Successfully reported this slideshow.
You’ve unlocked unlimited downloads on SlideShare!
Today, India, with a successful green revolution has over 300 million living below the poverty line, mainly in rural areas. With 86 percent of India’s operational holdings being marginal and small (less than 2 hectares), largely unviable due to increasing input costs – of fertilizers, chemicals, water, seeds, agro-machinery and implements, (Acharya and Jogi, 2007), technology fatigue with increasing input prices and declining factor productivity (Swaminathan, 2005), increasing soil and water problems –both quantity (declining arable land and water tables) and quality (soil and water systems degradation) (ICAR, 1998; Government of India, 2005; 2008), limited rural employment opportunities (NCEUS, 2006), increasing capital intensity of agriculture (doubling the ICOR (Golait and Lokare, 2008), increasing deployment of labour saving technologies in agriculture and the low and declining employment elasticity (Palanivel, 2006), and the rate of growth of income per worker in the agriculture sector falling from 1.15% per annum (1980-81 to 1990-91) to 0.48% per annum (1990-91 to 2000-2001) (Sen and Bhatia, 2004; Bhalla and Hazell, 2003), the picture of agriculture in India is no longer green.
Indian Agrarian Crisis and way forward AID conference
Indian Agrarian Crisis and Way ForwardRamanjaneyuluCentre for Sustainable Agriculture…caring for those who feed the nationAndhra Pradesh Maharashtra Punjab
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture• is an independent agriculture institution working toestablish sustainable models of production through acommunity managed learning, management andmarketing system.• strive for a policy change which promote sustainablemodels of production and bring restrictions onecologically and economically unsustainablepractices and polices• Working in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Punjab
Agrarian CrisisFarmerPolicies Markets• Small holdings• Lack of bargaining power• Increased tenancy• Lack of knowledge and skills• Low investments inagril• Against smallholders• Support high extrnlinput agril• Monoculturedand monopolisedmarkets• More costaddition thanvalue addition
0200040006000800010000120001400016000180002000019951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011Farmers suicides in IndiaNo. of suicidesSource: NCRB 1995-2010Total 270,940 in 17 years• an annual average of 14,462 in six years, from 1995 to 2000• a yearly average of 16,743 in 11 years between 2001 and 2011• around 46 farmers’ suicides each day, on average or nearly one every half-hoursince 2001• Farmers Suicide Rate is 16.3% compared to 11.1 % among rest of Indians (47%higher)
• two-thirds of the suicides areoccurring in half-a-dozenStates that account for justabout one-third of thecountry’s populationState Farmer Suicides Difference1995-2002 2003-2010Andhra Pradesh 1590 2301 +711Karnataka 2259 2123 -136MP+Chhattisgarh 2304 2829 +525Maharashtra 2508 3802 +1294Source: NCRB Accidental Deaths & Suicides in India Reports 1995-2010
What do Census-2011 say• Cultivators are 118.7 million (24.6%)and Agricultural Labourers are 144.3(30.0%)• Proportion of cultivators reduced from31.7 % and agriculture workersincreased from 26.5% in 2001• Main cultivators only 95.8 million (< 8per cent of the population) down from103 million in 2001 and 110 million in1991.• 15 million farmers (‘Main’ cultivators)fewer than there were in 1991 andover 7.7 million less since 2001• Agriculture workers numbersincreased from 63.4 m to 86.1 mbetween 2001-11• On average about 2,035 farmers losing‘Main Cultivator’ status every singleday for the last 20 years
Where are they going?• From 2004-05 to 2009-10, only 2 million additional employmentwas generated but 55 million were added to working agepopulation!• 25.1 million people lost their self-employment• Increase in the number of casual workers by 21.9 million, whilegrowth in the number of regular workers nearly halved between2004-05 and 2009-10, compared with the previous 5 year period.Sector 2004-05 2009-10 DifferenceAgriculture 258.93 243.21 -15.71Manufacturing 55.77 48.54 -7.23Services 112.81 112.33 -0.48Non-Manufacturing(construction)29.96 56.10 26.14TOTAL 457.46 460.18 2.72Sector-wise unemployment (millions)
Lives not better….66thNSSO survey says• Per capita expenditure of urban India was 88% higher than rural India• Average MPCE in 2009-10 to be Rs. 1054 and Rs. 1984 in rural India andurban India respectively• Top 10% of India’s rural population having an average MPCE (Rs. 2517) 5.6times that of the poorest 10% (Rs. 453)• Top 10% of urban population having a 9.8 times higher average MPCE (Rs.5863) compared that of the bottom 10% (Rs. 599)• Considering the average rural MPCE value of Rs. 1054 in isolation wouldbe partially misleading. The rural MPCE median of Rs. 895 (about Rs. 30per day) implies that half the rural population had MPCE below this level.• 40% of the rural population had MPCE below Rs. 800 while 60% had MPCEbelow Rs. 1000• Compared to the rural median MPCE (Rs. 895), the urban median MPCElevel was 1.68 times higher at Rs. 1502 with 30% of the urban populationhaving MPCE above Rs. 2100 and 20% having MPCE above Rs. 2600.
