India Report Final Draft 11.27

8/3/2019 India Report Final Draft 11.27

1/93

INDIAN FOOD SECURITY AND CLIMATE

CHANGE:AGRICULTURE FUTURESDeepak Shah, Gokhle Institute of Political Economy

PK Joshi, International Food Policy Research Institute

Gerald C. Nelson, Daniel Mason-DCroz, and Amanda Palazzo, International Food PolicyResearch Institute

October 2011

DRAFT VERSION, NOT READY FOR CITATION OR DISTRIBUTION

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

Regional impacts of climate change ................................................................................ 2

Selection of IMPACT, SPAM and DSSAT Crop for India ........................................................... 3

Agriculture, Food Security and Indian Development ................................................................ 6

Review of the Current Situation ........................................................................................ 6

Population ............................................................................................................... 7

Income ................................................................................................................. 11

Vulnerability .......................................................................................................... 13

Review of Land Use and Agriculture ................................................................................. 17

Agriculture Overview ................................................................................................... 24

Scenarios for Adaptation ............................................................................................... 40

Biophysical Scenarios ................................................................................................ 40

Climate Scenarios ................................................................................................. 40Crop Physiological Response to Climate Change ............................................................ 43From biophysical scenarios to socioeconomic consequences: The IMPACT Model .................... 56

Income and Demographic Scenarios .............................................................................. 57

Agriculture and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation ........................................................................ 76

Agricultural Emissions History ..................................................................................... 76

Technical potential for agricultural mitigation ................................................................. 76

Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 77

References ................................................................................................................ 79

Table of TablesTable 1.Population Growth in India and China (in billions) ........................................................ 8Table 2.Population Growth Rates, 1960-2008 (%) ................................................................... 9Table 3.Share of Agriculture in GDP (US $ Million) ................................................................ 12Table 4.Per capita NNP (in Rs.) and Share of Agriculture in GDP (%) .......................................... 13Table 5.Percentage of Population Below Poverty line in India (Combine Rural and Urban) ............... 14Table 6.Education and labor statistics .............................................................................. 16Table 7.Life Expectancy and Literacy Rate in India ............................................................... 16Table 8.Population and Agricultural Workers in India (in millions)............................................. 17


2/93

Table 9.Agricultural land by Use in India (Million Hectares) .................................................... 17Table 10.Changing Share of Different Sources in Irrigation Potential Created ............................... 19Table 11.Production Performance of Important Crops in India during 10 th and 11th Plan .................. 25Table 12.Normal (Average of 2003-04 to 2008-09) Area, Production and Yield of Major Crops in India(Area Million Hectares; Production Million Tonnes; Yield Kg./Hectare) .................................. 25Table 13.Harvest area of leading agricultural commodities, average of 2006-2008 ........................ 26Table 14.Value of production for leading agricultural commodities, average of 2006-2008 .............. 26Table 15.Consumption of leading food commodities, average of 2003-2006 ................................. 27Table 16.Yield Lost and Gained in India Irrigated and Rainfed Crops by 2050 ........................... 43Table 17.GDP and population choices for the three overall scenarios ........................................ 57Table 18.Average scenario per capita GDP growth rates (percent per year) ................................. 58Table 19.India-U.S. Income Scenario Outcomes for 2010, 2030, and 2050 (2000US$ per capita) ........ 59Table 20. Impact of Climate Change on Crop Yields in India: Simulation Outcomes (Yield in mt/ha) ... 60

Table of FiguresFigure 1.Changes in mean annual precipitation between 2000 and 2050 using the A1B scenario (mm peryear). ........................................................................................................................ 4Figure 2.Changes in annual maximum temperature between 2000 and 2050 using the A1B scenario (C) 5Figure 3.Population Trends: Total Population, Rural Population, and Percent Urban, 1960-2008 ......... 9Figure 4.Population distribution (persons per square kilometer) ............................................... 10Figure 5.Population scenarios for 2010 to 2050 .................................................................. 11Figure 6.Per capita GDP (constant 2000 US$) and share of GDP from agriculture ......................... 13Figure 7.Poverty (percent below US$2 per day) ................................................................... 15Figure 8.Well-Being Indicators: Life Expectancy at Birth and under 5 Mortality Rate ...................... 17Figure 9.Land cover, 2000 ............................................................................................. 21Figure 10.Protected areas ............................................................................................. 22Figure 11.Travel time to urban areas ................................................................................ 23Figure 12.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated wheat ............................. 28Figure 13.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed wheat .............................. 28Figure 14.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated rice................................ 29Figure 15.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed rice ................................. 29Figure 16.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated maize ............................. 30Figure 17.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed maize ............................... 30

Figure 18.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated sorghum .......................... 31Figure 19.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed sorghum ............................ 31Figure 20.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated cotton ............................ 32Figure 21.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed cotton .............................. 32Figure 22.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated soybeans ......................... 33Figure 23.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed soybeans ........................... 33Figure 24.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated beans ............................. 34Figure 25.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed beans ............................... 34Figure 26.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated groundnuts ...................... 35Figure 27.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed groundnuts ........................ 35Figure 28.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated millet ............................. 36Figure 29.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed millet ............................... 36Figure 30.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated barley ............................ 37

Figure 31.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed barley .............................. 37Figure 32.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated potatoes ......................... 38Figure 33.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed potatoes ........................... 38Figure 34.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated sugarcane ........................ 39Figure 35.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed sugarcane .......................... 39Figure 36.Changes in mean annual precipitation for India between 2000 and 2050 using the A1Bscenario (millimeters) .................................................................................................. 41Figure 37.Changes in normal annual maximum temperature for India between 2000 and 2050 using theA1B scenario (C) ........................................................................................................ 42


3/93

Figure 38.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated wheat .............................. 44Figure 39.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed wheat................................ 45Figure 40.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated rice ................................. 46Figure 41.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed rice .................................. 47Figure 42.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated maize .............................. 48Figure 43.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed maize ................................ 49Figure 44.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated groundnuts........................ 50Figure 45.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed groundnuts ......................... 51Figure 46.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated potatoes........................... 52Figure 47.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed potatoes ............................ 53Figure 48.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated soybeans .......................... 54Figure 49.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed soybeans ............................ 55Figure 50.The IMPACT modeling framework ........................................................................ 56Figure 51.The 281 FPUs in the IMPACT model ...................................................................... 57Figure 52.GDP Per Capita Scenarios ................................................................................. 58Figure 53.Scenario outcomes for wheat area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ................ 62Figure 54.Scenario outcomes for rice area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ................... 63Figure 55.Scenario outcomes for maize area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ................. 64Figure 56.Scenario outcomes for sorghum area, yield, production, net exports, and prices .............. 65Figure 57.Scenario outcomes for cotton area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ................ 66Figure 58.Scenario outcomes for soybeans area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ............. 67Figure 59.Scenario outcomes for chickpeas area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ............ 68Figure 60.Scenario outcomes for groundnuts area, yield, production, net exports, and prices .......... 69Figure 61.Scenario outcomes for millet area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ................. 70Figure 62.Scenario outcomes for pigeon peas area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ......... 71Figure 63.Scenario outcomes for potato area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ................ 72Figure 64.Scenario outcomes for sugarcane area, yield, and production; sugar production, net exports,and prices ................................................................................................................. 73Figure 65.Average daily kilocalories availability under multiple income and climate scenarios(kilocalories per person per day) ..................................................................................... 74Figure 66.Number of malnourished children under 5 years of age under multiple income and climatescenarios .................................................................................................................. 75Figure 67.GHG Emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, PFCs, HFCs, SF6) in India by Sector ............................. 76


4/93

1

IntroductionIn the wake of globalization, high population growth, increased livelihood options and climate

change, food security and natural resource management have become pressing global challenges.

They are of even greater concern to developing countries, where livelihoods are often dependent

on subsistence agriculture. Agriculture and food security are inextricably linked. The agricultural

sector in each country is dependent on the available natural resources, as well as on national and

international policy and the institutional environment that governs those resources. Although the

world produces enough food to feed everyone, an estimated 854 million people worldwide are still

undernourished (FAO 2006). The major driver of food insecurity is poverty. However, evidence

indicates that poverty reduction and food security do not necessarily move in tandem. Food

security not only requires an adequate supply of food, but also entails availability, access, and

utilization by all, and is achieved when all people have physical, social, and economic access to

sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for a healthy

and active life.

