Sie sind auf Seite 1von 43

WEL COME TO

SEMINAR-II

ON

MAJOR ADVISOR Dr. G.S. ANANTH

PRESENTED BY

NARENDRA NADONI Sr. M.Sc. (Agri Econ) PAL 0084

FLOW OF PRESENTATION
INTRODUCTION HIGH VALUE AGRICULTURE GROWTH PATTERN IN INDIA TRENDS AND COMPOSITION OF INDIAN AGRICULTURAL TRADE FACTORS BEHIND GROWTH OF HIGH-VALUE AGRICULTURE

FOOD CONSUMPTION TRENDS AND DRIVERS


ENGEL MODEL OF FOOD CONSUMPTION AND EXPENDITURE GROWTH IN FRESH FRUITS , VEGETABLES AND LIVESTOCK IN INDIA SMALL FARMERS AND HIGH VALUE AGRICULTURE POLICY IMPLICATION

CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION
The contribution of agricultural sector to national Gross Domestic Product has continued to decline over the years.
Fig. 1: Share of agriculture In total GDP of India (1971-2010)

Source: : National Accounts Statistics 2010 CSO

Agriculture remains a major source of employment.


There is a substantial change in pattern of production, consumption and trade in agriculture.

There is shift in production and consumption from foodgrains to high-value agricultural commodities. This transformation of the sector has profound effects on the nature of agriculture in India. HVA create opportunities for farming community.

This transformation has been called a silent revolution, inviting comparison with the Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s.
Definition : Agricultural goods with a high economic value per kilogram, per hectare, or per calorie, including fruits, vegetables, meat, eggs, milk, and fish are called has High value agricultural products.

HIGH VALUE AGRICULTURE GROWTH PATTERNS


Throughout the country, major shifts in dietary patterns are occurring, even in the consumption of basic staples towards more diversified diets. To meet the changing demands, production systems are also moving towards high value crops. The relative importance of foodgrains has declined during the past two decades. Due to shift in demand pattern towards high value crops, the farmers are also responding to market signals and gradually shifting production-mix to meet the growing demand for highvalue commodities

Table 1: All India Share and Growth Rates of Major Crops/groups


Particulars (2009-10) Foodgrains Cereals Pulses Oilseeds F&V Livestock Milk Meat Fisheries Fibres Cond & Sps Crop Sector HVA Agil. & allied sector Source: CSO (2011) Share in value of output from agriculture (%)
TE 1983-84 TE 1993-94 31.3 26.3 5.0 5.3 14.1 20.6 30.6 26.6 4.0 6.7 15.4 23.9 TE 2003-04 TE 2009-10 1980s 26.0 22.7 3.3 5.2 16.7 25.9 24.7 21.7 3.0 5.8 16.9 26.1 3.0 3.2 1.7 5.6 2.2 4.6

CAGR (%)
1990s 1.8 2.0 0.5 0.4 6.3 3.7 2000s 2.4 2.5 2.2 6.4 3.5 3.8

12.7
3.4 2.7 3.0 2.3
62.7
37.3

15.4
4.4 3.9 2.9 2.6
56.8
43.2

17.4
4.5 4.6 2.2 3.2
52.8
47.2

17.4
4.5 4.4 3.6 3.1
52.6
47.4

5.2
5.2 6.0 2.6 4.7

4.3
2.6 4.7 0.4 5.0

3.6
3.9 2.9 17.2 3.5

2.5
3.9 3.0

3.0
4.6 3.2

3.5
3.6 3.5

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Table 2: All India Share and Growth Rates of Major Crops/ Groups
Share in total cropped area (%)
Crops Rice TE 1983-84 22.81 TE 1993-94 TE 2009-10 1980s 22.94 22.62 0.6

CAGR (%)
1990s 2000s 0.78 -0.70

Wheat
Coarse cereals Total cereals Pulses Foodgrains Oilseeds Sugarcane Fruits & vegetables Cotton Others

13.24
23.68 59.72 13.36 73.09 9.77 1.97 2.91 4.39 7.87

13.20
18.48 54.62 12.56 67.18 14.80 2.12 3.82 4.13 7.95

14.24
14.84 51.69 12.08 63.78 14.34 2.48 5.10 4.68 9.63

0.36
-1.49 -0.29 0.09 -0.19 3.02 1.35 3.38 -0.97 --

1.40
-1.61 -0.02 -0.64 0.03 -0.87 1.91 2.5 2.18 --

1.30
-2.14 0.21 0.83 0.37 2.57 1.29 5.3 3.12 -

Source: Computed from Agricultural Statistics at a Glance.

