAR-CSSRI.
Note: J&K = Jammu and Kashmir and A & N Islands = Andaman & Nicobar Islands
4.3. Soil Erosion and Land Degradation

Soil erosion in the cultivable areas of several states poses a threat to
agricultural production and to state-level earnings (Aulakh and Sidhu
2015). In India, a total of 9.2 mHa is affected by soil erosion, which is
almost 6 percent of the total cultivable land area (Table 29).
Among the states, Rajasthan suffers the most from soil erosion (20.7
percent) due to extensive arid and semi-arid zones, with large desert areas
that receive less rainfall every year (Pal 2019). Uttar Pradesh and Madhya
Pradesh follow Rajasthan closely and these three states together comprise
50 percent of total soil erosion in India (Kumar and Sharma 2020). Soil

Table 29. State-wise cultivable area affected by soil erosion in India
State Area ('000 ha)

Andhra Pradesh (including Telangana) 8,093
Arunachal Pradesh 666
Assam 3,248
Bihar 851
Chhattisgarh 3,733
Goa 1
Gujarat 984
Haryana 306
Himachal Pradesh 982
Jammu & Kashmir 1,369
Jharkhand 3,219
Karnataka 7,522
Kerala 490
Madhya Pradesh 12,262
Maharashtra 8,799
Manipur 122
Meghalaya 302
Nagaland 46
Odisha 2,227
Punjab 229
Rajasthan 19,029
Sikkim 45
Tamil Nadu 2,308
Tripura 109
Uttar Pradesh 13,075
Uttarakhand 1,018
West Bengal 1,332
Total 92,400
Source: Degraded and Wastelands of India: Status and Spatial Distribution (NAAS
2010).

conservation practices must be prioritised based on the severity of the
degradation, and a region-wise land management framework should be
developed to control soil degradation due to water and wind erosion and
anthropogenic activities.
An assessment of land degradation by various agencies and organisations

is presented in Table 30. It shows that the overall degraded land in
India has declined by 63 percent from 148 mHa to 55 mHa over the
past five decades. According to a study conducted by the National
Remote Sensing Centre in 2019, total wasteland in India has declined
from 17.2 percent in 2010 to 16.9 percent of the total geographic area
in 2019.
Table 30. Assessment of land degradation in India by different agencies/

organisations
Agencies/organisations Year Area

(mHa)
National Commission on Agriculture 1976 148.1
Ministry of Agriculture (Soil and Water Conservation 1978 175
Division)
National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA) 1985 53.3
Ministry of Agriculture 1985 173.6
Ministry of Agriculture 1994 107.4
ICAR-National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning 1994 187.7
(NBSS&LUP)
ICAR-NBSS&LUP (Revised) 2004 146.8
Indian Council of Agricultural Research, National Academy 2010 120.7
of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS) based on harmonised
database
Space Applications Centre (SAC), Indian Space Research 2016 96.4
Organisation (ISRO), Ahmedabad based on Indian Remote
Sensing Satellite (IRS) Advanced Wide Field Sensor
(AWiFS) data
Department of Land Resources in collaboration with the 2019 55.8
National Remote Sensing Centre (Wastelands Atlas of
India)
Source: Survey on Soil Erosion (MoA&FW 2022).

4.4. Climate Variations and Natural Calamities
The growth and development of agriculture has been significantly affected
by extreme weather events in the form of frequent floods, cyclones,
droughts, heat and cold waves, landslides, hailstorms, and thunder
storms. The total number of recorded natural disasters has increased
from 50 during the 1971-to-1980 period to more than 100 between
2011 and 2020 (Table 31).
Table 31. Number of extreme weather events in India over the past five
decades
Earthquakes
Heatwaves
Droughts
Cyclones
Tsunami
Floods
Total
Year
1971/80 21 20 4 2 3 0 50
1981/90 33 21 4 2 3 0 63
1991/00 46 19 4 3 5 0 77
2000/10 99 15 7 2 3 1 127
2011/20 71 17 6 2 6 0 102
Source: Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), Risk and
Resilience portal
Floods and cyclones predominate among climate hazards. Floods have

been consistent over time and across regions while cyclones occur mostly
in coastal regions causing billions in economic losses to agriculture.
Creation of an area-specific and timely disaster management policy is
essential; it should include appropriate crop planning to increase the
resilience of vulnerable farming communities and help them recover
from disasters. Flood-resilient crop varieties exist in the case of paddy but
much more progress can be made in this area of disaster management.

5
Figure 29: Inflation rates based on CPI-General and CFPI (combined) (base:
2011/12=100) Technology
200.0 Development 14.0
195.0 12.0
190.0
Inflation rate (%)

10.0
185.0
8.0
Index
180.0
5.1.175.0
Agricultural R&D Budget 6.0
A
4.0
170.0
s per
the 2023/24 budget, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers
2.0
Welfare accounts for 2.8 percent of the total Union Government
165.0
budget.
160.0Total allocations to the sector have increased by 5 percent
0.0 from
the previous year’s revised estimate of INR 1,25,036 crore.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Months
Since research is a critical channel of agricultural development and farmers
welfare, the Department ofCFPI
CPI-General Agricultural Research
CPI-G Inflationand Education (DARE)
CFPI Inflation
has been allocated INR 95 billion, an increase of 10 percent from the
revised
Source: CPI data, estimate
MoSPI, GoI. of 2022/23 (Figure 30).
Figure 30: Figure

Expenditure on the Department of Agricultural Research and Education
30. Expenditure on the Department of Agricultural Research and
(DARE) by Education
the MoA&FW
(DARE) by the MoA&FW
10000.0
9000.0
Expenditure (INR 10 million)
8000.0
7000.0
6000.0
5000.0
4000.0
3000.0
2000.0
1000.0
0.0
2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24
Year
Source: Budget Documents, Ministry of Finance.
Note: Actual
Source: Budget Documents, expenditure
Ministry and budget allocations are net of recoveries; MoA&FW
of Finance.
Note: Actual expenditure and of
= Ministry budget allocations
Agriculture andareFarmers
net of recoveries;
Welfare. MoA&FW = Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers
Welfare.
66 | Technology Development
5.2. Research Output
Technological improvements are key to efficient and profitable production
in agriculture. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
has displayed an unwavering dedication to agricultural research and
innovation, resulting in the development of a remarkable total of 2020
technologies across diverse domains. Each sector within ICAR has made
substantial contributions to this endeavour, as revealed by the data. In
the field of agricultural education, 87 technologies have been devised to
improve the quality of agricultural education and outreach. Agricultural
engineering, with 75 technologies, has focused on mechanising and
enhancing agricultural processes. Animal science has produced 244
technologies, enriching livestock management and health. Crop science
with 332 technologies, concentrates on crop improvement and protection.
Fisheries science has contributed 138 technologies, promoting sustainable
aquaculture and fisheries management. Horticultural science shines with
554 technologies, driving progress in fruit and vegetable cultivation.
Natural resource management has meanwhile produced an impressive
590 technologies emphasising sustainable land use, water management,
and environmental conservation. These achievements underscore ICAR’s
pivotal role in advancing agricultural practices, enhancing food security,
and ensuring India’s resilience in a dynamic agricultural landscape.
As shown in Table 32, between 1969 and 2023 extensive efforts were made
to create and release a multitude of crop varieties. In the realm of cereals,
3,176 varieties were released over this period. Between 2014 and 2023, 2,593
varieties were introduced, including 2,177 climate-resilient varieties and 150
biofortified varieties. In the category of oilseeds, 1045 varieties have been
released over the years, with 383 emerging between 2014 and 2023. These
included 356 climate-resilient varieties and 19 biofortified varieties. In pulses,
1,165 varieties have been released over the years, with 398 introduced in the
last 10 years encompassing 391 climate-resilient varieties and 6 biofortified
varieties. The data also extends to forage crops, fibre crops, and sugar crops,
highlighting the development and release of numerous varieties.
5.3. C
hallenges and Opportunities in Agricultural
Technology Development and Adoption
5.3.1. Challenges
Cost and time boundedness: Technology developers operate in a
competitive research ecosystem with regard to time and financial resources.