Due to the intertwined nature of sustainable development, and agricultures prominent role in

said development, changes in other sectors can have far reaching implications in the ability ofimplementing a sustainable agriculture project that positively contributes to the overall

development of a country. Thus, it is essential to have agriculture closely integrated with other

aspects of land and ecosystem management with a view to promoting both environmental

sustainability and agricultural production. Recent evidence suggests a slowing in yield growth of

major food-grains in developing countries. This has raised serious concerns about food security,

farmers income, poverty, and livelihood, as agriculture is the prime source of livelihood for the

majority of the rural poor. Despite the fact that Green Revolution technologies have increased

agricultural production significantly and contributed to greater food security, this technological

breakthrough has also affected the land, water, and environment, while reducing the diversity and

resilience of the agricultural system.

Climate change is multiplying and compounding problems of land and environmental

degradation (i.e. depletion of groundwater resources, soil degradation, denudation of forestlands,

etc.). This has direct impacts on food security and farm income, which is particularly troubling for

developing countries, which face the problem of growing populations and constrained agricultural

productivity. There is growing evidence that climate change through changes in precipitation

patterns and increasing air and ocean temperatures is having an impact on agricultural

productivity for many major crops. Consequently, several parts of the world, including South Asia,

Sub-Saharan Africa and even parts of China are likely to experience the threat of food security. In

light of this growing global challenge, this paper will attempt to address the various issues related

to climate change and its impact on agriculture and food security in India.

The first part of this paper is an overview of the current food security situation, the underlying

natural resources available in India and the drivers that lead to the current state, focusing on

income and population growth. The second part reviews the India-specific outcomes of a set ofscenarios for the future of global food security in the context of climate change. These country-

specific outcomes are based on IMPACT model runs from July 2011.

In the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working

Group 1 reports that climate is often defined as 'average weather'. Climate is usually described in

terms of the mean and variability of temperature, precipitation and wind over a period of time,

ranging from months to millions of years (the classical period is 30 years) (Le Treut et al., 2007,

pg.96)).


5/93

2

The unimpeded growth of greenhouse gas emissions is raising average temperatures. The

consequences include changes in precipitation patterns, more and more extreme weather events,

and shifting seasons. The accelerating pace of climate change, combined with global population

and income growth, threatens food security everywhere.

Agriculture is vulnerable to climate change in a number of dimensions. Higher temperatures

eventually reduce yields of desirable crops and tend to encourage weed and pest proliferation.

Greater variations in precipitation patterns increase the likelihood of short-run crop failures and

long-run production declines. Although there might be gains in some crops in some regions of the

world, the overall impacts of climate change on agriculture are expected to be negative,

threatening global food security. The impacts are

Direct, on crops and livestock productivity domestically Indirect, on availability/prices of food domestically and in international markets Indirect, on income from agricultural production both at the farm and country levels

Regional impacts of climate changeWhile the general consequences of climate change are becoming increasingly well known, great

uncertainty remains about how climate change effects will play out in specific locations1. Figure 1shows changes in average precipitation globally between 2000 and 2050 for four General CirculationModels (GCMs), each using the A1B scenario.

1 To understand the significant uncertainty in how these effects play out over the surface of the earth it is useful

to describe briefly the process by which the results depicted in the figures are derived. They start with global (orgeneral) circulation models (GCMs) that model the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere and its interactionswith oceans and the land surface. Several GCMs have been developed independently around the world. Next,integrated assessment models (IAMs) simulate the interactions between humans and their surroundings, includingindustrial activities, transportation, agriculture and other land uses and estimate the emissions of the variousgreenhouse gasses (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are the most important). Several independent IAMsexist as well. The emissions simulation results of the IAMs are made available to the GCM models as inputs thatalter atmospheric chemistry. The end result is a set of estimates of precipitation and temperature values aroundthe globe often at 2 degree intervals (about 200 km at the equator) for most models. Periodically, theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues assessment reports on the state of our understanding ofclimate science and interactions with the oceans, land and human activities.


6/93

3

Figure 2 shows the change in average maximum temperature. In each set of figures, the legend colors

are identical; a specific color represents the same change in temperature or precipitation across the

models.

A quick glance at these figures shows that substantial differences exist. For example, in Figure 1 theMIROC GCM suggests that Southeast Asia will be much drier, while the ECHAM model has the sameregion getting wetter. In South Asia, the MIROC GCM has an increase in precipitation, especially in the

northeast, while the CSIRO GCM has a drier South Asia. In


7/93

4

Figure 2, we see that the MIROC and ECHAM GCMs predict very big temperature increases for

northeast South Asia, but they differ on whether northwest South Asia will also experience such a

severe temperature increase. These figures illustrate qualitatively the range of potential climate

outcomes using current modeling capabilities and provide an indication of the uncertainty in climate-

change impacts. The differences across models are why policymakers must avoid seeking specific

solutions for specific locations unless there is significant agreement across models. Rather, it is

important to note general trends and to consider policies that are helpful and robust across the range

of climate outcomes.

As for India, in Figure 1, the MIROC and CNRM GCMs predict that many parts of India will be wetter

with north-east India showing highest increase in precipitation. In contrast, the CSIRO and ECHAM GCMs

show the same a drier India in 2050.

In


8/93

5

Figure 2, the CSIRO and MIROC model predict that there will be a 1 to 1.5 0 C increase in

temperature in 2050 in most parts of India, whereas CNRM model predicts that this increase in

temperature will be 1.5 to 2 0 C in the same region of India. The ECHAM model predicts the northern

region will experience a temperature increase of 2 to 2.5 0 C in 2050, and other regions of India

experiencing temperature increases of 1.5 to 2 0 C. These observations are concomitant of the fact that

different models have their own prediction scenarios in terms of precipitation and temperature

increase in 2050 for different regions of India.

Selection of IMPACT, SPAM and DSSAT Crop for IndiaThe twelve IMPACT crops selected for this study are: wheat, rice, maize, sorghum, cotton, soybeans,

chickpeas, groundnuts, millet, pigeon peas, potatoes and sugarcane. The figures for the selected

IMPACT crops show changes in their area, production, yield, net exports and prices during the period

between 2010 and 2050. These figures are based on IMPACT model results from July 2011 using

pessimistic, baseline and optimistic scenarios for the period between 2010 and 2050.

Twelve crops were also selected from SPAM, to show the spatial allocation of irrigated and rainfed

harvest area and yields in 2000. The twelve SPAM crops selected are: wheat, rice, maize, sorghum,

cotton, soybeans, beans, groundnuts, millet, barley, potatoes and sugarcane.

DSSAT is a crop modeling suite that has been used to model the changes in harvest area and yieldexpected due to climate change in 2050. This study includes maps for the following crops: wheat, rice,

maize, groundnuts, potatoes, and soybeans. The maps generated for these DSSAT crops present climate

changes in 2050 based on the CNRM, CSIRO, ECHAM and MIROC GCMs.


9/93

6

Figure 1.Changes in mean annual precipitation between 2000 and 2050 using the A1B scenario (mm per year).

