The question for NMEO-OP 2.0 is not merely how many hectares India can plant, but how many productive oil-palm regions it can create.
| Photo Credit:
cueapi
My earlier article, “Unlocking the Full Potential of NMEO-OP 2.0” on 8 August 2026, examined the way forward for India’s oil-palm mission. This article moves from expansion to economic return.The purposeIt is to examine the realised economic impact of National Mission on Edible Oils- Oil Palm (NMEO-OP) during FY2021-22 to FY2025-26—not the lifetime return of oil-palm plantations, and not India’s entire pre-existing oil-palm economy. Production from plantations established before NMEO-OP is not attributed to the mission. The analysis uses official Government data wherever available; derived estimates are transparently calculated, while field inputs are used where consolidated official data are unavailable and cross-checked wherever possible.The first lessonHectares are not the only measure of return. Latest government assessment shows that 2.73 lakh hectares were brought under oil palm during FY2021-22 to FY2025-26, taking cumulative area to 6.40 lakh hectares as on 31 March 2026. The mission had an approved outlay of ₹11,040 crore.But hectares alone cannot measure return. Oil palm is perennial: plantation age, bearing area, productivity, irrigation, Fresh Fruit Bunch (FFB) price, Oil Extraction Rate (OER), processing access and farmer management determine performance.Andhra Pradesh and Telangana deserve particular weight because they dominate India’s current Crude Palm Oil (CPO) production. Official 2023-24 statistics show combined CPO production of 3.84 lakh tonnes from these States against 3.95 lakh tonnes nationally—about 97 per cent. The North-East has a different age profile, with much of its mission-era plantation still non-yielding or only entering the initial harvesting phase; Mizoram is an older-plantation exception.What did the early Mission cohorts deliver?Using age-specific, field-validated AP/Telangana productivity benchmarks, the early NMEO-OP cohorts entering the harvesting window by FY2025-26 are estimated to have produced 1.30–1.37 lakh tonnes of FFB. The productivity curve deliberately starts at about 1.5 tonnes/ha in the 3+ to below-4-year transition, rises through 4, 6, 10, 14 and 18 tonnes, and reaches 20+ tonnes only at maturity—avoiding the error of applying mature yields to young plantations.At an indicative weighted-average FFB price of ₹20,000 per tonne, this represents roughly ₹260–274 crore of gross FFB value. Mature AP/Telangana plantations at around 20 tonnes FFB/ha can generate about ₹4 lakh gross FFB value and ₹3 lakh or more annual operating net income. Younger cohorts are far below mature productivity, affecting farmer and processor economics.From FFB to CPOApplying an OER range of 18.5–19.5 per cent gives approximately 24,000–26,700 tonnes of CPO attributable to these early AP/Telangana NMEO-OP cohorts.The Government reports 20.10 lakh tonnes of CPO during the five-year mission period. However, this should not be interpreted as incremental CPO from the 2.73 lakh hectares added under NMEO-OP; it averages about 4.02 lakh tonnes a year, broadly consistent with India’s annual CPO production.What is the import-substitution value?The comparison should be indigenous with imported CPO. At recent official import values of roughly ₹88,000–₹94,000 per tonne, the demonstrated mission-attributable CPO corresponds to a gross import-substitution value of roughly ₹2,100–₹2,500 crore. This is gross import-substitution value, not direct foreign-exchange saving.So, what does the return look like?The ₹11,040-crore approved outlay is not the right denominator for realised return. The Government reports that ₹1,447.21 crore was released by the Centre to implementing States during FY2021-22 to FY2025-26. But release is not actual utilisation, and a consolidated Centre-plus-State utilisation figure for the entire mission is not publicly available in comparable form.On the available evidence, the indicative/diagnostic realised-return multiple is around 1.4–1.6X. A precise number is not stated because the national utilisation denominator and expenditure timing remain unresolved.The objective is therefore not mathematical perfection where the data do not permit it, but the most defensible picture of the mission’s realised economic impact.What should NMEO-OP 2.0 do next?The lesson is not simply to plant more hectares. The next policy direction should be more productive oil-palm regions. Andhra Pradesh and Telangana provide a demonstrable pathway—not for mechanical replication, because agro-climatic and socio-economic conditions differ, but for identifying and adapting the underlying success factors: farmer confidence, effective-area management, irrigation, productivity, FFB market support, processing access and value-chain discipline.The question for NMEO-OP 2.0 is not merely how many hectares India can plant, but how many productive oil-palm regions it can create. The objective should be more productive regions, not merely more hectares.The exercise therefore points to a simple principle: public investment in a perennial crop should be judged by productive outcomes, not expenditure or acreage alone.The author is Former CEO- Oil Palm Plantation, Godrej Agrovet Ltd. and consultant- Palm Oil Production & Plantation Development, Kolkata, West Bengal. Views are personal.Published on August 22, 2026
