Dvara Research BlogDvara Research Blog
Dvara Research Blog
Doorway to Financial Access
  • Home
  • Our Work
  • Themes
  • Subscribe
    • Email Subscription
    • Feed
  • Contact Us
Menu back  

Designing a financial product for paddy farmers

November 18, 201227 CommentsProducts Viewed : 14932

By Arun Kumar & Balajee GE, IFMR Rural Finance

How can we design a financial product for a farmer that is exactly suited to his requirement? The answer lies in understanding the utilisation of the product. So, it became clear to us that if we were to design a crop loan for a farmer, we had to understand the exact utilisation of the loan. This also meant we had to understand everything about the crop for which the loan would be utilised for. Which is exactly what we did.

Instead of designing a generic crop loan that any farmer could avail, we designed a very specific loan that only paddy farmers could avail. Here’s what we did:

First we studied the paddy farming cycles in Tamil Nadu, which included the seasonality, varieties and duration of the cropping cycle. Then we mapped the entire supply chain for the paddy farming activity, keeping the farmer as the focal point. This included:

  • Identifying the inputs and sources (Seeds, fertilisers, pesticides)
  • Costs associated with each of them
  • Costs associated with infrastructure such as electricity and water

We then mapped out the different activities of paddy farming over a timeline. Here’s what a typical paddy farming cycle looks like:

Based on a combination of our own primary research and various secondary data, we developed our own template to calculate the financing requirement to cultivate paddy. The inputs for the template are:

  • Size of land holding
  • Nature of electricity (free or paid)
  • Source of water (Borewell/bought/free)
  • Extent of mechanisation (Partial/complete)

Based on the combination of inputs, the template recommends an approximate cost of cultivation and a recommended loan amount. The template also recommends the disbursement to be made in multiple tranches (ideally 2).

The first tranche (60% of the sanctioned loan) is disbursed on Day 15 and the second tranche (remaining 40%) is disbursed on Day 45. The days were decided based on our interaction with farmers. The farmer could use the first disbursement to pay wage labourers for transplantation, purchase of fertiliser for first round application.

The second disbursement will help the farmer to meet the expenses he will incur during purchase of fertiliser for subsequent applications, pesticides, and will also take care of harvesting expenses (manual or mechanised).

As is usual in loans, the farmer is expected to bring in equity. This equity is deployed in the first few days of the cycle to meet the sowing expenses (seeds + labour).

The farmer will repay the loan (principal + interest) post harvest and sales.

We believe it is important to offer a credit product that is structured around the cash flows of the customer, making credit available exactly when needed and repayment when cash is available at the household. The exact timing helps in reducing the interest cost and also eliminates the uncertainty surrounding the credit availability.

This pilot is a step in that direction. Our pilot is underway in four branches of Pudhuaaru KGFS. We also aim to roll out customised loans for farmers growing other crops.

Track our progress and findings from the pilot on our Facebook page or via Twitter.

Share Via :Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Email this to someone
email
KGFSrural finance
27 Comments
  1. Reply
    November 19, 2012 at 7:25 am
    S Santhanam

    Though known for generations, diagrammatic representation of paddy cultivation cycle is refreshing. Hope labour, insurance costs are taken into account while arriving at the unit cost. In thanjavur delta, some farmers go for three cycles of paddy cultivation viz, kuruvai, samba and thaladi. unit costs would differ for each of them as sowing to harvest time, agri practices differ.

    • Reply
      November 19, 2012 at 11:26 pm
      Arun Kumar

      Dear Santhanam,

      Thanks a lot for sharing your observations. The Paddy template is designed taking into consideration the changes in unit cost from one season to the other and the related agricultural practices as well. Having said this, factors such as type of crop (short, medium and long), extent of mechanization and availability of irrigation facilities affects the cost of cultivation than the season.

  2. Reply
    November 19, 2012 at 3:01 pm
    Sucharita Mukherjee

    This is truly sophisticated product development, congratulations!

    A few questions,

    – Are we planning to extend to other crops as well?
    – What proportion is effectively equity financed in the paddy loan?
    – Is some insurance (against fire, floods) etc) also recommended along with the loan?
    – How is the loan priced for different farmers taking paddy loans (clearly the proportion of equity will be a parameter, what are the others, also the ones relating to the household’s capacity to pay + credit history)?

