RASHTRIYA KRISHI VIKAS YOJANA RAFTAAR ANALYTICAL PATHWAYS FOR

RASHTRIYA KRISHI VIKAS YOJANA (RAFTAAR) ANALYTICAL PATHWAYS FOR PROJECT IDENTIFICATION 26 th April, 2018, Vigyan Bhawan Dr J P Mishra, Adviser (Agriculture) NITI Aayog

RKVY Genesis Approach Funding

RKVY: JOURNEY SO FAR… Deceleration in productivity, imports of foodgrains and low public investment in agriculture 53 RD NDC meeting on 29 th May, 2007 adopted a resolution to initiate ACA to States RKVY launched in 2007 to operationalize the resolution of NDC RKVY, as conceived, had two purposes: Encourage States to draw up District and State Agricultural Plans; and Increase their own spending in the sector to rejuvenate agricultural development

RKVY: APPROACH (XI Plan to XII Plan and beyond) XII Plan XI Plan Investment by states in established technologies, and infrastructure Inclusive investment-infrastructure and productivity Planning and funding - decentralized to states and districts Funding decentralized - larger direct contribution by States Focus • increased investment • higher funding to disadvantaged areas • farm income along with production • Innovations • Performance and disadvantaged areas • Infrastructure, productivity National Priorities: • • • Potential but unexploited areas-BGREI Chronic problems-VIIDP and crop diversification Specificity - saffron mission Bridging gaps-A 3 P, INSIMP, AFDP, NMPS Innovations- Public private projects and vegetables clusters 4

RKVY: SCALE OF FUNDING Positive Impacts • XI Plan – Rs. 22, 408. 77 crore released to states and UTs – Crops, horticulture, farm mechanization, NRM, Agri Marketing & Post-harvest management, livestock, fisheries, extension etc. • XII Plan – Rs. 34994. 8 crore allocated (RE). – Rs. 27600. 35 crore spent • Annual Plan – Rs. 4750 crore BE in 2017 -18 and Rs. 3600 crore in 2018 -19 (BE) – • State plan expenditures – increased from 1. 0% of GDP in 10 th plan to 1. 4% in the 11 th plan • State plan expenditures on Agriculture and Allied Sectors (excluding RKVY) – increased from about 5% in 10 th plan to over 6% in 11 th plan • RKVY stimulated the States to provide greater attention to agriculture – Some vital sectors benefitted • Significant deviations afterwards

Trends of allocations to Agri & Allied sector in State Budget during 2013 to 2016 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% AP AR AS BR CG GJ HP HR JK KL KR MH ML MN MP MZ NL OD PB RJ SK TL TN TR UK UP WB 0% 2013 -14 2014 -15 2015 -16

State’s budgetary support to Agri & Allied sector 8% 6% 2014 -15 over 2013 -14 2015 -16 over 2014 -15 4% 2% 0% -2% CG HP MZ MP OD SK UK UP ML AS KR MH TN JK TR GJ BR NL TL HR AP RJ MN AR PB KL WB -4% -6% -8% RKVY as an instrument to attract more investment in agriculture is fading -10% -12% 11 States in 2014 -15 and 18 States in 2015 -16 18 allocated less compared to the previous years

RKVY Priorities -Past and Present

RKVY: Priorities –in the past Macro level analysis…. . 80. 0 Crop sector dominated Overview of 70. 0 % Allocation 70. 4 Agriculture 60. 0 50. 0 70. 5 49. 4 46. 0 45. 2 43. 2 42. 8 40. 0 34. 9 34. 4 30. 0 25. 3 20. 0 19. 8 20. 8 18. 1 15. 3 16. 2 12. 0 10. 0 5. 7 2007 -08 2008 -09 Crop 17. 5 18. 7 15. 0 16. 0 11. 4 12. 3 9. 0 6. 8 6. 5 0. 0 21. 4 16. 9 6. 3 4. 6 2009 -10 5. 8 3. 5 2010 -11 Micro-irrigation 11. 2 9. 4 8. 7 2011 -12 Livestock 4. 2 4. 9 3. 9 XI Plan 2012 -13 PHM 6. 8 3. 0 2. 1 2013 -14 Horticulture 6. 5 8. 1 7. 9 2. 4 2014 -15

RKVY: Priorities -Immediate past State level analysis 120% Overview of Agriculture 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% CROP/INPUTS/EXTENSION Livestock/Fishery • • • NRM/IRRIGATION AGRI RESEARCH MARKET/COOPERATIVE OTHERS Huge Inter State and Intra sector variations Recurring expenses preferred-crops and inputs Investment in future technology, income/price realization activities least MZ RJ GJ KR NL HR KL HP TL MH AP All India ML UK Ar P OD JH WB GA MP UP TN TR AS BR CG 0%

RATIONALIZING ALLOCATION CRITICAL FOR CAPITAL FORMATION • Crop centric investment under RKVY PHM got the least – • – – capacity of project preparation and absorption Can it be linked with contribution to State Agri-GDP? 70. 5 70. 4 60. 0 Critical for future growth and Make in India initiative Many important sub-sectors allocated less RKVY: allocation to different sub-scetors in agriculture 70. 0 50. 0 % Allocation • 80. 0 49. 4 46. 0 45. 2 42. 8 43. 2 40. 0 34. 9 34. 4 30. 0 25. 3 20. 0 21. 4 20. 8 19. 8 18. 1 16. 9 16. 2 15. 3 9. 0 6. 8 6. 5 0. 0 2007 -08 Livestock 16. 0 6. 3 4. 6 2009 -10 Crop 5. 8 3. 5 2010 -11 PHM 11. 2 9. 4 8. 7 5. 7 2008 -09 15. 0 12. 3 11. 4 12. 0 10. 0 17. 5 18. 7 2011 -12 4. 9 XI Plan Micro-irrigation 4. 2 3. 9 2012 -13 6. 8 8. 1 7. 9 6. 5 3. 0 2. 1 2. 4 2013 -14 Horticulture 2014 -15

DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES – Impact on scale and outcome – Effect on outreach RKVY: projects sanctioned in varoious subsectors 40. 0 35. 0 36. 5 37. 4 36. 6 32. 6 30. 0 27. 4 Per cent projects • More than 20% projects to Livestock sector • Very thin distributionof resources in many projects 25. 0 25. 5 26. 1 30. 2 27. 8 28. 4 25. 6 29. 0 26. 4 26. 9 26. 4 26. 2 23. 9 27. 3 25. 6 20. 0 15. 0 12. 9 10. 0 5. 0 0. 0 5. 8 3. 5 11. 3 6. 0 4. 4 10. 8 4. 5 4. 2 12. 4 6. 8 4. 6 14. 3 4. 2 3. 7 16. 8 17. 2 4. 6 3. 0 4. 4 4. 2 14. 8 16. 1 12. 5 5. 4 4. 2 5. 9 3. 8 5. 0 3. 7 2007 -08 2008 -09 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 XI Plan 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 XII Plan Livestock Crop PHM Micro-irrigation Horticulture

RKVY Project Identification -Pathways

RKVY “NITI Aayog to undertake Statewise evaluations of RKVY for indepth evaluation of the projects sanctioned so that the benefits of………. to sanction projects can be dispassionately assessed”

Macro level analysis…. . RESPONSE TO PROBLEMS. . Based on the data of 2014 -2017 30% 27% 25% 20% 18% 6% 5% 5% 4% 1% 1% 1% COOPERATION 6% FERT & INM 10% INFO TECH 15% DAIRY DEV 15% 1% ▸ ▸ IPM EXTENSION FISHERIES INNO&OTHERS HORT AGRI MECH ANIMAL HUS CROP DEV 0% Inadequate response to identified problems Critical sector-marketing, water, post harvest and research got the least

Project Identification Pathway - A MISSING LINK • Production Growth 75. 7 70. 0 65. 6 67. 0 68. 4 60. 5 60. 0 55. 8 53. 2 51. 4 53. 1 50. 5 49. 5 48. 6 50. 0 46. 9 46. 8 44. 2 Per cent – Over 51% projects in < Rs 1 crore category emanated without SAP – More than 75% projects in >20 crore emanated from SAP – Non-SAP/DAP projects prevailed over SAP-DAP projects in terms of allocation 80. 0 40. 0 39. 5 34. 4 33. 0 31. 6 30. 0 24. 3 20. 0 10. 0 <1 Crore 1 -5 crore 5 -10 crore 10 -20 crore > 20 Crore <1 Crore Projects/ Allocation Projects with SAP Projects without SAP 1 -5 crore 5 -10 crore 10 -20 crore > 20 Crore

Project Identification Pathways A MISSING LINK Infrastructure – Over 65% projects in < Rs 1 crore category emanated without SAP – More than 56% projects and 65% allocation in >20 crore category emanated from non. SAP route – Non-SAP/DAP projects prevailed over SAP-DAP projects in terms of allocation Infarstructure 67. 27 70. 00 58. 05 60. 00 50. 00 Per cent • 80. 00 40. 00 30. 00 20. 00 10. 00 <1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 >20 Total <1 Number/allocation Projects with SAP 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 Projects without SAP >20 Total

RKVY Analytical Pathways for Project Identification

▸ ▸ ▸ Since 2014 -15, the inter-state allocations of RKVY funds are done without seeking DAPs States, due to change in nature of funding, questioned insisting on DAPs Still, needs well analytical pathway for addressing the problems identified

RKVY: Inter-State allocation criteria Percentage share of net un-irrigated area in a State to the net unirrigated area of all States Percentage of small and marginal farmers in the state compared to total number of small and marginal farmers in the country 15% Moving averages of the increase in plan expenditure in agriculture & allied sectors including animal husbandry, fisheries etc. in the previous 3 year period Average Gross State Value Added (GSVA) in agriculture and allied sectors in the last 3 years Inverse of Yield gap between state average yield and potential yields as indicated in the frontline demonstration data 30% Percentage of youth population in the state compared to total youth in the country 5% 20% 10% Incentivises all but reforms

Critical Path Analysis (CPA) for RKVY ▸ ▸ Prioritise projects to address the problems identified in inter-state allocation criteria Twin goals: ▹ ▹ Resource Allocation Number of Projects ▸ Identifying activities according to priorities ▸ Sequencing activities along with a timeframe

Non-negotiable for CPA in RKVY ▸ Preparation of DAIDP and SAIDP ▹ ▹ ▸ ~25 percent projects sanctioned to originate from districts TSUs set up with district level agencies as participants Ensure convergence with state level bodies ▹ Example: SLNA for watershed projects ▸ ~50 percent investment on hard infrastructure ▸ ~75 percent projects from SAIDP route

CPA as a means to achieve. . . ▸ ▸ Allocation among sub-sectors based on analysis of growth potential Congruence of technical areas with sub-sector focus ▹ ▸ Identify activities for priorities in plans ▹ ▸ Example: priority-rainfed areas; activity-micro-irrigation Bridge need for augmentation through RKVY funds ▹ ▸ Example: technical area-market development; sub-sector-horticulture Example, FPOs, Post Harvest Management, Value Chain Allocation on national priorities ▹ Example, Market Infrastructure, Gr. AMs

Thanks….