Income and Expenditure of farmersLandholdingCategory TotalIncome(Rs/month)Expenditure(Rs/month)Percent offarmers<0.01 Landless 1380 2297 36 %0.01-0.4 Sub marginal 1633 23900.4-1.0 Marginal 1809 2672 31 %1.0-2.0 Small 2493 3148 17 %2.0-4.0 Semi-medium 3589 3685 10 %4.0-10.0 Medium 5681 4626 6 %>10.0 Large 9667 6418Total 2115 2770 AllfarmersSource: Report “On Conditions Of Work And Promotion Of Livelihoods In The Unorganised Sector” Arjun SenGupta Committee, 2007•Income per ha in Karnataka from Rs.8809 to Rs.5671•Income per ha in Maharashtra from Rs.4194 to Rs.3047
Smaller holdings• Between 1960-61 and 2003, the total number ofoperational holdings increased from 50.77 millionto 101.27 million.• During the same period, the total operated areadeclined from 133.46 million hectares to 107.65million hectares.• Thus average operated area declined from 2.63hectares to 1.06 hectares.(NSSO, Some Aspects of Operational Land Holdingsin India, various issues, 2003)
Reducing institutional credit• The share of agricultural credit in total bank lending nearly doubledfrom around 10% in the mid-1970s to about 18% in the late 1980s.• The share of agricultural credit in total bank lending declined fromthe peak of 18% in the late 1980s to about 11% in 2005, the declinehas continued since then.• Rural branches of commercial banks has declined from 51.2% inMarch 1996 to 45.7% in March 2005.• Data also shows that the share of agricultural credit cornered byfarm sizes of more than 5 acres has increased• Tenancy is informal and tenant farmers do not get access to credit(GOI, 2007).
