The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

CHAPTER V
THE HOPCOMS FRUITS AND VEGETABLES MARKETING
5.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the nature and extent of fruits and
vegetables marketing at the HOPCOMS outlets in the city of Bangalore, in regard to
procurement from farmers (both members and non-members) and markets and sales
of the same as well as other products such as fertilizers, jam and juice, and ice cream.
The chapter looks carefully at the turnover and the profits of the HOPCOMS, farmers
arrival at the HOPCOMS for sale of their produce, and also arrivals of fruits and
vegetables from the districts of Karnataka, not only those under its jurisdiction but
also others far off, including other states such as Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi
and Himachal Pradesh. The study also focuses on the top ten fruits and vegetables
marketed by the HOPCOMS to the consumers at the city of Bangalore. It must be
mentioned that the HOPCOMS operate mainly in the city, although there are
HOPCOMS outlets in other districts of the state of Karnataka. The city HOPCOMS,
headquartered at Lalbagh, Bangalore procures fruits and vegetables from farmers as
well as markets to sell them to the city customers, through procurement centres.

The only statistical tool used here in the chapter is the Compound Annual
Growth Rate (CAGR), which is a useful measure of the growth, over multiple time
periods, especially if the value of whatever one has taken for analysis has fluctuated
widely during the time period in question. CAGR is a business and investing specific
term for the geometric progression ratio that provides a constant rate of return over
the time period. CAGR is not an accounting term, but it is often used to describe some
element of the business, for example, revenue, units delivered, and registered users.
The rate dampens the effect of volatility of periodic returns that can render arithmetic
means irrelevant. It is particularly useful to compare growth rates from different
datasets such as revenue growth of companies in the same industry.

5.2 HOPCOMS: Members by Districts

According to a new rule of the HOPCOMS, there are three classes of

members of the HOPCOMS, namely, A Class (Farmers), B Class (Government),
and C Class (associated members including cooperative societies and other

151
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

institutions, and merchants). By an earlier notification of the HOPCOMS in 2010,

however, C Class membership was of the State Government and B Class membership
was of the associated members, cooperative societies, and merchants. The share of A
Class membership is Rs. 250 to a share, B Class memberships is Rs. 1,000 to a share,
and C Class membership is 96 per cent of all the shares. In March 31, 2010, the share
capital of the Society was Rs. 26.6 million, which, as of March 31, 2014, remains the
same. There were a total of 12,680 members on the rolls of the Society at that time as
well. There are in fact 11,835 farmer members, with a share of Rs. 2.932 million; the
Government of Karnataka as a member has a share of Rs. 22.81 million; and other
members who are 844 strong have a share of Rs. 0.85 million. The total share amount
is thus Rs. 26.6 million, approximately. Data on members by districts are available
only for early years such as 2006-07 (14,767 members), 2007-08 (14,441 members)
and 2008-09 (16,221 members). The members of the districts of our concern in the
study, according to the latest year for which data are available by districts, were as
follows: Bangalore Rural 4,969; Bangalore Urban 3,544; Ramanagara 2,395; Kolara
1,894; Chikkaballapura 2,262. There were also members who had paid shares of Rs.
25, Rs. 50, and Rs. 75, and there were 1,157 such members (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1

152
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

It appears that over the years the number of members has declined and the
current members amount to 12,680 only (Figure 5.2), with a total share of Rs. 26.6
million. Members do have their privileges and receive dividends from the profits the
HOPCOMS makes, in proportion to their shares. Farmer-members have other
privileges in that they have preferential treatment when they bring in their products
for sale at the Societys procurement centres in the city. Alternatively, the Society
also provides transport and other services for bringing in their produce to the market.

Figure 5.2

5.3 Procurement of Fruits and Vegetables by HOPCOMS

Table 5.1 shows the procurement of fruits and vegetables by the HOPCOMS
during the 15-year period from 1999-2000 to 2013-14. The compounded annual
growth computed for the fruits handled by the Society is -3.3 per cent whereas for its
values over the years is 4.48 per cent. This means that although the fruits handled
over the 15-year period widely fluctuated in terms of tonnes handled and marketed to
show a declining annual growth rate of -3.3 per cent, the value of fruits, although
showing more or less similar fluctuations save increasing prices of fruits, has shown
an increasing annual growth rate of 4.48 per cent overall. A cursory glance at the
tonnes of fruits handled over the years show 15,920.78 tonnes in 1999-2000 to
16,384.41 tonnes two years later but plunging to 10,910.43 tonnes in 2006-07 and
then to 9,618.95 tonnes in 2013-14. The fluctuations in the monetary value of fruits
are more or less the same save for price variations which resulted in a positive
compounded annual growth rate (Figure 5.3).
153
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

A similar glance at the vegetables data, tonnes and values, show more or less a
similar, fluctuating trends over the 15-year period, although with some discernible
differences. The tonnage in 1999-2000 was 14,444.5 tonnes, which rose to 16,659.54
tonnes two years later, and then only to decline over the years to 12,903.21 tonnes in
2004-05 and to 11, 106.72 tonnes in 2013-14 with even dramatic increases and
decreases in tonnage over the intervening period (Figure 5.4). The compounded
annual growth rate computed for the period is -1.74 per cent, much less than that
observed in fruits. Also the value of vegetables has shown more or less similar
fluctuating trends but the prices have held on so well over the years that the
compounded annual growth rate is a staggering 7.26 per cent, again relatively better
off than that of CAGR estimated for fruits.

Table 5.1: Procurement of Fruits and Vegetables from Farmers by HOPCOMS

Fruits Vegetables

Year Values Values

Tonnes Tonnes
(in Rs. Million) (in Rs. Million)
1999-00 15,920.78 179.49 14,444.50 101.09
2000-01 15,732.51 196.17 16,872.12 112.14
2001-02 16,384.41 204.10 16,658.54 124.34
2002-03 16,099.05 213.14 15,963.86 117.92
2003-04 14,647.38 195.87 14,197.35 124.13
2004-05 12,564.84 168.09 12,903.21 110.34
2005-06 11,094.36 157.21 13,137.29 134.29
2006-07 10,910.43 171.90 14,802.11 146.79
2007-08 9,869.29 175.69 14,274.47 165.89
2008-09 10,106.14 209.90 12,905.59 159.21
2009-10 10,243.16 252.34 12,547.08 176.80
2010-11 9,289.24 268.23 12,200.18 215.03
2011-12 10,636.83 305.81 12,162.14 208.64
2012-13 9,831.58 335.76 11,594.53 232.21
2013-14 9,618.95 346.30 11,107.62 289.08
CAGR per cent -3.3 4.48 -1.74 7.26
Source: HOPCOMS, HO, Lalbagh, Bangalore.

