| |
|
|
The
salient features of APMIP are |
| |
|
| |
 First
Project on Microirrigation in India. |
| |
Use
of only BIS certified products. |
| |
use
of fertigation Equipment. |
| |
Operation
& Maintenance by MI companies for 5 years. |
| |
Penalties
to MI supplier for violations. |
| |
|
|
Objectives |
| |
|
| |
Increased
crop productivity. |
| |
Improved
quality of agriculture produce. |
| |
Conservation
of water and sustainable use of water. |
| |
Higher
energy efficiency in agriculture sector. |
| |
Higher
fertilizer use efficiency and saving in fertilizer. |
| |
Savingin power consumption. |
| |
Saving
in labour expenses. |
| |
To
empower the farmers with improved technological packages
including new growing methods, irrigation, fertigation and crop management practices
to overcome unpredictable
agricultural diverse conditions. |
| |
|
 |
Special
benefits proposed by Government and banks (Apart from
subsidy) |
| |
|
| |
Cost
of MI system reduced through fair and effective negotiations. |
| |
Waiver
of stamp duty on all documents while taking loans. |
| |
Banks
reduced interest rates to 9% (SF, MF) & 10% other
farmers. |
| |
Banks
relaxed collateral security norms up to Rs.50,000/- loan. |
| |
Insurance
coverage for MI systems @ 0.25% premium. |
| |
Payment
of 4% VAT by the GOAP (subject to changes made by GOI
in payment %) on behalf
of the beneficiary farmer. |
| |
|
|
Systems provided |
| |
|
| |
Drip |
| |
Sprinklers |
| |
Rain Guns |
| |
Family Drips |
| |
Micro Jets |
| |
Micro & Mini Sprinkler |
| |
|
|
Subsidy eligibility |
| |
|
| |
Subsidy permitted to the farmers is 70% for both Drip and Sprinkler with a subsidy limit of Rs 50,000 per family. GOI has been supporting Microirrigation from 2005-06 onwards under “Centrally Sponsored Scheme”. Out of the total cost of the MI System, 40% is borne by the Central Government, 30% by the State Government and the remaining 30% is the beneficiary share either through their own resources or soft loan from financial institutions. |
| |
|
|
Implementing
Agency |
| |
|
| |
State Level |
| |
APMIP is implementing by Horticulture Department, with the following organization pattern. |
| |
|
| |
ORGANOGRAM (STATE LEVEL) |
| |
|
| |
 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
District level |
| |
| |
APMIP is implement through the Project Directors of APMIP/DWMA at the district level under the chairmanship of District Collector. PD is assisted by one assistant Project Director and supported by Two MI coordinators (BSc-Ag/Horti. gradeduates) and one MI Engineer at the district level. And 8-20 MI area officers do field level coordination. |
|
| |
|
| |
ORGANOGRAM (DISTRICT LEVEL) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Resource centers |
| |
|
| |
About 300 APMIP Resource Centers have been started across the state with a view to provide direct interface between the farmers and the departmental functionaries of MIP & SHM. It is a hub of all activities including orientation / trainings to farmers covering the aspects of Fertigation methods, Water requirement estimation, Operation and maintenance of Micro Irrigation system, etc. |
|
| |
|
|
Methodology Adopted for ensuring Quality |
| |
|
| |
For all MI Components the BIS specifications are given. All registered firms have been asked to adhere to the specifications given. The firms have to emboss Made for APMIP on the components supplied by them. APMIP entered into an MOU with CIPET for conducting quality tests of MI components. Stringent penalties are levied in case of supply of poor quality material. |
| |
|
|
Flow chart of implementation of APMIP |
| |
|
| |
Flow chart of implementation of APMIP in case of Loanee |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Application Processing for Self-Finance |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Application Processing for Bank-Finance |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Monitoring and Evaluation |
| |
|
| |
Regular quality monitoring is ensued through Central Research Institute for Dry land Agriculture, Hyderabad, Engineering Staff College of India, Hyderabad and Agricultural Finance Corporation, Hyderabad. |