CNRM-CM3 GCM CSIRO-MK3 GCM

Change in annual precipitatio(millimeters)

ECHAM5 GCM MIROC3.2 medium resolution GCMSource: IFPRI calculations based on downscaled climate data available athttp://ccafs-climate.org.
http://ccafs-climate.org/http://ccafs-climate.org/http://ccafs-climate.org/http://ccafs-climate.org/


10/93

7

Figure 2.Changes in annual maximum temperature between 2000 and 2050 using the A1B scenario (C)


Change in annual maximumtemperature (C)

ECHAM5 GCM MIROC3.2 medium resolution GCMSource: IFPRI calculations based on downscaled climate data available athttp://ccafs-climate.org/.
http://ccafs-climate.org/http://ccafs-climate.org/http://ccafs-climate.org/http://ccafs-climate.org/


11/93

8

Agriculture, Food Security and Indian DevelopmentAt the same time food security has emerged as a major world concern, the adverse effects of

climate change are being felt on agricultural production. Rising global food prices has a worldwide

effect on global food security, which is not only due to adverse climatic effects on agricultural

production, but also owing to a rise in oil prices, the increasing use of grains for biofuels and the

reduction in public spending on agricultural sector over the last three decades. Environmental

sustainability has also become more elusive due to rapid industrialization, population growth,

increased urbanization and poor awareness of the effects of environmental pollution (Zubair and

Rana, 2009). India at present finds itself in a paradoxical situation: endemic mass hunger

coexisting with mounting food grain stocks. This is despite India having a laudable food security

policy, which ensures the availability of food grains to the food insecure at an affordable price,

enabling the poor to have access to food. However, the issues of poverty and sustainability in

production still defeat the objectives of food security. India still has the largest food insecure

population in the world. The forces causing the vicious circle of poverty are low calorie intake,

productivity, income and poor health. In order to address food security, food production must

increase to meet the needs of a growing population, while ensuring that this production issustainable.

Since the mid-1960s, India witnessed a significant expansion in the output of food grains. This

expansion was due to the new technologies introduced by the Green Revolution, popularly known

as seed-fertilizer-water technology, and led to India achieving self-sufficiency in the production of

food. Nonetheless, various challenges confronting India today have raised doubts about the

sustainability of the agricultural sector in India. These challenges include, but are not limited to:

Mounting population growth Gradual depletion and degradation of natural resources Diversion of land and water to non-agricultural uses Bio-fuel production displacing food grain production Market fluctuations Changing agricultural trade regimes

Review of the Current SituationThe agricultural sector has always been an important component of the Indian economy. However,

rapid industrialization, the ever increasing population and adverse climatic effects have negatively

affected its agricultural sector. In the present milieu, attaining food security has become more

complex. This is due primarily to the sluggish growth of Indian agriculture, which has been less

than 2 percent per year in recent years. Though the National Policy on Agriculture (NAP) released

in July 2000 envisages an agricultural growth rate in excess of 4 percent per year over the nexttwo decades, the achievement of this growth to a greater extent depends on market and irrigation

infrastructure development and the adoption of biotechnology, especially genetic modification.

With the objective of raising the productivity of food crops to respond to increasing demand from a

growing population, the NAP categorically emphasizes the adoption of differentiated strategies for

each region, taking into account region-specific agronomic, climatic and environmental conditions

to achieve the full growth potential of every region. It also emphasizes the development of new

food crop varieties to achieve higher nutritional value through the use of biotechnology (NAP,


12/93

9

2000). In the late 1970s and the early 1980s, a number of studies raised concern about a possible

deceleration in the growth of food grain production, indicating a decline in the momentum of the

Green Revolution and the possible exhaustion of the potential of available technology (Alag and

Sharma, 1980; Desai and Namboodiri, 1983). These studies conducted during the 1980s

foreshadowed the current situation, which is marked by stagnant or declining growth in area and

production of several coarse cereal and pulses crops in India.

The sluggish growth of the agriculture sector is leading to a complex situation. While many

sectors of India show remarkable growth in the post-reform period, there are still great

challenges in confronting the fact that more than 300 million peopleone-fourth of the

worlds population live in poverty. Sustained rural poverty reduction heavily depends on the

growth of the agriculture sector, which employs 75 percent of the rural working population

and accounts for 65-70 percent of rural income. One of the major constraints faced by India is

related to the cost of investing in rural and social infrastructure; the subsidies and new

technologies that are needed to encourage growth in Indias rural economy, and help alleviate

rural poverty (Bhalla, et. al., 1999). In this veritable scenario, food security and the

sustainability of Indian agriculture have become major causes of concern. Since food grain

production has remained stagnant over the last decade and a half despite the increasing

consumption needs of a growing population, the Government of India has begun to takemeasures to confront the growing problem of food insecurity. In August 2007, India launched

the Centrally Sponsored Scheme, National Food Security Mission (NFSM) with a focus on

increasing the production and productivity of wheat, rice and pulses on a sustainable basis,

through dissemination of improved technologies and farm management practices.

The future looks a great deal more challenging for Indian agriculture due to increased

environmental degradation, climate change and a series of other threats, such as disappearing

arable land and forests, increasing competition for water, and the spread of GM crops. This

challenging future is further complicated by the conversion of agricultural land from food

production to bio-fuel production. Since food security implies meeting the dietary needs and

food preferences for an active and healthy life through the access to sufficient, safe and

nutritious food for all people and at all times, the achievement of this goal in the face of an

ever growing Indian population will be difficult. Clearly, sustainable agriculture is under

serious threat. Thus, assessing the impact of climate change is critical in formulating a

coherent and integrated strategy for sustainable development, and will be of great interest to

the scientists, planners, and policy makers who will need to draft and implement these

strategies.

PopulationDensely populated developing countries contribute over 95 percent of global population

growth. Rapid population growth, especially in regions with poor infrastructure to absorb this

growth, could lead to even greater environmental deterioration. This has been observed in

many developing countries, where continued population growth has resulted in pressure on

land, fragmentation of land holding, collapsing fisheries, shrinking forests, risingtemperatures, and decreasing biodiversity. Due to the increasing use of fossil fuels, global

warming could accelerate with particularly adverse consequences on populations in low-lying

coastal regions in developing countries due to rising sea levels. Climate change is likely to lead

to changing precipitation patterns, which coupled with increasing average temperatures, will

result in negative agricultural effects for many regions. Since greenhouse gas emissions are

closely linked to population growth and economic development, it becomes extremely

important to find means to slow population growth in developing countries while


13/93

10

implementing more ecologically-friendly technologies in both the developed and developing

world to reduce emissions and minimize the adaptations that will be needed.

India is the second most populous country in the world, and while occupying no more than

2.5 percent of the worlds land, it is the home of one-sixth of its population. Some of the

reasons for India's rapidly growing population are poverty, illiteracy, high fertility rate, rapid

decline in mortality, and immigration from Bangladesh and Nepal. Alarmed by its swelling

population, India started taking measures to stem population growth early on. In fact, India

launched the National Family Planning programme in 1952, becoming the first country in the

world to have a population policy. The family planning programme yielded some noticeable

results, bringing down significantly the country's fertility rate. However, the population

continues to grow and demographers expect India's population to surpass the population of

China by 2030, and continue growing toward 1.6 billion as the Chinese population plateaus

before reaching 1.5 billion.

Table 1. Population Growth in India and China (in billions)Year India China World

% of World PopulationIndia China

1960 0.45 0.65 3.02 15 21

1965 0.50 0.72 3.33 15 211970 0.55 0.82 3.69 15 221975 0.62 0.91 4.06 15 221980 0.69 0.98 4.44 16 221985 0.77 1.05 4.85 16 221990 0.86 1.14 5.29 16 221995 0.95 1.21 5.71 17 212000 1.04 1.27 6.12 17 212005 1.13 1.31 6.51 17 202010 1.21 1.35 6.91 18 202015 1.29 1.40 7.30 18 192020 1.37 1.43 7.67 18 192025 1.43 1.45 8.01 18 182030 1.48 1.46 8.31 18 182035 1.53 1.46 8.57 18 172040 1.56 1.46 8.80 18 172045 1.59 1.44 9.00 18 16

Source: Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The2008 Revision.

India and China are the most populous countries of the world and together account for about

38 percent of the worlds population. The continuing rise in population increases the challenge

of achieving food security. Figure 3 shows total and rural population and counts (left axis) and

the share of urban population (right axis). It is discernible from Figure 3 that the population in

India has grown steadily during the period between 1960 and 2010 with urban population

showing sharper increase as compared to rural population during this period.


14/93

11

Figure 3.Population Trends: Total Population, Rural Population, and Percent Urban, 1960-2008

Source: World Development Indicators (World Bank, 2009)

Table 2 shows that population growth has slowed down to 1 percent in India during 2000-2008 as

opposed to 2 percent growth in the preceding decades. This slow-down in population growth was

observed in both urban and rural areas with urban population starting to low in the 1980s, and

rural population slowing in the 1990s.

