0.1 Context: Beed as a focused case study on farm incomes

0.1.1 In India, there is no independent national evidence that farmers’ incomes have doubled.
0.1.2 In this context, a district-level intervention in Beed, Maharashtra, provides a concrete case study on how farmers’ incomes can be sharply augmented.

0.2 Beed district: Pre-intervention conditions

0.2.1 Beed is a drought-prone district in Maharashtra, marked by chronic water stress and low agricultural incomes.
0.2.2 Farmers in Beed were largely dependent on traditional crops such as soyabean and cotton, which generated limited returns under drought conditions.

0.3 The Beed intervention: Krishikul under Global Vikas Trust (GVT)

0.3.1 In Beed, the Krishikul initiative was launched under the Global Vikas Trust (GVT) to raise farmers’ incomes.
0.3.2 The intervention focused on shifting farmers from traditional crops to fruit crops such as papaya, custard apple, sweet lime, guava, pomegranate, and mulberry.

0.4 Income outcomes from the Beed case study

0.4.1 An independent evaluation by TISS (2024) assessed the Beed–Krishikul intervention.
0.4.2 The evaluation found that per-acre incomes in Beed increased more than tenfold.
0.4.3 Incomes rose from ₹38,700 to ₹3.93 lakh per acre within a short transition period.

0.5 Scale and coverage of the Beed programme

0.5.1 Under the Beed programme, over 6.7 crore fruit trees were planted cumulatively.
0.5.2 These plantations covered 4,300 acres in Beed district.
0.5.3 About 30,000 farm families across 5,000 villages in Beed benefited from the intervention.

0.6 Key operational features of the Beed model

0.6.1 Farmers’ participation was built through direct engagement with socio-economic constraints.
0.6.2 High-density plantation techniques were adopted for fruit cultivation in Beed.
0.6.3 High-quality saplings were procured in bulk from multiple nurseries to ensure uniform quality.

0.7 Cost reduction and institutional support in Beed

0.7.1 Saplings priced at ₹30 in the market were supplied to Beed farmers at a subsidised price of ₹15.
0.7.2 Subsidies were funded through CSR contributions, notably from the Motilal Oswal Foundation.
0.7.3 A ₹25 crore donation was used to create basic infrastructure and training facilities at Krishikul in Beed.

0.8 Water management interventions in Beed

0.8.1 Before the intervention, the groundwater level in Beed had fallen to about 400 feet.
0.8.2 Groundwater recharge was undertaken through farm ponds, check dams, and about 200 Global River Aquashafts.
0.8.3 These measures raised groundwater levels to around 50 feet in several locations, enabling assured irrigation.

0.9 Credit access and risk mitigation in Beed

0.9.1 Banks extended credit to farmers participating in the Beed programme.
0.9.2 Lending risks were mitigated through a first-loss default guarantee (FLDG) of ₹1 crore.
0.9.3 This mechanism enabled credit flow without exposing banks to excessive risk.

0.10 Market linkage as the next phase for Beed farmers

0.10.1 Income gains from production need consolidation through control over the value chain.
0.10.2 Key requirements include aggregation, grading, cold storage, processing, and market access.
0.10.3 Farmers currently receive 25–33% of the consumer rupee, while the target is at least 60%.

0.11 Replicability of the Beed model

0.11.1 The Beed intervention demonstrates that farmers’ incomes can be augmented manifold at the district level.
0.11.2 Replication across regions would require government support, larger resources, and coordinated centre–state–NGO–business partnerships.