| |
|
| |
Monitoring system |
| |
Technical Monitoring Through external agencies, ESCI (Telangana), CRIDA (Rayalaseema), AFC (Coastal). |
| |
|
| |
Monitoring of |
| |
• Benchmark survey |
| |
• Irrigation system design & Bill of quantities |
| |
• Quality of products used |
| |
• Agronomic & Maintenance services after system installation |
| |
• Timeliness of programme implementation |
| |
|
| |
Evaluation of |
| |
• Yield improvement |
| |
• Water saving |
| |
• Power saving |
| |
• Savings in cost of cultivation |
| |
|
| |
Online Performance Monitoring |
| |
| |
The AP Technology services developed software for online reporting system for all 22 districts, now under use. |
|
| |
|
| |
Facilitates |
| |
• Daily progress reports and MIS |
| |
• Financial tracking |
| |
• Process monitoring |
| |
• Performance monitoring |
| |
|
|
List of MI Companies participating in APMIP |
| |
|
| |
Drip & Sprinkler Companies |
| |
M/s EPC Industries Ltd., Nasik. |
| |
M/s Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., Jalagoan. |
| |
M/s Parixit Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad. |
| |
M/s Premier irrigation Equipment Ltd., Calcutta. |
| |
M/s Rungta Irrigation Ltd., Yanam. |
| |
M/s Greenfield Irrigation Ltd, Hyderabad. |
| |
M/s Sudhakar Plastic Ltd, Suryapet, AP. |
| |
M/s Swati Storewel Ltd, Parwanoo, HP. |
| |
M/s Nagarjuna Palma India Ltd., Hyderabad. |
| |
M/s Kumar Enterprises, Hyderabad. |
| |
M/s Nandi Plasticisers Ltd, Nandyal, AP. |
| |
M/s Godavari Polymers Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad. |
| |
|
| |
Drip Companies |
| |
M/s Haritha Irrigation Products Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad. |
| |
M/s Plastro Plasson Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd., Pune. |
| |
M/s Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara. |
| |
M/s. Evergreen Irrigation, Karnataka. |
| |
M/s. Kisan Irrigation Ltd., Maharashtra. |
| |
M/s. Megha Agrotech Private Ltd., Karnataka. |
| |
M/s. Agroplast, Karnataka. |
| |
|
| |
Sprinkler Companies |
| |
M/s Satya Sai Polymers, Hyderabad. |
| |
|
| |
Semi Permanent & Portable Sprinkler Companies |
| |
M/s.Nandi irrigation systems limited. |
| |
|
|
Selection of beneficiaries |
| |
|
| |
All eligible farmers are selected through Gram sabha. Special teams constituted comprising the officers of APMIP, Horticulture, Agriculture, Sericulture, Sugar Departments and representatives of MI companies and Bankers, visit all potential villages and sensitize the farmers, The teams conduct a detailed village wise survey while involving the Panchayathraj institutions and prepare a list of eligible farmers along with details of land holding, crop being grown / to be grown, estimated cost of the Micro irrigation system, etc. The final list of beneficiaries will be approved in the Gram sabha. |
| |
|
|
Training and Capacity building |
| |
|
| |
Appropriate communication strategies coupled with exposure visits undertaken to the farmers at field level would make the farmers accept Microirrigation as means to achieve higher productivity by increasing water use efficiency. The systematic trainings are undertaken involving PFDCs, KVKs, RARIs, CIPET, ESCI, CRIDA, AFC, CEE, etc. Training methodology includes off farm: Lecture, FGDs, Open discussions using Flip Charts, Video films, etc. During 2006-07 about one-lakh farmers were trained. |
| |
|
|
Impact study on Microirrigation in AP |
| |
|
| |
Phase -1 survey (Nov’2003 to March’2006) |
| |
| |
The AP Productivity council has conducted an independent and detailed survey as to the status and imspection of the MI systems installed. The major observations of the Productivity Council are: |
|
| |
|
| |
Area Surveyed |
- 1.66 lakh ha |
| |
No. of farmers |
- 1.08 lakh Nos. |
| |
Status of survey |
- 96% of the MI systems existing and performing |
| |
|
- 3% of the systems existing and non-performing |
| |
|
- 1% of the systems non –existing |
| |
|
| |
Phase -2 survey (April’2006 to March’2007) |
| |
|
| |
Area Surveyed |
- 0.90 lakh ha |
| |
No. of farmers |
- 0.56 lakh Nos. |
| |
Status of survey |
