- The sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, substantiates the impact of climate change on ecosystems and predicts perceptible impacts on the diverse food production systems. Climate change will impact the food security in the Asian region, as per the report.
- While the impacts of climate change on agriculture are well recognised, the sector also contributes to climate change. The agriculture sector in India accounts for 14.4 percent of India’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
- Adaptation-led mitigation is a more equitable path, than mitigation alone, as the former has a just transition focus, and contributes to generating co-benefits of mitigation from low-cost locally-suitable adaptation for the resource-poor smallholders.
- The views expressed in this commentary are that of the authors.
The sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change substantiates the adverse impact of human-induced climate change on ecosystems and human systems with high confidence. The unprecedented heatwaves and frequent extreme events witnessed across the globe in the previous decade and their continuation in this decade are all visible signs of these impacts. The report highlights the possible impacts of these events on the diverse food production systems – agriculture, livestock and fisheries – across the globe. Among these systems, the impact of climate change on agriculture and crop production systems in numerous regions, including Asia have been predicted with a high or very high level of confidence, by the authors.
The food and livelihood security of millions of people in the region, could be impacted. The South Asian region which includes India, is highly food-insecure. Malnutrition and hunger are big challenges in the country. Indian agriculture is also sensitive to climate change and variability. The differential regional impacts of climate change on agricultural systems and the impact of changes in temperature and precipitation on paddy and wheat (major food grain crops) are well established. A loss of 10 to 40 percent in crop production has been predicted for India by 2100. This translates to an economic loss estimated in the range of USD ($) 113-367 billion in 2100, accounting to about 0.26 – 0.84 percent of the GDP. This economic loss only accounts for a decreased yield of rice, wheat, and maize due to climate variability and uncertainty.
The economics in climate change and Indian agriculture
At 20.1 percent gross value added, at current prices, and 54.6 percent of the total workforce, agriculture continues to play a vital role in India’s economy. Globally, India is the second largest producer of agricultural products and has the second largest arable land in the world. The sector is a source of livelihood for some of the most socially and economically vulnerable populations. Women constitute 37 percent of the total workforce in agriculture, and small and marginal farmers – with less than two hectares of land – operate 86.8 percent of the total holdings and 46.9 percent of the area under cultivation. Also, the percentage share of female operational holders has increased through the years. However, the difference in farm and non-farm income is very high and the country is said to be on a ‘Lewis Trap Path’, with several states following on a ‘Farmer Excluding Path’ of structural transformation.
The high confidence prediction of climate change on crop production in the sixth assessment report must be viewed in the context of the performance of the crop sector and its relevance for securing food and livelihood of socially and economically vulnerable farmers in the country. On an average, about 84 percent of land owned by agricultural households in the country is dedicated to crop production. Additionally, the proportion of agricultural households engaged in crop production ranges from about 73 percent in rabi (winter) to 93 percent during kharif (monsoon). Crop cultivation accounts for the second major income source for agricultural households, across size classes. The net receipt from crop production is in the range of 657 rupees (for a marginal farmer) to 37, 639 rupees (for a large farmer).
On the contrary, the share of the crop sector in India has been shrinking, with 18 out of 29 states reporting annual growth rates ranging from -3.6 percent to less than three percent. Furthermore, the real value of income from crop cultivation declined by about five percent in the period between 2012-13 and 2018-19. At the agricultural household level, the decline in income from crop cultivation spells dire consequences for the sustenance of livelihoods, as crop cultivation continues to contribute to a major share of the income of these households.
While the impacts of climate change on agriculture are well recognised, the sector also contributes to climate change. The agriculture sector in India accounts for 14.4 percent of India’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Practices related to crop production account for 46 percent of the total emission from the sector, of which, 19 percent is attributable to fertiliser application on the soil.
Expenditure on fertiliser ranges from 14 to 22 percent of the total expenditure, with the highest share reported by the marginal and small farmers. Also, expenditure on plant protection chemicals on an average account for eight percent of the total expenditure in crop production. Hence, practices aimed at reducing the application of synthetic fertilisers and plant protection chemicals would go a long way, not only in reducing emissions from agriculture, but also in improving farm profits of the marginal and small farmers. However, given this sector is a source of food and livelihood security for a large section of the vulnerable population, pathways of agricultural development in India should be inclusive of these sections.
India’s proposed growth pathways in agriculture
The United Nations Climate Change Conference, commonly referred to as the 26th Conference of Parties, which concluded at Glasgow adopted the Sustainable Agriculture Action Agenda. Countries endorsing this agenda are committed to progress in a ‘just transition to sustainable agriculture’ through context-specific policies, investments and support. Recognising the multiplicity of definitions of sustainable agriculture, the action agenda broadly spells out seven guiding principles to direct policy, investment, and action to facilitate a ‘just transition to sustainable agriculture’. The goal is to build resilient livelihoods and economies that are inclusive of the vulnerable communities, protective of natural ecosystems and biodiversity while reducing GHG emissions. India’s five-fold strategy- ‘panchamrit’ to fight climate change, announced at Glasgow is in line with this goal.