Year Share in total agricultural Credit (%)Direct Finance Indirect Finance Total1985 83.2 16.8 100.01990 86.8 13.2 100.02000 84.5 15.5 100.02005 76.1 23.9 100.02006 72.1 27.9 100.02007 74.5 25.5 100.02008 77.5 22.5 100.02009 77.1 22.9 100.02010 76.1 23.9 100.0Source: Basic Statistical Returns’ Reserve Bank of India, Various IssuesShares of direct and indirect finance to agriculture in total credit to agriculturefrom scheduled commercial banks, India, 1985 to 2009 in per cent
Credit limit size class ofloans (Rs)Share of amount outstanding in total out standing (%)1990 2000 2005 2010Less than 2 lakh 82.6 67.6 51.9 44.32 lakh to 10 lakh 4.3 11.7 17.9 22.610 lakh to 1 crore 7.6 6.6 6.4 6.41 crore to 10 crore 4.2 6.7 8.0 6.310 crore to 25 crore1.31.7 3.3 2.7Above 25 crore 5.7 12.6 17.7100 100 100 100Source: ‘Basic Statistical Returns’, Reserve Bank of India, Various IssuesDistribution of amount outstanding under total agricultural advances byscheduled commercial banks, by credit limit size-classes of loans, 1990 to 2010,in per cent
• Not adequate• Not accessible-crops, region,tenant farmers• Interestsubvention whobenefits?• How to increasecoverage?Year Rural + semi-urbanbranchesOnly ruralbranchesUrban+metropolitanbranchesOnlymetropolitanbranchesAll branchesAll India1990 85.1 55.5 14.9 4.0 100.01994 83.4 54.6 16.6 5.6 100.01995 83.7 52.7 16.3 7.3 100.02005 69.3 43.0 30.7 19.0 100.02006 62.4 37.1 37.6 23.8 100.02008 66.0 38.4 34.0 20.0 100.0Maharashtra1990 82.4 59.7 17.6 - 100.01994 76.8 52.9 23.2 - 100.01995 70.5 46.5 29.5 - 100.02005 41.8 26.1 58.2 48.5 100.02006 31.6 18.4 68.4 61.3 100.02008 42.4 25.7 57.6 48.3 100.0Share of agriculture credit from different bank branches1990-2008 (in %)
Insurance• Inadequate coverage: crops, people, regions• Problems in settling claims• Claims not covering the loss• Completely becoming a business model• How do we increase the coverage and make itworkable to reduce risks
subsidies• On decline….• Input based hence benefits only the suppliers• Specific inputs hence drives particulartechnologies and models of agriculture• Farmers own resources, labour neversupported
Unremunerative prices• MSP determination is faulty and unscientific.• Governments keep the prices low to ensure cheaplabor and cheap inputs, and food security for poor• Minimum Support Prices are announced for 25commodities but market intervention only for rice,wheat, cotton• Agricultural prices don’t account for living costs of ruralfamilies. Rising inflation has double impact on farmerswith increasing living costs & decreasing incomes• Removal of quantitative restrictions and allowingcheaper imports• Restrictions on exports on certain crops depressing localmarket prices
Monoculturing crops, varieties, genes, trees animals• Today Cotton, Maize, Paddy are the only crops whosearea increasing..globally only 3 crops supply 60% offood• Within crops 80% of the production comes from fewgenetic backgrounds• Increasing area under hybrid crops in areas notsuitable like rainfed areas, hill regions• 99 % of the cotton with bt genes to fight four majorpests..several others in pipeline• Promotion of water intensive orchards in rainfed areas• Promotion of cross bred animals, buffaloes in rainfedareas
GM crops and foods• Key issues• Relevance of GM crops• Biosafety issues• IPRs andMarket monopoly• Conflicts of interests and scandals• Studies on NPM vs/Bt cotton• Documentary evidences on Violations of regulationsin field trials,• Illegal GM food crop field trials• First reports on Bronze wilt, Tobacco Streak Virus,Mealybug• Evidences on sheep death• Studies on Environmental Risk Assessment and SocioEconomic Impacts• Contamination• IPRshttp://www.indiagminfo.org
1995 2000Changes in area underthe four Gossypiumspecies1947Decline in diversity – a concern
