India Report Final Draft 11.27

INDIAN FOOD SECURITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE: AGRICULTURE FUTURES
Deepak Shah, Gokhle Institute of Political Economy PK Joshi, International Food Policy Research Institute Gerald C. Nelson, Daniel Mason-DCroz, and Amanda Palazzo, International Food Policy Research 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 ................................................................................................. Crop Physiological Response to Climate Change ............................................................ From biophysical scenarios to socioeconomic consequences: The IMPACT Model .................... Income and Demographic Scenarios .............................................................................. 40 43 56 57
Agriculture and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation ........................................................................ 76 Agricultural Emissions History ..................................................................................... 76 Technical potential for agricultural mitigation ................................................................. 76 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 77 References ................................................................................................................ 79 Table of Tables Table 1.Population Growth in India and China (in billions) ........................................................ 8 Table 2.Population Growth Rates, 1960-2008 (%) ................................................................... 9 Table 3.Share of Agriculture in GDP (US $ Million) ................................................................ 12 Table 4.Per capita NNP (in Rs.) and Share of Agriculture in GDP (%) .......................................... 13 Table 5.Percentage of Population Below Poverty line in India (Combine Rural and Urban) ............... 14 Table 6.Education and labor statistics .............................................................................. 16 Table 7.Life Expectancy and Literacy Rate in India ............................................................... 16 Table 8.Population and Agricultural Workers in India (in millions)............................................. 17
Table 9.Agricultural land by Use in India (Million Hectares) .................................................... Table 10.Changing Share of Different Sources in Irrigation Potential Created ............................... Table 11.Production Performance of Important Crops in India during 10 th and 11th Plan .................. 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) .................................. Table 13.Harvest area of leading agricultural commodities, average of 2006-2008 ........................ Table 14.Value of production for leading agricultural commodities, average of 2006-2008 .............. Table 15.Consumption of leading food commodities, average of 2003-2006 ................................. Table 16.Yield Lost and Gained in India Irrigated and Rainfed Crops by 2050 ........................... Table 17.GDP and population choices for the three overall scenarios ........................................ Table 18.Average scenario per capita GDP growth rates (percent per year) ................................. Table 19.India-U.S. Income Scenario Outcomes for 2010, 2030, and 2050 (2000US$ per capita) ........ Table 20. Impact of Climate Change on Crop Yields in India: Simulation Outcomes (Yield in mt/ha) ...
17 19 25 25 26 26 27 43 57 58 59 60
Table of Figures Figure 1.Changes in mean annual precipitation between 2000 and 2050 using the A1B scenario (mm per year). ........................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 2.Changes in annual maximum temperature between 2000 and 2050 using the A1B scenario (C) 5 Figure 3.Population Trends: Total Population, Rural Population, and Percent Urban, 1960-2008 ......... 9 Figure 4.Population distribution (persons per square kilometer) ............................................... 10 Figure 5. Population scenarios for 2010 to 2050 .................................................................. 11 Figure 6. Per capita GDP (constant 2000 US$) and share of GDP from agriculture ......................... 13 Figure 7.Poverty (percent below US$2 per day) ................................................................... 15 Figure 8.Well-Being Indicators: Life Expectancy at Birth and under 5 Mortality Rate ...................... 17 Figure 9.Land cover, 2000 ............................................................................................. 21 Figure 10.Protected areas ............................................................................................. 22 Figure 11.Travel time to urban areas ................................................................................ 23 Figure 12.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated wheat ............................. 28 Figure 13.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed wheat .............................. 28 Figure 14.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated rice................................ 29 Figure 15.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed rice ................................. 29 Figure 16.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated maize ............................. 30 Figure 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 .......................... 31 Figure 19.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed sorghum ............................ 31 Figure 20.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated cotton ............................ 32 Figure 21.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed cotton .............................. 32 Figure 22.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated soybeans ......................... 33 Figure 23.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed soybeans ........................... 33 Figure 24.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated beans ............................. 34 Figure 25.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed beans ............................... 34 Figure 26.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated groundnuts ...................... 35 Figure 27.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed groundnuts ........................ 35 Figure 28.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated millet ............................. 36 Figure 29.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed millet ............................... 36 Figure 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 .............................. 37 Figure 32.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated potatoes ......................... 38 Figure 33.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed potatoes ........................... 38 Figure 34.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated sugarcane ........................ 39 Figure 35.2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed sugarcane .......................... 39 Figure 36.Changes in mean annual precipitation for India between 2000 and 2050 using the A1B scenario (millimeters) .................................................................................................. 41 Figure 37.Changes in normal annual maximum temperature for India between 2000 and 2050 using the A1B scenario (C) ........................................................................................................ 42
Figure 38.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated wheat .............................. 44 Figure 39.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed wheat................................ 45 Figure 40.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated rice ................................. 46 Figure 41.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed rice .................................. 47 Figure 42.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated maize .............................. 48 Figure 43.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed maize ................................ 49 Figure 44.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated groundnuts........................ 50 Figure 45.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed groundnuts ......................... 51 Figure 46.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated potatoes........................... 52 Figure 47.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed potatoes ............................ 53 Figure 48.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated soybeans .......................... 54 Figure 49.Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed soybeans ............................ 55 Figure 50.The IMPACT modeling framework ........................................................................ 56 Figure 51.The 281 FPUs in the IMPACT model ...................................................................... 57 Figure 52.GDP Per Capita Scenarios ................................................................................. 58 Figure 53.Scenario outcomes for wheat area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ................ 62 Figure 54.Scenario outcomes for rice area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ................... 63 Figure 55.Scenario outcomes for maize area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ................. 64 Figure 56.Scenario outcomes for sorghum area, yield, production, net exports, and prices .............. 65 Figure 57.Scenario outcomes for cotton area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ................ 66 Figure 58.Scenario outcomes for soybeans area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ............. 67 Figure 59.Scenario outcomes for chickpeas area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ............ 68 Figure 60.Scenario outcomes for groundnuts area, yield, production, net exports, and prices .......... 69 Figure 61.Scenario outcomes for millet area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ................. 70 Figure 62.Scenario outcomes for pigeon peas area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ......... 71 Figure 63.Scenario outcomes for potato area, yield, production, net exports, and prices ................ 72 Figure 64.Scenario outcomes for sugarcane area, yield, and production; sugar production, net exports, and prices ................................................................................................................. 73 Figure 65.Average daily kilocalories availability under multiple income and climate scenarios (kilocalories per person per day) ..................................................................................... 74 Figure 66.Number of malnourished children under 5 years of age under multiple income and climate scenarios .................................................................................................................. 75 Figure 67.GHG Emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, PFCs, HFCs, SF6) in India by Sector ............................. 76
Introduction
In 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 of implementing 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 of scenarios for the future of global food security in the context of climate change. These countryspecific 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)). 1
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 change
While the general consequences of climate change are becoming increasingly well known, great uncertainty remains about how climate change effects will play out in specific locations 1. Figure 1 shows changes in average precipitation globally between 2000 and 2050 for four General Circulation Models (GCMs), each using the A1B scenario.
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 (or general) circulation models (GCMs) that model the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere and its interactions with 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, including industrial activities, transportation, agriculture and other land uses and estimate the emissions of the various greenhouse gasses (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are the most important). Several independent IAMs exist as well. The emissions simulation results of the IAMs are made available to the GCM models as inputs that alter atmospheric chemistry. The end result is a set of estimates of precipitation and temperature values around the globe often at 2 degree intervals (about 200 km at the equator) for most models. Periodically, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues assessment reports on the state of our understanding of climate science and interactions with the oceans, land and human activities.
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 the MIROC GCM suggests that Southeast Asia will be much drier, while the ECHAM model has the same region 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
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 climatechange 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
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 India
The 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 yield expected 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.
Figure 1. Changes in mean annual precipitation between 2000 and 2050 using the A1B scenario (mm per year).
Change in annual precipitation (millimeters)
CNRM-CM3 GCM
CSIRO-MK3 GCM
ECHAM5 GCM MIROC3.2 medium resolution GCM Source: IFPRI calculations based on downscaled climate data available at http://ccafs-climate.org.
Figure 2. Changes in annual maximum temperature between 2000 and 2050 using the A1B scenario (C)
Change in annual maximum temperature (C)
CNRM-CM3 GCM
CSIRO-MK3 GCM
ECHAM5 GCM MIROC3.2 medium resolution GCM Source: IFPRI calculations based on downscaled climate data available at http://ccafs-climate.org/.
Agriculture, Food Security and Indian Development
At 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 is sustainable. 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 Situation
The 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 next two 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, 8
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 take measures 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.
Population
Densely 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, rising temperatures, 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 9
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.
Year
Population Growth in India and China (in billions)