State Level growth pattern


o High value agriculture is a major contributor to the economy in many states. o The share of livestock sector increased from 24.7 percent in TE 1998-99 to 27.2 percent in the TE 2009-10 at all India level. o The high value agriculture (fruits & vegetables and livestock sector) is the largest contributor to state economy in hill states like Himachal Pradesh (72.4%) and Jammu & Kashmir

Table 3:Share of fruits vegetables and livestock sector (%) in total value of output
States

AP Assam Bihar+ JKh Gujarat Haryana HP J&K Karnataka Kerala M.P. +Chhattisgarh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu UP + UK UP WB Arunachal Pradesh Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Sikkim India Source: CSO (2011)

Fruits and veg livestock FV & livestock TE 1998-99 TE 2009-10 TE 1998-99 TE 2009-10 1998-99 2009-10 10.3 14 22.7 34.3 33 26.1 22.9 17.8 20 43.9 24.6 32.3 30.5 33.8 55.1 11 11.8 23.9 23.9 34.9 3.3 6.5 31.2 31.2 34.5 29.9 41.1 31.7 31.3 61.6 34 33.9 33.8 38.4 67.8 19.3 23.2 18.9 20.5 38.2 14.8 22.1 28.2 22.3 43 4 5.2 9.9 22.4 26.9 27.6 18.2 22.7 22.7 20.2 40.9 33.6 40.5 9.6 14.8 43.2 3.7 4.8 30.3 32.5 34 1.5 1.4 30.5 35.8 32 20.6 22.6 22.2 31 4 42.8 9.3 13 23.8 26.9 33.1 9.3 12.4 23.8 26.8 33.1 25.3 35.5 26.3 22.9 51.6 31.3 24.4 18 27.1 49.3 23.7 29.5 26 27.7 49.7 22.2 37.7 43.3 30.5 65.5 20.5 15.7 25.3 30.9 45.8 12.5 33.7 19.1 17.1 31.6 14.6 18.2 24.7 27.2 39.3

48.3 42.9 66.1 35.7 37.7 72.4 72.3 43.7 44.4 36.8 42.9 55.3 37.3 37.2 53.6 39.9 39.2 58.4 51.5 57.2 68.2 46.6 50.8 45.4

TRENDS AND COMPOSITION OF INDIAN AGRICULTURAL TRADE


The exports of agriculture and food products increased from about Rs. 29.7 thousand crore in 2001-02 to Rs. 89.5 thousand crore in 2009-10. The share of high-value agricultural products in total agricultural exports has increased from about 16.4 per cent. Agricultural imports have increased significantly from 16.3 thousand crore in 2001-02 to 59.4 thousand crore in 2009-10. Marine products, which constituted about 18.6 percent of total agricultural exports in TE 2003-04, lost its share and accounted from 9.4 percent of total agricultural exports in TE 2009-10.

Table 4: Indian Export and import trend of agricultural commodities


Years 2001-02 Import (Rs. Crores) 16398 Export (Rs. Crores) 29782

2002-03
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Source: Economic survey 2010-11

19102
20552 21250 20498 30152 30298 38564 59485

38564
40983 41054 46789 61061 79851 83246 89548

Fig. 2: Trends in imports and exports of agricultural commodities and share of HVA commodity exports in total agricultural export

years

Source: Economic Survey (2010-11 & earlier issues)

Fig. 3: Graph showing commodity composition (%) of agricultural export


20 18
19.1
20

16
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
3.7
10.3 9.7

2003-04

2009-10

7.2

6.9 5.8

7.6

7.3

5.7 6.2 5.4

6.6

5.4

6.4 5.3

4.9
3

4.6

3.9

4.6

Source: Economic Survey (2010-11 & earlier issues)

FACTORS BEHIND GROWTH OF HIGHVALUE AGRICULTURE


1. Income growth: Engels Law: states that as incomes rise, the share of expenditure allocated to food tends to decline. Bennett's Law: states that as income rises, the share of the food budget allocated to starchy staples declines relative to more expensive sources of calories.