154
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

Figure 5.3

Figure 5.4

This means that the vegetables have done better both in terms of tonnage and
value in rupees than the fruits in the handling and marketing by the HOPCOMS.
Whereas the tonnage of vegetables has shown ups and down, as shown above. The
value of vegetables for the corresponding tonnage has been Rs. 101.09 million for

155
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

1999-2000, Rs. 112.14 million for the following year, Rs. 124.34 million for the year
2001-02, Rs. 124.13 million for 2004-05 and finally with ups and down in the
intervening years to Rs. 289.08 million in 2013-14.

Table 5.2 shows the procurement of fruits and vegetables from farmers and
markets the HOPCOMS also procures fruits and vegetables from the markets to
meet the needs of its consumers who buy them on a preferential, advantage basis
over the 15-year period of our study. With a slight upping in tonnage of fruits and
vegetables in the beginning of the period, that is, from 27,082.59 tonnes in 1999-2000
to 28,399.61 tonnes in 2001-02, the tonnage from farmers has declined steadily to
20,181.41 tonnes in 2005-06 to 16,219.93 tonnes in 2013-14 (Figure 5.5).

Table 5.2: Procurement of fruits and vegetables from Farmers and Markets

From Farmers From Markets

Value in Rs. per cent Value in Rs. per cent
Year Tonnes million Share million Share
1999-00 27,082.59 225.21 89.19 3,282.59 55.37 10.81
2000-01 27,716.36 234.38 85.30 4,887.12 73.88 14.70
2001-02 28,399.61 248.05 86.12 4,643.99 80.39 13.88
2002-03 27,197.53 242.55 84.58 4,865.29 88.51 15.42
2003-04 24,285.62 231.14 84.18 4,559.09 88.89 15.82
2004-05 22,045.26 214.22 76.94 3,422.79 64.20 23.06
2005-06 20,181.41 204.25 83.23 4,050.15 77.20 16.77
2006-07 21,805.28 234.41 84.77 3,907.25 84.28 15.23
2007-08 19,294.04 238.36 79.94 4,849.72 103.20 20.06
2008-09 19,574.03 282.76 76.60 3,437.69 86.35 23.40
2009-10 18,859.10 291.17 82.59 3,931.13 137.98 17.41
2010-11 17,307.61 309.20 80.59 4,181.80 174.10 19.41
2011-12 17,290.45 315.79 77.07 5,508.52 198.69 22.93
2012-13 17,312.44 390.43 80.20 4,248.64 185.42 19.80
2013-14 16,219.93 412.73 77.94 4,506.63 222.65 22.06
CAGR per
-3.35 4.12 - 2.14 9.72 -
cent
Source: HOPCOMS, HO, Lalbagh, Bangalore.

However, the value of fruits and vegetables procured from the farmers
increased between 1999-2000 (Rs. 225.21 million) and 2001-02 (Rs. 248.05 million),
only to dip in the next four years to Rs. 204.25 million in 2005-06 and then quickly
pick up and build over the next few years to Rs. 309.20 million in 2010-11 and to Rs.
412.73 million in 2013-14. The compounded annual growth rate for the tonnage is -

156
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

3.35 per cent but for the value of fruits and vegetables procured from the farmers is
4.12 per cent (Figure 5.6).

The tonnage of fruits and vegetables procured from the markets however has
shown fluctuations, with ups and downs right through, at for about 4 spells in the 15
years: 3,282.59 tonnes in 1999-2000 to 4,887.12 tonnes the next year; to 4,643.99
tonnes in the next year to 4,865.29 tonnes the following year; hopping then to
3,422.79 tonnes in 2004-05 only to rise to 4,849.72 tonnes in 2007-08 through a dip;
and then to rise to 5,508.52 tonnes in 2011-12 to fall again to 4,506.63 tonnes in
2013-14 (Figure 5.5). The compounded annual growth rate computed for the tonnage
procured from the markets is 2.14 per cent, a better growth than that for tonnage from
the farmers.

Figure 5.5

As for the value of fruits and vegetables procured from the markets, it has
gradually increased from Rs. 55.37 million in 1999-2000 to Rs. 88.89 million in
2003-04 but then dropped drastically to Rs. 64.2 million in the very next year to grow
through ups and downs and ups to Rs. 198.69 million in 2011-12 and to Rs. 225.65
million in 2013-14 (Figure 5.6). The CAGR for the monetary value of fruits and

157
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

vegetables procured from the markets is a high 9.72 per cent, which by comparison
with the farmers is very good indeed.

Figure 5.6

As is evident from the Table 5.2, the share of the fruits and vegetables
procured from the farmers by the HOPCOMS remain high throughout between 76.6
per cent in 2008-09 and 89.19 per cent in 1999-2000. There have been fluctuations in
the share of fruits and vegetables procured from the farmers, all through the period
never really being the same at any one given year. Comparatively however the
tonnage procured from the markets has remained low between 10.81 per cent in 1999-
2000 and 23.4 per cent in 2008-09. This is actually a reversal when compared to the
shares of procurement from the farmers for the two years (Figure 5.7).

Table 5.3 shows the monetary value of procurement as well as that of sales of
fruits and vegetables by the HOPCOMS. The value of procurement shown in the table
below is the total of the value of procurement of fruits and vegetables from both the
farmers and the markets shown in Table 5.2 as well as Figure 5.6. However, the value
of sales in Table 5.3 represents the sale value of the total procurement sold in the
HOPCOMS outlets in the city. The value of procured fruits and vegetables has shown
a compounded annual growth rate of 5.6 per cent for the 15-year period 1999-2000 to
2013-14. On the other hand, the sales value of the procured fruits and vegetables has
shown a compounded annual growth rate of 5.91 per cent.

158
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

In both the monetary values for the 15-year period, there is a fluctuating trend,
which represents the differences in the procurement prices as well as sales prices over
the period of study. They have been different and varying is in no doubt. The value of
procured fruits and vegetables has generally increased although there have been ups
and downs in the initial 7 years, from Rs. 280.58 million in 1999-2000 to Rs. 331.05
million in 2002-03 and to Rs. 291.45 million in 2005-06. Thereafter, there has been a
steady upward trend from Rs. 318.69 million in 2006-07 to Rs. 635.38 million in
2013-14, a doubling of value of procured fruits and vegetables over an 8-year period.

Figure 5.7
The trend in the sales value of fruits and vegetables in the 15-year period is
quite similar, with ups and down in the initial 7 years and an upward trend in the sales
value in the next 8 years. The sales value when compared to procurement values is far
higher, for it is expected to be so, for sales of fruits and vegetables are made with a
profit margin. The sale value in 1999-2000 has stood at Rs. 351.66 million, which in
the next 3 years has gone up to Rs. 423.21 million in 2002-03, only to slowly decline
over the next 2 years to Rs. 355.95 million in 2004-05 and thereafter increase
gradually and steadily over the years to Rs. 832.61 million, again almost a doubling
over the 8 years (Figure 5.8).

