New Delhi: The government’s push to transform agriculture in some of India’s most underperforming districts is beginning to show measurable progress, with the average performance score of 100 districts covered under the Prime Minister Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana (PM-DDKY) rising sharply between April and July 2026.
The average score across the identified districts increased from 22.54 in April to 38.85 in July, indicating a significant improvement in the implementation of agricultural interventions and related development programmes.
The progress was reviewed by Union Minister for Agriculture & Farmers Welfare and Rural Development Shivraj Singh Chouhan at Krishi Bhawan in New Delhi. The review placed particular emphasis on ensuring that the programme delivers measurable outcomes at the farm level rather than becoming another exercise centred primarily on scheme implementation and expenditure.
At the heart of the initiative is an attempt to bring multiple government interventions together and tailor them to the specific requirements of each district.
A convergence-based approach to agricultural development
PM-DDKY is built around the idea that India’s agricultural challenges cannot be addressed through isolated schemes.
The programme brings together 36 Central government schemes spread across 11 Ministries and Departments, alongside State government programmes and initiatives involving other stakeholders.
The objective is to create greater convergence between investments in areas such as irrigation, crop diversification, agricultural credit, post-harvest infrastructure, productivity and farmer services.
Such convergence could be particularly important in districts where farmers face several constraints simultaneously. Limited irrigation, inadequate storage, weak access to institutional credit and low adoption of improved farming practices can reinforce one another, limiting the ability of farmers to raise productivity and incomes.
By coordinating interventions at the district level, PM-DDKY seeks to address these constraints as part of a larger development strategy.
From spending to outcomes
A key change in the government’s approach is the greater emphasis on outcome-based monitoring.
The programme has established a framework comprising 121 indicators, including 74 output indicators and 47 outcome indicators. The distinction allows authorities to track both the delivery of interventions and their eventual impact.
For example, building irrigation infrastructure represents an output. The more meaningful outcome is whether farmers subsequently gain greater access to assured irrigation, increase cropping intensity or improve agricultural productivity.
Similarly, the distribution of agricultural credit is an output, while increased access to formal finance and improved investment capacity at the farm level represent broader outcomes.
This shift towards outcome measurement could help policymakers identify districts where programmes are being implemented but are not yet producing the desired economic impact.
All 100 districts complete action plans
Implementation has now moved beyond the initial planning phase, with all 100 districts uploading their District Action Plans.
The plans are intended to provide a district-specific roadmap for implementing PM-DDKY, recognising that agricultural constraints differ considerably across regions.
A district facing water scarcity may need to prioritise irrigation and water-management infrastructure, while another may have greater potential to benefit from crop diversification, storage facilities, agricultural processing or improved access to institutional finance.
The district-level approach therefore gives local administrations greater scope to align government resources with their most pressing agricultural challenges.
Agriculture productivity remains a central priority
Improving agricultural productivity is one of the six core areas identified under the programme.
The other priorities include promoting crop diversification and sustainable agricultural practices, expanding post-harvest storage, strengthening irrigation infrastructure, improving access to agricultural credit and enhancing governance and service delivery.
These areas are closely connected to the government’s larger objective of making Indian agriculture more productive, resilient and capable of generating higher and more stable incomes.
Productivity gains are particularly important as India’s agricultural sector faces rising pressure from climate variability, fragmented landholdings, input costs and the need to produce more from limited natural resources.
Credit and infrastructure hold the key
Improved access to agricultural credit is another important component of PM-DDKY.
For many farmers, inadequate access to affordable institutional finance can constrain investment in machinery, irrigation systems, quality inputs and other productivity-enhancing assets.
Similarly, weak post-harvest infrastructure can reduce the economic returns from higher farm output. Better storage and related facilities can help farmers reduce losses and potentially provide greater flexibility in deciding when to sell their produce.
The convergence of credit, irrigation, storage and technology-related interventions could therefore have a greater impact than implementing each intervention independently.
Skill development strengthens the ground-level push
The government is also placing considerable emphasis on strengthening agricultural skills and extension services.
Between January and July 2026, more than 6.90 lakh farmers and 88,961 extension workers received training under various programmes. In addition, around 2.20 lakh farmers and extension workers were trained in natural farming during the period.
The involvement of extension workers is significant because government schemes can achieve limited results unless farmers have access to timely technical advice and understand how to use new technologies and practices.
Krishi Vigyan Kendras are being used as technical partners to support training and field-level implementation.
Digital monitoring seeks to close the delivery gap
The next phase of the programme will increasingly rely on digital monitoring.
The government has introduced a Financial Progress Module on the PM-DDKY dashboard, while a Beneficiary Progress Module is planned to provide a more detailed picture of the people receiving programme benefits.
The move towards beneficiary-level tracking could make it easier to determine whether government resources are reaching intended recipients and whether interventions are producing tangible improvements.
For a programme operating across 100 districts and involving dozens of schemes, such monitoring will be critical to prevent duplication, identify implementation gaps and improve accountability.
CSR could add another layer of investment
The government is also attempting to bring corporate resources into the development framework.
The Department of Public Enterprises has included the adoption of PM-DDKY districts for CSR activities by Central Public Sector Enterprises during 2026-27 and 2027-28.
If effectively coordinated with government programmes, CSR investment could supplement public spending in areas such as infrastructure, training, technology adoption and community-level agricultural development.
The larger objective is to create a broader ecosystem of investment around the identified districts rather than relying exclusively on allocations under individual government schemes.
Early improvement, but the bigger test lies ahead
The increase in the average performance score from 22.54 to 38.85 in three months represents a positive early signal for PM-DDKY. It indicates that implementation mechanisms are beginning to gain traction across the 100 districts.
However, the more important test will be whether improvements in programme scores translate into lasting changes in farmers’ economic conditions.
Higher agricultural productivity, greater irrigation coverage, stronger access to credit, reduced post-harvest losses, diversification into higher-value crops and improved farm incomes will ultimately determine the success of the initiative.
This is particularly important because improvements in administrative indicators do not automatically translate into improvements in rural livelihoods.
The government’s decision to strengthen outcome and beneficiary-level monitoring could help bridge that gap.
A test case for targeted rural development
PM-DDKY represents an evolving model of targeted agricultural development in which multiple public programmes are brought under a common district-level framework.
Its significance extends beyond the 100 districts currently covered. If the model succeeds in demonstrating that coordinated investment can produce faster and more measurable improvements in agricultural outcomes, it could offer a template for designing future rural development interventions.
For now, the rise in district performance scores provides an encouraging start. The next phase will require sustained implementation, closer monitoring and, most importantly, evidence that government interventions are translating into higher productivity, stronger agricultural resilience and better economic opportunities for farmers.
The programme’s real success will ultimately be measured not on a dashboard, but in the fields and household incomes of the farmers it was designed to support.