Table 32. Varieties developed by ICAR
Crops No. of No. of Climate- Biofortified

varieties varieties resilient varieties
released released varieties
(1969 to (2014 to (2014 to
2023) 2023) 2023)
Cereals 3,176 1,248 1,041 107
Oilseeds 1,045 383 356 19
Pulses 1,165 398 391 6
Forage crops 259 155 117 -
Fibre crops 585 313 209 -
Sugar crops 158 79 53 -
Others 50 17 10 18 (Horticulture)
Total 6,438 2,593 2,177 150
Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, GoI, 2023.
Demand, policy shifts, and emerging threats in agriculture need to be

addressed with suitable technological intervention. Iterative procedures
are also followed in improving the existing technology. Sufficient financial
resources with allotment of enough time from conceptualisation to
development thus facilitate the development of cost-effective technologies
and cater to the needs of the resource-constrained farming community.
Limited awareness and skills: The goal here is the achievement of

accelerated adoption of modern agricultural technologies and innovations.
One challenge is the remote location of a majority of small and marginal
farmers, which restricts their access to modern agricultural technologies.
A second challenge that needs to be addressed is the lack of awareness,
education, skills, and financial resources.
Fragmentation of operational holdings: Indian agriculture comprises

mainly small and marginal landholders. In most states, landholdings are
fragmented; as a result, diseconomies of scale and the resulting high
costs prohibit farmers from implementing technologies such as combine
harvesters and modified combines that allow for super straw management
systems, which provide a practical and more ecological (non-burning)
way to handle rice straw.
Gap in rural infrastructure: Rural regions often suffer from inadequate

infrastructure and facilities including lack of storage, poor logistics, and
difficulties of market access. These conditions impede the introduction of
new technology which, in turn, delays integration into the regional and
global agricultural value chain.
Challenges of climate change: Agricultural production, being biological

in nature, is vulnerable to increasing uncertainties and fluctuations in agro-
meteorological variables and to more frequent floods, droughts, and other
climate change related disasters. Climate-resilient technology is thus urgently
called for, as is research into the optimal conditions for its accelerated rate
of adoption and successful implementation.
Data management and confidentiality: In the era of IoT, data-driven

technologies such as automated precision farming raise concerns about
user privacy, copyrights, and possible misuse.
5.3.2. Opportunities
India is well poised to take advantage of a range of new technologies that
will move it forward on a trajectory of inclusive development. It will thus do
well to consider the available opportunities for adoption and dissemination
of these improved technologies and strategies.
Capitalising digital agriculture: Taking advantage of modern digital

technologies such as automated precision farming, drones, sensors, satellite
imagery, and block chain will help India to optimise resource use, increase
productivity, and reduce ecological impacts. Digital platforms and mobile
apps will also facilitate the flow of knowledge and information among
stakeholders (Klerkx, Jakku, Labarthe 2019).
Shifting to secondary agriculture: Shifting the focus from primary to

secondary agriculture through mechanisation will improve efficiency and
profitability and will widen the market for exports.
Harnessing the potential of cutting-edge sciences: The increased

thrust of research and development into frontier sciences like biotechnology,
bioinformatics, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence will help develop
customised technologies such asclimate-resilient high-yielding seed
varieties.
Agri-tech startups: The massive growth of agri-tech startups in India in

recent years showcases the opportunity for technological development and
dissemination. A number of these startups specialise in different aspects
of the value chain, addressing challenges in farm management, storage,
processing, logistics, and market access.

State intervention and collaboration: Several government initiatives
focus on inclusive development by providing farmers with credit and
assistance in technology adoption; these include Pradhan Mantri Kisan
Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) and the National Mission for Sustainable
Agriculture (NMSA).The government’s ongoing focus on enhanced
collaboration with line departments will further facilitate knowledge
transfer, technology swap, and access to the best agricultural practices.
To address the present and future challenges in Indian agriculture,

concerted efforts and a multistake holder approach are called for. This
should include producers, researchers, government representatives and
agencies, the private sector, institutions, and civil society organisations.
Such collaboration will help unlock the country’s potential and ensure
robust technology-driven, inclusive, and sustainable development.
Way Forward for
Sustainable and
6
Inclusive
Agricultural Growth
I ndian agriculture is positioned to take advantage of multiple

opportunities and at the same time faces numerous challenges. Given
the diverse nature of agricultural practices across the country, a one-
size-fits-all policy approach may not work. Some general action points
that could be adopted in each state to address challenges and unleash
opportunities in Indian agriculture are summarised below.
6.1. Accelerate Public and Private Investments in

Agriculture
In India, investment in agriculture is lower than that allocated for other
economic and social services. According to figures for various years from
India’s Planning Commission, the resources allocated to subsectors such
as crops, veterinary services, dairy, and fisheries do not match what
they contribute to the value of outputs. There is thus a call for greater
allocation of resources to the agricultural sector, especially for improving
productivity, promoting agricultural diversification, and developing
infrastructure for flood control, irrigation and drainage management,
and land development. Investment in livestock should be enhanced,
especially to provide better breeding and veterinary services, and the
dairy subsector shows immense potential with a strong smallholder bias.
Fruit and vegetable growing also offers huge potential and there needs
to be further strengthening of markets as well as cold storage, cold chain,
and warehouse infrastructure. Business models may be developed to
attract the private sector to invest in production as well as in postharvest
and marketing activities. The agricultural research and extension system
needs to be reenergised and sufficient resources should be allocated for
undertaking needs-based research. Higher allocation of resources to
agriculture will lead to more inclusive growth and alleviate poverty and
under nourishment. Provision of input support on fertilisers, irrigation,
and power should not be at the cost of investment in agriculture. Input
subsidies should be rationalised by targeting states, tenant farmers, women

farmers, and small and marginal farmers. Farmers cards should be issued
to all so that they may reap the benefits of government schemes.
6.2. Bridge the Yield Gaps