159
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

Table 5.3: Monetary Value of Procurement and Sales of Fruits and Vegetables

Procurement Sales
Year
(in Rs. Million) (in Rs. Million)
1999-00 280.58 351.66
2000-01 308.31 392.54
2001-02 328.44 417.93
2002-03 331.05 423.21
2003-04 320.01 408.43
2004-05 278.43 355.95
2005-06 291.45 367.25
2006-07 318.69 415.77
2007-08 341.57 445.62
2008-09 369.11 494.55
2009-10 429.14 566.06
2010-11 483.26 631.61
2011-12 514.45 679.05
2012-13 567.97 745.95
2013-14 635.38 832.61
CAGR per cent 5.6 5.91
Source: HOPCOMS, HO, Lalbagh, Bangalore.

5.4 Sale of Fruits and Vegetables and Other Goods and Products at HOPCOMS
The HOPCOMS and their outlets are engaged in the sale of not only fruits and
vegetables but also certain by-products of these goods (jam and juice, ice cream) as
well as fertilizers. While jam, juice and ice creams are products the HOPCOMS
themselves make and sell, fertilizers are procured from the government and sold at the
outlets on subsidies. As such the HOPCOMS make profits from the sale of varied
products and in the service of the farmers and the general population.

Table 5.4 shows the value of sales of fruits and vegetables, which is the same
as shown in Table 5.3 and in Figure 5.8. The trend in sale of fruits and vegetables has
also been indicated in the paragraphs above and hence is not repeated here. As for the
by-products sold through the HOPCOMS, the monetary value is much smaller and but
they have a compounded annual growth rate of 0.36 per cent for ice cream, 6.05 per
cent for jam and juice, a whopping 13.42 per cent for fertilizers and 6.45 per cent for
the total sales of all products: fruits and vegetables, ice cream, jam and juice, and
fertilizers.

160
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

Yet again, the trend in all of them has been widely fluctuating with no
particular pattern to them. Even the slow growing ice cream sales have shown great
fluctuations, first declining in the first 3 years, then quickly increasing and decreasing
over the short term of 5 years, only to decrease over the next 2 years and increase in
the next 3 years, from a high of Rs. 3.5 million in 1999-2000 to a low of Rs. 3.01
million in 2001-02 and also a low of Rs. 2.83 million in 2003-04 only to rise ever so
gradually to Rs. 4.86 million in 2008-09. However, it has then declined dramatically
and then recovered over the next few years to Rs. 3.7 million in 2013-14 (Figure 5.9).

Figure 5.8

The sale of fertilizers to the farmers has fetched more than 6 times the return
to the HOPCOMS in the last 15 years, from a mere Rs. 17.5 million in 1999-2000 to
Rs. 115.9 million at the end of the period. Although there have been fluctuations in
the trend in the early 6 years, the return has looked up since 2005-06, with more than

161
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

trebling in the sale value, from Rs. 33.72 million to Rs. 115.9 million in 2013-14. In
the last 5 years, the growth has been rapid.

The value of total sales of fruits and vegetables, fertilizers, jam and juice,
and ice cream all put together has again shown a near-trebling over the 15 years,
from Rs. 375.35 million to Rs. 958.5 million. The trend has been a steady increase in
turnover, with just a let up or slackening between 2002-03 (Rs. 452.31 million) and
2005-06 (Rs. 406.82 million), but after this slow down picked up speed and leaped in
the last 4 years, from Rs. 652.46 million in 2009-10 to Rs. 958.5 million in 2013-14
(Figure 5.10).

5.5 Farmers Arrivals at HOPCOMS

The general practice of the farmers for long has been to bring their products to
the procurement centres of the HOPCOMS. But as the Table 5.5 indicates that there
has been a steep drop in the farmers arrivals at the HOPCOMS or the procurement
centres over the 15-year period, may be because in the intervening period the demand
for the products has gone up and there has been a need to procure fruits and
vegetables from the markets to meet the rising demand.

Table 5.4: Sale of Fruits and Vegetables and Other Products at HOPCOMS

Fruits and Jam and Ice Total Rs.

Year Fertilizers
Vegetables Juice Cream in million
1999-00 351.66 17.50 2.70 3.50 375.35
2000-01 392.54 21.16 3.42 3.29 420.40
2001-02 417.93 27.42 3.31 3.01 451.67
2002-03 423.21 22.46 3.36 3.28 452.31
2003-04 408.43 22.53 2.96 2.83 436.74
2004-05 355.60 21.97 2.26 3.25 383.42
2005-06 367.25 33.72 2.44 3.41 406.82
2006-07 415.77 39.18 2.37 3.99 461.31
2007-08 445.62 43.30 2.67 4.61 505.76
2008-09 494.55 62.17 3.17 4.86 564.75
2009-10 566.06 79.15 4.17 3.08 652.46
2010-11 631.61 88.68 3.71 1.24 725.24
2011-12 679.05 115.90 3.58 2.70 801.24
2012-13 745.95 127.92 5.93 2.90 882.71
2013-14 832.61 115.69 6.51 3.70 958.50
CAGR per cent 5.91 13.42 6.05 0.36 6.45
Source: HOPCOMS, HO, Lalbagh, Bangalore.

162
The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

Figure 5.9

Figure 5.10

163
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

Table 5.5: Farmers Arrivals at HOPCOMS

Farmers Daily
Year
Total Arrival
1999-00 11,020 367
2000-01 11,763 394
2001-02 11,384 379
2002-03 10,283 329
2003-04 7,718 253
2004-05 6,575 263
2005-06 6,468 213
2006-07 7,035 232
2007-08 6,295 242
2008-09 6,004 201
2009-10 6,008 200
2010-11 5,778 231
2011-12 5,749 192
2012-13 6,095 203
2013-14 5,586 186
CAGR per cent -4.43 -4.43
Source: HOPCOMS, HO, Lalbagh, Bangalore.
In the meantime, spatial opportunities for the farmers have multiplied that
their numbers arriving at the HOPCOMS have declined (Figure 5.11) and this has also
shown in the daily arrivals as well. The compounded annual growth rate for both is at
-4.43 per cent, meaning a steady decline, slower in the first 4 years and faster and
dramatic thereafter.

5.6 Perishable and Dry Fruits and Vegetables

Fruits and vegetables are perishables commodities that they do not have long
shelf value, except for certain vegetables such as onion, potatoes and other root
vegetables.

The Society as a major fruits and vegetables seller in Bangalore city faces
considerable risk of loss of profits. Therefore it is a common practice for the
HOPCOMS to dry some of the vegetables and fruits and preserve them for use and
market the so preserved fruits and vegetables as dry fruits and vegetables through
their outlets. Yet, there is some inevitable loss due to the perishable nature of the
fruits and vegetables. Table 5.6 shows that considerable tonnage has been lost and

164
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

hence 1-2 per cent of loss of revenue from the perished and dried fruits and
vegetables.

