a socio-economic probe into impacts of drought on ... · drought on livelihoods of farmers in...
TRANSCRIPT
i
A Socio-Economic Probe into Impacts of
Drought on Livelihoods of Farmers in
Bijapur District, Karnataka
LOKESH S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, BIJAPUR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
DHARWAD- 580 005
OCTOBER, 2014
ii
A Socio-Economic Probe into Impacts of
Drought on Livelihoods of Farmers in
Bijapur District, Karnataka
Thesis submitted to the
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of
Master of Science (Agriculture) in
Agricultural EconomicsAgricultural EconomicsAgricultural EconomicsAgricultural Economics
By
LOKESH S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, BIJAPUR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
DHARWAD- 580 005
OCTOBER, 2014
iii
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS ECONOMICS ECONOMICS ECONOMICS
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, BIJAPURBIJAPURBIJAPURBIJAPUR UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWADUNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWADUNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWADUNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD
CERTIFICATECERTIFICATECERTIFICATECERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis titled ““““A SOCIOA SOCIOA SOCIOA SOCIO----ECONOMIC PROBE ECONOMIC PROBE ECONOMIC PROBE ECONOMIC PROBE
INTO IMPACTS OF DROUGHT ON LIVELIHOODS OF FARMERS IN INTO IMPACTS OF DROUGHT ON LIVELIHOODS OF FARMERS IN INTO IMPACTS OF DROUGHT ON LIVELIHOODS OF FARMERS IN INTO IMPACTS OF DROUGHT ON LIVELIHOODS OF FARMERS IN
BIJAPUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKABIJAPUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKABIJAPUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKABIJAPUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA”””” submitted by
Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. LOKESH SLOKESH SLOKESH SLOKESH S.... for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE MASTER OF SCIENCE MASTER OF SCIENCE MASTER OF SCIENCE
(AGRICULTURE)(AGRICULTURE)(AGRICULTURE)(AGRICULTURE) in AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICSAGRICULTURAL ECONOMICSAGRICULTURAL ECONOMICSAGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS to the University of
Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, is a record of research work done by him
during the period of his study in this University, under my guidance,
supervision and the thesis has not previously formed the basis of award of any
degree, diploma, associate ship, fellowship or other similar titles.
BIJAPUR
OCTOBER, 2014
(R. S. PODDAR)
CHAIRMAN
Approved by:
Chairman:
Members: 1.
2.
3.
(R. S. Poddar)
(M. Y. Teggi)
(S. C. Alagundagi)
(S. G. Aski)
iv
Acknowledgement
It is an ample pleasure to look back and recall the path one traverses through during
those trying times and days of perseverance. It is indeed a privilege at this juncture to recall
all the faces and spirits in the form of teachers and friends, near and dear ones. I consider this
herculean task, as incomplete, without acknowledging the support received during this
endeavor of mine.
I avail this opportunity to express my deep sense of reverence and gratitude to Dr. R.
S. Poddar, Professor of Agricultural Economics and Head, Project Planning and Monitoring
Cell, Vice-Chancellors Office, University of Agricultural Sciences Dharwad and the esteemed
Chairman of my Advisory Committee for his indefatigable efforts, vivid encouragement and
valuable advice, which enabled me to perform the best of my ability and bring out this thesis.
It was a pleasure and privilege for me to be associated with him during my master’s
programme.
My diction is too poor to translate the sense of gratitude into words and heartfelt
reverence to Dr. M. Y. Teggi, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics;
Dr. S. C. Alagundagi, Chief Scientist, AICRPDA, Regional Agricultural Research Station,
Bijapur; Dr. S. G Aski, Associate Professor of Agricultural Extension, Extension Education
Unit, Bagalkot, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad and Members of my Advisory
Committee for their sustained encouragement, valuable suggestions, timely advice and for
providing an atmosphere of freedom of work during this investigation. Mere any words from
the vastness of literature fails to express my sense of gratitude for their continued endurance
shown throughout my research programme and compilation of this thesis, without which this
work would not have seen the light of the day.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge my sincere gratitude to Dr. V. R. Kiresur,
Professor and Head, Department of Agricultural Economics; Dr. S. S. Guledgudda,
Professor of Agril. Economics and Associate Director of Research, Regional Agricultural
Research Station, Bijapur; Dr. P. A Katharki, Professor of Agricultural Statistics (Retd.),
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
I extend my sincere thanks to all the non-teaching staff of Department of Agricultural
Economics, College of Agriculture, Bijapur, for their valuable help during my stay at Bijapur.