Table 2.Population Growth Rates, 1960-2008 (%)Decade Total Growth Rate Rural Growth Rate Urban Growth Rate1960-1969 0.02 0.02 0.021970-1979 0.02 0.02 0.041980-1989 0.02 0.02 0.03

1990-1999 0.02 0.01 0.002000-2008 0.01 0.01 0.02Source: IFPRI calculations, based on World Development Indicators (World Bank, 2009)

Figure 4 shows the geographic distribution of population within India. The population density

ranges from 100 to 500 persons per square kilometer in most parts of India. However, states like

Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal show population density of 500 to 2000 persons per square

kilometer. A part of the state of Rajasthan shows population density of 10 to 20 persons per square

kilometer. The population density is 2 to 5 persons per square kilometer and even lower in parts of

the states of Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir, and also in some parts of the state of

Rajasthan and Diu and Daman.


15/93

12

Figure 4.Population distribution (persons per square kilometer)

Source: IFPRI estimates from GRUMP for 2000.(Center for International Earth Science Information Network ColumbiaUniversity 2004)

Figure 5 shows population projections by the UN Population office through 2050, where high,

medium and low variant represent high, medium and low growth in human population in India. As

per UN Population projections, in 2050, the human population in India is projected to grow to

about 1700 million with high variant growth, 1600 million with medium growth variant, and about1400 million with low variant growth. In these projections, the year 2010 is considered as the base.

The expected rise in human population is noticed mainly after 2020. However, the low variant

growth scenario with respect to human population in India does not show much increase in

population after 2020. The more distinct increase in human population in India is noticed when

high variant growth scenario is taken into consideration.


16/93

13

Figure 5.Population scenarios for 2010 to 2050

Source: UN Population Projections (United Nations 2008).

The continuous increase in population, coupled with changing lifestyles and consumption patterns

due to economic development, pose a major challenge to the preservation of Indias ecological

balance and to sustaining a food secure population. Some of the expected threats posed by

increasing population are:

Increased pressure on forests, wetlands and protected areas from increased resource useand demands for alternative land use (i.e. mining, agriculture, urban development,

livestock grazing, building of transportation networks)

Diminishing biodiversity from habitat loss and degradation, as well as illegal poachingand harvesting

Increasing pollution of ground and surface water, as well as coastal area from domestic,industrial, and agricultural activities

IncomeIndia is a major player in the world economy, but rapidly increasing inflation and the

intricacies in administering the world's biggest democracy are acting as major hurdles in the

field of development. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is an indicator of the performance of

an economy. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the economic growth rate of

India is predicted to dip by 6.9 percent in the 2009 fiscal year. The IMF has further stated that

this relegation is unavoidable, as Asian nations are not fully impervious to the global financial

crisis and its consequent negative effects.Economic liberalization, including industrial deregulation, privatization of state-owned

enterprises, and reduced controls on foreign trade and investment, began in the early 1990s

and has served to accelerate the country's growth, which has averaged more than 7% per year

since 1997. India's diverse economy encompasses traditional village farming, modern

agriculture, handicrafts, a wide range of modern industries, and a multitude of services.

Although slightly more than half of the work force is in agriculture, the service sector is the

primary driver of economic growth, accounting for more than half of India's output, while only


17/93

14

employ a third of Indias labor force. India faces many long term challenges in the pursuit of

continued development including:

Widespread poverty Inadequate physical and social infrastructure Limited non-agricultural employment opportunities

Insufficient access to quality basic and higher education Large scale rural to urban migration

Table 3 shows per capita GDP and share of agriculture in GDP during the period between 1997 and

2007 for India and China. During the period between 1997 and 2007, while the per capita GDP in

India has grown from US $ 428 to US $ 981, this increase in per capita GDP is sharper in China from

US $ 810 to US $ 2649. During this period, the share of agriculture in GDP is seen to have declined

from 24.7 % to 18 % for India and from 17.5 % to 11 % for China.

Table 3. Share of Agriculture in GDP (US $ Million)

Year

India China

Total GDP(A)

GDP

percapita(US$)

Agricultural

products(B)

Percent

ofGDP(B/A) %

Total GDP(A)

GDP

percapita(US$)

Agricultural

products(B)

Percent

ofGDP(B/A) %

1997 424,040 428 104,752 24.7 985,046 810 172,074 17.51998 426,750 423 105,412 24.7 1,045,199 852 176,568 16.91999 454,952 442 105,460 23.2 1,098,832 888 175,739 16.02000 468,978 448 101,735 21.7 1,192,836 956 177,764 14.92001 483,466 454 103,292 21.4 1,316,558 1,047 187,460 14.22002 503,954 466 96,388 19.1 1,454,040 1,149 196,191 13.52003 592,535 539 114,781 19.4 1,647,918 1,293 206,213 12.52004 688,803 617 122,725 17.8 1,936,502 1,510 253,188 15.22005 808,884 713 134,934 16.7 2,278,419 1,766 281,541 15.22006 910,615 791 2,773,835 2,137 2007 1,142,338 981 18.0 3,460,288 2,649 11.0

Source:http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/selbasicFast.asp

The income available to an individual is the single best indicator of their resilience to stresses.

Figure 6 shows trends in GDP per capita and proportion of GDP from agriculture. The

agricultural share is included both because its vulnerability to climate change impacts as well

as an indicator of the level of development of the country. As development increases, the

importance of agriculture in GDP tends to decline.
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/selbasicFast.asphttp://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/selbasicFast.asphttp://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/selbasicFast.asphttp://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/selbasicFast.asp


18/93

15

Figure 6.Per capita GDP (constant 2000 US$) and share of GDP from agriculture

Source: World Development Indicators (World Bank 2009).

As per the Central Statistical Organisation (CSO0, New Delhi), the share of agriculture and allied

activities in GDP of India at factor cost has declined from 18.1 percent in 2005-06 to 14.6 percent

in 2009-10 (Table 4). On the other hand, the per capita net national product (NNP) in India has

increased from Rs.25, 969 in 2005-06 to Rs.33, 588 in 2009-10.

Table 4. Per capita NNP (in Rs.) and Share of Agriculture in GDP (%)Year Per capita NNP (at 1999-00 prices) Share of Agriculture and Allied Activities in GDP2005-06 25969 18.12006-07 28074 17.22007-08 30316 16.42008-09 31821 15.72009-10 33588 14.6

Source: Economic Survey, India, 2009-10 and CSO, New Delhi

Increasing disposable income leads to higher demand for food. Consumption patterns are fast

changing due to number of factors such as, globalization, urbanization, income growth and the

emergence of new supply chains. These factors have shifted consumption from grains to other

food sources, such as fruits, vegetables, fish, meat and dairy products. In India, this change is

observed in the consumption of cereals, which has remained constant at around 400 grams per

person per day in the face of rising per capita consumption of milk and milk products.

Vulnerability

Vulnerability is the lack of ability to recover from a stress. Poor people are vulnerable to manydifferent kinds of stresses because they lack the financial resources to respond. In agriculture,

poor people are particularly vulnerable to the stresses of an uncertain climate. In this report

the focus is on income levels and sources. At the national level, vulnerability arises in the

interactions among population and income growth and the availability of natural and

manufactured resources. National per capita income statistics reported above show averages

but potentially conceal large variations across sectors or regions.


19/93

16

Table 5 shows the percentage of the population below the poverty line in India during the

period between 1973-74 and 2004-05. The percent of people living in poverty in India has declined

from around 55 percent in 1973-74 to under 28 percent in 2004-05. The most poverty stricken

states of India are Orissa, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand.