Figure 5.11

Table 5.6: Loss through Perishable and Dry Fruits and Vegetables in HOPCOMS

Value
Year Tonnes Percent
(in Rs. million)
1999-00 707.37 5.96 1.85
2000-01 704.81 6.09 1.87
2001-02 725.71 6.52 2.32
2002-03 643.87 6.00 2.92
2003-04 555.95 5.44 1.23
2004-05 374.14 3.93 1.24
2005-06 334.26 3.40 1.35
2006-07 314.04 3.57 1.42
2007-08 257.49 3.08 1.03
2008-09 229.58 3.36 0.98
2009-10 246.35 3.95 1.17
2010-11 220.16 5.27 1.00
2011-12 265.13 6.15 1.48
2012-13 244.68 7.89 1.12

2013-14 213.61 8.07 1.11

CAGR per cent -7.67 2.04 -
Source: HOPCOMS, HO, Lalbagh, Bangalore.

165
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

In the 15-year period under study, however, efforts have been made to reduce
losses due to perishing and drying such that the compounded annual growth rate is
estimated as -7.67 per cent, although the loss has shown a compounded annual growth
rate of 2.04 per cent, which is quite considerable. The tonnage has dropped from
707.37 tonnes in 1999-2000 to 213.61 tonnes whereas the value of perished and dried
fruits and vegetables increased from Rs. 5.96 million, through rise and fall, to Rs. 8.07
million. It is important to note that for much of the period the loss has been low since
2005-06 and upto 2009-10. The percentage of loss has increased in the first four years
from 1.85 to 2.92 but thereafter has fallen quickly to 1.23 and to 1.11, with of course
the customary ups and downs along the way (see Figure 5.12 for loss of money). The
polynomial order 2 curve fitted to the loss of money due to perishability of fruits and
vegetables yields an R2of 0.7731, meaning that the loss has been on a high increase
over the years.

Figure 5.12

5.7 Turnover and Profits from Fruits and Vegetables at HOPCOMS

Table 5.7 shows the turnover and profits from fruits and vegetable sold at
HOPCOMS in the 15-year period of our study. The value of total sales shown in
Table 5.4 (last column) (and Figure 5.10) is indeed the turnover from the sale of fruits
and vegetables from the HOPCOMS outlets and hence is not discussed here. Suffice it
to say that the compounded annual growth rate of the turnover estimated is 6.45 per

166
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

cent. The linear trend curve fitted to the data has also given an R2 value of 0.4509,
meaning that there has indeed been an increasing trend, and satisfactory at that, in the
turnover over the 15-year period of study. The HOPCOMS as a cooperative and
marketing society does make a profit, though it was started in 1959 as a cooperative
horticultural venture with no profit motive. As an organization that has grown over
the years, with several outlets and employees, profit from the sales has become a
necessity and the Society does make a reasonable profit from the enterprise. The
HOPCOMS has had a profit of Rs. 71.74 million (or 17.8 per cent of the turnover) in
the year 1999-2000. The profit increased gradually to Rs. 91.57 million in 2002-03
(21.71 per cent), and then declined to Rs. 77.33 million (21.69 per cent) two years
later. Thereafter, it has picked up pace and speed to become Rs. 104.76 million (24
per cent) in 2007-08 and continued growing to Rs. 163.9 million (24.05 per cent) in
2011-12 and then to Rs. 198.75 million (23.88 per cent) in 2013-14. The compounded
annual growth rate of profit is estimated at 7.03 per cent which is a good enough
profit and growth (Figure 5.13). A polynomial second order curve fitted to the profit
data has yielded an R2 of 0.55, indicating that the trend in profit is good.

Table 5.7: Turnover and Profits from Fruits and Vegetables for HOPCOMS

Turnover (Rs.) Profit (Rs.) Margin per

Year
(in million) (in million) cent
1999-00 375.35 71.74 17.80
2000-01 420.40 84.76 20.58
2001-02 451.67 89.24 21.22
2002-03 452.31 91.57 21.71
2003-04 436.74 88.48 21.71
2004-05 383.42 77.33 21.69
2005-06 406.82 85.70 23.34
2006-07 461.31 97.64 23.48
2007-08 496.20 104.76 24.00
2008-09 564.75 125.70 25.44
2009-10 652.46 136.62 24.12
2010-11 725.24 149.21 23.61
2011-12 801.23 163.90 24.05
2012-13 882.71 180.63 24.27
2013-14 958.50 198.75 23.88
CAGR per cent 6.45 7.03 -
Source: HOPCOMS, HO, Lalbagh, Bangalore.

167
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

The HOPCOMS has now become a profitable enterprise worth emulating by

other States of the Indian Union. It is expected to make much progress in the years to
come, benefitting not only the people of the city of Bangalore but also others in the
vicinity and in other districts of Karnataka. There is indeed much scope for its
expansion as indeed the growth of HOPCOMS has indicated so far.

Figure 5.13

5.8 Top Ten Fruits and Vegetables Sold at HOPCOMS

It is important at this juncture to discuss the arrival of fruits and vegetables at
the HOPCOMS of Bangalore from the districts of the State as well as other States of
the Indian Union. Bangalore Urban, Bangalore Rural, Tumakur, Ramanagara,
Chikkaballapura, Kolara, Chitradurga, Hassan, Kodagu, Dharwad, Shimoga, Uttara
Kannada, and Bijapura are the 13 districts from which fruits and vegetables are
procured for the HOPCOMS. Among the other states, prominent are the states of
Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh (undivided), Delhi, Kashmir and
Himachal Pradesh are the important ones (see Appendix 5.1, for varieties of fruits and
vegetables sold at HOPCOMS and also information on the fruits and vegetables
arriving from the districts and states). There are as many as 330 varieties of fruits and
vegetables sold at the HOPCOMS and all fruits and vegetables characteristics of the
districts and the other states are also procured and sold at the Society. There are 93
different fruits and 89 different vegetables procured and marketed at the HOPCOMS
in the city, including some of the well-known imported fruits and vegetables from

168
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

such countries as Australia, Thailand and South Asian countries such as Afghanistan,
Pakistan (onions), Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Maldives, and
Mauritius.