    Do provide updates on the performance of the paddy loan pilot on the blog

    Best,
    Sucharita

    • Reply
      November 19, 2012 at 11:50 pm
      Arun Kumar

      Dear Sucharita,

      Thanks a lot for this. Though we have started with paddy in Thanjavur, the plan is to design such templates for other crops too. This we believe will help us to understand the cash flows and the risks involved in order to take informed lending decisions.

      So far as the paddy financing product is concerned, a minimum of 20% of the total cost of cultivation should be equity and the rest can be given as loan. On pricing, though our long term plan is to have differential pricing based on factors such as proportion of equity, debt servicing capacity and credit history, we have kept the lending rates uniform during the pilot phase.

      For the pilot we are not recommending any insurance as such but the team is already working on weather and portfolio cover for crops. We expect to pilot these products during the next crop cycle. We will keep you updated about the progress in this.

      Thanks,
      Arun

  3. Reply
    November 19, 2012 at 3:16 pm
    Pras

    Excellent stuff. A few observations and queries, however,
    1. Are these disbursement dates flexible given the nature of agricultural crops? e g weeding may advance or get delayed, just like harvesting is in a window of time.
    2. Does the loan tie-in with the supplier? To explain, the farmer can go to the store and pick up his fertilizer, pesticide and the shop owner is aware that he’s got the cash to pay. Is the process of disbursement as streamlined as possible, as often this could be the glitch.
    3. Is the repayment a balloon payment on the sale of harvest?

    Also, the harvest time is when you can step in to offer investment options.

    I’m sure you’ve thought of many of these points, so forgive me if the queries are redundant!

    • Reply
      November 20, 2012 at 12:17 am
      Arun Kumar

      Dear Prassana,

      Thanks a lot for your observations. These are all relevant questions and are very important to our design work. Please find our response below in bold.

      1. Are these disbursement dates flexible given the nature of agricultural crops? e g weeding may advance or get delayed, just like harvesting is in a window of time.

      Yes, they are flexible within a particular time period. For instance clients can avail of the first tranche at anytime between the 15th and 30th day and the 2nd tranche can be availed of between the 45th and 65th day from the date of nursery preparation. Disbursements in both these tranches cannot happen beyond the disbursement window as expenses are incurred during the above mentioned days taking into account changes such as the date of application of fertilizers and pesticides.

      2. Does the loan tie-in with the supplier? To explain, the farmer can go to the store and pick up his fertilizer, pesticide and the shop owner is aware that he’s got the cash to pay. Is the process of disbursement as streamlined as possible, as often this could be the glitch.

      This is definitely the way forward in our work and we are exploring ways to connect the various parts of the supply chain and address the gaps pertaining to finance. For the moment, loan is given to the farmer directly in tranches and the disbursement is linked to expenses incurred for a set of activities as explained above.

      3. Is the repayment a balloon payment on the sale of harvest?

      Yes, it is a bullet repayment wherein the clients are expected to repay the loan in a single payment on the sale of the harvest.

      Also it is a very good idea to discuss about the client’s investment options at the time of harvest and provide them with flexible options. we have started to think about such product designs. Please follow this space for further updates on them.

      Thanks,
      Arun

      • Reply
        November 21, 2012 at 1:47 am
        Pras

        Dear Arun, Many thanks for making the time to respond. I wish you and the team the very best in making this happen, and will keep track of things through this site. Kind regards

      • Reply
        November 25, 2012 at 3:39 pm
        pkraghu

        Since this is in pilot stage, am I right the spread of farmers is limited to a particular region ( a few villages may be)? In this case, it would actually make sense to tie the supplier link too which makes the disbursement that much more cost effective. And if the supplier is also a micro-business, it might make sense to include this as part of the microfinance ecosystem.

  4. Reply
    November 23, 2012 at 1:11 pm
    Gagan Pattanayak

    Impressive, a banker to spend time and understand crop cycle. If you could get in a collateral management/warehousing system, you have almost a commodity backed product. Best wishes and will try a form of it in my areas of operation

    • Reply
      November 23, 2012 at 2:39 pm
      Balajee Ge

      Thank you Gagan. That is the direction we are headed. Would be great if you could share results from your experience.

  5. Reply
    November 23, 2012 at 4:28 pm
    Nachiket Mor

    This is an excellent blog post and I can see that a very good discussion is already in progress. I want to add a few of my questions into the mix as well.