Huge yield gaps exist for most crops as a result of different farming
practices and levels of technology integration. Even with existing levels
of technology, important opportunities are available for transforming
agriculture. Adoption of higher yielding varieties and improved
technologies and practices can considerably enhance crop yields.
Through Front Line Demonstrations, researchers interface directly
with farmers in the process of introducing, monitoring and receiving
feedback around new technologies. The increased yields resulting from
this unique approach indicate the potential of proactively introducing
improved technologies into existing farm practices. In addition to newer
high-yielding varieties, better management practices also have enormous
potential to increase agricultural productivity. Better soil and water
management, seed replacement, adoption of resource conservation
technologies such as conservation agriculture, laser land levelling, and
direct seeded rice could prove very effective in raising crop yields,
especially in agriculturally underdeveloped states (Pathak et al. 2021)
(Table 33 and Figure 31).
Figure 31: Yield gap of major crops

Figure 31. Yield gap of major crops
7000.0
6000.0
5000.0
Yield (kg/ha)
4000.0
3000.0
2000.0
1000.0
0.0

Figure 32: Average yield of major food produce in India vis-à-vis leading produce
72 | Way Forward for Sustainable and Inclusive Agricultural Growth
30000.0
Table 33. Yield gap of major crops, 2021/22
Maximum Yield Minimum Yield Difference

yield (state) (kg/ yield (state) (kg/
ha) ha)
Cereals
Rice Punjab 4,340 Chhattisgarh 2,101 2,239
Wheat Haryana 4,533 Maharashtra 2,117 2,416
Jowar Andhra Pradesh 3,166 Haryana 527 2,639
Bajra Madhya Pradesh 2,533 Maharashtra 903 1,630
Maize West Bengal 7,158 Rajasthan 2,149 5,009
Nutri/coarse cereals West Bengal 7,028 Rajasthan 1,280 5,748
Pulses
Tur (arhar) Uttar Pradesh 1,196 Karnataka 666 530
Gram Gujarat 1,908 Chhattisgarh 725 1,183
Lentil (masur) Rajasthan 1,321 Bihar 850 471
Total pulses Gujarat 1,526 Karnataka 617 909
Oilseeds
Groundnut Tamil Nadu 2,553 Andhra 630 1,923
Pradesh
Soybean Telangana 1,716 Rajasthan 801 915
Rapeseed & Gujarat 1,996 Assam 636 1,360
mustard
Sunflower Haryana 1,926 Maharashtra 531 1,395
Oilseeds Tamil Nadu 2,290 Karnataka 942 1,348
Commercial crops
Cotton Rajasthan 558 Maharashtra 306 252
Jute and mesta West Bengal 2,900 Assam 2,117 783
6.3. Address Low Productivity and High Vulnerability

Low productivity and high vulnerability stand out as critical constraints
within the landscape of Indian agriculture. They cast a shadow on the
sector’s overall stability and sustainability. Despite substantial efforts to
modernise and adopt advanced farming techniques, the average yield

0.0
in India is less than the major producers. Figure 32 reveals the status
of average yield of major food produce in India and leading producing
nations like China and USA.
Figure 32:32.
Figure Average yield
Average yieldofofmajor
major food
food produce
produce ininIndia
India vis-à-vis
vis-a-vis leading produce
leading
producer
30000.0
Yield (kg/ha and kg/ an)
25000.0
20000.0
15000.0
10000.0
5000.0
0.0
Average yield (top producer) Average yield (India)

Source: FAOSTAT, production database of crops and livestock products, 2022.
Source: FAOSTAT, production database of crops and livestock products, 2022.
Note: Yield is kg per hectare for crops and kg per milch animal for milk
Note: Yield is kg per hectare for crops and kg per milch animal for milk
The sector at the same time grapples with high levels of vulnerability
that stem primarily from the impacts of climate change, erratic weather
patterns, and natural disasters. Figure 33 shows the districts in India that
experience medium to high vulnerability to climate change. Farmers are
often at the mercy of unpredictable conditions, making their livelihoods
precarious. Addressing the twin challenges of low productivity and
high vulnerability to climate change, natural disasters and increasingly
erratic weather patterns requires comprehensive reforms that encompass
technological advancements, improved infrastructure, and robust policies
that are aimed at enhancing productivity, reducing vulnerabilities, and
fortifying the resilience of Indian agriculture in the face of a rapidly
changing environment.
6.4. Promote Agricultural Diversification

Agricultural diversification toward high value commodities such as fruits,
vegetables, fisheries, poultry etc. in India has emerged as one of the most
important strategies for ensuring sustainable and inclusive agricultural

Figure 33. State-wise distribution of districts experiencing high vulnerability
to climate change
Vulnerable districts
38
Source: Risk and Vulnerability Assessment of Indian Agriculture to Climate Change

(Rama Rao et al. 2019).
growth. The share of high value commodities in total value of agricultural

output is increasing and their consumption is also growing much faster
than cereals and food grain crops. In the long run, increased crop yields
and prices contribute significantly to the growth of the crops sector.
Increased farm prices(terms of trade), however, may not be a sustainable
source of growth. Price-led growth would also not be pro-poor and
would threaten the food security of landless agricultural labourers and
even marginal farmers. Emphasis should be on a sustained increase in
crop yields through technological upgradation and diversification toward
high value commodities; this which constitute sustainable and inclusive
sources of growth. However Inadequate crop diversification stands
as a prominent constraint within the framework of Indian agriculture,
posing multifaceted challenges to the sector. The prevailing reliance on
a limited set of crops not only compromises the resilience of agricultural
systems but also exposes farmers to heightened risks associated with
fluctuating market conditions and climatic uncertainties. Figure 34 shows
the distribution of gross cropped area percentages at two distinct times
(2012/13 and 2019/20), demonstrating a nearly identical distribution.
The predominant focus on staple crops such as rice and wheat has led

Source: Risk and Vulnerability Assessment of Indian Agriculture to Climate Change (Rama Rao et al. 2019).
Figure 34: Percentage share of area to gross cropped area in two distinct periods
Figure 34. Percentage share of area to gross cropped area in two distinct
periods
2012/13 2019/20
6.8% 12.9% 6.6% 11.5%

3.2%
2.9% 14.8% 13.9%
2.1% 2.4%
11.4% 12.5%
50.6% 51.1%
Coarse Cereals Total Cereals Coarse Cereals Total Cereals

Total Pulses Total Fruits Total Pulses Total Fruits
Total Vegetables Total Oil Seeds Total Vegetables Total Oil Seeds
Total Fibers Total Fibers
Source:
Source: Agricultural
Agricultural Statistics atStatistics at (MoA&FW
a Glance 2022 a Glance 2022
2022). (MoA&FW 2022).
to an imbalance in the agricultural landscape, hindering the potential for

sustainable growth and economic diversification. The lack of crop diversity
also contributes to soil degradation and reduces the nutritional value of
the land. This constraint not only undermines the long-term productivity
of Indian agriculture but also impedes farmers’ adaptability to changing
environmental conditions.
Further promotion of horticulture, livestock, and fisheries will not only

contribute to agricultural growth but will also enhance farm income.
These commodities are very well-suited to the needs of smallholders as
they use mostly the family labour and provide regular and high returns.
These commodities, however, have higher risk of perishability and price
volatility. Linking producers with remunerative markets and developing
appropriate infrastructure such as cold storage and refrigerated vans
would be a prerequisite for promoting high value commodities. Several
innovative integrated marketing models have emerged. Conducive
policies and institutional frameworks should be developed to improve
smallholders’ access to these marketing models. To promote and sustain
agricultural diversification in the long run, greater emphasis should be
placed on value addition and on processing across the value chain of
high value commodities. India’s level of value addition and processing
is currently the lowest at approximately 10 percent; this compares
to 40 to 50 percent in developed countries (Bathla and Gautam
2021).