India % of World Population India China 0.65 3.02 15 21 0.72 3.33 15 21 0.82 3.69 15 22 0.91 4.06 15 22 0.98 4.44 16 22 1.05 4.85 16 22 1.14 5.29 16 22 1.21 5.71 17 21 1.27 6.12 17 21 1.31 6.51 17 20 1.35 6.91 18 20 1.40 7.30 18 19 1.43 7.67 18 19 1.45 8.01 18 18 1.46 8.31 18 18 1.46 8.57 18 17 1.46 8.80 18 17 1.44 9.00 18 16 Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The China World
1960 0.45 1965 0.50 1970 0.55 1975 0.62 1980 0.69 1985 0.77 1990 0.86 1995 0.95 2000 1.04 2005 1.13 2010 1.21 2015 1.29 2020 1.37 2025 1.43 2030 1.48 2035 1.53 2040 1.56 2045 1.59 Source: Department of 2008 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.
10
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 1960-1969 0.02 0.02 1970-1979 0.02 0.02 1980-1989 0.02 0.02 1990-1999 0.02 0.01 2000-2008 0.01 0.01 Source: IFPRI calculations, based on World Development Indicators Urban Growth Rate 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.02 (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.
11
Figure 4. Population distribution (persons per square kilometer)
Source: IFPRI estimates from GRUMP for 2000.(Center for International Earth Science Information Network Columbia University 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 about 1400 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.
12
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 use and 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 poaching and harvesting Increasing pollution of ground and surface water, as well as coastal area from domestic, industrial, and agricultural activities
Income
India 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
13
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)
China GDP per capita (US$) Agricultural products (B) Percent of GDP (B/A) % Total GDP (A) 985,046 1,045,199 1,098,832 1,192,836 1,316,558 1,454,040 1,647,918 1,936,502 2,278,419 2,773,835 3,460,288 GDP per capita (US$) 810 852 888 956 1,047 1,149 1,293 1,510 1,766 2,137 2,649 Agricultural products (B) 172,074 176,568 175,739 177,764 187,460 196,191 206,213 253,188 281,541 Percent of GDP (B/A) % 17.5 16.9 16.0 14.9 14.2 13.5 12.5 15.2 15.2 11.0
India Year Total GDP (A)
1997 424,040 428 104,752 24.7 1998 426,750 423 105,412 24.7 1999 454,952 442 105,460 23.2 2000 468,978 448 101,735 21.7 2001 483,466 454 103,292 21.4 2002 503,954 466 96,388 19.1 2003 592,535 539 114,781 19.4 2004 688,803 617 122,725 17.8 2005 808,884 713 134,934 16.7 2006 910,615 791 2007 1,142,338 981 18.0 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.
14
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) 2005-06 25969 2006-07 28074 2007-08 30316 2008-09 31821 2009-10 33588 Source: Economic Survey, India, 2009-10 and CSO, New Delhi Share of Agriculture and Allied Activities in GDP 18.1 17.2 16.4 15.7 14.6
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 many different 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.
15
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)
1993-94 22.19 40.86 54.96 14.69 24.21 25.05 28.44 25.17 33.16 25.43 42.52 36.86 48.56 11.77 27.41 35.03 40.85 35.66 35.97 1999-2000 15.77 36.09 42.60 8.23 14.07 8.74 7.63 3.48 20.04 12.72 37.43 25.02 47.15 6.16 15.28 21.12 31.15 27.02 26.10 2004-05 15.80 19.70 41.40 40.90 14.70 16.80 14.0 10.0 5.40 40.30 25.00 15.00 38.30 30.70 46.40 8.40 22.10 22.50 32.80 39.60 24.70 27.50
States 1973-74 1987-88 48.86 25.86 Andhra Pradesh 51.21 36.21 Assam 61.91 52.13 Bihar Chhattisgarh 49.61 12.41 Delhi 48.15 31.54 Gujarat 35.36 16.64 Haryana 26.39 15.45 Himachal Pradesh 40.83 23.82 Jammu & Kashmir Jharkhand 54.47 37.53 Karnataka 59.79 31.79 Kerala 61.78 43.07 Madhya Pradesh 53.24 40.41 Maharashtra 66.18 55.58 Orissa 28.15 13.20 Punjab 46.14 35.15 Rajasthan 54.94 43.39 Tamil Nadu 57.07 41.46 Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand 63.43 44.72 West Bengal 54.88 38.86 All India 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 a clear 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.
16
Figure 7. Poverty (percent below US$2 per day)
Source: Wood et al. (2010) available at labs.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 10 percent 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 debttraps Continued population growth The caste system, which forces individuals to remain in traditional and hereditary occupations 17
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 statistics
Indicator Primary school enrollment: Percent gross (3-year average) Secondary school enrollment: Percent gross (3-year average) Adult literacy rate Under-5 malnutrition (weight for age) Source: World Development Indicators (World Bank 2009). Year 2006 2006 2007 2006 Value 111.9 54.6 66 43.5
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 India
2000-01 62.5 61.6 63.3 64.8 75.3 53.7 2006-07 63.5 62.6 64.2 -
States 1950-51 1980-81 1990-91 Life Expectancy at Birth (in Years) 32.1 50.4 58.7 (a) Male 32.5 50.9 58.6 (b) Female 31.7 50.0 59.0 Education: Literacy Rate (%) 18.3 43.6 52.2 (a) Male 27.2 56.4 64.1 (b) Female 8.9 29.8 39.3 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 life expectancy 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.
18
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.
Year
Population and Agricultural Workers in India (in millions)

