TheNews21 Policy Desk | Edited by Vivek Bhavsar
Mumbai: India’s agriculture policy is no longer short of intent. Over the past few years, government spending on agriculture and allied sectors has increased steadily, reflecting the importance of the sector in driving income growth, rural employment and economic stability.
The Union Budget 2026–27 continues this trend. The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare has been allocated over ₹1.40 lakh crore, marking a consistent rise in public spending. Alongside this, the Ministry of Food Processing Industries has also seen a significant increase in allocation, signalling a policy shift towards value addition and processing-led growth. The direction is clear. The focus is no longer limited to production. It now extends to processing, value chains and market integration.
This shift aligns closely with the roadmap outlined by FICCI and Grant Thornton Bharat in their Vision 2030 report. The emphasis on high-value horticulture, infrastructure development and technology adoption is supported by increasing financial commitments. Yet, the question remains. If spending is rising and policy direction is clear, why are outcomes still uneven? The answer does not lie in a single factor. It lies in the gap between allocation and implementation.
Public expenditure in agriculture flows through multiple channels. Schemes operate across departments, states and agencies, each with its own structure and priorities. While this allows for flexibility, it also creates complexity. Coordination becomes difficult, and the impact at the farm level becomes uneven. In theory, increased budgetary allocation should translate into better infrastructure, improved productivity and higher incomes. In practice, the results vary across regions and segments. Some areas have seen visible gains in horticulture and allied activities. Others continue to face persistent challenges in market access, price realisation and risk management.
This unevenness raises a fundamental question about the efficiency of spending. The report highlights significant investments in post-harvest infrastructure, including cold storages, packhouses and processing units. It also points to the expansion of marketing infrastructure and cluster-based development. These are critical components of a modern horticulture ecosystem. However, infrastructure creation is only one part of the equation. Its effectiveness depends on utilisation.
In several cases, facilities exist but are not fully integrated into local value chains. Farmers may not have easy access, or the scale of operations may not align with smallholder realities. As a result, the intended benefits do not always reach those who need them the most. A similar pattern is visible in the push towards technology. Digital advisory platforms, precision farming tools and data-driven systems are being introduced to improve productivity and efficiency. These initiatives represent an important step forward. But technology adoption at scale requires more than availability. It requires awareness, training and consistent support at the ground level. Without this, the gap between design and usage remains wide.
The expansion of food processing is another key focus area. Increased allocation to the processing sector reflects a recognition that value addition is critical for improving farmer incomes. By linking farms to factories, the policy aims to ensure that farmers benefit from higher-value markets. Yet, this linkage is still evolving. Processing capacity exists, but its integration with farm-level production is not always seamless. Supply chains remain fragmented, and the alignment between what farmers produce and what processors require is not always consistent. This limits the ability of the system to fully realise the benefits of increased investment.
The issue, therefore, is not the absence of spending. It is the translation of spending into outcomes. For farmers, the impact of policy is measured not in allocations, but in income stability. It is reflected in the prices they receive, the risks they face and the predictability of their returns. At present, this impact remains uneven.
The Vision 2030 roadmap acknowledges these challenges and calls for a more integrated approach. It emphasises the need for better coordination, stronger market linkages and improved execution mechanisms. These are not incremental adjustments. They are structural requirements. The question going forward is not whether more resources are needed, but whether existing resources can be deployed more effectively. As India continues to invest in agriculture and horticulture, the focus must shift from allocation to outcome. Because the success of policy is not determined by how much is spent, but by how much reaches the farmer.