6.5. Link Farmers with Markets
Agriculture in India is dominated by marginal and small farmers. As per
the latest agricultural census, 85 percent of farm households undertake
farming on landholdings of less than 2 hectares and 68 percent of farmers
operate on less than 1 hectare. Their small scale prevents them from
marketing and retailing perishable and high value commodities. They
also lack information on the grades and standards that are imposed by
supermarkets and on the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures
that are required under the current trade regime. There is thus a need
to effectively link these small producers with remunerative domestic and
global markets. Successful models are already available in the country
but need to be upscaled. Attracting the corporate sector for investment
in markets, agro-processing, and land development is still a challenge.
6.6. Strengthen Institutions and Improve Rural

Infrastructure
In India, institutions have already been significantly strengthened and
infrastructure has been much improved. In many parts of the eastern and
northeastern regions, however, much needs yet to be done. Tremendous
progress has occurred in recent years in improving land records, however
correcting land records, settling disputes on ownership, and correcting
land lease markets remain a major challenge. To enhance the participation
of smallholders, it is important to strengthen cooperatives, farmers’
associations, self-help groups and the like for collective production and
marketing. Strengthening credit, insurance, input services, and extension
services would also assist in meeting the needs of smallholders. There
has been significant improvement in basic infrastructure, especially
the rural roads network, market facilities, and the power sector; these
improvements importantly support developmental activities in the
agricultural sector. This momentum needs to be maintained. The irrigation
and drainage network also needs to be prioritised for improvement in
order to increase production and minimise risk.
6.7. Harness Frontier Technologies and

Agri-Startups
Many fascinating innovations have emerged in the agricultural sector
which, among other things, improve efficiency, precision, and safety;
however the pace of diffusion of these frontier technologies in India is

slow. Frontier technologies that have immense potential to improve the
welfare of farming communities include: (1) biotechnology, (2) digital
technology, (3) nanotechnology, (4) space science and global positioning
system (GPS) tools, and (5) advanced engineering technologies including
sensors and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Breakthroughs in these
fields have enormous potential for application in crop production, animal
husbandry, fishing, and agri-business. These technologies can significantly
benefit producers and consumers, as well as the ecology, society, and the
economy more generally. The benefits can be realised through enhancing
productivity, reducing cost, increasing efficiency, empowering informed
decision-making, minimising pre-and postharvest losses, improving the
quality and safety of the produce, reducing emissions, and promoting
climate change mitigation and adaptation. Most of the emerging
technologies that have huge potential for revolutionising agriculture are
being developed in different agricultural and non-agricultural disciplines
and institutes. Their application is expected to help usher in future
revolutions in agriculture. Agri startups have emerged as significant players
in the introduction of innovations to the entire agricultural value chain
and the agri startup culture needs to be further nurtured.

7 References
Aggarwal, P.K., R. Chand, A. Bhutani, V. Kumar, S. K. Goel, K. N. Rao,

M. K. Poddar, U. C. Sud, Y. V. N. Krishna Murthy, S. S. Ray, C.
S. Murthy, A. Sikka, P. B.Shirsath, J. P. Mishra, M. Choudhury,
O. P. Chaudhury, A. K. Joshi, G. Sen, C. N.Tarpara, D. Kumar, R.
N. Sahoo, N. S. Kumar, A. K. Yadav, T. P. Singh, H. Kannan, G.
Satish Raju, M. Sudhakar, K. K. Singh, N. Agarwal, P. K. Reddy,
A. Shukla, A. Shanbaug, A. K. Srivastava, S. Mehta, P. K. Gupta,
A. Gopalakrishnan, B. S. Chandel, R. K. Duggal, V. Deshmukh, N.
Kotwaliwale, P. Vora, S. Kumar, and R. Lochan. 2016. Report of the
Task Force on ‘Enhancing Technology Use in Agriculture Insurance’.
New Delhi: NITI Aayog, Government of India. https://www.niti.
gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-02/EnhancingTechnology-Use-in-
AgricultureInsurance-30-07-21.pdf.
Alagusundaram, K., K. K. Singh, D. Durairaj, T. Mazumder, C. R. Mehta,

and A. Meshram. 2017. Report of the Expert Committee on Power
Tillers. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare,
Government of India. https://farmech.dac.gov.in/revised/Report_
of_the_Expert_Committee_on_Power_tillers_(Revised)%20(1)%20
(1)%20(1).pdf.
Alawadhi, V. 2023. Protecting Agriculture and Farmers: Empowering

Through Crop Insurance. Blog. Times of India.[Retrieved on November,
27] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/protecting-
agriculture-and-farmers-empowering-through-crop-insurance/.
Aulakh, M. S., and G. S. Sidhu. 2015. “Soil Degradation in India:

Causes, Major Threats, and Management Options.” Presentation to
the MARCO Symposium, Tsukuba, Japan, August 26–28. https://
www.naro.affrc.go.jp/archive/niaes/marco/marco2015/text/ws3-
2_m_s_aulakh.pdf.
Balaji, S. J., and P. Sharma. 2023. “Technology-Policy Trade-Offs for

Self-Sufficiency in Edible Oils.” In Agricultural Development Report,

2022-23, 29–34. New Delhi: ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural
Economics and Policy Research.
Bathla, S. 2014. “Public and Private Capital Formation and Agricultural

Growth: State-Wise Analysis of Inter-Linkages During Pre- and Post-
Reform Periods.” Agricultural Economics Research Review 27 (1):
19–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/j.0974-0279.27.1.002.
Bathla, S., andM. Gautam. 2021. “Post-Harvest Food Management, Extent

of Processing and Inter-Sectoral Linkages.” Agro and Food Processing
Industry in India: Inter-sectoral Linkages, Employment, Productivity
and Competitiveness, edited by S. Bathla and E. Kannan, 17–59.
Springer.
Bathla, S., and S. Hussain. 2022. “Structural Reforms and Governance