Annual Exponential Growth Rate (%) Rural Population Total (in millions) 97.2 131.1 125.7 148.0 185.3 234.1
Agricultural Workers Cultivators Agricultural (%) Labourers (%) 1951 361.1 1.25 298.6 71.9 28.1 1961 439.2 1.96 360.3 76.0 24.0 1971 548.2 2.22 439.0 62.2 37.8 1981 683.3 2.20 523.9 62.5 37.5 1991 846.4 2.14 628.9 59.7 40.3 2001 1028.7 1.95 742.6 54.4 45.6 Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2010, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India Total Population
Review of Land Use and Agriculture
Agricultural 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)
1950-51 328.73 284.32 40.48 14.20 47.52 1980-81 328.73 304.18 67.46 22.20 39.55 1990-91 328.73 304.86 67.81 22.20 40.48 2000-01 328.73 305.15 69.53 22.80 41.48 2007-08 328.73 305.67 69.63 22.80 43.22
States I. Geographical Area II. Reported Area for Land Use (1 to 5) 1. Forest % 2. Not Available for Cultivation (A+B)
19
(A) Area under Non-agricultural; Use 9.36 19.60 21.09 % 3.30 6.40 6.90 (B) Barren and Un-cultivated Land 38.16 19.96 19.39 % 13.40 6.60 6.40 3. Other Uncultivated land excluding Fallow Land (A+B+C) 49.45 32.31 30.22 (A) Permanent Pastures & other Grazing Land 6.68 11.99 11.40 % 2.30 3.90 3.70 (B) Land under miscellaneous tree crops, groves 19.83 3.58 3.82 % 7.00 1.20 1.30 (C) Culturable Waste Land 22.94 16.74 15.00 % 8.10 5.50 4.90 4. Fallow Lands (A+B) 28.12 24.55 23.37 (A) Fallow lands other than current Fallows 17.45 9.72 9.66 % 6.10 3.20 3.20 (B) Current Fallows 10.68 14.83 13.70 % 3.80 4.90 4.50 5. Net Area Sown (6-7) 118.75 140.29 143.00 % 41.80 46.10 46.90 6. Total Cropped Area (Gross Cropped Area) 131.89 172.63 185.74 7. Area Sown more than once 13.15 34.63 42.74 8. Cropping Intensity 111.10 123.10 129.90 III Net Irrigated Area 20.85 38.72 48.02 IV Gross Irrigated Area 22.56 49.78 63.20 Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2010, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India
23.89 7.80 17.59 5.80 27.74 10.67 3.50 3.44 1.10 13.63 4.50 25.07 10.29 3.40 14.78 4.80 141.36 46.30 185.34 43.98 131.10 55.13 76.19
25.92 8.50 17.29 5.70 26.82 10.39 3.40 3.31 1.10 13.12 4.30 25.15 10.34 3.40 14.81 4.80 140.86 46.10 195.83 54.97 139.00 62.29 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 195051 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. These interventions are grouped into minor, medium, and major irrigation schemes. Minor irrigation schemes 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 been been insufficient to meet the full water demand. Therefore, farmers have installed wells and tube-wells to tap into groundwater resources to provide supplementary irrigation. The share of of different sources in irrigation potential created in India between 1951 and 2002 is shown in
20
Table 10.
21
Table 10.
Year
Changing Share of Different Sources in Irrigation Potential Created

Minor Irrigation Schemes 57.08 53.54 50.72 50.64 51.21 53.17 52.48 52.99 57.53 60.90 62.21 61.80 60.56 Minor Irrigation with Surface Water 28.32 24.49 22.18 19.30 17.52 15.84 14.42 14.13 14.87 14.36 14.13 14.50 17.14 Minor Irrigation with Ground Water 28.76 29.06 28.54 31.34 33.69 37.33 38.06 38.86 42.66 46.54 48.08 47.30 43.43
Major and Medium irrigation Schemes 1951 42.92 1956 46.46 1961 49.28 1966 49.36 1969 48.79 1974 46.83 1978 47.52 1980 47.01 1985 42.47 1990 39.10 1992 37.91 1997 38.20 2002 39.44 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 trend may 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 SouthWest 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 to uneven 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 22
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 varying topography, 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.
23
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 deciduous forests, 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.
24
Figure 10. Protected areas
Source: World Database on Protected Areas (UNEP 2009). Water is from Global Lakes and Wetlands Database (WWF) (Lehner and 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 where travel 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.
25
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 third map 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.
26
Agriculture Overview
India 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 cerealspecific 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 with no 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 8th Plan, to 2.1 and 1 percent in the 9th 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 27
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.
Year
Production Performance of Important Crops in India during 10th and 11th Plan
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 10.00 2002-03 174.77 71.83 65.76 26.07 11.13 14.84 287.38 8.62 2003-04 213.19 88.53 72.16 37.60 14.91 25.19 233.86 13.73 2004-05 198.36 85.13 68.64 33.46 13.13 24.35 237.09 16.43 2005-06 208.30 91.03 69.48 34.67 13.39 27.98 281.17 18.50 2006-07 217.28 93.35 75.81 33.92 14.20 24.29 355.52 22.63 2007-08 230.78 96.69 78.57 40.76 14.76 29.76 348.19 25.88 2008-09* 234.47 99.18 80.68 40.03 14.57 27.72 285.03 22.28 2009-10* 218.20 89.13 80.71 33.77 14.59 24.93 277.75 23.94 Note: * - 4th Advance Estimates released on 19.07.2010 Source: 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 before falling 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 10 th 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 I. Food grains Rice Wheat Jowar Bajra Maize Total Coarse Cereals Tur (Kharif) Gram (rabi) Total Pulses Total Food grains Nine Oilseeds Area 43.77 27.33 8.31 9.33 7.84 28.54 3.55 7.31 22.81 122.46 27.23 Production 92.83 74.61 7.44 8.58 16.53 36.45 2.55 6.04 14.00 217.90 26.82 Yield 2121 2730 896 920 2109 1277 717 826 614 1779 985 67024 396 6010 17207 12520
II. Oilseeds III. Other Cash Crops
Sugarcane 4.50 301.40 Cotton@ 9.09 21.14 Jute & Mesta$ 0.47 15.53 Potato* 1.41 24.25 Onion* 0.62 7.81 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
28
higher than rice yields. Among the various coarse cereals, maize yields are higher than for jowar and bajra.
to .
29
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 2006-2008
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Crop Rice, paddy Wheat Millet Beans, dry Seed cotton Soybeans Sorghum Maize Chick peas Rapeseed Total Source: FAOSTAT (FAO 2010) % of total 31.05 19.47 8.36 6.74 6.59 6.33 5.88 5.74 5.18 4.68 100.00 Area harvested (000 hectares) 43,860 27,506 11,815 9,516 9,315 8,938 8,301 8,104 7,311 6,606 141,272
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 2006-2008
Rank 1 2 3 4 Crop % of total 29.43 17.74 9.65 9.34 7.82 7.62 6.06 4.59 3.88 3.86 100.00 Value of Production Value of Production (million US$) 19,878.00 11,978.80 6,515.20 6,306.30 5,283.50 5,149.00 4,094.00 3,102.50 2,619.70 2,605.50 67,532.50
Rice, paddy Wheat Vegetables freshness Mangoes, mangos teens, guavas 5 Seed cotton 6 Sugar cane 7 Bananas 8 Rapeseed 9 Groundnuts, with shell 10 Potatoes Total Source: FAOSTAT (FAO, 2010)
The annual average consumption of the 10 leading food commodities in is about 298 million tons (.
30
Table 15). Rice, wheat and other vegetables are the most consumed agricultural products, accounting for over 50 percent in total consumption.
31
Table 15. Consumption of leading food commodities, average of 2003-2006