Table 5. Percentage of Population Below Poverty line in India (Combine Rural and Urban)States 1973-74 1987-88 1993-94 1999-2000 2004-05

Andhra Pradesh 48.86 25.86 22.19 15.77 15.80

Assam 51.21 36.21 40.86 36.09 19.70

Bihar 61.91 52.13 54.96 42.60 41.40

Chhattisgarh - - - 40.90

Delhi 49.61 12.41 14.69 8.23 14.70

Gujarat 48.15 31.54 24.21 14.07 16.80

Haryana 35.36 16.64 25.05 8.74 14.0

Himachal Pradesh 26.39 15.45 28.44 7.63 10.0

Jammu & Kashmir 40.83 23.82 25.17 3.48 5.40

Jharkhand - - - 40.30

Karnataka 54.47 37.53 33.16 20.04 25.00

Kerala 59.79 31.79 25.43 12.72 15.00

Madhya Pradesh 61.78 43.07 42.52 37.43 38.30

Maharashtra 53.24 40.41 36.86 25.02 30.70

Orissa 66.18 55.58 48.56 47.15 46.40

Punjab 28.15 13.20 11.77 6.16 8.40

Rajasthan 46.14 35.15 27.41 15.28 22.10

Tamil Nadu 54.94 43.39 35.03 21.12 22.50

Uttar Pradesh 57.07 41.46 40.85 31.15 32.80

Uttarakhand - - - 39.60

West Bengal 63.43 44.72 35.66 27.02 24.70

All India 54.88 38.86 35.97 26.10 27.50

Source: Planning Commission and NSSO 61st Round

Poverty is one of the main problems, which have attracted the attention of sociologists and

economists. It indicates a condition in which a person fails to maintain a living standard

adequate for their physical and mental efficiency. Poverty can be defined not only in absolute

terms, but also in relative terms. This relative component of poverty can make drawing aclear distinction between the poor and non-poor difficult.Figure 7 shows the distribution of the proportion of the population living on less than US $ 2.00

per day. The regional disparities become apparent. According to Wood (2010), about 95 of

population in Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Orissa live on less that US $ 2 per day. The share is

observed at 50 to 70 percent for Rajasthan, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Andhra Pradesh and

Gujarat show 40 to 50 percent population below the poverty line. Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh

show 70 to 90 percent population below the poverty line. The states of Punjab, Haryana and Delhi

are the least poverty stricken, with poverty rates ranging from 10 to 30 percent.


20/93

17

Figure 7.Poverty (percent below US$2 per day)

Source: Wood et al. (2010) available atlabs.harvestchoice.org/2010/08/poverty-maps

A government committee headed by S.D. Tendulkar, the then-chairman of the Prime Minister's

Economic Advisory Council, was assigned to estimate the countrys poverty rate. They used a

different methodology in their calculations. They considered heath, education, sanitation,

nutrition and income indicators from the National Sample Survey Organization survey of 2004-05.

According to their study, nearly 38 percent of Indias population (380 million) is poor, which is 10percent higher than the previous poverty estimate of 28.5 percent. This new methodology was

developed to address the concerns raised about previous poverty measuring methodologies. Since

1972, poverty in India has been defined on the basis of the money required to purchase 2100

calories in urban areas and 2400 calories in rural areas. However the concerns about measuring

poverty havent been fully satisfied, and in June 2011, another government committee, headed by

N.C. Saxena, estimated 50 percent of Indians to be poor.

There are several dimensions attached to poverty. The two inter-related aspects of poverty

are urban and rural. The main source of urban poverty is the migration to urban areas of the

rural poor, who give up access to traditional lands and networks in search of economic

opportunities in Indias more dynamic cities. The causes of rural poverty are manifold

including:

Inadequate and ineffective implementation of anti-poverty programmes Overdependence on monsoon waters due to the lack of irrigation infrastructure often

resulting in crop-failure and low agricultural productivity forcing farmers into debt-

traps

Continued population growth The caste system, which forces individuals to remain in traditional and hereditary

occupations
http://labs.harvestchoice.org/2010/08/poverty-maps/http://labs.harvestchoice.org/2010/08/poverty-maps/http://labs.harvestchoice.org/2010/08/poverty-maps/http://labs.harvestchoice.org/2010/08/poverty-maps/


21/93

18

Table 6 provides some data on additional indicators of vulnerability and resiliency to economic

shocks: the education level of the population, literacy, and concentration of labor in poorer or less

dynamic sectors.

Table 6.Education and labor statisticsIndicator Year ValuePrimary school enrollment: Percent gross (3-year average) 2006 111.9Secondary school enrollment: Percent gross (3-year average) 2006 54.6Adult literacy rate 2007 66Under-5 malnutrition (weight for age) 2006 43.5Source: World Development Indicators (World Bank 2009).

Table 7 provides estimates relating to life expectancy at birth and literacy level with respect to

males and females in India during the period between 1950-51 and 2006-07. Life expectancy in

India has increased by 100 percent from 32 years in 1950-51 to 64 years in 2006-07. An even more

dramatic increase has been observed in terms of the literacy rate in India, which has increased

from a low of 18 percent in 1950-51 to 65 percent in 2000-01. However, malnourishment continues

to plague India, where an estimated 44 percent of children are malnourished (

Table 6).

Table 7. Life Expectancy and Literacy Rate in IndiaStates 1950-51 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2006-07Life Expectancy at Birth (in Years) 32.1 50.4 58.7 62.5 63.5(a) Male 32.5 50.9 58.6 61.6 62.6(b) Female 31.7 50.0 59.0 63.3 64.2Education: Literacy Rate (%) 18.3 43.6 52.2 64.8 -(a) Male 27.2 56.4 64.1 75.3 -(b) Female 8.9 29.8 39.3 53.7 -

Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2010, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India

The outcomes of significant vulnerability include low life expectancy and high infant

mortality. Figure 8 shows two non-economic correlates of poverty, life expectancy at birth

and under-5 mortality. The graph plotted in Figure 8 clearly shows a steady increase in lifeexpectancy at birth in India, which has increased from 40 years in 1960 to over 60 years in

2010. This improvement is mirrored by the drop in infant mortality from over 200 per 1000

population in 1960 to about 50-60 per 1000 population in 2010.


22/93

19

Figure 8.Well-Being Indicators: Life Expectancy at Birth and under 5 Mortality Rate

Source: World Development Indicators (World Bank, 2009)

Table 8 shows trend estimates relating to the agricultural work force and the rural population in

India between 1951 and 2001. Although the absolute number of agricultural workers has grown

more than two folds in India during the period between 1951 and 2001, the share of cultivators in

total agricultural work force has steadily fallen, while the share of agricultural labourers has grown

from 28 percent in 1951 to 46 percent in 2001.

Table 8. Population and Agricultural Workers in India (in millions)Year

TotalPopulation

Annual ExponentialGrowth Rate (%)

RuralPopulation

Agricultural WorkersCultivators(%)

AgriculturalLabourers (%)

Total(in millions)

1951 361.1 1.25 298.6 71.9 28.1 97.21961 439.2 1.96 360.3 76.0 24.0 131.11971 548.2 2.22 439.0 62.2 37.8 125.71981 683.3 2.20 523.9 62.5 37.5 148.01991 846.4 2.14 628.9 59.7 40.3 185.32001 1028.7 1.95 742.6 54.4 45.6 234.1


Review of Land Use and AgricultureAgricultural production is dependent on the availability of land that has sufficient water, soil

resources and an adequate growing season. Land is the main resource base of the farmers in

the production process. The economic and social progress of the farmers depends on the total

cultivable area available at their disposal and the extent of irrigation facilities available to

them. The land utilization pattern in India between 1950-51 and 2007-08 is shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Agricultural land by Use in India (Million Hectares)States 1950-51 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2007-08I. Geographical Area 328.73 328.73 328.73 328.73 328.73II. Reported Area for Land Use (1 to 5) 284.32 304.18 304.86 305.15 305.671. Forest 40.48 67.46 67.81 69.53 69.63% 14.20 22.20 22.20 22.80 22.80

2. Not Available for Cultivation (A+B) 47.52 39.55 40.48 41.48 43.22


23/93

20

(A) Area under Non-agricultural; Use 9.36 19.60 21.09 23.89 25.92% 3.30 6.40 6.90 7.80 8.50

(B) Barren and Un-cultivated Land 38.16 19.96 19.39 17.59 17.29% 13.40 6.60 6.40 5.80 5.70

3. Other Uncultivated land excluding Fallow Land (A+B+C) 49.45 32.31 30.22 27.74 26.82(A) Permanent Pastures & other Grazing Land 6.68 11.99 11.40 10.67 10.39

% 2.30 3.90 3.70 3.50 3.40(B) Land under miscellaneous tree crops, groves 19.83 3.58 3.82 3.44 3.31