Issues in Indian Agriculture.” In Indian Agriculture Towards 2030:
Pathways for Enhancing Farmers’ Income, Nutritional Security and
Sustainable Food and Farm Systems, edited by Ramesh Chand, Pramod
Joshi, and Shyam Khadka, 251–296. Singapore: Springer Nature.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-19-0763-0_9.
Bathla, S., P. K. Joshi, and A. Kumar. 2020. Agricultural Growth and Rural
Poverty Reduction in India. India Studies in Business and Economics.
Singapore: Springer.https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-
981-15-3584-0.
Birthal, P. S., J. Hazrana, D. S. Negi, and S. C. Bhan. 2021. “Climate

Change and Land-Use in Indian Agriculture.” Land Use Policy 109:
105652.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105652.
Bora, K. 2022. “Spatial Patterns of Fertilizer Use and Imbalances: Evidence

From Rice Cultivation in India.” Environmental Challenges 7:100452.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100452.
Chand, R., and P. Kumar. 2004. “Determinants of Capital Formation and

Agricultural Growth: Some New Explorations.” Economic & Political
Weekly 39 (52): 5611–5616. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4415977.
Chand, S. Kishore, P., Kumar, S., and Srivastava, S K (2020) Potential,

Adoption and Impact of Micro Irrigation in Indian Agriculture. ICAR-
National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New
Delhi. https://krishi.icar.gov.in/jspui/bitstream/123456789/46404/1/
Policy%20Paper36.pdf
80 | References
Choubey, J. 2023. “Farm Insurance Premium Up, But Claim Settlements
On Steep Decline.”The New Indian Express, July 24. https://www.
newindianexpress.com/nation/2023/jul/24/farm-insurance-premium-
up-but-claim-settlements-on-steep-decline-2598007.html.
CSSRI (Central Soil Salinity Research Institute). 2015. Vision 2050. Karnal,
Haryana, India: ICAR–Central Soil Salinity Research Institute. https://
cssri.res.in/vision-2050/#.
CSSRI–NAIP. 2014. Strategies for Sustainable Management of Degraded

Coastal Land and Water for Enhancing Livelihood Security of Farming
Communities (Component 3, GEF funded). West Bengal: ICAR–Central
Soil Salinity Research Institute, Regional Research Station. https://naip.
icar.gov.in/download/gef-land-degradation.pdf.
Damodaran, H. 2023. “The Other Oil Imports India Needs to Worry

About.” The Indian Express, November 21. https://indianexpress.
com/article/explained/explained-economics/the-other-oil-imports-
india-needs-to-worry-about-9033930/.
Devi, P. I., J. Thomas, and R. K. Raju. 2017. “Pesticide Consumption in

India: A Spatiotemporal Analysis.”Agricultural Economics Research
Review 30(1): 163–172.
Dhar, B. 2023. “Export Controls Won’t Solve Indian Agriculture’s Deeper

Problems.”East Asia Forum, December 1. https://www.eastasiaforum.
org/2023/12/01/export-controls-wont-solve-indian-agricultures-deeper-
problems/.
Dhanya, V., Shukla, A.K., & Kumar, R. (2020). Food Processing Industry
in India: Challenges and Potential. Department of Economic and
Policy Research, Reserve Bank of India. https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/
BS_ViewBulletin.aspx?Id=18823
ESCAP (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific).
2023. Overview of Risk and Resilience in Asia-Pacific. https://rrp.
unescap.org/
Goswami, M., A. K. Gupta, R. Kishan, S. Baidya, Y. I. Khan, S. Prakash, A.

Premkumar, and S. Nautiyal. 2023. “An Evaluation of Climate Resilient
Agricultural Practices in India: A Narrative Synthesis of Literature.”
Environmental Sustainability 6(1): 7–23. https://link.springer.com/
article/10.1007/s42398-022-00255-4.

GTRI (Global Trade Research Initiative). 2023. India’s Agriculture Trade
2023.https://gtri.co.in/DisplayFlagshipReports.aspx?ID=27.
Gulati, A., and R. Juneja. 2022. “Transforming Indian Agriculture.” In

Indian Agriculture Towards 2030: Pathways for Enhancing Farmers’
Income, Nutritional Security and Sustainable Food and Farm Systems,
edited by Ramesh Chand, Pramod Joshi, and Shyam Khadka. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0763-0.
Gulati, A., D. Kapur, and M. M. Bouton. 2020. “Reforming Indian

Agriculture.”Economic & Political Weekly 55 (11): 35–42. https://
www.epw.in/journal/2020/11/special-articles/reforming-indian-
agriculture.html.
ICFA (Indian Council of Food & Agriculture). 2017. Farm Mechanisation:

National Round Table Conference. Indian Council of Food &
Agriculture. https://www.icfa.org.in/assets/doc/reports/RTC_Farm_
Mechanisation.pdf.
India, DAH&D (Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying). 2023.

Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics. New Delhi: DAH&D, Ministry of
Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India.
https://dahd.nic.in/schemes/programmes/animal-husbandry-statistics.
India, Department of Fertilizers. 2022. Year-End Review of the

Department of Fertilizers–2022. New Delhi: Ministry of Chemicals and
Fertilizers, Government of India. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.
aspx?PRID=1886054.
India, Department of Fisheries. 2022. Handbook on Fisheries Statistics

2022. New Delhi: Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and
Dairying, Government of India. https://dof.gov.in/sites/default/
files/2023-08/HandbookFisheriesStatistics19012023.pdf.
India, DoA&FW (Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare). 2023.

Mechanization and Technology Overview. New Delhi: Department
of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers
Welfare, Government of India. https://agriwelfare.gov.in/en/
MechanizationDiv.
India, DoA&FW. 2023. Area, Production, and Yield Statistics, Directorate

of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture & Farmers
Welfare, Government of India https://desagri.gov.in/statistics-type/
advance-estimates/#
82 | References
India, FCI. 2023. Statistical database. Food Corporation of India.
https://fci.gov.in/headquarter/statistical-data/wheathttps://fci.gov.in/
headquarter/statistical-data/rice
India, Ministry of Finance. 2023. Union Budget. Ministry of Finance,

Government of India https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/
India, Ministry of Jal Shakti. 2023. Department of water resource, river

development and Ganga Rejuvenation. Ministry of Jal Shakti. https://
jalshakti-dowr.gov.in/
India, Ministry of Mines. 2019. Indian Minerals Yearbook 2018 (Part–III:

MINERAL REVIEWS). New Delhi: Indian Bureau of Mines, Ministry
of Mines, Government of India.https://ibm.gov.in/writereaddata/
files/07012019094345Potash_F.pdf.
India, MoA&FW (Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare). 2018.

Agriculture Census 2015-16. New Delhi: Agriculture Census Division;
Department of Agriculture, Co-Operation & Farmers Welfare; Ministry
of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare; Government of India. https://www.
thehinducentre.com/the-arena/current-issues/article28682480.ece/
binary/T1_ac_2015_16.pdf.

Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, Progress and Achievements
2016-2021. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare,
Government of India. https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/
specificdocs/documents/2021/jul/doc20217111.pdf

Horticulture Statistics at a Glance. Horticulture Statistics Division,
Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India.
https://agriwelfare.gov.in/Documents/Horticultural_Statistics_at__
Glance_2021.pdf

Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2022. New Delhi: Department
of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Economics & Statistics Division,
Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India. https://
desagri.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Agricultural-Statistics-at-a-
Glance-2022.pdf.

Survey on Soil Erosion. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture

and Farmers Welfare, Government of India. https://pib.gov.in/
PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1810912#:~:text=As%20per%20
NAAS%20(2010)%2C,ICAR%20using%20the%20harmonized%20
database.

Contribution of Agricultural Sector in GDP. New Delhi: Ministry of
Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India. https://www.pib.
gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1909213.

Statistical database. Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine
and Storage, New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare,
Government of India. https://ppqs.gov.in/statistical-database

e-National Agriculture Market. Small Farmers Agri-Business
Consortium, New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare,
Government of India. https://enam.gov.in/web/

MSP data, Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices. Ministry of
Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India. https://cacp.
da.gov.in/
India, MoA&FW (Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare). 2023. Price

Monitoring Division, Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry
of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India. https://
fcainfoweb.nic.in/Reports/Report_Menu_Web.aspx
India, MoA&FW (Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare). Success

stories, e-NAM. Small Farmers Agri-Business Consortium, New Delhi:
Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India. https://
enam.gov.in/web/success-stories
India, MOC&I (Ministry of Commerce and Industry). 2023. Latest Trade

Figures. New Delhi: Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce
and Industry, Government of India. https://commerce.gov.in/trade-
statistics/latest-trade-figures/.
India, MoFPI (Ministry of Food Processing Industries). 2022. Post

Harvest Food Loss. MoFPI, Government of India. https://pib.gov.in/
PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1885038
84 | References
India, MoFPI (Ministry of Food Processing Industries). 2023. Annual
Report 2022-23. New Delhi: MoFPI, Government of India. https://
www.mofpi.gov.in/sites/default/files/mofpi_annual_report_2023_
eng_5-6-2023_new.pdf
India, MoL&E (Ministry of Labour & Employment). 2023. Labour Bureau.

Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India. https://
labour.gov.in/organizationsofmole/labour-bureau
India, MoSPI (Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation). 2023a.

DOWNLOAD TABLES DATA. New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and
Programme Implementation, Government of India. https://www.
mospi.gov.in/download-tables-data.
India, MoSPI (Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation). 2023b.

Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), July, 2022–June, 2023. New
Delhi: National Data Archive, MOSPI, Government of India. https://
microdata.gov.in/nada43/index.php/catalog/179.
India, MoSPI (Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation). 2023c.

National Accounts Statistics 2023. New Delhi: MoSPI, Government
of India. https://www.mospi.gov.in/publication/national-accounts-
statistics-2023.
India, MoSPI (Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation). 2023.

Consumer Price Index. New Delhi: MoSPI, Government of India.
https://mospi.gov.in/cpi
Jain, R., P. Kishore, and D. K. Singh. 2019. “Irrigation in India: Status,

Challenges and Options.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 18
(4): 354–363.
Jena, J.K., A. Gopalakrishnan, C. N. Ravishankar, L. K. Kumar, B. K.

Das, P. C. Das, A. K. Panigrahi, P. Shinoj, and V. R. Madhu. 2023.
“Achievements in Fisheries and Aquaculture in Independent India.”
In Indian Agriculture After Independence, edited by H. Pathak, J. P.
Mishra, and T. Mohapatra, 168–208. New Delhi: Indian Council of
Agricultural Research. http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/id/eprint/16084.
Jha, A., and S. Bathla. 2021. “Non-tariff Measures and India’s Agricultural
Exports: The Case of India–ASEAN Trade Agreement.” In Indian
Agriculture Under the Shadows of WTO and FTAs: Issues and Concerns,
edited by R. S. Ratna, S. K. Sharma, R. Kumar, and A. Dobhal,
117–138. Singapore: Springer.

Jha, G. K., A. Suresh, B. Punera, and P. Supriya. 2019. “Growth of
Horticulture Sector in India: Trends and Prospects.” Indian Journal of
Agricultural Sciences 89(2): 314–335. https://krishi.icar.gov.in/jspui/
bitstream/123456789/20603/1/Growth%20of%20horticulture%20
sector%20in%20India.pdf.
Jha, S. N., R. K. Vishwakarma, T. Ahmad, A. Rai, and A. K. Dixit. 2015.

Report on Assessment of Quantitative Harvest and Post-Harvest Losses
of Major Crops and Commodities in India. Ludhiana, India: ICAR-
All India Coordinated Research Project on Post-Harvest Technology.
Kancharla, B. 2021. PM-KISAN Transactions: Less than 1% Failure Rate

but Wide Variation Across States. FACTLY, September 17. https://
factly.in/pm-kisan-transactions-less-than-1-failure-rate-but-wide-
variation-across-states/.
Klerkx, L., E. Jakku, and P. Labarthe. 2019. “A Review of Social Science

on Digital Agriculture, Smart Farming and Agriculture 4.0: New
Contributions and a Future Research Agenda.” NJAS: Wageningen
Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (1): 100315 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
njas.2019.100315.
Kumar, P., and P. K. Sharma. 2020. “Soil Salinity and Food Security in
India.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4: 533781. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.533781.
Mandal, S., R. Raju, A. Kumar, P. Kumar, and P. C. Sharma. 2018. “Current

Status of Research, Technology Response and Policy Needs of Salt-
Affected Soils in India: A Review.” Journal of the Indian Society of
Coastal Agricultural Research 36: 40–53.
Mukherjee, S. 2023. “Cotton Acreage May Drop by 10% on Falling Yield,

Low Price, Says CAI.”Business Standard, December 28. https://
www.business-standard.com/economy/news/cotton-acreage-may-
drop-by-10-on-falling-yield-low-price-says-cai-123122801036_1.
html.
NAAS (National Academy of Agricultural Sciences). 2010. Degraded and

Wastelands of India: Status and Spatial Distribution. New Delhi:Indian
Council of Agricultural Research; National Academy of Agricultural
Sciences. https://icar.org.in/sites/default/files/inline-files/Degraded-and-
Wastelands.pdf.
86 | References
NABARD (National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development). 2023.
Annual Report 2022–23. https://www.nabard.org/nabard-annual-
report-2022-23.aspx.
NABCONS (National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development

Consultancy Services). 2022. Study to determine post-harvest losses
of agri produces in India. Ministry of Food Processing Industries,
Government of India. https://www.mofpi.gov.in/sites/default/files/
study_report_of_post_harvest_losses.pdf
NCAER (National Council of Applied Economic Research). 2023. Making

India: A Global Power House of Farm Machinery Industry. New Delhi:
NCAER. https://www.ncaer.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/NCAER-
Report-Making-India-Feb-2023.pdf.
OEC (Observatory of Economic Complexity). 2023. Cotton (HS: 52)

Product Trade, Exporters and Importers. The Observatory of Economic
Complexity. https://oec.world/en/profile/hs/cotton?redirect=true.
Pal, D. K. 2019. “Degradation in Indian Tropical Soils: A Commentary.”