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Crop Rice (Milled Equivalent) Vegetables, Other Wheat Sugar (Raw Equivalent) Fruits, Other Potatoes Sugar Cane Millet Bananas Pulses, Other Total Source: FAOSTAT (FAO, 2010) % of total 20.0 17.0 16.6 5.0 4.7 4.4 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.1 100.00% Food consumption (000 mt) 78,746 66,730 65,176 19,672 18,568 17,189 11,375 10,823 9,335 8,391 392,845
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.
32
Figure 12. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated wheat Yield legend
Harvest area density legend
Yield
Harvest area density
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
Yield
33
Figure 14. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated rice Yield legend
Yield
Figure 15. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed rice Yield legend
Yield
34
Figure 16. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated maize Yield legend
Yield
Figure 17. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed maize Yield legend
Yield
35
Figure 18. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated sorghum Yield legend
Yield
Figure 19. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed sorghum Yield legend
Yield
36
Figure 20. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated cotton Yield legend
Yield
Figure 21. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed cotton Yield legend
Yield
37
Figure 22. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated soybeans Yield legend
Yield
Figure 23. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed soybeans Yield legend
Yield
38
Figure 24.
2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated beans Yield legend
Yield Figure 25.
Harvest area density 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed beans Yield legend
Yield
39
Figure 26. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated groundnuts Yield legend
Yield
Figure 27. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed groundnuts Yield legend
Yield
40
Figure 28. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated millet Yield legend
Yield
Figure 29. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed millet Yield legend
Yield
41
Figure 30. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated barley Yield legend
Yield
Figure 31. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed barley Yield legend
Yield
42
Figure 32. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated potatoes Yield legend
Yield
Figure 33. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed potatoes Yield legend
Yield
43
Figure 34. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: irrigated sugarcane Yield legend
Yield
Figure 35. 2000 Yield and harvest area density for main crops: rainfed sugarcane Yield legend
Yield
44
Scenarios for Adaptation
In 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 by four climate scenarios: plausible changes in climate conditions based on scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions.
Biophysical Scenarios
This section presents the climate scenarios used in the analysis and the crop physiological response to the changes in climate between 2000 and 2050. Climate Scenarios As 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.
45
Figure 36. Changes in mean annual precipitation for India between 2000 and 2050 using the A1B scenario (millimeters) Change in annual precipitation (millimeters )
CNRM-CM3 GCM
CSIRO-MK3 GCM
ECHAM5 GCM
MIROC3.2 medium resolution GCM 46
Source: IFPRI calculations based on downscaled climate data available at http://ccafs-climate.org/
Figure 37. Changes in normal annual maximum temperature for India between 2000 and 2050 using the A1B scenario (C) Change in annual maximum temperature (C)
CNRM-CM3 GCM
CSIRO-MK3 GCM
ECHAM5 GCM
MIROC3.2 medium resolution GCM
Source: IFPRI calculations based on downscaled climate data available at http://ccafs-climate.org/
47
Crop Physiological Response to Climate Change The DSSAT crop modeling system (Jones et al. 2003) is used to simulate responses of five important crops (rice, wheat, maize, soybeans, and groundnuts) to climate, soil, and nutrient availability, at current locations based on the SPAM dataset of crop location and management techniques (Liang You and Wood 2006). In addition to temperature and precipitation, we also input soil data, assumptions about fertilizer use and planting month, and additional climate data such as days of sunlight each month. We then repeated the exercise for each of the 4 future scenarios for the year 2050. For all locations, variety, soil and management practices were held constant. We then compared the future yield results from DSSAT to the current or baseline yield results from DSSAT.
Table 16.
Crops Yield lost > 25 % of baseline
Yield Lost and Gained in India Irrigated and Rainfed Crops by 2050
State-wise Yield Change Figures in 2050 (Based on CSIRO GCM and MIROC GCM)
Baseline area lost
Yield lost 5 % to 25 % of baseline Haryana, Punjab, UP, MP, Bihar, WB, Orissa, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, parts of Gujarat UP, MP, Maharashtra, Gujarat, parts of Karnataka, Assam, Bihar, parts of WB Parts of Haryana, Punjab, UP, Bihar, MP, parts of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Orissa, AP, TN, Karnataka, Kerala, Assam UP, MP, WB, Bihar, Orissa, parts of Maharashtra, Karnataka,, AP MP, Orissa, parts of Rajasthan, UP, Bihar, WB, AP, TN, Gujarat, Assam MP, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Assam, WB, Orissa, parts of AP and Maharashtra
Yield gain 5 % to 25 % of baseline
Yield gain > 25 % of baseline
New area gained
Irrigated Wheat
Parts of Karnataka and AP
Parts of Karnataka and AP
Parts of Bihar, Orissa and West Bengal (WB)
Parts of Maharashtra and Karnataka
Some area of J&K
Rainfed Wheat
Parts of Karnataka
Parts of Uttarakhand
Parts of MP, Maharashtra, Haryana, Punjab, HP
Irrigated Rice
WB, parts of Haryana
Parts of UP and Haryana
Rainfed Rice
Some parts of MP
Most parts of Maharashtra, parts of Karnataka, Orissa, Bihar Parts of UP, and Haryana, some area of Karnataka
Parts of Maharashtra and Karnataka
Uttarakhand, HP, Punjab, some border areas of UP, MP and Karnataka
Irrigated Maize
Some area of Chhattisgarh
Rainfed Maize
Parts of Rajasthan,, some area in Maharashtra and Karnataka
Parts of Maharashtra, UP
Parts of Maharashtra, Karnataka, AP, TN
Parts of Rajasthan, MP and Punjab
The outputs for key crops are mapped in Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. to
48
Figure 49. The comparison is between the crop yields for 2050 with climate change compared to the yields with 2000 climate.
49
Figure 38. Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated wheat Legend for yield change figures
CNRM-CM3 GCM
CSIRO-MK3 GCM
ECHAM5 GCM
Source: IFPRI calculations based on downscaled climate data and DSSAT model runs
50
Figure 39. Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed wheat Legend for yield change figures
CNRM-CM3 GCM
CSIRO-MK3 GCM
ECHAM5 GCM
51
Figure 40. Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated rice Legend for yield change figures
CNRM-CM3 GCM
CSIRO-MK3 GCM
ECHAM5 GCM
52
Figure 41. Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed rice Legend for yield change figures
CNRM-CM3 GCM
CSIRO-MK3 GCM
ECHAM5 GCM