Public Sector-the lost empire• Crops in pipeline-bt rice, bt brinjal, bt ….• No IPR literacy– UAS dharwar, TNAU and CICR cases• ABSP-II– UAS dharwar, TNAU• Regulatory role– Bt bhendi case in AP– Bt brinjal trials in AICRP vegetables• Bt Cotton Case– Bt Bikeneri Narma case
Do youremember I wasthis small whenwe first met!Pests and pesticides contribute to the major economic and ecological problems affecting thefarmers, crops and their living environment• Pesticide induced pest problem• Pesticide resistance• Pesticide poisoning (acute and chronic)• Pesticide and ecological problems• IPM > IRM
Source: Government of India, 2009; RBI, 2009.Irrigation and fertilizer based production
Fertiliser wastage continues..Nutrient Use Efficiency1984-85: 24.67 2000-01: 18.081990-91: 20.43 2005-06: 16.10Nutrient Use Efficiency1984-85: 24.67 2000-01: 18.081990-91: 20.43 2005-06: 16.10Yield Increase-50%Nutrient Use Increase- 130 %Yield Increase-50%Nutrient Use Increase- 130 %Food production should have been312 Million Tons
Contributing to Climate Change• Feed stock to produce N fertilizers in India (2006-07)– Natural gas-62 %– Naptha-15 %– Ammonia (ext. supply)-13 %– Fuel oil-9 %– Others-1 %• Fertilizer industry uses 25 % of Natural Gas, 18 % of Naptha and 14 % of Fuel Oil• Total greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from the manufacturing and transport offertiliser are estimated at 6.7 kg CO2 equivalent (CO2, nitrous oxide and methane)per kg N• 1.25 kg of N2O emitted per 100 kg of Nitrogen applied• Globally, an average 50% of the nitrogen used in farming is lost to theenvironment:• as N2O to the air as a potent GHG (310 x CO2)• as nitrate polluting wells, rivers, and oceans• Volatilization loss 25-33 %• Leaching loss 20-30 %
Depleting natural resources• Increasing dark zones dueto groundwater depletion• 30 % of soils are reportedto be saline by the recentstudy by ministry ofenvironment
BUSINESS AS USUAL IS NOT AN OPTIONSustainable Agriculture as a tool to improve rural economy
Farmer•Shifting to better and sustainable practices•Getting organised to deal with the markets and policiesPolicy Support•Supporting sustainablemodels•Regulating unsustainablepractices•Invest more in agriculture•Income security to farmersMarket Support•Farmers moving up thevalue chain•Direct marketing•Forward and backwardlinkages•Better prices
Strategies: with communities• Reducing the costs of cultivation– Reducing external input use by NPM/Organic methods– Collective sourcing– Small farm mechanisation• Reducing the risk of crop failures– Suitable cropping patterns based on soil types and available resources– Improving soil moisture holding capacity– Agronomic innovations like SWI in wheat and HDPS in cotton– Weather monitoring and advisories• Building Cohesive Communities– Collective planning– Regular interactions and building confidence
Strategies: Increasing the net incomes of the farminghouseholds• Increasing productivity– Good quality seed through community managed seed systems– timely interventions on pests and disease management and poor soil management– effective production planning at the farmer level and community level– Increasing soil organic matter will increasing water holding capacity and therebycontribute for the enhanced productivity– Integrating trees (both biomass and fruit trees) in to the cropping system will help thefarmers to have additional incomes– In a three years period productivity can be increased by at least 10%.• Improving the work efficiency of the farmers/agriculture workers:– small farm mechanisation (reducing the number of labour days and drudgery)– Building biogas units• Increasing the price realisation: Collectivisation will improve the bargaining powerand can increase the price realisation at least by 10%. Value addition providesadditional sources of income.• Additional income generating activities: backyard poultry, nursery raising, seedproduction, food processing etc. These will also provide additional person days ofwork.