Table 5: Percapita income in India from 2004 to 2009-10


Years 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 CAGR Percapita Income (Rs.) 24143 27123 31198 35820 40605 46492 14.12 Percentage change 12.34 15.02 14.81 13.35 14.49

Source : Central Statistical Organization

2. Demographic factors
Demography is not a major factor, but it also affect the growth of high-value agriculture. Urban population prefers more of HVA products as compared to rural population In demography urban population plays an important role in increasing the demand for HVA products.

Table 6: Decadal Urban and total population of India


Change Urban population Urban Avg Annual Exp (%) (million ) (%) Growth rate percent 1951 361088 6244 1.72 1961 439235 21.64 7894 1.79 1.96 1971 548160 24.79 10911 1.99 2.22 1981 683329 24.65 15946 2.33 2.2 1991 846421 23.86 21761 2.57 2.14 2001 1028737 21.53 28536 2.77 1.95 2011 1210193 17.63 38994 3.22 1.64 CAGR 22.86 36.71 Source: CSO, indiastat.com Year Population

3. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in HVA Foreign investment in the food sector of developing countries is rarely targeted at direct agricultural production.
The entrance of foreign companies into the agricultural sector puts competitive pressure on local agribusiness companies. Foreign direct investment can promotes the growth of highvalue agriculture in one of three ways
i. Link farmers in developing countries with high-value export markets. ii. FDI in the processing sector may create a new market for highvalue agricultural commodities. iii. Foreign companies use their expertise and scale of operations to reduce marketing margins in the processing and/or retail sector

Table 7: FDI in High value agricultural products in India 2008-09


Country Switzerland USA Germany Mauritius Korea France UAE Amount (million Rs)

Switzerland
4.05 9.5 3.69 2.99 21.5

2782.10
2743.28 2569.88 2251.56 1229.30 524.07 477.48 386.90 12940
17.4

USA Germany Mauritius


21.2

Korea France

19.86

UAE Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia
Total

Fig. 4 : share of different country in FDI

Source: ministry of food processing, GOI

4. Growing demand for high value agricultural products


The annual growth rate in domestic demands for fruits and vegetables is estimated at 3.34% and 3.03% respectively There is a considerable increase in the demand for HVA products as compared to traditional agricultural products. Demand for high value products has been increasing over the years.

The estimated demands by 2050 are likely to be as follows: vegetables 199 Mt and fruits 146 Mt.

Table 8: Demands for various high value food products ( Mt)


Commodity Food grains Milk and milk products Egg (number billion) Meat Vegetables Fresh fruits Base year 200405 207.0 91.0 44.1 6 90.6 52.9 current 201011 235.4 113.7 60.8 8.3 108 67.3 projected 202021 281.1 141.5 81.4 10.9 127.2 86.2

Source: State of Indian agriculture, National Academy of Agriculture Sciences, New Delhi

5. Trade policy o Liberalization of trade Policies to promote trade. o The lowering of import barriers in developed countries has probably facilitated the growth of high-value exports such as fish and seafood products.

FOOD CONSUMPTION TRENDS AND DRIVERS OF HVA


The marked rise in availability of food and rising income have been accompanied by changes in the composition of diet.
Dietary change appears to follow a pattern involving two main stages (Kearney, 2010). 1. Expansion effect. 2. Substitution.

Recent data reveals that the share of food in the total consumer expenditure has fallen.

The average monthly per capita consumer expenditure (MPCE) in 2009-10 stood at Rs. 1471.54 in urban and Rs. 772.36 in rural India. The per capita total consumption expenditure in urban areas was about 90 percent higher than that of the rural areas, while in case of food expenditure it was about 44 percent higher.

Between 1987-88 and 2009-10, the highest increase in MPCE was observed in non-food expenditure in both rural and urban areas In case of urban households, the highest increase in MPCE was on vegetables (5.9 times), followed by beverages, etc. (5.4 times), fruits and eggs, fish and meat by over 5 times.