53
Figure 42. Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated maize Legend for yield change figures
CNRM-CM3 GCM
CSIRO-MK3 GCM
ECHAM5 GCM
54
Figure 43. Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed maize Legend for yield change figures
CNRM-CM3 GCM
CSIRO-MK3 GCM
ECHAM5 GCM
55
Figure 44. Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated groundnuts Legend for yield change figures
CNRM-CM3 GCM
CSIRO-MK3 GCM
ECHAM5 GCM
56
Figure 45. Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed groundnuts Legend for yield change figures
CNRM-CM3 GCM
CSIRO-MK3 GCM
ECHAM5 GCM
57
Figure 46. Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated potatoes Legend for yield change figures
CNRM-CM3 GCM
CSIRO-MK3 GCM
ECHAM5 GCM
58
Figure 47. Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed potatoes Legend for yield change figures
CNRM-CM3 GCM
CSIRO-MK3 GCM
ECHAM5 GCM
59
Figure 48. Yield change map under climate change scenarios: irrigated soybeans Legend for yield change figures
CNRM-CM3 GCM
CSIRO-MK3 GCM
ECHAM5 GCM
60
Figure 49. Yield change map under climate change scenarios: rainfed soybeans Legend for yield change figures
CNRM-CM3 GCM
CSIRO-MK3 GCM
ECHAM5 GCM
61
From biophysical scenarios to socioeconomic consequences: The IMPACT Model Figure 50 provides a diagram of the links among the three models used in this analysis: IFPRIs IMPACT model (Cline 2008), a partial equilibrium agriculture model that emphasizes policy simulations; a hydrology model and an associated water-supply demand model incorporated into IMPACT; and the DSSAT crop modeling suite (Jones et al. 2003) that estimates yields of selected crops under varying management systems and climate change scenarios. The modeling methodology reconciles the limited spatial resolution of macro-level economic models that operate through equilibrium-driven relationships at a national level with detailed models of biophysical processes at high spatial resolution. The DSSAT system is used to simulate responses of five important crops (rice, wheat, maize, soybeans, and groundnuts) to climate, soil, and nutrient availability, at current locations based on the SPAM dataset of crop location and management techniques. This analysis is done at a spatial resolution of 15 arc minutes, or about 30 km at the equator. These results are aggregated up to the IMPACT models 281 spatial units, called food production units (FPUs) (see
62
Figure 51). The FPUs are defined by political boundaries and major river basins. (See the Appendix for location of the Indian FPUs.) Figure 50. The IMPACT modeling framework
Source: Nelson, et al, 2010.
63
Figure 51. The 281 FPUs in the IMPACT model
Source: Nelson et al. 2010
IFPRIs IMPACT model has a wide variety of options for exploring plausible scenarios. The drivers used for simulations include: population, GDP, climate scenarios, rainfed and irrigated exogenous productivity and area growth rates (by crop), and irrigation efficiency. In all cases except climate, the country-specific (or more disaggregated) values can be adjusted individually. Differences in GDP and population growth define the overall scenarios analyzed here, with all other driver values remaining the same across the three scenarios. Table 17 documents the GDP and population growth choices for the three overall scenarios for this analysis.
Table 17. GDP and population choices for the three overall scenarios
Income and Demographic Scenarios
Category GDP, constant 2000 US$
Population
Pessimistic Lowest of the four GDP growth rate scenarios from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment GDP scenarios (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) and the rate used in the baseline (next column) UN High variant, 2008 revision
Baseline Based on rates from World Bank EACC study (Margulis 2010), updated for SubSaharan Africa and South Asian countries UN medium variant, 2008 revision
Optimistic Highest of the four GDP growth rates from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment GDP scenarios and the rate used in the baseline (previous column) UN low variant, 2008 revision
Source: Based on analysis conducted for Nelson et al. 2010.
The IMPACT modeling suite was run with four climate model and scenario combinations; the CSIRO and the MIROC GCMs with the A1B and the B1 scenarios. Those four outputs were used with each of the three GDP per capita scenarios. Table 18 shows the annual growth rates for different regional groupings as well as for India. Figure 52 illustrates the path of per-capita income growth for India under these scenarios. In all scenarios, Indias income growth exceeds those of the developed group of countries and most developing countries, although it is expected to slow from the current rapid pace.
64
Table 18. Average scenario per capita GDP growth rates (percent per year)
Category 19902000 20102050 Pessimistic India Developed Developing Low-income developing Middle-income developing World 4.83 2.7 3.9 4.7 3.8 2.9 3.18 0.74 2.09 2.60 2.21 0.86 Baseline 5.15 2.17 3.86 3.60 4.01 2.49 Optimistic 5.52 2.56 5.00 4.94 5.11 3.22
Source: World Development Indicators for 19902000 and authors calculations for 20102050.
Figure 52 graphs the three GDP per capita scenario pathways, the result of combining the three GDP projections with the three population projections of Figure 5 from the United Nations Population office. The "optimistic scenario" combines high GDP with low population. The "baseline scenario" combines the medium GDP projection with the medium population projection. Finally, the "pessimistic scenario" combines the low GDP projection with the high population projection. Figure 52. GDP Per Capita Scenarios
Source: Based on IMPACT results of July 2011, computed from World Bank and United Nations population estimates (2008 revision). Note that the scenarios used apply to all countries; that is, in the optimistic scenario, every country in the world is assumed to experience high GDP growth and low population growth.
The GDP per capita scenario results for India and the U.S. can be seen in Table 19. In the pessimistic scenario, U.S. per capita income increases less than 2 times while in the optimistic scenario, it almost triples between 2010 and 2050. The Indian per capita income triples in the pessimistic scenario and increases almost 12 times in the optimistic scenario. However, despite Indias much more rapid growth than in the U.S. its per capita income in 2050 is still only one-fifth of that in the U.S.
65
Table 19. India-U.S. Income Scenario Outcomes for 2010, 2030, and 2050 (2000US$ per capita)
2010 Pessimistic India U.S. Baseline India U.S. Optimistic India U.S. 754 39,218 2,094 67,531 7,239 101,853 754 37,723 1,971 56,517 6,225 88,841 615 37,504 1,018 51,132 2,269 58,291 2030 2050