% 7.00 1.20 1.30 1.10 1.10(C) Culturable Waste Land 22.94 16.74 15.00 13.63 13.12

% 8.10 5.50 4.90 4.50 4.304. Fallow Lands (A+B) 28.12 24.55 23.37 25.07 25.15(A) Fallow lands other than current Fallows 17.45 9.72 9.66 10.29 10.34

% 6.10 3.20 3.20 3.40 3.40(B) Current Fallows 10.68 14.83 13.70 14.78 14.81

% 3.80 4.90 4.50 4.80 4.805. Net Area Sown (6-7) 118.75 140.29 143.00 141.36 140.86

% 41.80 46.10 46.90 46.30 46.106. Total Cropped Area (Gross Cropped Area) 131.89 172.63 185.74 185.34 195.837. Area Sown more than once 13.15 34.63 42.74 43.98 54.978. Cropping Intensity 111.10 123.10 129.90 131.10 139.00III Net Irrigated Area 20.85 38.72 48.02 55.13 62.29IV Gross Irrigated Area 22.56 49.78 63.20 76.19 87.26


The land use pattern in India clearly shows that the area under forest cover has grown

substantially over the last five decades in India. The area under forest cover as proportion to

total reported area for land use in India has increased from 14.2 percent in 1950-51 to 22.80

percent in 2007-08. Similarly, there has been significant expansion in gross cropped area

(GCA) in India, which increased from 131.89 million hectares in 1950-51 to 195.83 million

hectares in 2007-08. The intensity of cropping in India increased from 111.10 percent in 1950-

51 to 139.00 percent 2007-08. A more perceptible increase is observed in terms of net and

gross irrigated area. The gross irrigated area in India has increased from 22.56 million hectares

in 1950-51 to 87.26 million hectares in 2007-08. There has been a significant expansion in

irrigation infrastructure in India, which accounts for this increase. This increase in irrigation

can be traced back to the changes in the food grain economy caused by the Green Revolution,which saw India move from a net importer to self-sufficient in food production.

Agricultural production depends heavily on the availability of water, which is a precious

natural resource. It is, therefore, essential to develop surface and ground water resources to

increase agricultural production to meet the growing food requirements of the country.

Importance has been accorded to the agricultural use of water resources, despite the growing

industrial demand for water. Nevertheless, Indian agriculture is constrained by a lack of a

dependable source of all year water for irrigation, due in large part to the high variability of

rainfall in many parts of India.

Irrigation in India has been increased through a variety of different interventions. Theseinterventions are grouped into minor, medium, and major irrigation schemes. Minor irrigationschemes have been particularly critical in facilitating the growth of high yielding seed varieties,

varieties, through the provision of controlled and timely irrigation. Surface water alone has beenbeen insufficient to meet the full water demand. Therefore, farmers have installed wells andtube-wells to tap into groundwater resources to provide supplementary irrigation. The share ofof different sources in irrigation potential created in India between 1951 and 2002 is shown in


24/93

21

Table 10.


25/93

22

Table 10. Changing Share of Different Sources in Irrigation Potential CreatedYear

Major and Mediumirrigation Schemes

Minor IrrigationSchemes

Minor Irrigation withSurface Water

Minor Irrigation withGround Water

1951 42.92 57.08 28.32 28.761956 46.46 53.54 24.49 29.061961 49.28 50.72 22.18 28.541966 49.36 50.64 19.30 31.34

1969 48.79 51.21 17.52 33.691974 46.83 53.17 15.84 37.331978 47.52 52.48 14.42 38.061980 47.01 52.99 14.13 38.861985 42.47 57.53 14.87 42.661990 39.10 60.90 14.36 46.541992 37.91 62.21 14.13 48.081997 38.20 61.80 14.50 47.302002 39.44 60.56 17.14 43.43

Source: Datta et. al. (2008)

The primary driver of irrigation has traditionally been through minor irrigation schemes. The

importance of these minor schemes is increasing, as the share of major and medium irrigation

schemes have declined since peaking in 1978. It should also be noted, that the role of

groundwater in irrigation has increased significantly during the last 50 years, though this trendmay be changing, as the share of ground water has been declining, while surface water has

been increasing since 1992 (Datta et. al. 2008).

It deserves mention that India receives annually about 4000 cubic kilometers of water

through precipitation and about 80 percent of Indias annual rainfall is mainly from the South-

West monsoon season of June to September, followed by the North-West monsoon in

November-December. The natural precipitation is, therefore, confined to few months in a

year. The annual rainfall varies from 100 mm in western Rajasthan to 9000 mm in Meghalaya

in north-east India. It is estimated that out of the total precipitation of around 400 million

hectares meters in India, the surface water availability is about 187 million, and, of this, only

50 percent can be put to beneficial use due to topographical and other constraints. The

surface sources like rivers account for nearly 60 percent (groundwater the remaining 40

percent) of the 1100 cubic kilometers of useable water resources.

India encompasses 20 river basins- comprising of 12 major river basins, each having a

catchment area exceeding 20,000 sq. km and eight composite river basins (Sharma & Paul,

1999). In addition, other water resources include reservoirs, tanks, ponds and lakes which

cover about 7 million hectare of the surface area of the country. India has 14 major river

systems. The rivers may be classified as:

Himalayan Peninsular Coastal Rivers of inland drainage basin.

The availability of renewable freshwater varies enormously in different river basins owing touneven precipitation. For example, Himalayan rivers are snow-fed and perennial, peninsular

rivers are rainfed and fluctuate in volume, while coastal rivers are short in length with limited

catchment areas. The rivers and tributaries of the peninsular and coastal rivers are

intermittent and non-perennial in nature. About one third of India is drought-prone. On the

other hand, according to the National Commission on Floods, the area susceptible to floods is

around 40 million hectares. As for groundwater, its potential varies in different regions of the

country. Due to heavy extraction of groundwater and limited recharge, groundwater resources


26/93

23

are being depleted rapidly. This depletion is especially noticed in dryland regions like the

states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Maharashtra.

Land Use Overview

India is a geographically, climatically, and topographically diverse country. The categorization

and defining of the different regions of India depends largely on which parameters are being

highlighted. In agro-climatic terms India is divided into 15 zones, due to its varyingtopography, soil types, and rainfall. These agro-climatic zones are listed below.

Western Himalayan Region Eastern Himalayan Region Lower Gangetic Plains Region Middle Gangetic Plains Region Upper Gangetic Plain Region Trans Gangetic Plains Region Eastern Plateau and Hill Region Central Plateau and Hill Region Western Plateau and Hill Region Southern Plateau and Hill Region East Coast Plains and Hill Region West Coast Plains and Ghat Region Gujarat Plains and Ghat Region Western Dry Region Island Region

In agro-ecological terms India is divided into 20 regions (using a 1:4 million scale map), based

on physiography, soils, climate, growing period and the soils available water capacity. The

agro-ecological regions fall into 6 major climatic regions, which are listed below.

Arid Semi-arid Dry Sub-humid Moist Sub-humid Humid Per-humid

Land use is determined by a variety of factors limited not only to climate and resource

availability, but also including socioeconomic, traditional, cultural, and political factors.

Figure 9 shows land cover in India as of 2000.


27/93

24

Figure 9.Land cover, 2000

Source: Source: GLC2000 (JRC 2000).

Forests in India depend on rainfall, soil topography and climatic factors, and range from tropical

rainforests, to dry-thorn forests, to mountaintemperate forests. In India, there are four major forest

types, which are divided into 16 detailed forest types, with more than half of Indias forests being

tropical-moist and dry-deciduous types. Forests are both a resource and a habitat rich in flora and

fauna. The most prominent forest types are the tropical deciduous forest and the moist deciduousforests, which respectively account for over 38 and 30 percent of Indias total forest land. Forest land

in India is also categorized by land use and whether it is dedicated forest land, or managed non-forest

land (i.e. agroforestry, farm woodlots, wind belts, and shelter belts, urban green spaces, homestead

forests and sacred groves). The State Farm Department has further classified Indias 76.52 million

hectares of forest into 3 categories: (i) Reserved (54.44 percent), (ii) Protected (29.18 percent), and

(iii) Unclassed (16.38 percent). Using available remote sensing data the FSI estimated in 1999 that of

the estimate 76.52 million hectares only 63.73 million hectares is actual forest cover. The ownership of

forest rests mainly with the Government. However, in the northeastern States, the communities and

clans also own significant areas of unclassed forests.