In Ecosystem Services and Tropical Soils of India, 85–103. Springer.
Parappurathu, S., C. Ramachandran, K. K. Baiju, and A. K. Xavier. 2019.

“Formal Versus Informal: Insights Into the Credit Transactions of Small-
Scale Fishers Along the South West Coast of India.” Marine Policy
103: 101–112.
Patel, A., Kushwaha, N. L., Rajput, J. and Gautam, P. V. 2023. “Advances in

Micro-Irrigation Practices for Improving Water Use Efficiency in Dryland
Agriculture.” In Enhancing Resilience of Dryland Agriculture Under
Changing Climate: Interdisciplinary and Convergence Approaches, edited
by A. Naorem and D. Machiwal, 157–176. Singapore: Springer Nature.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-19-9159-2_10.
Pathak, H. 2023a. Impact, adaptation and mitigation of climate change in

Indian agriculture. Environ Monit Assess 195: 52-74. doi.org/10.1007/
s10661-022-10537-3.
Pathak, H. 2023b. Self-sufficient India in edible oil: Achievements and

way forward. NAAS News 23(2): 1-5.
Pathak, H. and Fagodiya, R. K. 2022. Nutrient budget in Indian agriculture

during 1970-2018: Assessing inputs and outputs of nitrogen, phosphorus
and potassium. J Soil Sci Plant Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s42729-022-00775-2

Pathak, H., Ch. Srinivasarao and Jat, M. L. 2021. Conservation
agriculture for climate change adaptation and mitigation in India.
J Agric Physics. 21(1): 182-196.
Pathak, H., Mishra, J. P. and Mohapatra, T. 2022. Indian Agriculture after

Independence. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi
110001, pp 426, ISBN: 978-81-7164-256-4.
Rama Rao, C. A., B. M. K. Raju, A. Islam, A. V. M. Subba Rao, K. V. Rao,

G. Ravindra Chary, R. Nagarjuna Kumar, M. Prabhakar, K. Sammi
Reddy, S. Bhaskar, and S. K.Chaudhari. 2019. Risk and Vulnerability
Assessment of Indian Agriculture to Climate Change. Hyderabad,
India: ICAR-Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture. http://
www.nicra-icar.in/nicrarevised/images/publications/Risk%20&%20
vulnerability%20assessment%20of%20Indian%20agriculture%20
to%20climate%20change.pdf.
Saxena, R., D. K. Pant, P. Sharma, R. K. Paul, and R. Kumar. 2023a.

“Sustaining Long-Term Agricultural Exports from India.” Current
Science 125 (10): 1109–1115. https://www.currentscience.ac.in/
Volumes/125/10/1109.pdf.
Saxena, R., P. Sharma, and D. K. Pant. 2023. “Long-Term Facilitation of

Agricultural Exports.” In Agricultural Development Report, 2022–23,
35–43. New Delhi: ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics
and Policy Research.
Saxena, R., S. K. Srivastava, S. J. Balaji, A. Jhajhria, and Md A. Khan.

2023b. “Changes in Indian Agriculture: Household-Level Evidence.”
Policy Paper 39. New Delhi: ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural
Economics and Policy Research (NIAP).
Sendhil, R., S. J. Balaji, P. Ramasundaram, A. Kumar, S. Singh, R.

Chatrath, and G. P. Singh. 2018. Doubling Farmers Income by
2022: Trends, Challenges, Pathway and Strategies. Research Bulletin
No. 40. Karnal, Haryana: ICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat and
Barley Research. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_
ID3709243_code4188636.pdf?abstractid=3709243&mirid=1.
Sharma, A., M. Sutradhar, S.Monlai, andN. Kumari. 2018. “Present and

Past Status of Indian Agriculture.” Journal of Progressive Agriculture
9 (2): 64–79. https://juniperpublishers.com/artoaj/ARTOAJ.
MS.ID.556040.php.
88 | References
Sharma, D. K., and S. K. Chaudhari. 2012. “Agronomic Research in Salt
Affected Soils of India: An Overview.” Indian Journal of Agronomy
57 (3rd IAC Special Issue): 175–185.
Sharma, I., R. Chatrath, and R. Sendhil. 2013. “Challenges, Target and

Strategies for Sustainable Wheat Production for Food Security and
Nutrition.” Indian Farming 63 (8): 3–6, 17. https://epubs.icar.org.in/
index.php/IndFarm/article/view/54510/22980.
Singh, A. K. 2019. “Agricultural Growth: Performance, Constraints

and Strategy for Future Development.” In Growth, Disparities and
Inclusive Development in India, edited by Rajendra P. Mamgain.
https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/isbchp/978-981-13-6443-3_10.
html#download.
Singh, A. P., and K. Narayanan. 2015. “Impact of Economic Growth and

Population on Agrochemical Use: Evidence From Post-Liberalization
India.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 17: 1509–
1525.
Singh, K., and I. Sain. 2003. “Prospects of Agricultural Exports of India: A

Composite Index Approach.” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics
58 (4): 781–799.
The Economic Times. 2023. “India’s Horticulture Sector Holds Untapped

Potential Despite Challenges.”The Economic Times, April 25. https://
economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/indias-
horticulture-sector-holds-untapped-potential-despite-challenges/
articleshow/99763533.cms?from=mdr.
The Fertiliser Association of India. 2022. Fertilizer Statistics 2021–22.

New Delhi: The Fertiliser Association of India.https://fertiliserindia.
com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Fertiliser-Stat-Book-2021-22.
pdf
Tudi, M., H. Daniel Ruan, L. Wang, J. Lyu, R. Sadler, D. Connell, C.

Chu, and D. T. Phung. 2021. “Agriculture Development, Pesticide
Application and Its Impact on the Environment.” International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health 18 (3): 1112.
Usama, M., and M. A. Khalid. 2018. “Fertilizer Consumption in India and

Need for Its Balanced Use: A Review.” Indian Journal of Environmental
Protection 38(7): 564–577.

Varshney, D., P. K. Joshi, D. Roy, and A. Kumar. 2020. “PM-KISAN and the
Adoption of Modern Agricultural Technologies.” Economic & Political
Weekly 55 (23): 49. https://www.epw.in/journal/2020/23/special-articles/
pm-kisan-and-adoption-modern-agricultural.html.
Viswanathan, P. K., M. D. Kumar, and A. Narayanamoorthy (Eds). 2016.

Micro Irrigation Systems in India: Emergence, Status and Impacts.
Springer.
WITS (World Integrated Trade Solution. 1992. India Trade Summary 1992.
Washington, DC: World Bank. https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/
en/Country/IND/Year/1992/Summarytext#:~:text=Overall%20
Exports%20and%20Imports%20for%20India%201992&text=The%20
total%20value%20of%20exports,were%20imported%20from%20
124%20countries.
WITS (World Integrated Trade Solution. 2022. India Trade Statistics.