    1. The product description appeared to me to be exclusively input oriented and does not seem to explicitly acknowledge or take into account the fact that repayment is a function of outputs — crop yield, rainfall, post-harvest sale-price of paddy, farmer level moral hazard, diversion of funds, etc. I am keen to hear your thoughts on this — in particular how do you propose to deal with each risk.

    2. To me one of the values of multiple disbursements which are input linked is that each one offers an opportunity for pre-disbursement review and cancellation of further disbursements if the review is not satisfactory. I feel also that it also not sufficient to take farmer feedback and say 15 days and 45 days. If the manner in which we propose to deal with moral hazard relating to diversion of funds is to directly disburse to suppliers and to ensure that the farmer does not hold surplus cash, then why can the disbursement not be on a much more continuous expense related basis — daily even. You could agree to pay his workers directly for example or his seed supplier, or his electricity bill.

    3. Not clear to me what the logic of 20% equity was? How has that been computed and what role does it play? And, what is the base on which it is computed? Small farmers would generally be expending a great deal of human capital on this work — would that be counted?

    These are the points that occur to me at the moment. I would be eager to hear from the authors as well as the others that participate in this blog.

    • Reply
      November 26, 2012 at 7:38 pm
      Arun Kumar

      1. Thank you Nachiket. We agree that this is mostly based on inputs. We are working on weather insurance and portfolio cover for crops to deal with risks arising out of yield-related issues such as rainfall, diseases.

      Farmers choose the higher of the government price (Minimum Support Price – MSP) and traders’ price. While the traders price tend to fluctuate depending on the market, MSP is fixed for the season and it is fixed in such a way that the farmer makes a nominal profit. What we could definitely explore is tying up with the local traders to ensure that the payment is routed through us. This will also mitigate the risk of diversion of funds.

      For the farmer level moral hazard, we propose to deal with this at multiple stages of the cropping. The insistence of the farmer investing for the initial sowing is a way on ensuring the farmer has a stake in the process. At a due-diligence level, the wealth managers will monitor the crops at regular intervals. We have even proposed to take photographs of the crop frequently to monitor the progress.

      2. Thank you for this idea. This is exactly what we had thought of initially. The 15 and 45-day logic was based on the days on which the farmer incurs a bulky expense. To explain, the farmer initially incurs expense for land preparation, nursery preparation and tilling – this is taken care by his equity.

      The next expense comes approximately on Day 25 when he has to pay the labourers for transplantion and purchase fertilisers. We intended to give the farmer the first tranche in time for him to arrange for the labour (which currently is a big challenge to find) beforehand and to purchase fertilizers.

      The second tranche is ideally for purchase of fertilisers and pesticides for the second and third applications between Days 45 and 60.

      Though it might also be worthwhile to explore the possibility of disbursing a tranche just before the third fertiliser application, we also think this might not be effective as the farmers tend to procure them in bulk.

      Ideally we should be disbursing another tranche just before harvesting to meet his harvesting expenses (The only other time the farmer incurs an expenditure). We will try and incorporate this in our product. Parallely we would also explore plotting the supply chain and making direct payments to the suppliers/labourers as a risk mitigation strategy.

      3. The 20% equity was arrived based on the time and money that a farmer has to spend so as to not go back on his words ie. if the farmer has prepared the land, tilled, sowed and kept the nursery ready, there is very little incentive for him to stop cultivating and is more profitable to complete the cultivation rather than abandon the process. This in a sense eliminates the moral hazard. On an average, the amount spent by the farmer till the preparation of nursery was about 20% of the total expenses.

      The template is designed taking into account the number of man hours spent on a particular activity (say transplantation or weeding). So whether the farmer works on his own farm or hires laborers to work on his farm, it is assumed that he has to incur the expenses.

      – Balajee and Arun Kumar

  6. Reply
    November 25, 2012 at 12:58 pm
    Nachiket Mor

    I wonder if it makes sense to build master table at the IRF level which has two axes: crop and district and gives two pieces of information: crop price volatility and rainfall volatility. These inputs could potentially help fix the quantum of equity required as well as the need for rainfall insurance as well as commodity derivatives.

    • Reply
      November 26, 2012 at 8:12 pm
      Arun Kumar

      Thank you Nachiket, this is a great idea. This will actually help us come up with very specific equity requirements. Will try to build one.

  7. Reply
    November 25, 2012 at 3:23 pm
    pkraghu

    I think this is a very interesting experiment and am keen on following the progress of this pilot. Please continue to post updates on this. Thanks.