Data on top ten fruits and vegetables in regard to their tonnage and monetary
value are available for 13 years, from 2000-01 to 2012-13. Table 5.8 summarizes their
tonnage and monetary value by year so that we could discuss their importance among
the 93 fruits and 89 vegetables sold at the HOPCOMS in Bangalore. Among the fruits
marketed, the top ten are: banana, papaya, watermelon, grapes, mangoes, apples,
sweet limes, oranges, pomegranates, and sapota, all of which are local, seasonal and
very popular among the city households. The top ten vegetable marketed are:
tomatoes, onions, potatoes, cucumber, beans, carrots, leafy greens, cabbages,
pumpkins and coconuts. The tonnage of fruits increased steadily from 2000-01
(7,171.5 tonnes) to 2006-07 (9,410.7 tonnes), it has then decreased to 7,640.1 tonnes
in 2010-11 only to rise slightly again to 8,370.4 tonnes in 2012-13. The trend in
vegetables also followed a similar pattern in the first 7 years (from 6,401 tonnes to
9,252.7 tonnes) but decreased steadily in the following years (from 9,252.7 tonnes to
7,199.5 tonnes) in the next 6 years (Figure 5.14). The linear curve fitted to the
tonnage for fruits has yielded an R2 of 0.2582 and for vegetable an R2 of 0.1026, both
meaning that the increase in tonnage is not very good.

On the other hand, the value of top ten fruits and vegetables sold has shown a
steady but staggered increase in the case of fruits and a steady increase in vegetables.
There has been a near 2.7 times increase in the value of the top ten fruits from a
value of Rs. 103.6 million in 2000-01 to Rs. 272.5 million in 2012-13 while the trend
in vegetables has been a mere doubling of the value, from Rs. 60.6 million to Rs.
127.1 million in the 13-year period (Figure 5.15). Of course, the prices of both fruits
and vegetables have varied and risen over the 13-year period of analysis, but the trend
has shown a very good increase, supported by the R2 of 0.8864 for fruits and 0.937 for
vegetables.

169
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

Table 5.8: Top Ten Fruits and Vegetables Sold at HOPCOMS 1999-2013

Fruits in Value Rs. Vegetable in Values Rs.

Year
Tonnes in million Tonnes in million
2000-01 7,171.5 103.6 6,401.0 60.6
2001-02 7,170.0 109.1 6,738.0 63.8
2002-03 7,547.5 114.8 7,092.5 67.1
2003-04 7,944.7 120.9 7,465.8 70.6
2004-05 8,362.9 127.2 7,900.3 75.8
2005-06 8,803.0 133.9 8,360.1 80.2
2006-07 9,410.7 140.2 9,252.7 90.7
2007-08 8,495.6 140.7 9,001.3 95.2
2008-09 8,685.6 167.7 8,173.1 90.5
2009-10 8,787.8 202.9 7,811.0 94.9
2010-11 7,640.1 187.1 7,547.3 116.2
2011-12 8,294.8 227.2 7,444.0 110.0
2012-13 8,370.4 272.5 7,199.5 127.1
Source: HOPCOMS, HO, Lalbagh, Bangalore.

Figure 5.14

170
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

Figure 5.15
The top ten fruits marketed at the HOPCOMS account nearly for 40 per cent
of all fruits sold at the Society outlets. Banana of all varieties account for 17 per cent
of the fruits, papaya 4.6 per cent, watermelon 2.7 per cent, grapes 2.0 per cent,
mangoes 3.5 per cent, sweet limes 2.5 per cent, oranges 2 per cent, pomegranates 1.5
per cent and sapota 1 per cent (Table 5.9, Figure 5. 16). The city households, like their
counterparts in the rural areas, are consumers of fruits, particularly, banana, which is a
must in every household, rich or poor, and papya and watermelon are both seasonal as
well as healthy.
Table 5.9: Top Ten Fruits Sold at HOPCOMS 2012-13
Rs. In per cent
S.No. Fruits Tonnes
million Share
1 Banana 3,229.58 73.4 17.00
2 Papaya 1,034.16 17.2 4.60
3 Watermelon 1,142.90 12.2 2.70
4 Grapes 499.20 23.4 2.00
5 Mangoes 760.88 23.4 3.50
6 Apples 542.54 60.0 3.00
7 Sweet Limes 346.24 12.2 2.50
8 Oranges 440.96 23.4 2.00
9 Pomegranates 242.38 24.8 1.50
10 Sapota 131.60 2.6 1.00
Source: HOPCOMS, HO, Lalbagh, Bangalore.

171
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

Figure 5.16

Likewise, the top ten vegetables account for 42.75 per cent of the vegetables
sold at HOPCOMS outlets. Tomatoes account for 9.10 per cent, onions 6.35 per cent,
potatoes 3.5 per cent, cucumber 4 per cent, beans 2.1 per cent, carrots 3.5 per cent,
leafy greens 3.8 per cent, cabbages 2.6 per cent, pumpkins 2.3 per cent, and coconuts
3.5 per cent (Table 5.10, Figure 5.17).

Table 5.10: Top Ten Vegetable Sold at HOPCOMS 2012-13

Rs. in per cent

S.No Vegetable Tonnes million Share
1 Tomato 1565.51 20.26 9.10
2 Onion 1316.94 21.46 6.35
3 Potato 657.27 13.13 3.50
4 Cucumber 885.92 12.02 4.00
5 Beans 339.81 8.56 2.10
6 Carrot 437.57 11.32 3.50
7 Leafy Greens 757.69 24.21 3.80
8 Cabbage 297.24 3.53 2.60
9 Pumpkin 424.40 3.65 2.30
10 Coconut 517.13 8.94 3.50
Source: HOPCOMS, HO, Lalbagh, Bangalore.

172
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

Figure 5.17

Like the fruits, the vegetables are also seasonal, mostly, but tomatoes, onions,
potatoes, and cucumber are the common vegetables used for all preparations and
salads. Traditional, local varieties of vegetables (brinjal, ladies finger, and even green
chillies and ginger) are however not higher up on the favourite list, although they are
equally fervently consumed by the city households.

5.9 Services Rendered by HOPCOMS to Farmers and Consumers

5.9.1 The Procurement System of HOPCOMS
At this juncture, it is worthwhile to look at the system of procurement at the
HOPCOMS for fruits and vegetables from both the farmers (members as well as non-
members) and the open market. On receiving the indent from the HOPCOMS, the
farmer-producers brought their produce on their own either to the Collection Centres
or directly to the Distribution-cum-Collection Centre (DC-cum-CC). The
decentralized CCs also acted as outlets for agri-inputs like manure, fertilizers, hybrid
seeds, and fungicides etc. (Subrahmanyam and Gajanana, 2000; Kolady et al., 2007).
In the case of Bengaluru HOPCOMS, Lalbaghis the biggest DC-cum-CC which
accepted quantities ranging from 30-40 kg to as large as 750-900 kg from the farmers
producing fruits and vegetables. The other CCs accept quantities varying from 20-30
kg to 150-200 kg, on the other hand. The Mysore HOPCOMS scale of operation is
about one-tenths of that of Bengaluru as the latter has four CCs and 318 retail outlets
compared to Mysores one CC and 40 retail outlets. HOPCOMS bear the unloading

173
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

charges and make payments to the producers immediately after procurement up to Rs.
5,000 in cash and, if it exceedsRs. 5,000, then by cheque (Kolady et al., 2007).