Table 9: Changes in expenditure on food consumption


1987-88 Cereals & their substitutes Pulses & their products Edible oils Milk & milk products Egg, fish & meat Vegetables Fruits & nuts Fruits & Vegetables Beverages, etc. Total Food Non-Food Total expenditure Cereals & their substitutes Pulses & their products Edible oils Milk & milk products Egg, fish & meat Vegetables Fruits & nuts Fruits & Vegetables Beverages, etc. Total Food Non-Food Total expenditure 41.54 6.27 7.88 13.63 5.11 8.23 2.57 6.18 9.41 100.8 (63.8) 57.28 158.10 37.1 8.44 13.2 23.8 8.85 13.1 6.27 16.8 12.0 139.7 (56) 110.1 249.9 1993-94 68.40 10.70 12.50 26.70 9.40 17.00 4.90 11.70 16.50 177.8 (62.14) 108.3 286.1 64.60 13.90 20.10 44.90 15.50 25.00 12.20 33.00 21.10 250.30 (53.9) 214.00 464.30 1999-00 RURAL 108.11 18.50 18.16 42.56 16.14 28.98 8.36 20.38 27.61 288.80 (59.40) 197.36 486.16 URBAN 105.92 24.25 26.81 74.17 26.78 43.90 20.68 54.28 34.05 410.84 (48.05) 444.08 854.92

(Rs./capita/month at current prices)

2005-06 106.72 20.02 25.46 50.94 24.31 37.88 11.75 26.10 29.97 333.15 (53.34) 291.38 624.53

2009-10 124.56 23.70 33.29 60.18 26.31 48.53 13.56 33.60 31.31 395.04 (53.6) 341.03 736.07

110.31 131.13 25.57 31.20 35.02 46.43 84.94 106.64 32.28 39.47 49.73 64.34 25.52 31.02 68.32 85.75 36.13 38.63 467.82 (39.93) 574.61 (40.7) 702.78 889.11 1170.60 1463.72

Source: Computed from NSS Report : Household Consumer Expenditure in India, 2010-11

Fig. 5: Changing Dietary Consumption Patterns (%) in India


70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Cereals Milk Egg, fish & meat F&V Beverages Total Food
55.9
41.2

1987-88

2005-06 Rural (%)

2009-10

63.8

53.3 53.6 46.7


36.2

46.4

32

29.2 16.1 13.5 15.3 7.3 6.5 5.1

14.9
10.7

14.5
6.1 7.8

10.5

Non-Food
60
59.3

60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Cereals Milk
26.6 23.6
22.3

URBAN (%)
40 40.1

44.1

17.1 18.2

19.1

13.9 6.3 6.9


6.6

16.1

15.7

12 14.6

15.5

Source: NSSO (2011).

Egg, fish & meat

F&V

Beverages

Total Food

Non-Food

ENGEL MODEL OF FOOD CONSUMPTION AND EXPENDITURE


while food demand is expected to increase with income, the food share of total budget is expected to decline as income increases. Rising income and improved access to greater variety of food is expected to change the food consumption patterns. Indian households tend to consume more high value products has their incomes rise, while their consumption of traditional staple grains remains stable or declines. Food is necessity that accounts for about half of total consumption expenditure of poor households, but share of food spending declines as households gain more income.

Fig. 6: Importance of food expenditure and HVA expenditure

Source : Computed from NSS Household Consumer Expenditure in India 2007-08

The Engel curve expressed as the relationship between household expenditure on an item and household income. Log-log inverse function is used for estimation. Consumer response to changes in factors affecting demand is measured by elasticity.
Income elasticity Price elasticity

i. ii.

Poor households exhibit a greater responsiveness, as given by the expenditure elasticity, to change in expenditure levels compared with high-expenditure households. For all income levels, households indicate comparatively lower income elasticities for staple products than for high-value products in both rural and urban areas.

Table 10: Expenditure shares and expenditure elasticity of food sub-categories in rural households
Low middle High All Low middle High All classes elasticity income income income classes income income income

Budget share (%)


Cereals Milk & milk products Egg, fish & meat Fruits & Vegetables Vegetables Fruits 43.0 6.2 34.3 12.1 24.1 19.7 30.7 14.9 0.47 3.01

Elasticity
0.30 1.93 0.14 0.88

2007-08 1999-00
0.25 1.57 0.29 1.20

4.7

6.0

7.6

6.5

1.61

1.23

0.85

1.10

0.97

14.9

14.6

14.6

14.6

0.90

0.77

0.64

0.72

0.65

13.7 1.2

12.7 1.9

10.9 3.7

12.0 2.6

0.81 2.15

0.60 1.75

0.39 1.36

0.53 1.62

0.43 1.59

Total Food

60.9

57.8

44.1

52.3

1.00

0.80

0.61

0.74

0.71

Source: Computed from NSS Report : Household Consumer Expenditure in India, 1999-00 &2007-08