  8. Reply
    November 25, 2012 at 3:29 pm
    pkraghu

    1. Is this credit being offered to individual farmers or is there a community (JLG) approach to this.
    2. It would be interesting to see if this pilot can expand to an entire microfinance ecosystem – which would include small / marginal farmers, micropreneurs offering services for harvest / threshing, delivering the harvest to the local cooperative mandi, etc.
    3. Is the loan also being tied into some kind of “best practices” for paddy cultivation? For example, for a given season, the sowing has to happen within a small window of 5-7 days, else it is quite likely that the yield is going to be affected. Other factors like quality of seeds, timely weeding also play a major role. How is the relationship of credit being tied into these factors?

    • Reply
      November 26, 2012 at 8:26 pm
      Arun Kumar

      1. This is an individual loan.
      2. While this pilot has been designed specifically for farmer and farming activity, we are sure can design products that address the specific purposes that you mention.
      3. Right now, we are not involving ourselves in paddy farming advice per se as we believe the farmer knows/is at liberty to choose what he thinks is best. However, the template definitely has certain minimum conditions such as timely transplantation and application of fertilisers. These things are monitored by the staff and if at any time found unsatisfactory, it will affect the subsequent disbursment.

  9. Reply
    November 26, 2012 at 7:47 pm
    Arun Kumar

    1. One, if the loan is to be tied to supplier, is supplier

    assessment going to be a service and options for choosing a supplier be available to farmers?

    We are working towards tying up with suppliers so that farmers can buy inputs from them and we can make payments directly to the suppliers. In such a case, farmers would be given the option of choosing the supplier and we will leave that decision to the farmer.

    2. What if an alternative or preferred source of credit is available and the farmer only requires a top up?

    Top-up can be given depending on the specific activity for which the farmer requires the top-up for and the expense incurred for that activity alone. For instance if the top-up is to meet the harvest expense, then we can lend to that extent alone. Though we do not have this option for pilot, it is a very good idea and we will certainly explore ways of including it in our product offering.

    Right now, the template we have designed recommends a maximum loan amount. The customer is at liberty to opt for a loan amount lesser than the sanctioned amount.

  10. Reply
    November 26, 2012 at 7:48 pm
    Arun Kumar

    Thanks a lot for yours observations and valuable feedback. We are already working on tying up with suppliers and making direct payments to them. This we believe will reduce the risks surrounding diversion of funds.

    To mitigate exigencies arising out of other loans of the farmer, we have designed the household debt servicing capacity (follow this blog for updates about this approach) that will be arrived at after accounting for the loan repayments and other expenses of the household. The loan amount will be within the debt servicing capacity of the household. This is done to ensure that the household has enough cashflows to repay its loans.

    We have proposed a bullet repayment as the product is structured in such a way that loan repayments are linked to cash inflows on the sale of the crop post harvest. Given the fact that farmers do not have any cash inflows before crop harvest, it is very difficult from the farmer’s perspective to repay in equated instalments.

    -Balajee and Arun Kumar

  11. Reply
    November 26, 2012 at 8:01 pm
    Arun Kumar

    Thanks a lot for sharing your views. We have replied to your questions below.

    1. Yes, the template is designed for each specific season. Though the total number of days of cultivation varies from season to season, about 60% of the expense is incurred by day 50 across all seasons. This 60% accounts for sowing, transplantation and first application of fertilizers that happen before day 50 for all seasons. The actual difference across seasons lies in the application of fertizers after day 50 and the harvest date.

    What we have depicted as a timeline here is only an indicative one. Ideally the input should also take into the variety of crop (long/medium/short) and indicate a repayment date based on the harvesting day for that variety.

    2. The equity amount was based on our direct feedback from the farmers specifically in the locations where the pilot was rolled out. However, we do agree that this amount varies from Rs. 2500 to Rs. 3500 across different places depending on farming practices. We hope to finetune this amount as we progress.

    3. Interest rates are purely based on the cost of funds and operating expenses of the lending entity. While the intention is not to compete with any existing government schemes, we believe the design of the product is compelling to the farmer, taking into account the exact need for cash at the right time.

  12. Reply
    November 26, 2012 at 8:02 pm
    Arun Kumar

    Thank you Prakash.

  13. Reply
    November 26, 2012 at 8:04 pm
    Arun Kumar

    Thank you Vivek. You have raised some good points. This sure provides us with food for thought for improving our offerings to the customer.