Figure 10 shows the locations of protected areas, including parks and reserves. These locations

provide important protection for fragile environmental areas, which may also be important for the

tourism industry.


28/93

25

Figure 10.Protected areas

Source: World Database on Protected Areas (UNEP 2009). Water is from Global Lakes and Wetlands Database (WWF) (Lehnerand Dll 2004).

Error! Reference source not found. shows travel time maps to the larger cities, which provide

potential markets for agricultural products. Policy makers need to keep in mind the importance of

transport costs when considering the potential for agricultural expansion; that is, if fertile but unused

land is far from markets, it represents potential land for expansion only if transportation infrastructure

is put in place, and if the land does not conflict with preservation priorities seen in Figure 10.

The first map shows it will take 1-3 hours to reach big cities having population of 5 lakh or more in

the case of Uttar, Pradesh, Bihar, Punjab and Haryana, 3-5 hours in the states of Maharashtra,

Karnataka, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, and to some

extent Orissa, In the case of Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh, the travel time will be 11-16

hours, whereas Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalya, Nagaland, Mizoram and Tripura show this travel

time as high as 16-26 hours. In the case of second map, the travel time taken to reach cities having

population 1 lakh or more will be 1-5 hours in the case of majority of the states of India with the

exception of Sikkim, Meghalya, Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir where

travel time may be 11-26 hours to reach big cities. As per the third map, the travel time to reach cities

having population of 50,000 or more will be 1-3 hours in majority of the states of India with the

exception Jammu and Kashmir, north eastern states and to certain extent Himachal Pradesh wheretravel time will be 11-16 hours. The forth map shows that the travel time to reach towns and cities

having population of 25,000 and more will be 1-3 hours in majority of states of India with the exception

of Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalya where this travel time may be 8-16 hours. In general, as the

population of cities increases, the travel time to reach them also increases.


29/93

26

Figure 11.Travel time to urban areas

Source: Authors, based on several input layers, including CIESIN population points and World Gazetteer (Helders 2005).Notes: The first map is travel time to cities of 500,000 or more people; the second map is travel time to cities of 100,000 or more; the thirdmap is travel time to towns and cities of 50,000 or more; and fourth map is travel time to towns and cities of 25,000 or more people.


30/93

27

Agriculture OverviewIndia has witnessed an upward trend in the food grain output due to the introduction in the

post-Green Revolution period of a new technology popularly known as seed-fertilizer-water

technology. However, this technology revolution would have effect in only some select regions

of the country, and only for some cereal crops like rice and wheat. The impact the Green

Revolution was less pronounced for other crops like pulses and coarse grains. This cereal-

specific focus has had the consequence of diminishing cropping diversity, with land previously

allocated to pulses and coarse cereals, important sources of protein, being reallocated to the

technologically effected grains.

Before the mid-1960s, increases in food grain output came mostly from growth in

cultivated area and the extension of irrigation. However, since the mid-1960s, the new farm

technology symbolized by HYV seeds and the use of chemical fertilizers has been the primary

driver of increased agricultural production (Shah, 1997). These new farm technologies had a

powerful impact on the food sector in India. During the first phase of the Green Revolution,

India practically became self-sufficient in food supply. By 1970-71, India was not only meeting

domestic demand, but was producing a surplus, permitting the building of food stocks from

domestic production. However, by the late 1970s and the early 1980s, a number of studies

raised concerns about a possible deceleration in the growth of food grain production,indicating a decline in the momentum of the Green Revolution and a possible exhaustion of

the potential of available technology (Alag and Sharma, 1980; Desai and Namboodiri, 1983).

Dantwala (1978) found that the HYV technology brought about significant improvement in the

productivity of cereal crops, but its overall effect on food grain production, especially when

evaluated in per capita terms, was not significant. Serious doubts were also raised about the

sustainability of using modern inputs (i.e. fertilizers) to continue increasing production.

India is reckoned as the largest producer and consumer of pulses in the world, accounting

for about 25 percent of global production, 27 percent of consumption and 34 percent of food

use (Price et. al., 2003). Nevertheless, India is also the worlds top importer of pulses with an

11 percent share in world pulse imports during 1995-2001, though imports account for only 6

percent of domestic consumption. Since pulse production in India has fluctuated widely withno long-term trend, this has led to steady decline in the per capita availability of pulses over

the past 20 years or so. The per capita per day availability of pulses in India declined from

45.5 grams in 1978 to 41.1 grams in 1990 and further to 31.5 grams in 2005. This is despite the

fact that a number of programmes were initiated in the past to meet the rising demand of

pulses owing to ever increasing human population in the country. Nevertheless, India is now

giving top priority for boosting the production of pulses in the country with the objective of

meeting domestic requirements and reducing their import bill.

Despite playing a pivotal role in the Indian economy, accounting for almost 18 percent of

GDP and employing 57 percent of the labor force, agriculture is contributing a diminishing

share towards overall economic growth. In fact, the growth rate in the agriculture sector has

been falling since the 6th plan when agriculture led the overall growth of the Indian economy.

Over the past two decades agricultural growth has declines from 4.7 percent during the 8 thPlan, to 2.1 and 1 percent in the 9 th and 10th plans. This decline in growth has occurred while

the non-agricultural economy has been experiencing accelerating economic growth.

The slowing down in the growth of agricultural sector has translated into a more subdued

production response. Our country faced a severe draught in 2002-03 that caused a sharp fall in

production, and unlike in 1980s, production did not immediately recover. The 10th plan target

of food grain production of 230 million tonnes has turned out to be an ambitious target. In

fact, in three out of first four years of the 10 th Plan, the food grain production remained lower


31/93

28

than the benchmark production of 2001-02. The lone exception was in 2003-04 when favorable

rainfall led to a record year for coarse grains (Table 11).Table 11. Production Performance of Important Crops in India during 10th and 11th PlanYear

Production (Million Tonnes)Food grains Rice Wheat Coarse Cereals Pulses Oilseeds Sugarcane Cotton

2001-02 212.85 93.24 72.77 33.37 13.37 20.66 297.21 10.002002-03 174.77 71.83 65.76 26.07 11.13 14.84 287.38 8.622003-04 213.19 88.53 72.16 37.60 14.91 25.19 233.86 13.732004-05 198.36 85.13 68.64 33.46 13.13 24.35 237.09 16.432005-06 208.30 91.03 69.48 34.67 13.39 27.98 281.17 18.502006-07 217.28 93.35 75.81 33.92 14.20 24.29 355.52 22.632007-08 230.78 96.69 78.57 40.76 14.76 29.76 348.19 25.882008-09* 234.47 99.18 80.68 40.03 14.57 27.72 285.03 22.282009-10* 218.20 89.13 80.71 33.77 14.59 24.93 277.75 23.94

Note: * - 4th Advance Estimates released on 19.07.2010Source: Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, MOA, GOI

Overall pulse production in India has remained relatively constant over the past four decades.

Production has fluctuates around 13 to 14 million tonnes per year. However, starting with the 10 th Plan,

India began an Import-Substitution programme to encourage greater food production. During the 11th

Plan total food grain production has increased, peaking at over 233 million tonnes in 2008-09 beforefalling to around 218 million tonnes in 2009-10. Pulse production has also appreciably increased during

the 11th plan. The increases in total food grain production and pulses can be at least partially

attributable to the effects of the NFSM programme implemented in the 10th Plan. The average area,

production and yield of major crops in India for the period 2003-04 to 2008-09 is shown in Table 12.