Table 11: Expenditure shares and expenditure elasticity of food sub-categories in urban households
Low income middle income High income All classes Low middle High All classes income income income

Budget share (%) Cereals 33.1 25.1 17.6 16.3 20.8 22.4 18.3 0.38 1.77

Elasticity 0.25 1.07 0.16 0.54

2007-08 1999-00 0.22 0.55 0.25 0.53

Milk & milk 11.4 products Egg, fish & meat Fruits & Vegetables Vegetables Fruits 6.4 14.7

7.2 15.1

6.5 15.5

6.8 15.2

1.19 0.88

0.72 0.60

0.38 0.57

0.88 0.65

0.81 0.61

12.7 2.0

11.9 3.2

9.6 5.9

11.0 4.2

0.78 1.69

0.52 1.30

0.33 1.02

0.44 1.19

0.40 1.03

Total Food

56.4

47.6

30.4

39.5

0.81

0.66

0.56

0.62

0.57

Source: Computed from NSS Report : Household Consumer Expenditure in India, 1999-00 & 2007-08

GROWTH IN FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES IN INDIA


1.

Fruits production: The production of fruits during 2010-11 was about 75.8 million tones.

It is interesting to note that area expansion has been a major contributor to increased production. Variability in area and production of fruits was higher in 2000s than 1990s. Area and production shows a positive trend with CAGR of 4.40 and 4.48 per cent respectively.

Table 12: Area production and productivity of fresh fruits in India


Year Area ('000 ha) Production ('000) Productivity (Tons/ha) 1991-92 2874 28632 10 1992-93 3206 32955 10.3 1993-94 3184 37255 11.7 1994-95 3246 38603 11.9 1995-96 3357 41507 12.4 1996-97 3580 40458 11.3 1997-98 3702 43263 11.7 1998-99 3727 44042 11.8 1999-00 3797 45496 12 2000-01 3869 43138 11.1 2001-02 4010 43001 10.7 2002-03 3788 45203 11.9 2003-04 4661 45942 9.9 2004-05 5049 50867 10.1 2005-06 5324 55356 10.4 2006-07 5554 59563 10.7 2007-08 5857 65587 11.2 2008-09 6101 68466 11.2 2009-10 6329 71516 11.3 2010-11 6625 75825 NA CAGR 4.40 4.28 -0.19 Source: indiastat.com

Fig. 7: Production (%) of fruits in India by states


2.3 3.2 3.7 4.1 5 6.2 8.7 8.9 11.1 2.2 2.2 9.8 16.9

15.6

AP Maharastra TN Gujarat Karnataka U.P Bihar WB Kerala M.P Assam Orissa J&k Others

Fig. 8: Chart showing percent share of different fruits to total area


40 30
20.1 36.9 37.2

Production (%)
14.9 11.5 12.4 4.9 1.5 3.23.3 3 4.4 2.7

Area (%)
18.9 11.2

20 10 0

1.4

1.9 1.4 1.7 2.4

1.3 2

0.71.2

Source: Indian Horticulture Database, National Horticulture Board, MoA

2. Vegetable production: o With increase in the demand for vegetables the production of vegetables has seen a substantial increase in the recent years.

o Productivity growth is better than fruits productivity with average per annum growth of 1.7 percent since 1991-92.
o Uttar Pradesh was the largest producer of vegetables in India with share of 16.2 percent in national production in the TE 2011. o Potato is most widely grown vegetable in the country both in terms of acreage and production. o Area and production of vegetables witnessed an increasing trend with CAGR of 2.75 and 4.47 per cent respectively

Table 13: Area, production, and productivity of vegetables


year 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 CAGR Area ('000 ha) 5593 5045 4876 5013 5335 5515 5607 5873 5991 6250 6156 6092 6082 6744 7213 7581 7848 7981 7985 8217 2.75 Production ('000) productivity (MT/ha) 58532 10.5 63806 12.6 65787 13.5 67286 13.4 71594 13.4 75074 13.6 72683 13 87536 14.9 90823 15.2 93849 15 88622 14.4 84815 13.9 88334 14.5 101246 15 111399 15.4 114993 15.2 128449 16.4 129077 16.2 133738 16.7 137687 4.47 1.65