  14. Reply
    November 26, 2012 at 8:04 pm
    Arun Kumar

    Thank you Shekar.

  15. Reply
    November 26, 2012 at 8:12 pm
    Arun Kumar

    Thank you Sudha. You have raised a valid point. Repayment date is something we are trying to zero in as closely to the harvest date as possible. Right now we have taken an approximate duration of one week post harvesting as the repayment date. However, we had feedback that sometimes the farmer has to wait in queue for the government to procure his produce and this may delay the repayment. We are working on this.

    As mentioned in another comment below, working with suppliers and labourers directly is a good idea but involves mapping them first. This is definitely in our radar.

    -Balajee and Arun

  16. Reply
    March 2, 2013 at 7:47 pm
    R K SAHU

    is there any significant expenses of hiring irrigation pumpsets by paddy farmers. In areas of Dhanei KGFS though there is canal irrigation … farmers do hire around 5 -8 instances for critical crop periods like nursery, transplanting, panicle formation etc..

    In the event of this is pumpset financing is a good loan product for farmers especially small, marginal farmers including share cropper, leased in farmers. It is seen that they are not able t participate in the subsidy system and even in subsidy system they do not have the 50% amount to pay afront. They also remain out of normal bank loan process because of abscence of any land collateral. The situation will be critical for other crops especially Vegetables.

    any data points or thoughts around it

    • Reply
      March 8, 2013 at 6:10 pm
      Balajee and Arun

      Thank you Sahu. It was great meeting you. As we had told you, we are yet to initiate work in Dhanei KGFS for our paddy product.

      Looking at irrigation in general for the paddy crop, we find that we can make an impact if we understand the economics of irrigation better. One such option we are exploring is to finance pumpsets and gensets. However, this needs better research and we hope to be in touch with you to share our data and learn from your experience as well.

  17. Reply
    June 8, 2013 at 12:52 pm
    manik

    Hello Arun Kumar,

    Thanks for the blog post.

    Do you think it would be possible to repackage the proceeds from such financing arrangements in to some ABS via SPV, that could be sold to the goverments (local and central) or to cooperative or holding firms or released in secondary markets.

    The pooling of the proceeds could be done via region or by crop.

    Please consider this and share your commentary on the same.

    Cheers …

Leave Comment

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

thirteen − eight =

clear formSubmit

Related posts
Natural Catastrophe Insurance – In Conversation with Mr. Ulrich Hess
May 18, 2017
Developing the Natural Catastrophe Risk Insurance Market for Low-Income Households in India
May 10, 2017
Using Customer Information to take a Household Approach to Lending
December 11, 2012
Consumer Finance Innovations in India
November 14, 2012
PFRDA Aggregators’ Meet
November 29, 2011
The urgent need for high-quality distributors in the Indian financial system
October 18, 2011
Search
Recent Comments
  • Prasanna Srinivasan on Care through competition: The case of the Netherlands: “This made interesting and informative reading. Thank you. Inevitably, the mind ran a comparison with the Indian context even while…”
  • Misha Sharma on Direct Benefit Transfers in Assam, Chhattisgarh, and Andhra Pradesh: Introducing the Dvara-Haqdarshak Study on Exclusion in Government to Person Payments: “Great post, Aarushi. It will also be interesting to document the challenges faced in accessing these transfers and experiences with…”
  • Misha Sharma on What is Social Protection?: “Thanks for writing this, Anupama. A much needed piece and looking forward to the second post in this series. It…”
Subscribe and Follow Us

Popular Post

Popular Post
  • Approaches to Assessing Household Income for Microfinance Clients
    June 24, 2022
  • Incremental Adoption of Managed Competition in Germany
    June 20, 2022
  • Note on RBI’s Prompt Corrective Action Framework for Non-Banking Financial Companies
    June 17, 2022

Categories

Categories
  • Channels(88)
  • Consumer Protection(33)
  • Events(30)
  • Featured(42)
  • Field Reports(6)
  • From the field(9)
  • General(22)
  • Guest(30)
  • Household Research(75)
  • Long Term Debt Markets(9)
  • News(45)
  • Origination(30)
  • Products(42)
  • Regulation(112)
  • Research(253)
  • Risk Aggregation(26)
  • Risk transmission(63)
  • Small Cities(21)
  • Technology(25)
  • Uncategorized(105)
  • Unemployment Support(5)