For transporting the produce to CC-cum-DC, HOPCOMS charge a transport

cost of Re. 0.1-0.2 to a kg of produce. In the initial years of its inception, HOPCOMS
procured only 35-40 per cent of the fruits and vegetables from the producers which
increased to nearly 85 per cent by the end of the 1990s (Subrahmanyam and
Gajanana, 2000). Presently, Bengaluru HOPCOMS handles around 100 metric tonnes
of fruits and vegetables every day (HOPCOMS website): Producers (85 per cent),
Collection Centre (4), Other National markets Distribution Centre-cum-Collection
Centre, Lalbagh, Bangalore Retail Outlet, and Consumers, Institutional buyers,
Processing companies and Local Wholesale Markets (15-20 per cent).

HOPCOMS also procure 15-20 per cent of the fruits and vegetables from the
local markets to meet the requirements of the bulk buyers like the Government
hospitals, hostels, and factories. However, though this helps in meeting its
commitments, it pays a higher price for the fruits and vegetables, whenever it resorts
to market purchases. The price differential is as high as Rs. 4-6/kg for fruits and Re.
1/kg for vegetables. Thus, on an average, it incurs a loss of Rs. 3/kg of produce by
purchasing from the market. In addition to procurement from producers and the
markets, HOPCOMS also procure small quantities of the produce from other states
and agencies like NAFED, HPMC, Safal Wholesale Market, Bengaluru, GROWREP,
Delhi, and VEFCO, Nasik. The procurement of fruits and vegetables is made on
consignment basis (Subrahmanyam and Gajanana, 2000) only.

Though HOPCOMS did not classify fruits and vegetables into grades, it
maintained quality by accepting only good quality produce from the growers. It
rejected the injured, damaged and diseased fruits. In banana, for example, HOPCOMS
rejected the rotten fruits and fruits with bruises and rough handling. Cracked and
blackened fruits due to over-ripening were also rejected (Murhty et al., 2007). Earlier,
HOPCOMS deducted 20-30 per cent of the produce of the growers towards driage
and wastage while making payments. But by 2000, the practice of physical quantity
deduction was completely stopped. In case of cabbage, payment was made only after
the entire quantity was sold so as to account for the loss in quantity due to driage
(Subrahmanyam and Gajanana, 2000). Driage and wastage was around 4-5 per cent of

174
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

the total procurement of the produce. However, it reduced to 1.85 per cent in 2000-01
(Premchander, 2002). Another recent study revealed that the proportion of produce
rejected at HOPCOMS was 4.39 per cent; the maximum being as high as 66 per cent
and minimum being nothing (Kolady et al, 2007). As much as 77.1 per cent of the
HOPCOMS farmers reported that they sold the rejected produce elsewhere at lower
prices, 11.4 per cent each either threw away the rejected produce or HOPCOMS
discarded it (Kolady et al,, 2007).

5.9.2 Processing and Retailing

Besides retailing, HOPCOMS prepares juice from grapes, mangoes, oranges
and apples at Bengaluru, Mysuru and Mangaluru branches and sells them in bottles of
200 ml in their retail outlets. Although with the opening up of the CCs, there was an
increase in the supply of fruits, a corresponding increase was not observed in their
processing and juice sales had remained at around Rs. 2.0 million, accounting for
hardly 1 per cent of the total sales of HOPCOMS. Juice fetched a higher margin (37
per cent), however, than any other produce of the HOPCOMS (Subrahmanyam and
Gajanana, 2000). HOPCOMS sells juice at Rs. 6 per 200 ml bottle (HOPCOMS
website). Infact, the turnaround of Mysore HOPCOMS from a loss making entity to a
profit making one happened due to the revenue from the sale of fresh juices (Kolady
et al., 2007).

HOPCOMS accounted for 6-10 per cent of the horticultural trade in Bengaluru
(Kolady et al, 2007) some years ago. The retailing of the fruits and vegetables was
carried out through the 504 retail outlets, of which 231 were in different localities of
urban Bengaluru, 114 in rural Bangalore, and the rest in other districts of Karnataka.
The quantity of fruits and vegetables sold every day was over 500 metric tonnes
(Premchander, 2002). These outlets were run by the salesmen of HOPCOMS, who
received 3.7 per centas commission on the sales (Subrahmanyam and Gajanana,
2000). On an average, the number of employees per retail outlet was 2; one of them
was a permanent employee and other being an assistant on temporary roll. The outlets
worked between 10.30 am and 8 pm with a break in the afternoon. Most of the
HOPCOMS outlets were owned (Kolady et al, 2007). The Bengaluru HOPCOMS
reported a net profit of Rs.10 million (Business Standard, 15th August, 2008). The
fruits and vegetables constituted 91 per cent of the total sales while the agricultural

175
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

inputs accounted for 8-10 per cent of the total sales of the HOPCOMS
(Subrahmanyam and Gajanana, 2000; Premchander, 2002). The daily operating
expenses of HOPCOMS were around Rs. 1.0 million and the cash handled was of the
order of Rs. 2.0 million a day, including all other operating expenses like the transport
costs (Premchander, 2002).

The Bengaluru HOPCOMS sold about 71 per cent of the vegetables procured
and 79 per cent of the fruits procured though their retail outlets.The profit earned by
HOPCOMS was Rs. 2.84/kg in 2000-01. The retail price was a fixed mark-up on the
procurement price and was the same across all the outlets (Kolady et al,, 2007).
HOPCOMS had an approved policy of fixing the procurement prices slightly higher
than the prevailing wholesale prices and retail prices at a slightly lower level than the
ruling retail prices so as to maintain a margin of 25 per cent (Subrahmanyam and
Gajanana, 2000). The HOPCOMS retail prices were 18 per cent lower than that of
the traditional retailers and 10-25 per cent lower than the other modern retailers. The
supplies to the retail outlets were made through 19 owned and 40 hired vehicles. The
mobile sale of the fruits and vegetables was also done at places where the HOPCOMS
did not have any retail outlet.

Though supermarket chains offered higher prices, they bought only small
quantities. The coefficient of variation showed lower variation across months in case
of retail chain prices as against those in mandi prices. Farmers valued lower
transaction costs rather than price as quantity sold was small and the price was pegged
to market prices. One could still argue whether farmers were better off selling their
entire produce to wholesale markets as now farmer ends up dealing with two
markets/buyers (CC and APMC).The farmers valued small benefits like return of
packing material, instant payments or quick purchase but that may not be enough to
sustain the linkage. Although the chains have brought quality consciousness,
introduced exotic vegetables and package of practices for certain vegetables like
cucumber and long melon, they were not seen by the farmers as major buyers of their
produce (Singh and Singla, 2011).This lack of involvement of the chains with primary
producers is also revealed by another recent study of Reliance Fresh operations in
Karnataka (Pritchard et al., 2010)which states that ----supermarket purchasing in
India tends to operate without contractual relations with farmer suppliers, and that
buyers did not play prominent roles in on-farm monitoring. The practice of CCs

176
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

issuing their purchase requirements to farmers only the previous night does not
promote any shifts in cropping patterns; this would happen only if there was a
mechanism to inform farmers about the likely demand for different vegetables ahead
of the planting season. The rapid winding back of these (procurement) strategies in
favour of a looser system of procurement through the CCs indicated a level of
institutional incompatibility between the profit strategies of the company and the
agricultural regions from which it was seeking to buy fruits and vegetables (p. 452).