Source : indiastat.com

Fig. 9 Production (%) of vegetables in India by states


2.9 2.5 4.3 3.4 2.7 6.6 5.7 5.5 4 4.9 6.5 5.5
AP Maharastra TN Gujarat Karnataka U.P Bihar WB Kerala Assam Orissa Others MP Haryana punjab

16.1
13.3

16.2

Fig. 10: Production of vegetables in India by states


35 30 25 20
25.9 22.8 30.3 24.3

production (%)

Area(%)

15
10 5 0

10.2

10

8.6

7.4 7.6

7.2

7.3 3.4

3.7

4.7 4

3.4

5.3
2.3

4.2 0.9 1.6

Source: National Horticulture Board, MoA

3. Livestock production (including fishery)


India ranks first in the world in milk production. The per capita availability of milk has also increased from 112 grams per day in 1968-69 to 281 grams in 2010-11. The egg production during 2010-11 was 63020 million in numbers. The fisheries sector contributed 0.7 per cent of total GDP at factor cost. We are first in cattle, buffalo and goat in the world, housing16.10, 56.50 and 16.50 per cent, respectively, of worlds population. In sheep and poultry, we are 5th in the world. The contribution of livestock sector to agriculture has also increased from 19.8% in 1991 to 25% in 2009-10.

Table 14: Production of major livestock products and fish in India


Years Milk (mt) Eggs Wool (million no.) (million Kgs) 36632 38729 48.4 49.5 Fish (Lt) Meat (mt)

2000-01 2001-02

80.6 84.4

5656 5956

1.9 1.9

2002-03
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

86.2
88.1 98.5 97.1 100.9 104.8 108.6

39823
40403 45201 46235 50663 53581 55395

50.5
48.5 44.6 44.9 45.1 44 42.9

6200
6399 6304 6572 6869 7127 7608

2.1
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 3.7 3.8

2009-10
2010-11

112.5
121.84

59844
63020

43.2
42.9

7850
8290

4
4.83

Source : Department of animal husbandry, dairy and fishery, 2010-11

SMALL FARMERS AND HIGH VALUE AGRICULTURE


The share of small and marginal farmers has increased from 69.7 percent in 1970-71 to about 83 percent in 2009-10 and they cultivate nearly 41 percent of the arable land. Less than 1 percent of the farmers have operational land holding above 10 ha and account for 11.8 percent of the total cultivated land. The average farm size in the country has declined from 2.3 ha in 1970-71 to 1.3 ha in 2009-10. This reduction in farm size has been higher in case of medium and large farmers

Fig. 11: Changes in Composition (%) of Different Categories of Farmers


2.81 16.21 1.14 15.96

100

13.44 16.81

10.15 16.21

6.22 15.54

90
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 69.75

>4 ha 2-4 ha
73.64 78.24 80.98

82.9

<2 ha

1970-70

1980-81

1990-91

2000-01

2009-10

Avg size

2.28

1.84

1.55

1.33

1.23

Source: GOI (2011)

Smallholders' strength is their larger endowment of family labour. Small farmers control 61% of the area under vegetables and 52% under fruits, as compared to their share of 44% in the total operated area. There are evidences of small farms being more efficient than large farms.
Fig. 12: Share of smallholders in horticulture area and in animal population
80 70

77.8 72.7 61 51.9 44.2

%60
50 40 30

20
10 0

sheep and goat

dairy animals

vegetables

fruit area

operated area

Source: GOI (2011)

POLICY IMPLICATION
Supported by markets and adequate infrastructure. Need to increase investment in public infrastructure and processing and to promote institutions. The financial and insurance institutions should increasingly focus on high-value agricultural projects. Appropriate quality testing and certification procedures will have to be put in place.

Setting up of a Livestock and Poultry development board with required autonomy to oversee, monitor, and fund research and developmental programme is desirable.
Mariculture technologies need to be adopted with due consideration to the prevalent conditions, suitable species and market demands. It is necessary to equip the existing fish landing centers and harbors with proper facilities. Different models of domestic markets with suitable cold chains must be developed.

CONCLUSION
HVA can be looked as means to ensure food & nutrition security as well as higher profitability.

This shift in dietary patterns across states and income classes is also observed.
Trade in high-value products is increasing. For all income levels, households indicate comparatively lower income elasticities for staple products than the HVA products. The share of high-value commodities/products in total food consumption has been increasing.

Rising demand for high-value commodities