Archives

Archives
  • June 2022 (5)
  • May 2022 (2)
  • April 2022 (4)
  • March 2022 (2)
  • February 2022 (3)
  • January 2022 (3)
  • December 2021 (4)
  • November 2021 (6)
  • October 2021 (4)
  • September 2021 (4)
  • August 2021 (6)
  • July 2021 (6)
  • June 2021 (10)
  • May 2021 (7)
  • April 2021 (9)
  • March 2021 (9)
  • February 2021 (7)
  • January 2021 (3)
  • December 2020 (7)
  • November 2020 (6)
  • October 2020 (10)
  • September 2020 (9)
  • August 2020 (12)
  • July 2020 (3)
  • June 2020 (5)
  • May 2020 (8)
  • April 2020 (4)
  • March 2020 (8)
  • February 2020 (3)
  • January 2020 (9)
  • December 2019 (4)
  • November 2019 (3)
  • October 2019 (7)
  • September 2019 (3)
  • August 2019 (2)
  • July 2019 (4)
  • June 2019 (4)
  • May 2019 (4)
  • April 2019 (7)
  • March 2019 (2)
  • February 2019 (3)
  • January 2019 (3)
  • December 2018 (5)
  • November 2018 (2)
  • October 2018 (5)
  • September 2018 (2)
  • August 2018 (2)
  • July 2018 (2)
  • June 2018 (2)
  • May 2018 (1)
  • April 2018 (1)
  • March 2018 (5)
  • February 2018 (2)
  • January 2018 (2)
  • December 2017 (5)
  • November 2017 (4)
  • October 2017 (3)
  • September 2017 (1)
  • August 2017 (3)
  • July 2017 (1)
  • June 2017 (3)
  • May 2017 (4)
  • April 2017 (3)
  • March 2017 (4)
  • February 2017 (3)
  • January 2017 (6)
  • December 2016 (5)
  • November 2016 (2)
  • October 2016 (3)
  • September 2016 (5)
  • August 2016 (4)
  • July 2016 (4)
  • June 2016 (8)
  • May 2016 (4)
  • April 2016 (5)
  • March 2016 (4)
  • February 2016 (3)
  • January 2016 (3)
  • December 2015 (3)
  • November 2015 (1)
  • October 2015 (2)
  • September 2015 (3)
  • August 2015 (5)
  • July 2015 (3)
  • June 2015 (3)
  • May 2015 (3)
  • April 2015 (2)
  • March 2015 (3)
  • February 2015 (1)
  • January 2015 (1)
  • December 2014 (5)
  • November 2014 (4)
  • October 2014 (3)
  • September 2014 (4)
  • August 2014 (4)
  • July 2014 (4)
  • June 2014 (8)
  • May 2014 (1)
  • April 2014 (4)
  • March 2014 (5)
  • February 2014 (6)
  • January 2014 (8)
  • December 2013 (7)
  • November 2013 (8)
  • October 2013 (7)
  • September 2013 (7)
  • August 2013 (5)
  • July 2013 (6)
  • June 2013 (7)
  • May 2013 (6)
  • April 2013 (8)
  • March 2013 (9)
  • February 2013 (6)
  • January 2013 (9)
  • December 2012 (8)
  • November 2012 (7)
  • October 2012 (5)
  • September 2012 (5)
  • August 2012 (5)
  • July 2012 (7)
  • June 2012 (4)
  • May 2012 (6)
  • April 2012 (4)
  • March 2012 (7)
  • February 2012 (6)
  • January 2012 (8)
  • December 2011 (8)
  • November 2011 (7)
  • October 2011 (8)
  • September 2011 (7)
  • August 2011 (3)
  • July 2011 (6)
  • June 2011 (11)
  • May 2011 (8)
  • April 2011 (9)
  • March 2011 (13)
  • February 2011 (10)
  • January 2011 (8)
  • December 2010 (10)
  • November 2010 (10)
  • October 2010 (10)
  • September 2010 (7)
  • August 2010 (13)
  • July 2010 (10)
  • June 2010 (6)
  • May 2010 (13)
  • April 2010 (7)
  • March 2010 (10)
  • February 2010 (5)
  • January 2010 (4)
  • December 2009 (3)
  • November 2009 (1)
  • October 2009 (6)
  • August 2009 (1)
  • July 2009 (2)
  • June 2009 (1)
  • May 2009 (1)
  • April 2009 (1)
  • March 2009 (1)
Share Via :Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Email this to someone
email
Site Map

www.dvara.com