On my personal note, it is an immense pleasure to express my sincere gratitude and
heartfelt respect to the blessings of my parents Sri. Shrinivasaiah, Smt. Lakshmidevamma,
Ms. Vedhashree and all my family members and My friends Ravi, Darshan, Kavya, H. K.,
Konda, Nishchal, Sharath, Chidu, Keerthi Shali, Rashmi, R., Rekha, Prashanth (Yash),
v
Jayantha (Annachi), Bhara, Pavan, Prabhu, Mohana, Vishwa, Sandy for their
boundless love, needy inspiration, unshakable confidence with me, without whose affection I
would not have come up to this level.
I am grateful to my classmates Ranga, Ammu, Guna, Siri, Shwetha, Priya, Mamatha,
Deepu, Siddhu, Boodi, Hanumya, Makki, Sadashiva and Vinutha. Seniors Naveen, Saidappa,
Jamadar, Shilpa, Pratiksha, Radha, Malli, Manu, Manju, Harsha, Bhojya, Nagaraj, Veeru,
Pradeep, Sunil and all my juniors, Ambya, Keerthi, Mallu, Lakshmi, Viju, Preethi,
Thejaswini, Muzamil, Mohana, Manju, Chandrappa, Gani, Nandish, Vani, Ashwini C.T.,
Nandya, Pavi, Vittu, Ambare, Shivraj, Santu, Shivappa; U.B. Mestri and all staff members of
Project Planning and Monitoring Cell, UAS, Dharwad for their kind help.
………any omission in this small manuscript doesn’t mean lack of gratitude.
BIJAPUR
OCTOBER, 2014 (LOKESH, S.)
vi
AffectionatelyAffectionatelyAffectionatelyAffectionately DedicatedDedicatedDedicatedDedicated
ToToToTo Farming Community of Bijapur,Farming Community of Bijapur,Farming Community of Bijapur,Farming Community of Bijapur,
Also tAlso tAlso tAlso toooo
SmtSmtSmtSmt/Sri/Sri/Sri/Sri. Lakshmi. Lakshmi. Lakshmi. Lakshmi ShrinivasaiahShrinivasaiahShrinivasaiahShrinivasaiah, , , , Ms.Ms.Ms.Ms.VedhashreeVedhashreeVedhashreeVedhashree
and My Friendand My Friendand My Friendand My Friend
Late. Mr. Bharath K. G.Late. Mr. Bharath K. G.Late. Mr. Bharath K. G.Late. Mr. Bharath K. G.
vii
CONTENTS
Sl.
No Particulars
Page
No
i CERTIFICATE iii
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
iii LIST OF TABLES vii
iv LIST OF FIGURES ix
1 Introduction 1
2 Review of literature
2.1. The extent and pattern of drought in Karnataka and Bijapur district 9
2.2. Socio-economic profile of farmers in drought affected areas of
Bijapur district 16
2.3. The impact of drought on livelihoods of the farmers in the study area 20
2.4. Drought coping and mitigation measures adopted by farmers 29
3 Methodology
3.1 Description of the study area 39
3.2 Sampling procedure 42
3.3 Nature and sources of data 44
3.4 Analysis of data 46
3.5 Definitions of terms and concepts used 47
4 Results
4.1 The extent and pattern of drought in Karnataka 51
4.2 Socio-economic profile of farmers in drought affected area of Bijapur
district 76
4.3 Impact of drought on livelihoods of the farmers in the study area; and 80
4.4 Existing drought coping and mitigation measures. 107
5 Discussion
5.1 Extent and pattern of drought in Karnataka 115
5.2 Socio-economic profile of farmers in drought affected area of Bijapur
district 127
5.3 Impact of drought on livelihoods of the farmers in the study area; and 129
5.4 Drought coping and mitigation measures adopted by farmers 146
6 Summary and Policy Implications 150
Reference 160
Annexures 166
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
No. Title
Page
No.