Yet another recent study corroborates the above conclusions: Organised

retailers have brought a new institution for marketing of fruits and vegetables by
creating a system of preferential payment for quality, although given the (small) scale
of these arrangements, they are yet to have an impact on the local mandi, where the
farmers continue to sell bulk of their produce. However, the governance mechanism
of the new supply chain created by the organized retailers has not been fully
developed. The institutions related to contracts, payments, grades and standards, are
yet to evolve. The marketing system of the organised retailers does not fit into the
standard contract farming and corporate farming formats. Neither there is a pre-
determined procurement price nor is input or technical support provided as part of this
arrangement. It is more like contact farming - an informal procurement arrangement,
where the retailers have informal arrangements with producers who can provide
quality produce.

There is no mechanism for sharing production and marketing risks. The

procurement volumes and prices change daily based on the front end demand
(communicated by the head office) and prices at the local markets. Each party is free
to explore better avenues of procurement and sale (Sulaiman et al., 2010: 23).The
poor performance of food supermarkets in India over the years and eventual shutdown
of most of them in Gujarat (excluding only Reliance Fresh) shows that they could not
create a competitive advantage in their operations where backend (procurement) or
frontend (retailing and marketing) should have reinforced each other. This reconfirms
the findings elsewhere of the resilience of the traditional retail channels.

5.9.3 Fruits and Vegetable at HOPCOMS Godowns in Bengaluru

Tables 5.11 and 5.12 show the distribution of fruits and vegetables at the
HOPCOMS godowns in the city of Bengaluru, in terms of opening balances,

177
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

purchases, marketed, closing balance, profits and percentage to total, for various
years. The opening balance of fruits at the godowns in Bengaluru during the various
years tended to be small, with their cash values however progressively increasing over
the years despite fluctuating quantities: from Rs. 183,000 in 2006-07 to Rs. 622,000
in 2013-14. Purchases were made and the produce were stored in the godowns before
being sold to the consumers through the HOPCOMS outlets, leaving equally small
quantities of closing balances. More than 50,000 tonnes were procured over the years
at a value of Rs. 705.8 million. Of the godowned fruits, 48,213 tonnes were marketed
at Rs. 960.8 million, with a profit of Rs. 253.23 million over the stated years.

Table 5.11: Fruits at HOPCOMS Godowns in Bengaluru

Fruits Opening Balance Purchases Marketing Closing Balance Profit percent

total
Qty. in Values Qty. in Values Rs. Qty. in Values Rs. Qty. in Values Rs. In
Year
000 Kg Rs. in 000 000 Kg in 000 000 Kg in 000 000 Kg Rs. in 000 000

2006-07 26 183 14.247 141.291 14.084 185.225 35 250 44.001 23.76

2008-09 38 412 12.281 151.554 12.153 208.038 63 597 56.661 27

2010-11 37 525 13.534 142.563 11.243 210.321 56 634 65.543 24

2013-14 30 622 10.807 270.381 10.738 357.253 25 776 87.026 24

Total 131 1742 50.869 705.789 48.218 960.837 179 2257 253.231

Source: HOPCOMS, HO, Lalbagh, Bangalore.

Likewise, the opening balance of vegetables at the godowns of Bengaluru was

small, totalling 119 tonnes at the end of the period, valued at about Rs. 491,000,
which was added to by an amount of 43,848 tonnes valued at Rs. 910.6 million. The
figures for different years show that the value of the opening balance as well as the
purchased vegetables increased over the years, considerably. The amount marketed at
the end of the period amounted to a total tonnage of 38,128 tonnes valued at Rs.
1,225.65 million with a profit of Rs. 298.52 million, as shown in Table 5.12. The
profit margin for vegetables stood at 23-24 per cent of the total marketed vegetables,
slightly at variances with the profits made from the sale of fruits from the godowns.

178
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

Table 5.12: Vegetables at HOPCOMS Godowns in Bengaluru

Veg. Opening Balance Purchages Marketing Closing Balance Profit per

centto
total
Qty. in Values Qty. in Values Qty.in Values Qty. in Values
Year 000 Rs.
000 Kg 000 Rs. 000 Kg 000 Rs. 000 Kg 000 Rs. 000 Kg 000 Rs.

2006-07 28 487 10.38 162.979 10.241 211.999 23 562 49.094 24

2008-09 41 1.089 9.598 199.161 9.477 260.899 5 1.113 61.762 23

2010-11 27 1.254 11.879 212.231 9.534 316.154 26 1.675 86.256 24

2013-14 23 1.637 11.991 336.311 8.876 436.596 33 2.469 101.204 23

Total 119 490.98 43.848 910.682 38.128 1225.648 132 567.257 298.316

Source: HOPCOMS, HO, Lalbagh, Bangalore.

5.9.4 Infrastructural Facilities of the HOPCOMS

Table 5.13 indicates to the number of infrastructural facilities owned and
operated by the HOPCOMS as in 2009-10. There were 284 HOPCOMS outlets in five
different districts of Karnataka, with 237 outlets in Bangalore Urban district, 15 in
Bangalore Rural district, 24 in Kolara district, 6 in Chikkaballapura district and 2 in
Ramanagara district. There were 84 institutions which were served by the HOPCOMS
by providing fruits and vegetables for the people at work or at stay. As many as 25
factories, 23 institutions, 14 hostels, 18 hospitals and 4 clubs were supplied fruits and
vegetables on a regular basis, at concessional prices because they were serving food
on subsidized prices for the workers, inmates, and members.

179
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

Table 5.13: Marketing of Fruits and Vegetables by HOPCOMS and Facilities

(as in 2009-10)

No. Particulars Area/Details No's

1 Retail outlets Bangalore Urban 237
Bangalore Rural 15
Kolara 24
Chikkaballapura 6
Ramanagara 2
2 Other places Factories 25
Institutions 23
Hostels 14
Hospitals 18
Clubs 4
3 Chemicals& Fertilizers Bangalore R&U 5
Kolara 5
4 Cold Storage Bangalore Hudson Circle 1
5 Vehicles Bangalore R & U 28
Kolara 2
6 Processing Units Bangalore Hudson circle 1
7 Walk N Cooler Bengaluru 1
Kolara 1
8 Grading Unit Bengaluru 1
9 Procurement Centres Sarjapura 1
Hoskote 1
Channapatana 1
Kanakapura 1
Mallur 1
D B Pura 1
Nelamangala 1
10 Weigh bridge Bangalore 1
11 Storage Centres Vegetables 10
(Central Godowns) Fruits 7
Dry Fruits 1
Source: HOPCOMS, HO, Lalbagh, Bangalore.