Washington, DC: World Bank.https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/
en/IND#:~:text=India%20had%20a%20total%20export,Most%20
Favored%20Nation%20(MFN)%20Weighted
90 | References
Table A1. State-wise progress under PMFBY and RWBCIS-combined, 2016/17 to 2022/23
State/UTs
Claims
hectares)
(100,000
(100,000)
10 million)
10 million)
outstanding
Total farmer
Total claims
applications
Sum insured
Area insured
Appendix
premium (INR
Gross premium
(INR 10 million)
(INR 10 million)
(INR 10 million)
(INR 10 million)
Farmers share in
Paid claims (INR
A&N 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.0
AP 88.4 76.9 49159.9 710.6 4,988.4 4,838.4 4,828.1 13.9
Assam 41.6 25.5 17402.9 14.2 705.1 271.0 210.8 60.2
Bihar 50.2 46.1 21749.1 383.9 2,444.9 749.4 749.4 0.0
Chhattisgarh 272.4 163.8 59475.1 1,161.3 7,328.2 6,309.6 6,220.9 88.6
Goa 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0
Gujarat 84.0 112.3 53812.1 1,499.4 12,045.3 5,417.5 5,232.6 258.9
Haryana 101.1 130.6 87252.7 1,875.7 6,584.4 6,057.7 5,891.3 166.5
HP 19.9 77.1 4526.8 172.2 543.6 308.2 291.3 18.6
J&K 4.5 3.3 2031.9 36.7 181.1 91.9 88.0 3.9
Jharkhand 44.6 19.4 10,733.5 75.2 1,236.8 572.7 98.1 797.1
Karnataka 148.5 138.8 63,746.4 1,706.4 14,117.1 10,151.2 10,123.1 153.5
Kerala 4.9 3.1 2,283.1 45.2 421.5 377.9 333.9 44.1

Contd...
State/UTs Claims
92 | Appendix
hectares)
(100,000
(100,000)
10 million)
10 million)
10 million)
Total farmer
Total claims
applications
Sum insured
Area insured
premium (INR
Gross premium
(INR 10 million)
(INR 10 million)
(INR 10 million)
Farmers share in
Paid claims (INR
outstanding (INR
MP 573.8 782.4 275,284.6 5,179.3 34,625.7 25,728.0 25,674.1 77.7

Maharashtra 841.8 485.7 187,318.8 5,012.9 38,385.6 26,114.1 25,849.8 483.3
Manipur 0.3 0.4 142.4 2.6 10.0 5.2 5.2 0.0
Meghalaya 0.1 0.0 26.4 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0
Odisha 365.0 91.7 57,068.4 1,126.1 8,654.0 6,232.5 6,150.0 83.1
Puducherry 0.8 0.5 307.7 0.2 22.3 29.1 15.7 17.9
Rajasthan 1,086.1 683.2 220,273.0 4,548.7 31,356.0 21,772.3 20,403.7 1,408.6
Sikkim 0.1 0.0 8.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.0
Tamil Nadu 238.6 96.2 58,874.5 959.9 14,129.4 12,758.8 12,699.8 58.9
Telangana 36.4 37.8 25,529.7 652.9 2,222.2 1,845.8 1,811.7 34.1
Tripura 8.9 1.5 1,014.6 2.6 29.8 5.1 5.1 0.0
UP 350.9 283.6 135,337.9 2,473.5 9,614.7 4,119.6 4,060.1 71.8
Uttarakhand 14.8 55.3 5,904.9 186.7 791.5 500.5 487.5 13.3
West Bengal 134.9 55.9 37,345.9 305.5 2,086.8 1,222.8 1,218.5 4.3
Total 4,512.6 3,370.8 1,376,633.3 28,133.0 192,526.3 135,480.7 132,450.3 3,858.3
Source: DA&FW, GoI.
Note: PMFBY = Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY); RWBCIS = Restructured Weather Based Insurance Scheme.

State of Indian Agriculture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of Indian Agriculture

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of Indian Agriculture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of Indian

Anjani Kumar and Himanshu Pathak

National Academy of Agricultural Sciences

Dr Anjani Kumar is Senior Research Fellow at

Dr Himanshu Pathak is Secretary of the Department

State of Indian Agriculture | iii

Immediate Past President

State of Indian Agriculture | v

Prof Bishwanath Chakraborty Dr (Ms) P D Kamala Jayanthi

vi | Executive Council 2024

1. Performance of Indian Agriculture 3

2. Input Utilisation Patterns in Indian Agriculture 25

State of Indian Agriculture | vii

4. Climate Change and Sustainability 59

6. Way Forward for Sustainable and Inclusive

1. Share of agriculture in GDP and employment in India 4

State of Indian Agriculture | ix

1. CAGR (percent) of different subsectors of agriculture,

State of Indian Agriculture | xi

I ndia’s agricultural sector demonstrated robust resilience during the

This document intends to highlight the impediments and challenges

State of Indian Agriculture | xiii

APMC Agricultural Produce Market Committee

State of Indian Agriculture | xv

xvi | List of Abbreviations

I n 2022, India celebrated 75 years of independence from the British Raj.

It goes without saying that the agricultural sector contributes significantly

State of Indian Agriculture | 1

It is against this backdrop that the National Academy of Agricultural

1.1. Contribution of Agriculture to GDP and

A ccording to the theory of economic development, as an economy

State of Indian Agriculture | 3

Source: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (India, MoSPI2023a).

Pradesh.5.0 A higher share indicates a more significant contribution of

Jammu & Kashmir-UT

on Arunachal Pradesh at 31.2 percent, which indicates the prominence

4 | Performance of Indian Agriculture

Figure 2: Agricultural GVA as a percentage of GSDP, 2023

Jammu & Kashmir-UT

States and UTs

1.2. Agricultural Growth and Diversification

State of Indian Agriculture | 5

Jammu & Kashmir-UT

States and UTs

GDP Agricultural GVA

Source: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (India, MoSPI 2023a).

6 | Performance of Indian Agriculture

Source: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (India, MoSPI 2023a).

Figure 4. Share of different subsectors in gross value of agricultural output

Crop Livestock Forestry Fisheries

Figure 5: Share of foodgrains

State of Indian Agriculture | 7

importance in the north eastern states, especially in Mizoram and Assam.

Jammu & Kashmir-UT

Crops Livestock Fishing and aquaculture Forestry and logging

Source: Ministry Ministry

8 | Performance of Indian Agriculture

State Compound annual growth rate (%) Horticulture$

State of Indian Agriculture | 9

1.3. Trends in the Production of Major Agricultural

6. Way Forward for Sustainable and Inclusive

1. Share of agriculture in GDP and employment in India 4

1. CAGR (percent) of different subsectors of agriculture,

1.1. Contribution of Agriculture to GDP and

1.3. Trends in the Production of Major Agricultural

1.7. Processing and Value Addition of Agricultural