Table 12. Normal (Average of 2003-04 to 2008-09) Area, Production and Yield of Major Crops in India(Area Million Hectares; Production Million Tonnes; Yield Kg./Hectare)

Crops Area Production YieldI. Food grains Rice 43.77 92.83 2121

Wheat 27.33 74.61 2730Jowar 8.31 7.44 896Bajra 9.33 8.58 920Maize 7.84 16.53 2109Total Coarse Cereals 28.54 36.45 1277Tur (Kharif) 3.55 2.55 717Gram (rabi) 7.31 6.04 826Total Pulses 22.81 14.00 614Total Food grains 122.46 217.90 1779

II. Oilseeds Nine Oilseeds 27.23 26.82 985

III. Other Cash Crops Sugarcane 4.50 301.40 67024Cotton@ 9.09 21.14 396Jute & Mesta$ 0.47 15.53 6010Potato* 1.41 24.25 17207Onion* 0.62 7.81 12520

Note: @ - Production in million bales of 170 kg. each

$ - Production in million bales of 180 kg. each* - Data not updated

Source: Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, MOA, GOI

The average production of food grains in India during 2003-04 to 2008-09 is around 218 million

tonnes, with rice and wheat accounting for about 93 and 75 million tonnes respectively. The

average pulse production is 14 million tonnes, which remains below the domestic demand.

Interestingly, although, the area allocation for rice is higher than wheat, wheat yields are


32/93

29

higher than rice yields. Among the various coarse cereals, maize yields are higher than for

jowar and bajra.

to .


33/93

30

Table 15 show key agricultural commodities of India in terms of area harvested, value of the harvest,

and food for people (this last item was ranked by weight) for the period centered around 2006-2008.

According to FAO estimates, the area under 10 major agricultural commodities produced in India during

the 2006-08 period is estimated at 141.27 million hectares (

). Thus, food grain crops account for about 75 percent of harvested area of the 10 major

commodities, with rice and wheat alone accounting for 50 percent.

Table 13.Harvest area of leading agricultural commodities, average of 2006-2008Rank Crop % of total Area harvested (000 hectares)1 Rice, paddy 31.05 43,8602 Wheat 19.47 27,5063 Millet 8.36 11,8154 Beans, dry 6.74 9,5165 Seed cotton 6.59 9,3156 Soybeans 6.33 8,9387 Sorghum 5.88 8,3018 Maize 5.74 8,1049 Chick peas 5.18 7,31110 Rapeseed 4.68 6,606

Total 100.00 141,272Source: FAOSTAT (FAO 2010)

The value of production for 10 the leading agricultural commodities produced in India during the period

2006-08 period is estimated at million US $ 67,532 (Table 14). Rice and wheat contribute 47 percent of

total value of agricultural production for the 10 leading agricultural commodities. Fruits and vegetables

also contributed significantly to the value of agricultural production.

Table 14.Value of production for leading agricultural commodities, average of 2006-2008Rank Crop % of

totalValue of Production Value ofProduction (million US$)

1 Rice, paddy 29.43 19,878.002 Wheat 17.74 11,978.803 Vegetables freshness 9.65 6,515.204 Mangoes, mangos teens,

guavas 9.34

6,306.30

5 Seed cotton 7.82 5,283.506 Sugar cane 7.62 5,149.007 Bananas 6.06 4,094.008 Rapeseed 4.59 3,102.509 Groundnuts, with shell 3.88 2,619.7010 Potatoes 3.86 2,605.50

Total 100.00 67,532.50Source: FAOSTAT (FAO, 2010)

The annual average consumption of the 10 leading food commodities in is about 298 million tons (.


34/93

31

Table 15). Rice, wheat and other vegetables are the most consumed agricultural products, accounting

for over 50 percent in total consumption.


35/93

32

Table 15.Consumption of leading food commodities, average of 2003-2006Rank Crop % of total Food consumption (000 mt)1 Rice (Milled Equivalent) 20.0 78,7462 Vegetables, Other 17.0 66,7303 Wheat 16.6 65,1764 Sugar (Raw Equivalent) 5.0 19,6725 Fruits, Other 4.7 18,568

6 Potatoes 4.4 17,1897 Sugar Cane 2.9 11,3758 Millet 2.8 10,8239 Bananas 2.4 9,33510 Pulses, Other 2.1 8,391

Total 100.00% 392,845Source: FAOSTAT (FAO, 2010)

Figure 12 to Figure 35 show the estimated yield and growing areas in SPAM for key crops. The

irrigated and rainfed cropping systems of the following crops were selected:

Wheat Rice Maize Sorghum Cotton Soybeans

Beans Groundnuts Millet Barley Potatoes Sugarcane

These figures are based on the SPAM data set (Liangzhi You, Wood, and Wood-Sichra 2009), a

plausible allocation of national and subnational data on crop area and yields.


36/93

33

Figure12.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated wheat

Yield Harvest area density

Yield legend

Harvest areadensity legend

Source: SPAM Dataset (Liangzhi You, Wood, and Wood-Sichra 2009)

Figure 13.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed wheat


Yield legend




37/93

34

Figure 14.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated rice


Yield legend


Source: SPAM Dataset (Liangzhi You, Wood, and Wood-Sichra 2009)Figure 15.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed rice


Yield legend




38/93

35

Figure 16.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated maize


Yield legend



Figure 17.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed maize


Yield legend




39/93

36

Figure 18.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated sorghum


Yield legend


Source: SPAM Dataset (Liangzhi You, Wood, and Wood-Sichra 2009)Figure 19.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed sorghum


Yield legend




40/93

37

Figure 20.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated cotton


Yield legend



Figure 21.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed cotton


Yield legend




41/93

38

Figure 22.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated soybeans


Yield legend


Source: SPAM Dataset (Liangzhi You, Wood, and Wood-Sichra 2009)Figure 23.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed soybeans


Yield legend




42/93

39

Figure 24. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated beans


Yield legend


Source: SPAM Dataset (Liangzhi You, Wood, and Wood-Sichra 2009)Figure 25. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed beans


Yield legend




43/93

40

Figure 26.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated groundnuts


Yield legend


Source: SPAM Dataset (Liangzhi You, Wood, and Wood-Sichra 2009)Figure 27.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed groundnuts


Yield legend




44/93

41

Figure 28.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated millet


Yield legend


Source: SPAM Dataset (Liangzhi You, Wood, and Wood-Sichra 2009)Figure 29.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed millet


Yield legend




45/93

42

Figure 30.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated barley


Yield legend


Source: SPAM Dataset (Liangzhi You, Wood, and Wood-Sichra 2009)Figure 31.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed barley


Yield legend




46/93

43

Figure 32.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated potatoes


Yield legend



Figure 33.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed potatoes


Yield legend




47/93

44

Figure 34.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated sugarcane


Yield legend



Figure 35.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed sugarcane


Yield legend

Harvest area

density legend



48/93

45

Scenarios for AdaptationIn this section, the current status of the country with respect to vulnerability is reviewed. This

includes a brief overview of current population trends, per capita income growth and its

distribution, and the state of agriculture.

To better understand the possible vulnerability to climate change, it is necessary to

develop plausible scenarios. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment's Ecosystems and Human

Well-being: Scenarios, Volume 2, Chapter 2 provides a useful definition: Scenarios are

plausible, challenging, and relevant stories about how the future might unfold, which can be

told in both words and numbers. Scenarios are not forecasts, projections, predictions, or

recommendations. They are about envisioning future pathways and accounting for critical

uncertainties (Raskin et al. 2005).

For this report, combinations of economic and demographic drivers have been selected that

collectively result in three pathways a baseline scenario that is middle of the road, a

pessimistic scenario that chooses driver combinations that, while plausible, are likely to result in

more negative outcomes for human well-being, and an optimistic scenario that is likely to result in

improved outcomes relative to the baseline. These three overall scenarios are further qualified byfour climate scenarios: plausible changes in climate conditions based on scenarios of greenhouse

gas emissions.

Biophysical ScenariosThis section presents the climate scenarios used in the analysis and the crop physiological

response to the changes in climate between 2000 and 2050.

Climate ScenariosAs mentioned in the introduction, we used downscaled results from 2 GCMs with 2 SRES

scenarios for each GCM.

Figure 36 shows precipitation changes for India under 4 downscaled climate models we with the

A1B scenario.Figure 37 shows changes in maximum temperature for the month with the highest mean daily

maximum temperature.


49/93

46

Figure 36.Changes in mean annual precipitation for India between 2000 and 2050 using the A1B scenario (millimeters)


Change in annual

p

India Report Final Draft 11.27

Documents

Transcript of India Report Final Draft 11.27