207
(c)
Impact:
KCC farmers could adopt appropriate farming practices, as they had
adequate funds and, therefore, the cropping intensity in the case of KCC
farmers was found better than that of non-KCC farmers.
The small farmer had taken up odd jobs/occupations generally linked to
farm activities and could earn by doing labour jobs in other farms.
(d)
End-Use
It has been seen that, generally the limits were utilized for the intended
purpose.
In the case of small farmers the ratio of borrowed funds used for other
purposes has been higher because the sources of income for a small
farmer are very limited.
(e)
KCC and Processes:
The sanction and review procedures are cumbersome and obtaining the
abstract of land record continues to be a difficult job.
That it is not a credit card has been brought out forcibly, by the studies.
The fact that all the aspects of KCC are not available has been highlighted.
(f)
Appraisal and period of limit of KCC:
The KCC was sanctioned as a cash credit for three to five years but
remained, in practice, a loan account with one or two withdrawals and
one repayment coinciding with the income of sale proceeds of grains.
Banks adopted scale-of-finance for arriving at the credit amount.
It is seen that the rate of interest and charges levied in the account are
kind of uniform across the country and this has made KCCs for large
farmers more viable than the smaller ones.
(g)
Suggested Areas for Improvement:
Improvements in KCC have been suggested in terms of making it a
cash credit account on par with cash credits extended in Business and
Trade, use of electronic cards to make available cash at villages level
and consider cyclical credit in the case of mono crops. The farmers have
appreciated the KCC but have not taken to the possibility of withdrawing
on more than one or two occasions.