- 94.58% of the MI systems existing and performing |
| |
|
- 3.82% of the systems existing and non-performing |
| |
|
- 1.60% of the systems non–existing |
| |
|
|
| |
Necessary steps initiated for converting all 3.82% of Non- Performing Units into Performing |
| |
|
| |
Impact Analysis |
| |
|
| |
| |
It is observed that in respect of actual benefits accrued after the installation of MI system in the farmers fields and the general response by the farmers is that |
|
| |
• The MI system has had tremendous impact in enhancing levels of productivity of crops |
| |
• Resulting in considerable saving of water |
| |
• Reducing the cost of cultivation thereby increasing the income levels. |
| |
• Further, a section of the farmers also stated that on account of MI, it was possible to bring additional land into cultivation. |
| |
|
| |
Water conservation |
| |
| |
0.94 lakh farmers (96%) informed that the Micro irrigation has resulted in saving of water with 25-50% enabling them to bring more land under cultivation. |
|
| |
|
| |
Productivity |
| |
| |
As in the case of water savings, a high 0.93 lakh farmers (94%) opined that they were able to achieve increased plant growth and enhanced yield after installing MI systems with 25-50% in case of Drip and 50% in case of sprinkler. |
|
| |
|
| |
Cost of cultivation |
| |
| |
As 0.76 lakh farmers (80%) indicated savings in labour cost by more than Rs.2000/- per acre per annum around 20% of the farmers indicated saving of more than Rs.6,000/- per . |
|
| |
|
| |
Income |
| |
| |
On account of the reduced cost coupled with increased yield, the income of the farmers has also proportionately gone up. The survey reveals that nearly 0.88 lakh farmers (90%) claimed to have increased their income from their farmers after installation of systems. Rs.10,000/- to 25,000/- per acre per annum. |
|
| |
|
| |
Increase Yield |
| |
| |
Some of the farmers claimed that the drip irrigation has been able to result in nearly 100% additional yield in case of Sugar cane. They were able to increase the yield from 25 Tones per acre to 60-70 tons in Sugar cane after introduction of drip irrigation. |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
The survey reveals 0.81 lakh farmers felt that incidence of pests has been reduced, because of no stagnation of water around the plant stems. |
|
| |
|
| |
Observations |
| |
|
| |
| |
0.94 lakh farmers (96%) informed -saving of water with 25-50% |
|
| |
| |
0.93 lakh farmers (94%) opined- achieved increased yield with 25-50% in case of Drip and 50% in case of sprinkler. |
|
| |
| |
0.76 lakh farmers (80%) indicated -savings in labour cost by more than Rs.2000/- per acre per annum |
|
| |
| |
0.88 lakh farmers (90%) claimed - increased income from. Rs.10,000/- to 25,000/- per acre per annum. |
|
| |
| |
100% additional yield in case of Sugar cane |
|
| |
| |
0.81 lakh farmers felt - incidence of pests reduced |
|
| |
|
|
Details of Project already implemented |
| |
|
| |
RIDF-IX (Nov’03 to March’06) |
| |
|
| |
Area covered |
- 1.66 lakh ha |
| |
Total system cost |
- 419.91 crores |
| |
Subsidy portion |
- 230.05 crores |
| |
|
| |
RIDF-XII (April’06 to March’07) |
| |
|
| |
Area covered |
- 0.90 lakh ha |
| |
Total Project cost |
- Rs. 327.71 crores |
| |
Subsidy |
- Rs.203.89 crores |
| |
GoI share |
- Rs.112.77 crores |
| |
State share |
- Rs. 92.24 crores |
| |
|
|
| |
RIDF-XIII (April’07 to March’08) |
| |
|
| |
Area covered |
- 1.20 lakh ha |
| |
Total Project cost |
- Rs. 398.72 crores |
| |
Subsidy |
- Rs. 288.86 crores |
| |
GoI share |
- Rs. 141.71 crores |
| |
State share |
- Rs. 147.15 crores |
| |
|
| |
RIDF-XIV (April’08 to March’09) |
| |
|
| |
Action Plan |
| |
Physical Target |
- 1.50 lakh ha |
| |
Total Project Cost |
- Rs. 504.61 crores |
| |
Subsidy |
- Rs.365.72 crores |
| |
GOI share |
- Rs. 153.86 crores |
| |
NABARD Assistance |
- Rs. 211.86 Crores |
| |
|
| |
Achievement as on 31-01-09 |
| |
|
| |
Area covered |
- 1.16 lakh ha |
| |
Total Project Cost |
- Rs. 378.57 crores |
| |
Subsidy |
- Rs. 274.37 crores |
| |
GoI share |
- Rs. 131.11 crores |
| |
State share |
- Rs. 143.26 crores |
| |
|
|
ENCL |