Strategies: Sustainability• Farmers Institutions: Program built through farmers institutionsand focus on building good governance• Change as ‘Factor 10’: reducing the costs of cultivation by 10% andincreasing the productivity and price realisations by 10%.• Incremental change: entry points would be based on the mostpressing problems in the region.• Knowledge based Extension: Regular farmer field schools, qualityresource material, experienced farmers as resource persons areapproaches used by us. The production practices are customdeveloped for each region based on the soil type, locally availableresources and problems faced• Using ICT tools: locally produced quality videos, call centre• Convergence with the ongoing government programmes• Showcasing the success stories
Yenabavi -Organic Village• Entire village (55 households’ 228 acres) organic for last fiveyears• Most of the inputs internalised into farming• Land Productivity increased, crop yields maintained• In SRI paddy 44 bags were also recorded• Recently awarded Krishi Gaurav Award by Baba Ramdev’sPatanjali Trust for their role in promoting organic farming• More than 30 thousand farmers visited the village in lastthree years
Community Managed SustainableAgriculture in Andhra PradeshBasic Principles Regenerative, ecologically sound practices Organized action by communities inplanning, implementing and managing theprogram Govt/ngos playing facilitating agency role2004-05 started with 225 acres in one dist andreached 7 lakh acres in 2007-08 in 18 dist. WorldBank says this is a good tool for povertyeradication and now promoted as part of NRLMWith 50 % development expenditure one candouble the incomes of the farmersA national program called Mahila KrishiSashaktikaran Pariyojana (MKSP) is launchedbased on this experiencce
0.225 25200 7001300200028003500 36000.1 158030060010001500 1600 17702135 19971394 1541 1381101505001000150020002500300035004000Acerage (000acres) Farmers (000) Pesticide use (MT Active Ingradient)Farmers and area covered under CMSAhttp://126.96.36.199/pilots/cmsanew/index.html
Distinguished visitorsDr. V L Chopra,Member Planning CommissionJairam Ramesh,Honble Minister forCommerceT. NandakumarSecretary AgricultureGOI
Average Reduction in costs and netadditional income for different cropsCrops Reduction in costdue to NPM (Rs)Reduction in costs due to useof organic fertilisers/manures(Rs)Net additionalincome (Rs)Paddy 940 1450 5590Maize 1319 2357 5676Cotton 1733 1968 5676Chillies 1733 1968 7701Groundnut 1021 3462 10483Vegetables 1400 390 37903rd Party Evaluation of Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) : Community ManagedOrganic Farming implemented by SERPEvaluation TeamProf. R. Ratnakar, Director, Dr. M. Surya Mani, Professor, EXTENSION EDUCATIONINSTITUTE, (Southern Region), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India
Improved Agricultural Incomes (Pre CMSA Comparedto Post CMSA farms)Average Returns: District wise/Farmer/ha.:S.NoDistrictAverage returns per farmer/ha. (Rs. perannum) Percent of Increase inNet Returns (in %)Pre-CMSA Post-CMSA1 Srikakulam 52,398. 80 55,596.84 6.102 Guntur 29,631.43 65,319.97 1203 Nellore 37,976.19 72,894.48 91.944 Anantapur 15,333.54 25,493.16 66.255 Warangal 51,351.39 73,904.52 43.916 Medak 35.511.10 37,962.04 6.9053Note: A huge increase is observed in Guntur district due to the fact that the Chilly crop has had a high remunerativeprice which has more than doubled.
Sr.noDistrict Suicides Severe cases of hospitalizationBefore2005-06After 2005-06 Before2005-06After 2005-06In NPMvillagesOthervillagesIn NPMvillagesOthervillages1 Khammam*(4 villages/4 mandals)3 0 9 139 0 1042 Vijayanagaram**0 0 0 6 0 23 Adilabad *(18 mandals)26 0 3 97 0 40Total 29 0 12 242 0 146Status of Suicides and Severe Hospitalization, 2007-08* Crops grown are cotton, chillies, redgram and paddy** Crops grown are paddy, vegetables
Maharashtra• CSA started working in Dorli clusterfrom 2006• Today farmers are back to farming andmanaging• Started a seed producer company
Organic Hybrids throughParticipatory Plant Breeding• CSA worked on developing non GM cotton varietiesand hybrids through participatory plant breedingwhich are used by organic farming groups
Malkha cotton fabric• CSA along with Decentralised Cotton Yarn Trust established Decentralisedcotton processing units where in cotton can be processed without bailingand can be calibrated for diverse cotton varieties. Three units are now inAndhra Pradesh, at Punukula, Siricilla and Boorgula. The units provideemployment to the 30 people in the village.
Kisan Swaraj Policy• economic sustainability and income securityfor agricultural families,• ecological sustainability to preserve theproductive natural resources,• peoples control and access to agriculturalresources including land, water, forest, seedand knowledge,• ensuring non-toxic, diverse, nutritious andadequate food for all Indians.