Agricultural Vulnerability Scenarios (Crop-specific) Table 20 shows the combined effect of climate change and economic and demographic drivers on yields for the major crops cultivated in irrigated and rainfed systems in India. The Table 20 shows the absolute yields under four combined climate change scenario and perfect mitigation scenario. In the irrigated system, though majority of the crops show rise in their yield levels in 2050 from the level of 2010 scenario, the yield levels still fall significantly short of the mitigation scenario. This holds especially true in case of rice, wheat, potato, millet, rapeseed and sunflower. However, under rainfed system, the absolute yield levels of almost all the crops grown in India (as shown in Table 20) under four combined climate change scenario exceed their perfect mitigation scenario in 2050. Thus, the yield levels of various crops in 2050 are likely to be more affected under irrigated system as compared to rainfed system since mitigation scenario shows low level yields than the four climate change scenario put together.
66
Table 20. Impact of Climate Change on Crop Yields in India: Simulation Outcomes (Yield in mt/ha) Crops & 2050 2050 2010 2010 Scenarios Baseline Optimistic Pessimistic Baseline Optimistic Pessimistic Irrigated Rainfed Rice CC Mean 2.95 3.26 3.23 3.29 1.37 1.41 1.40 1.42 Per mit 3.01 3.58 3.54 3.61 1.35 1.37 1.36 1.38 Wheat CC Mean 3.17 3.61 3.58 3.61 1.07 1.18 1.17 1.18 Per mit 3.22 3.90 3.86 3.89 1.06 1.14 1.13 1.14 Maize CC Mean 3.74 6.13 6.10 6.11 1.44 2.91 2.89 2.90 Per mit 3.75 6.19 6.16 6.17 1.42 2.81 2.80 2.80 Soybean CC Mean 1.59 2.12 2.12 2.10 0.80 0.86 0.86 0.85 Per mit 1.59 2.19 2.19 2.17 0.79 0.83 0.83 0.82 Potato CC Mean 19.76 25.20 24.87 25.26 15.25 15.01 14.81 15.05 Per mit 20.76 32.33 31.92 32.39 15.20 14.73 14.55 14.76 Millet CC Mean 2.61 4.31 4.25 4.36 0.86 1.47 1.44 1.48 Per mit 2.61 4.40 4.33 4.45 0.85 1.34 1.32 1.36 Sorghum CC Mean 0.81 1.45 1.44 1.46 0.84 1.43 1.43 1.43 Per mit 0.81 1.48 1.47 1.48 0.83 1.31 1.30 1.31 Chickpea CC Mean 1.01 2.63 2.60 2.63 0.75 1.82 1.80 1.82 Per mit 1.01 2.68 2.65 2.68 0.74 1.73 1.71 1.73 Crops & 2050 2010 2050 2010 Scenarios Baseline Optimistic Pessimistic Baseline Optimistic Pessimistic Irrigated Rainfed Pigionpea CC Mean 0.87 2.13 2.10 2.13 0.60 1.37 1.35 1.37 Per mit 0.87 2.17 2.14 2.16 0.64 1.31 1.29 1.30 Groundnut CC Mean 0.97 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.68 0.71 0.71 0.72 Per mit 0.98 1.05 1.04 1.06 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.66 Cotton CC Mean 0.56 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.25 0.36 0.36 0.36 Per mit 0.58 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.25 0.35 0.34 0.35 Sugarcane CC Mean 60.42 71.98 71.87 71.06 52.33 62.78 62.69 61.90 Per mit 60.49 72.27 72.17 71.34 51.05 54.84 54.77 54.11 Rapeseed CC Mean 0.94 1.41 1.40 1.40 0.86 1.09 1.09 1.08 Per mit 0.98 1.77 1.76 1.76 0.87 1.13 1.13 1.13 Sunflower CC Mean 0.55 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.51 0.69 0.68 0.68 Per mit 0.57 1.06 1.05 1.05 0.52 0.73 0.72 0.72
Source: Authors calculations based on simulations Notes: (i) 2010 yields are the baseline scenarios; (ii) CC Mean - Mean of the four climate change scenarios viz. MIR_369_B1_med/opt/pess, MIR_369_A1_med/opt/pess, CSI_369_B1_med/opt/pess, and CSI_369_A1_med/opt/pess. (iii) Per mit Perfect mitigation: climate in 2050 is identical to that in 2000.
67
68
Figure 53 to
69
Figure 64 shows simulation results from the IMPACT model for 12 selected crops. Each crop has five graphs: one each showing production, yield, area, net exports, and world price. The following figures use box and whisker plots to present the effects of the climate change scenarios in the context of each of the economic and demographic scenarios. Each box has 3 lines. The top line represents the 75th percentile, the middle line is the median, and the bottom line is the 25th percentile.2
These graphs were generated using Stata with Tukey's (Tukey 1977) formula for setting the whisker values. If the interquartile range (IQR) is defined as the difference between the 75th and 25th percentiles, the top whisker is equal to the 75th percentile plus 1.5 times the IQR. The bottom whisker is equal to the 25th percentile minus 1.5 times the IQR (StataCorp 2009).
70
Figure 53. Scenario outcomes for wheat area, yield, production, net exports, and prices
Production
Yield
Area
Net Exports
Prices
Source: Based on IMPACT results of July 2011.
71
Figure 54. Scenario outcomes for rice area, yield, production, net exports, and prices
Production
Yield
Area
Net Exports
Prices
72
Figure 55. Scenario outcomes for maize area, yield, production, net exports, and prices
Production
Yield
Area
Net Exports
Prices
73
Figure 56. Scenario outcomes for sorghum area, yield, production, net exports, and prices
Production
Yield
Area
Net Exports
Prices
74
Figure 57. Scenario outcomes for cotton area, yield, production, net exports, and prices
Production
Yield
Area
Net Exports
Prices
75
Figure 58. Scenario outcomes for soybeans area, yield, production, net exports, and prices
Production
Yield
Area
Net Exports
Prices
76
Figure 59. Scenario outcomes for chickpeas area, yield, production, net exports, and prices
Production
Yield
Area
Net Exports
Prices
77
Figure 60. Scenario outcomes for groundnuts area, yield, production, net exports, and prices
Production
Yield
Area
Net Exports
Prices
78
Figure 61. Scenario outcomes for millet area, yield, production, net exports, and prices
Production
Yield
Area
Net Exports
Prices
79
Figure 62. Scenario outcomes for pigeon peas area, yield, production, net exports, and prices
Production
Yield
Area
Net Exports
Prices
80
Figure 63. Scenario outcomes for potato area, yield, production, net exports, and prices
Production
Yield
Area
Net Exports
Prices
81
Figure 64. Scenario outcomes for sugarcane area, yield, and production; sugar production, net exports, and prices
Sugarcane Area
Sugarcane Yield
Sugarcane Production
Sugar Production
Source: Based on IMPACT results of July 2011
Sugar Net Exports
Sugar Prices
82
Human Vulnerability Scenarios Figure 65 shows scenario outcomes for the average daily kilocalories per capita and
83
Figure 66 the number of malnourished children under five. The story is much the same in both figures in qualitative terms. The baseline and optimistic scenarios show increases in calorie availability; the pessimistic scenario has a decline, from about 3,000 kilocalories per day in 2010 to 2,600 kilocalories per day in 2050. Climate change has relatively little effect within an overall scenario. Figure 65. Average daily kilocalories availability under multiple income and climate scenarios (kilocalories per person per day)
As expected, the baseline and optimistic scenarios do best in reducing malnourished children. In the optimistic scenario the count drops close to zero, while with the baseline it falls from about 8 million children in 2010 to about 2 million in 2050. The pessimistic scenario is also the least desirable from the perspective of reducing malnourished children. After a slow decline to just below 6 million by the mid2020s, the decline stops and the number increases slightly. As the box and whiskers plots indicate, within a particular overall scenarios climate change has relatively little impact on the number of malnourished children. The range in 2050 from the different climate scenarios is typically less than 1 million children malnourished. The reason, as we discuss below, is the ability of India to import and/or export depending on how climate change affects production domestically and abroad.
84
Figure 66. Number of malnourished children under 5 years of age under multiple income and climate scenarios
85
Agriculture and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation

