Producer Companies
111
types of support required to achieve the
results. The producers and the farming
community in particular were not asking
for new institutional types to better their
livelihoods. They would have been happy
if the rural cooperatives were made to
work effectively. The new institutional
form—the PC—is typically supply side
thinking. Having brought in PCs as feasible
solutions to several problems in producers’
livelihoods, the onus is on the state and
public sector to prove it to be so.
The cooperation and participation of
producers in their companies is a necessary,
but not sufficient condition for the success
of this institutional form. The schemes of
government and public sector institutions
should address other problems—beyond
mobilisation of members—of the PCs in
a comprehensive manner. These issues,
as described in the preceding parts of the
chapter, relate to adequacy of quantum of
support in the initial stages, adequacy of
the period of support, availability of patient
capital, readiness of financial institutions
to invest time in understanding this new
institutional form and design loan products
and lending processes, developing of pool
of professionals at the district level to offer
guidance, fair and transparent rules for mar-
ket access, protection from unfair conduct
by contracting parties that sell or buy goods
from PCs and an incentivising tax regime.
Before the novelty of the new institutional
formwears off, the stakeholders should find
the PCs a firm footing.
ANNEXURE 5.1
State-wise FPOs
State-wise FPO registered in the country as on date (07.05.2015)
S. No.
State
No. of farmers
No. of FPOs
Mobilised
Under
Mobilisation
Total
Registered
Under the process of
registration
Total
1.
Andhra Pradesh
5,976
6,024
12,000
5
7
12
2.
Arunachal Pradesh
1,750
0
1,750
2
0
2
3.
Assam
25,000
0
25,000
25
0
25
4.
Bihar
14,148
3,852
18,000
8
11
19
5.
Chhattisgarh
13,293
12,707
26,000
5
20
25
6.
Delhi
3,535
0
3,535
4
0
4
7.
Goa
1,810
0
1,810
1
1
2
8.
Gujarat
31,047
953
32,000
22
11
33
9.
Haryana
8,408
0
8,408
16
9
25
10.
Himachal Pradesh
3,698
1,152
4,850
0
4
4
11.
Jammu
3,694
287
3,981
1
2
3
12.
Srinagar
3,120
960
4,080
1
3
4
13.
Jharkhand
10,009
0
10,009
8
0
8
14.
Karnataka
25,904
58,596
84,500
14
68
82
15.
Madhya Pradesh
83,277
61,723
145,000
54
90
144
16.
Maharashtra
63,052
28,448
91,500
46
43
89
17.
Manipur
2,650
300
2,950
2
1
3
18.
Meghalaya
1,970
3,105
5,075
2
2
4
19.
Mizoram
1,700
1,000
2,700
0
3
3
20.
Nagaland
1,750
0
1,750
2
0
2
(Continued)