The development at Glasgow, must be viewed in the context of the ongoing initiatives on climate change, adaptation and mitigation, in Indian agriculture. The National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) was launched as one of the eight missions under the National Action Plan on Climate Change in 2007. NMSA aims to achieve productivity improvement through the conservation and augmentation of natural resources. It advocates the adoption of sustainable development pathways for improving resource efficiency and productivity in agriculture by progressively shifting to environment-friendly technologies, conserving natural resources and integrated approaches like crop-livestock, crop-sericulture, agroforestry, fish farming etc. NMSA along with its mission on Strategic Knowledge on Climate Change was aimed at achieving an agricultural growth of four percent. The National Agricultural Innovations Project also prioritises climate change for funding.
Recently, NITI Aayog, the public policy think-tank of the Government of India, hailed agroecology as a new paradigm for Indian agriculture in a changing climate. This marks a clear shift from the ‘agriculture as an enterprise’ approach adopted under the Doubling Farmers Income (DFI) vision of NITI Aayog. Under DFI, maintaining the sustainability of the production system was only one of the components and the focus was on increasing net returns. As a contrast, agroecology is projected as a potential solution to balance sustainability-productivity tradeoffs in agriculture, and to ensure growth without exacerbating inequalities. Broadly, this entails (i) adopting a systems approach to agriculture, (ii) relying on ecological processes rather than purchased inputs and (iii) promoting equitable, environment-friendly, locally-adapted and controlled inputs and practices. The budgetary allocation for the major central sector schemes that facilitate a transition to a low-carbon pathway in agriculture is about 8.4 percent of the total allocation to the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.
Challenges in operation and inclusion
The natural farming systems adopted in large tracts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, are being promoted by the central government, as the Bharatiya Prakritik Krishi Paddhati (BPKP) Programme. The system is based on an agroecological approach. Natural farming or BPKP has been recognised as an important pathway for achieving sustainable development goals, as it is said to have the potential achieve a significant number of SDGs in the 169 SDG targets. Also, the BPKP programme in principle, is a low carbon emission growth pathway and is well-aligned with India’s net zero targets.
However, the claim of natural farming as a sustainable system of farming has attracted some criticism. The primary criticism is the lack of independent and conclusive evidence of natural farming as an economically viable system for smallholder farmers. Further, the steady decline in indigenous cattle breed (8.1 percent), the high cost of maintenance of cattle, and the high labour cost involved in the preparation of the inputs used in natural farming are all claimed to contribute to the high cost of production in natural farming. Non-availability of raw materials for making the biological inputs and lack of extension services are also articulated as challenges by practitioners of natural farming. Additionally, premium markets for chemical-free environmentally sustainable outputs are absent. These operational constraints are bound to have implications for the livelihood sustenance of resource-poor smallholders adopting agroecology, as a way of farming.
Hence, the ecological gain of natural farming has an economic tradeoff for the resource-poor small farmers. Furthermore, as per the recent National Statistical Office’s (NSO) Situation Assessment Survey (SAS), 50.2 percent of agricultural households are in debt, of which 57.5 percent of the loans were taken for agricultural purposes. Additionally, due to the socio-economic inequalities of rural society, in terms of ownership of productive resources, access to inputs, extension services and market, small farmers in general experience lower input-output, as well as an income-input ratio than large farmers.
With the given background, it is imperative that policymakers and advocates of agroecology as a new paradigm for agriculture, factor in the operational challenges, before emphasizing on farmers shifting to low carbon growth pathways at scale. Currently, the economics of the low carbon growth pathway in agriculture seems to be skewed unfavourably towards the smallholders. This has to be contextualised within the results of the fifth assessment report, which pegs the impact of efforts at reducing carbon emission in agriculture to 0.06 percent of the GDP. Adaptation measures like altering planting dates, efficient management of inputs, and breeding for tolerance is expected to improve crop yields by 15-20 percent. Thus, the emphasis in agriculture should be to anchor on adaptation measures that can generate mitigation co-benefits for smallholder farmers.
For an equitable and just growth pathway
Agroecology has been widely advocated as a new paradigm in agriculture to build resilience of farmers and the farming system, in a changing climate. However, the adoption of agroecology at scale by resource-poor smallholders comes with its own set of challenges. There is no conclusive evidence on the economic viability of agroecological approaches among smallholders. Hence, the emphasis on agroecology, paramparakrath krishi, organic farming, and other low carbon growth pathways for agriculture needs to be sufficiently complemented with efforts at building resilience of livelihoods of the millions of smallholder farmers, to ensure an equitable and just transition in agriculture in the context of a changing climate.
Creating an enabling policy and governance system, imparting climate literacy, establishing decentralised seed, feed and food banks, incentivising the adoption of locale-specific resource-conserving practices, developing climate forecasts with high predictability, building institutional capabilities for transitioning to low carbon growth, and insuring against climate risks are a few strategies that have proven benefits on the ground. ‘Adaptation-led mitigation’ rather than mitigation alone, is touted as a more realistic, equitable, and just transition path, as it contributes to generating co-benefits of mitigation from low-cost locally suitable adaptation for the resource-poor smallholders.
M. Manjula and Divya Sharma are Faculty at the School of Development, Azim Premji University, with research and teaching interests in the domains of sustainability, climate change, and livelihoods.
Banner image: The sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that climate change will impact the diverse food production systems – agriculture, livestock and fisheries, across the globe. Photo Iamg at English Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons.