Agricultural Emissions History
Figure 67. GHG Emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, PFCs, HFCs, SF6) in India by Sector
Source: Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) Version 8.0. (World Resource Institute 2011)
Technical potential for agricultural mitigation
Sustainable practices such as organic farming, natural farming can help farmers adapt to the changing climate. By including local resources, such as trees livestock and water, integrated farming systems can help mitigate climate change and improve the quality of life of farmers. India continues to emit greater and greater amounts of greenhouse gases. This increase is predominantly from rapid industrialization. Nevertheless, agriculture continues to contribute almost 20 percent of GHG emissions. Agricultures contribution to GHG emissions in India comes primarily from the following sources:
86
Methane (CH4) emissions from irrigated rice production Nitrous Oxide (N2O) from the use of nitrogenous fertilizers Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions from pumping groundwater for irrigation
Generally, mitigation includes reducing emissions of carbon dioxides, methane and nitrous oxides, sequestering carbon, and clean development mechanism. Economic potential for agricultural mitigation One of the main strategies for reducing agricultural GHG emissions is to reduce deforestation. Nevertheless, there are many additional strategies that can help reduce GHG emissions, such as: Improved land management (conservation farming, no-till, etc.) Agroforestry Degraded crop and pasture land rehabilitation Improvement to the nutrition and genetics of ruminant livestock Improved storage and capture technologies for manure conversion into biogas.
Most of these approaches have positive outcomes in terms of higher productivity, better management of natural resources, or the production of valuable by-products, such as bioenergy. Adaptation and mitigation synergies Weather variability is a significant risk to agriculture, especially in a future with climate change. Improving farmers ability to cope with this variability will be increasingly critical. Although global integrated impact assessment models provide a framework with respect to adaptation to climate change, these models are inadequate for regional policy planning, especially for countries, such as India, with varied weather conditions. Countries like India will need an integrated-assessment simulation model that encompasses cropping systems, water use and socio-economic parameters. The adaptation measures that the agricultural sector can undertake to cope with future climate change may include the following Changing planting dates Planting different varieties or crop species Development and promotion of alternative crops Developing new drought and heat-resistant varieties Improving crop residue and weed management Increasing use of water harvesting techniques Improving pest and disease control for crops Implementing new or improving existing irrigation systems Developing watersheds in rainfed areas Promoting crop diversification Promoting on-farm water-efficient technologies Introducing a system of credits and loans to farmers Promoting the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme Encouraging RCTs (resource conserving technologies) for crop production.
Conclusions
Climate change will make attaining food security in India through 2050 a challenge. Growing population combined with low agricultural productivity growth will further complicate achieving food security. Economic and demographic drivers are expected to increase agricultural productivity through 2050 for most crops, including rice and wheat. However, climate change is expected to have varied effects on
87
agricultural productivity. For example, the models suggest that crop yields in India will decrease for the following crops cultivated under irrigation: Rice Wheat Potatoes Millet Rapeseed Sunflowers
On the contrary, the models suggest that crop yields for many rainfed crops may increase due to increased precipitation. The simulation runs in DSSAT suggest that India will experience yield declines between 5 and 25 percent for wheat in the major wheat growing regions of Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. However, in Maharashtra we see potential wheat yield gains of 5 to 25 percent. This variability is mirrored for rice, where irrigated yield losses are expected in some parts of Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, while rainfed yield gains are expected in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Orissa. For maize, yield losses are expected for the majority of the country with the exception of Uttar Pradesh where yield gains are expected. As for human vulnerability, within a particular overall scenario indicate that the climate change has relatively little impact on the number of malnourished children in India. The range in 2050 from the different climate scenarios is typically less than 1 million children malnourished. The reason is the ability of India to import and/or export depending on how climate change affects production domestically and abroad. One of the coping strategies will be to initiate immediate supporting investments in physical and human capital with a view to increase the efficiency of land, water, and nutrient use. The factors are essential in growth, climate resilience, and mitigation of agricultural GHGs. Since farm production is likely to be adversely affected by climate change, improvements in the management of water, land-use, soil, and nutrition will be required. There are areas where adaptation programme have already been developed and these include crop improvement, risk financing, draught proofing, and disaster management. Additionally the following adaption strategies and policies will need to be considered. Reduction in water-use inefficiency Preservation and enhancement of plant and animal genetic resources Promotion of eco-friendly technologies Adaptation to ecosystem based approaches of risk management Shift in cropping patterns Implementation of integrated farming and agroforestry systems Agricultural insurance
Adapting agricultural systems to climate change is urgent because its impact is already being felt. Additionally, these effects will continue to be felt even if GHG emissions are stabilized at current levels, making adaptation critical to reducing the negative economic effects of climate change.
The paper was presented at the International Conference on Climate Change and Food Security (ICCCFS, Beijing, China, November 6-8), jointly hosted by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS). The authors would like to acknowledge financial support from CCAFS. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors. Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by IFPRI or CAAS. The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on the map(s) herein do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by IFPRI or CAAS.
88
References
Center for International Earth Science Information Network Columbia University. 2004. Global RuralUrban Mapping Project (GRUMP), Alpha Version: Population Density Grids. Global Rural-Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP), Alpha Version: Population Density Grids. Palisades, NY: Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC), Columbia University. http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw. Cline, S A, with T. Zhu. 2008. International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT): Model Description. Washington, D.C. International Food Policy Research Institute. http://www.ifpri.org/themes/impact/impactwater.pdf. FAO. 2010. FAOSTAT. Online Database. http://faostat.fao.org/site/291/default.aspx. Helders, Stefan. 2005. World Gazetteer online Database. http://world-gazetteer.com. Jones, J W, G Hoogenboom, C H Porter, K J Boote, W D Batchelor, L A Hunt, P W Wilkens, U Singh, A J Gijsman, and J T Ritchie. 2003. The DSSAT cropping system model. European Journal of Agronomy 18, no. 3-4: 235-265. JRC. 2000. Global Land Cover. http://bioval.jrc.ec.europa.eu/products/glc2000/glc2000.php. Le Treut, H., R. Somerville, U. Cubasch, Y. Ding, C. Mauritzen, A. Mokssit, T. Peterson, and M. Prather. 2007. Historical Overview of Climate Change. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Lehner, B., and P. Dll. 2004. Development and validation of a global database of lakes, reservoirs and wetlands. Journal of Hydrology 296, no. 1-4: 1-22. Margulis, Sergio. 2010. Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change: Synthesis Report. Development. Washington, DC. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Scenarios. Washington, DC: Island Press. Nelson, Gerald C., Mark W. Rosegrant, Amanda Palazzo, Ian Gray, Christina Ingersoll, Richard Robertson, Simla Tokgoz, et al. 2010. Food Security, Farming, and Climate Change to 2050: Scenarios, Results, Policy Options. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Raskin, Paul, Frank Monks, Teresa Ribeiro, Detlef van Vuuren, and Monika Zurek. 2005. Global Scenarios in Historical Perspective. In Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Scenarios, Volume 2, ed. R. Carpenter, Steve, Prabhu Pingali, Elena M. Bennett, and Monika Zurek, 35-44. Washington, D.C. Island Press. StataCorp. 2009. Stata. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP. Tukey, J. W. 1977. Exploratory Data Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. UNEP. 2009. World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Annual Release. http://www.wdpa.org/protectedplanet.aspx. 89
United Nations. 2008. World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision. New York. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/. Wood, Stanley, Glenn Hyman, U. Deichmann, E. Barona, R. Tenorio, Z. Guo, S. Castano, O. Rivera, E. Diaz, and J. Marin. 2010. Sub-national poverty maps for the developing world using international poverty lines: Preliminary data release. Harvest Choice, IFPRI. http://labs.harvestchoice.org/2010/08/poverty-maps/. World Bank. 2009. World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Resource Institute. 2011. Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) Version 8.0. http://cait.wri.org/. You, Liang, and Stanley Wood. 2006. An entropy approach to spatial disaggregation of agricultural production. Agricultural Systems 90, no. 1-3: 329-347. You, Liangzhi, Stanley Wood, and U. Wood-Sichra. 2009. Generating plausible crop distribution and performance maps for Sub-Saharan Africa using a spatially disaggregated data fusion and optimization approach. Agricultural Systems 99, no. 2-3: 126-140.
90

