TheNews21 Policy Desk | Edited by Vivek Bhavsar
Mumbai: India’s horticulture sector is expanding. Production is rising, exports are growing, and policy attention is sharper than ever before. The Vision 2030 report by FICCI and Grant Thornton Bharat lays out a clear roadmap for transforming this growth into higher farmer incomes.
Yet, on the ground, the reality remains unchanged for a large number of farmers.
The contradiction is not new. It has persisted across multiple agricultural cycles. What is changing now is the scale at which it is visible. Even as high-value horticulture is projected as the future of Indian agriculture, farmer incomes remain unstable, and distress continues to be reported across regions.
The question is not whether policy intent exists. It clearly does. The question is whether the system through which this intent is delivered is capable of translating it into outcomes.
The report itself identifies several structural challenges. Productivity gaps, fragmented landholdings, climate risks and post-harvest losses continue to affect the sector. These are not isolated issues. They are interconnected, and they directly influence the income that farmers are able to realise.
One of the most critical gaps lies in the structure of the value chain. Farmers operate at the lowest end of this chain, where value addition is minimal. Between the farm and the final market, multiple layers of aggregation, trading and processing determine the price. By the time the produce reaches the consumer or export market, the value has increased, but the farmer’s share remains limited.
This is not a failure of production. It is a failure of value capture.
Another issue is the weak integration between farmers and markets. In many cases, farmers are not producing based on demand signals. They grow what is locally viable, often without access to reliable market information or assured buyers. This disconnect leads to situations where output is high, but price realisation is low.
The absence of strong, functional farmer producer organisations further compounds the problem. While the policy framework recognises the importance of aggregation through FPOs and cooperatives, their reach and effectiveness remain uneven. Without aggregation, small farmers have limited bargaining power and remain dependent on intermediaries.
Post-harvest infrastructure is another critical area. The report highlights the existence of thousands of facilities, including cold storages and packhouses. However, availability does not always translate into accessibility. In several regions, farmers continue to face delays, losses and quality deterioration due to gaps in logistics and local infrastructure.
These losses are not just physical. They are financial.
Technology is being positioned as a key enabler of transformation. From AI-based advisory platforms to precision farming and digital traceability, the policy push is clearly towards modernisation. But technology alone cannot resolve structural issues such as fragmented landholdings or weak market linkages. Its impact depends on how effectively it is integrated into the existing system.
This brings the focus back to implementation.
Government spending on agriculture and allied sectors has increased steadily. Budget allocations, infrastructure development and targeted schemes reflect a strong commitment to improving farmer outcomes. Yet, the translation of this spending into measurable income growth remains uneven.
The gap between policy design and ground-level execution is where the system begins to lose efficiency.
Schemes operate across multiple departments, often without seamless coordination. Farmers navigate a complex landscape of subsidies, advisories and programmes, with varying levels of awareness and access. In such a system, the benefits tend to be unevenly distributed, reaching some regions and segments more effectively than others.
The result is a fragmented ecosystem where growth at the macro level does not always translate into stability at the micro level.
The report’s roadmap acknowledges these challenges. It calls for a more integrated, market-linked approach that aligns production with demand, strengthens value chains and improves coordination across stakeholders. It emphasises the need for better planting material, stronger clusters, improved processing capacity and deeper private sector participation.
These are not new ideas. What matters is their execution.
For farmers, the question is simple. Does the system enable them to earn more from what they grow?
At present, the answer varies.
In some pockets, where market linkages are strong and infrastructure is accessible, farmers are benefiting from the shift towards horticulture. In others, the gains are limited, and the risks remain high.
This unevenness is at the heart of the issue.
India’s horticulture growth is real. The potential outlined in the Vision 2030 report is credible. But between policy and outcome lies a system that is still evolving, still fragmented and still unable to deliver consistent results across the country.
Until this system is aligned, the promise of higher incomes will remain conditional.
The challenge is not to create new policies, but to ensure that existing ones work as intended.
That is where the focus must now shift.