As many as 5 outlets in Bangalore Urban and Rural districts and 5 outlets in

Kolara district sold chemicals and fertilizers to the members of the HOPCOMS as
well non-member farmer-producers of fruits and vegetables in the districts. There was

180
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

only one cold storage operating at Bangalore Hudson Circle and this is operating even
now. A processing centre was, and is, also operating at the same location. The three
districts also owned and operated 30 vehicles for transporting fruits and vegetables,
28 vehicles in Bangalore Rural and Urban districts and 2 vehicles in Kolara district.
There was only 1 walk and cooler in Bengaluru and another in Kolara. There was also
a grading centre at Bengaluru, grading the produce and packaging them for sale at the
outlets. There were 7 procurement centres, one each at Sarjapura, Hoskote,
Channapatana, Kanakapura, Malluru, Doddaballapura and Nelamanagala towns.
There was a lorry or truck weigh bridge in Bengaluru and 18 storage centres of
different descriptions: 10 godowns for vegetables for they are the most in demand, 7
for fruits and only one for dry fruits. There have been further upgrading and increase
in the number of infrastructural facilities but exact numbers are not known, because of
lack of data at the head office of the HOPCOMS.

5.10 Conclusion
This chapter dealt with the marketing of fruits and vegetables by the
HOPCOMS in Bengaluru and other places. Temporal and spatial analyses of data
have been attempted to show the patterns of the produce in various contexts and
aspects. With a new rule of the HOPCOMS in force, three classes of members - A
Class (Farmers), B Class (Government), and C Class (associated members including
cooperative societies and other institutions, and merchants) were part of the Society.
An earlier notification of the HOPCOMS in 2010 indicated that the C Class
membership was of the State Government and B Class membership was of the
associated members, cooperative societies, and merchants. The share of A Class
membership was Rs. 250 to a share, B Class memberships was Rs. 1,000 to a share,
and C Class membership was 96 per cent of all the shares. In March 31, 2010, the
share capital of the Society was Rs. 26.6 million, which, as of March 31, 2014,
remained the same. There were a total of 12,680 members on the rolls of the Society
at that time. There were 11,835 farmer members, with a share of Rs. 2.932 million;
the Government of Karnataka as a member had a share of Rs. 22.81 million; and other
members who were 844 strong had a share of Rs. 0.85 million. The total share amount
was Rs. 26.6 million. Members have privileges and received dividends from the
profits of the HOPCOMS, in proportion to their shares. Farmer-members have other
privileges also that they have preferential treatment when they bring in their products

181
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

for sale at the Societys procurement centres in the city and elsewhere. The Society
also provides transport and other services for bringing their produce to the market.

During the 15-year period of 1999-2000 to 2013-14, the compounded annual

growth for the fruits handled by the Society was -3.3 per cent whereas for its
monetary value over the years was 4.48 per cent. This meant that the fruits handled
over the 15-year period widely fluctuated in tonnage handled and marketed and
showed a declining annual growth rate. The value of fruits showed similar
fluctuations save for increasing prices of fruits, had shown an increasing annual
growth rate overall. The tonnage of fruits handled over the years showed 15,920.78
tonnes in 1999-2000 to 16,384.41 tonnes two years later but plunged to 10,910.43
tonnes in 2006-07 and then to 9,618.95 tonnes in 2013-14. Vegetables tonnage and
money value showed more or less similar, fluctuating trends over the 15-year period,
of course with some delectable differences. The tonnage in 1999-2000 was 14,444.5
tonnes, which rose to 16,659.54 tonnes two years later, and then only to decline over
the years to 12,903.21 tonnes in 2004-05 and to 11, 106.72 tonnes in 2013-14, with
even dramatic increases and decreases in tonnage over the intervening period. The
compounded annual growth rate computed for the period was -1.74 per cent, much
less than that observed for fruits. The money value of vegetables showed similar
fluctuating trends but the prices held on well over the years that the compounded
annual growth rate was 7.26 per cent, relatively better off than that of CAGR
estimated for fruits.

The monetary value of vegetables for the tonnage was Rs. 101.09 million for
1999-2000, Rs. 112.14 million for the following year, Rs. 124.34 million for the year
2001-02, Rs. 124.13 million for 2004-05 and then with ups and down in the
intervening years to Rs. 289.08 million in 2013-14. The tonnage of fruits and
vegetables procured from the markets showed fluctuations, in fact ups and downs
right through, at 4 spells in the 15 years: 3,282.59 tonnes in 1999-2000 to 4,887.12
tonnes the next year; to 4,643.99 tonnes in the next year to 4,865.29 tonnes the
following year; hopping then to 3,422.79 tonnes in 2004-05 only to rise to 4,849.72
tonnes in 2007-08 through a dip and then to a rise to 5,508.52 tonnes in 2011-12 to
fall once again to 4,506.63 tonnes in 2013-14. The compounded annual growth rate
computed for the tonnage procured from the markets was 2.14 per cent, a better
growth than that for tonnage from the farmers. The CAGR for the monetary value of

182
 The HOPCOMS Fruits and Vegetables Marketing

fruits and vegetables procured was high at 9.72 per cent, which by comparison with
the farmers was very good. The value of fruits and vegetables procured from the
markets gradually increased from Rs. 55.37 million in 1999-2000 to Rs. 88.89 million
in 2003-04 but then dropped steeply to Rs. 64.2 million in the very next year to wade
through ups and downs and ups to Rs. 198.69 million in 2011-12 and Rs. 225.65
million in 2013-14.

The share of the fruits and vegetables procured remained high throughout
between 76.6 per cent in 2008-09 and 89.19 per cent in 1999-2000. There were
however fluctuations in the share of fruits and vegetables procured from the farmers
in the 15-year period, never being the same at any one given year. Comparatively
however the tonnage procured from the markets remained low between 10.81 per cent
in 1999-2000 and 23.4 per cent in 2008-09. The sales value of the procured fruits and
vegetables showed a CAGR of 5.91 per cent. The value of procured fruits and
vegetables increased from Rs. 280.58 million in 1999-2000 to Rs. 331.05 million in
2002-03 and to Rs. 291.45 million in 2005-06. Thereafter, there was a steady upward
trend from Rs. 318.69 million in 2006-07 to Rs. 635.38 million in 2013-14, a
doubling of value of procured fruits and vegetables over an 8-year period. The Society
as a major fruits and vegetables seller in Bangalore city faced considerable risk of loss
of profits.

183