India Report Final Draft 11.27

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

India Report Final Draft 11.27

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INDIAN FOOD SECURITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE: AGRICULTURE FUTURES

Regional impacts of climate change

Selection of IMPACT, SPAM and DSSAT Crop for India

Agriculture, Food Security and Indian Development

Review of the Current Situation

Population Growth in India and China (in billions)

Source: World Development Indicators (World Bank, 2009)

Figure 4. Population distribution (persons per square kilometer)

Figure 5. Population scenarios for 2010 to 2050

Source: UN Population Projections (United Nations 2008).

India Year Total GDP (A)

Source: World Development Indicators (World Bank 2009).

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

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

Source: World Development Indicators (World Bank, 2009)

Population and Agricultural Workers in India (in millions)

Review of Land Use and Agriculture

Changing Share of Different Sources in Irrigation Potential Created

Figure 9. Land cover, 2000

Source: Source: GLC2000 (JRC 2000).

Figure 10. Protected areas

Figure 11. Travel time to urban areas

II. Oilseeds III. Other Cash Crops

Table 15. Consumption of leading food commodities, average of 2003-2006

Harvest area density legend

Harvest area density

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

Harvest area density legend

Harvest area density

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

Harvest area density legend

Harvest area density

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

Harvest area density legend

Harvest area density

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

Harvest area density legend

Harvest area density

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

Harvest area density legend

Harvest area density

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

Harvest area density legend

Harvest area density

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

Harvest area density legend

Harvest area density

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

Harvest area density legend

Harvest area density

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

Harvest area density legend

Harvest area density

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

Harvest area density legend

Harvest area density

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

Harvest area density legend

Harvest area density

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

Harvest area density legend

Yield Figure 25.

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

Harvest area density legend