3.1 Cropping pattern of Bijapur district 43
3.2 Sample villages and sample respondents selected in the study area 45
4.1 Rainfall pattern of Karnataka 52
4.2 District wise Rainfall pattern during South-West Monsoon (kharif)
2012 53
4.3 Weekly South-West Monsoon in Karnataka during 2012 55
4.4 Zone wise rainfall distribution of South-west monsoon in Karnataka 56
4.5 Targeted area and area sown by the end of July during kharif in
Karnataka 2012-13 58
4.6 Taluks under different classes of drought in the State – October
2012 59
4.7 Major reservoir levels in the State by the end of September 2012 61
4.8 Zone wise/district-wise status of Minor Irrigation Tanks 64
4.9 Rainfall pattern of Bijapur district 66
4.10 Taluk wise rainfall pattern during South-West Monsoon (2008 –
2012) 67
4.11 Classification of taluks/hoblis based on rainfall deviation in Bijapur
district 2012 68
4.12 Cropping/vegetation progress in different hoblies during the south
west monsoon 2012 70
4.13 Agriculture crops affected and estimated input loss due to dry spell
during Kharif 2012 in Bijapur 72
4.14 Production and output value loss during kharif due to dry spell in
Bijapur district 2012 73
4.15 Total Economic loss due to drought in Bijapur district 75
4.16 Age of the respondents in the study area 77
4.17 Literacy level of the sample farmers in the study area 78
ix
4.18 Family type of respondents in the study area 79
4.19 Occupation of sample respondents 81
4.20 Asset position of the respondents in the study area 82
4.21 Cropping pattern of farmer respondents during the drought 2012 84
4.22 Crop yield loss due to drought 87
4.23 Crop value loss due to drought 90
4.24 Loss of Livestock (number) due to drought 94
4.25 Livestock value loss due to drought 95
4.26 Loss of milk yield, milking period (days), and value due to drought 97
4.27 Fodder situation during drought 98
4.28 Consumption pattern of respondents during the drought and normal
seasons 100
4.29 Expenditure pattern of respondents during drought and normal
season 102
4.30 Income Pattern of respondents during the drought and normal year 103
4.31 Employment situation during drought and normal periods 105
4.32 Credit accessibility of drought affected farmers 105
4.33 Source and distance travelled for drinking water 106
4.34 Coping strategies adopted by farmers in drought condition 108
4.35 Amount dispersed by state Government for coping with drought in
Karnataka 110
4.36 Funds required for mitigating drought situation in Karnataka 2012 110
4.37 Contingent Action Plan to tackle drinking water crisis in the rural
areas of Bijapur and Karnataka (April 2012 to July 2012) 112
4.38 Assistance provided under Natural Disaster Reserve Fund for
maintaining livestock in Karnataka during 2012 113
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
No. Title
Page
No.
1 Map showing the study area 40
2 Rainfall pattern and deviation of rainfall in Karnataka 116
3 District wise distribution of South-West Monsoon Rainfall in
Karnataka (2012) 117
4 Weekly rainfall distribution by South-West Monsoon in Karnataka
(2012) 119
5 Targeted area and area sown in kharif by the end of July during
kharif in Karnataka 2012-13 120
6 Rainfall pattern and deviation of rainfall in Bijapur district 123
7 Taluk wise South-West Monsoon rainfall distribution in Bijapur
district 125
8 Economic loss due to drought in Bijapur district 132
9 Livestock yield, value and yielding period loss 134
10 Consumption expenditure during drought 137
11 General family expenditure pattern during drought 138
12 Family income loss pattern during drought 140
13 Agriculture employment loss during drought 141
14 Non-agriculture employment loss during drought 142
15 Credit accessibility by farmers in drought season 143
16 Source of drinking water for households during drought 144
17 Distance travelled by households to fetch drinking water during
drought 145
1. INTRODUCTION
Drought occurs nearly in all climatic zones of the world at one time or other,
but this creeping phenomenon mostly affects tropics and adjoining regions. Drought
is one of the most disastrous among the different natural hazards, as it inflicts
untold miseries on the human society. Its beginning is difficult to be precisely
identified because of lack of sharp distinction from non-drought dry spells. As a
disaster, it is experienced only after it has occurred. It is generally a natural and
recurrent climatic phenomenon that is manifested in various forms and may cause
significant impacts and consequences in the environment, on humans, and other
living subjects on the earth. Insufficient precipitation over an extended period of
time is the key sign of a drought. Also some other elements of the hydrologic cycle
(that reflect the lack of water supply) may indicate the presence of drought. For
instance, infiltrated precipitation is the natural water supply to the soil, a persistent
deficit in soil moisture is also an obvious indicator of drought. Likewise, since
precipitation becomes excess surface runoff and eventually stream flow, lower flow
in streams and rivers is also a sign of water supply anomaly and drought.
Furthermore, depleted water storage in the form of snowpack, reservoirs and lakes,
and groundwater levels may also be indications of drought. In general, drought
gives an impression of water scarcity due to insufficient precipitation, high evapo-
transpiration, and over-exploitation of water resources or combination of these
parameters.
Drought is a situation in which there is a prolonged deficiency of rainfall over
a wide area resulting in serious depletion of soil moisture and consequent poor
agricultural production and general water shortage, resulting in low incomes and
great public suffering and distress.
According to National Commission on Agriculture (1976), there are three
types of drought namely; Meteorological drought, Hydrological drought, and
Agricultural drought (www.nrsc.gov.in). Agriculture is the first sector to be affected
by drought. Within the agricultural sector, marginal and small farmers are more
vulnerable to drought because of their dependence on rain fed agriculture and
related activities. As a consequence, they face much greater relative loss of assets,
thus widening disparities between small and large farmers. Also, as unemployment
2
increases purchasing power decreases- credits shrink and the cost of credit
increases. Consequently, the vulnerable segments are either forced to migrate,
work at lower wages or live in near hunger conditions. Pressure and fear of losing
social status due to drought induced poverty forces farmers to take drastic steps
like suicides.
We often talk about impacts of drought as either direct or indirect, because
drought impacts can cause a chain reaction of events that lead to additional drought
impacts. International Crops Research Institute for Arid and Semi-Arid tropics
(ICRISAT) classifies effects of droughts as direct and indirect effects
(www.vasat.icrisat.org).
Direct effects:
Direct effects are those that are caused by the drought itself. Some
examples could be:
• Lower water level and availability
• Reduced crop productivity
• Less of fodder for livestock
Indirect effects:
Indirect effects are result of direct effects. Examples are:
• Shortage of water for drinking and industry
• Food shortage and increased commodity prices
• Unemployment
In general there are some very critical economic effects of drought like
reduced production of food and allied food products, decreased availability of dairy
and livestock products, loss to industries directly dependent on agricultural
production (e.g. machinery and fertilizer manufacturers, food processors, dairies
etc.,), cost of water transport or transfer, cost of new or supplemental water
resource development, increased commodity prices, revenue losses to state, and
local governments, increased demand for monetary assets and increased interest
rates, reduction of economic development and decrease of gross national product
and economic growth.
3
About 16 per cent of the India’s total area is drought prone and annually
about 50 million people in the country are exposed to the crisis of drought. A total of
68 per cent of sown area is subject to drought in varying degrees. 35 per cent of
area receives rainfall between 750 mm – 1125 mm and is drought prone. Most of
the drought prone areas lie in the arid (19.6%), semi-arid (37%) and sub-humid
(21%) areas of the country that occupy 77.6 per cent of its total land area of 329 m
ha. Annual average rainfall of India is 1160 mm. However, 85 per cent of rainfall is
concentrated in 100-120 days (South-West Monsoon). 33 per cent of area receives
less than 750 mm rainfall and is chronically drought prone. 21 per cent area
receives less than 750 mm rainfall (large area of Peninsular India and Rajasthan).
Rainfall is erratic in 4 out of 10 years. Irrigation potential of the country is 140 Mha
(76 Mha Surface + 64 Mha Groundwater). Depletion of Ground water and limitation
of surface water imply that not all of net sown area is amenable to irrigation. Per
Capita Water availability is steadily declining due to increase in population, rapid
industrialization, urbanization, cropping intensity and declining ground water level.
Problems are likely to aggravate (Anonymous, 2012).
An analysis of trend and pattern rainfall, reservoir levels, area sown over a
period of time given a picture of extent and severity of drought. Although rainfall
reached about one week in advance in Kerala but its advancement to North
stagnated soon for about 10 days and again regained advancement northward at
fast rate. However, deficit was negative right in the first week of June in the country
as a whole as well as in all the four broad regions. The rainfall deficit reached
maximum in the end of June, temperature also increased above normal, damaged
vegetables and reduced milk yield especially of cross-bred cows. The country’s
average rainfall deficit decreased from -54 per cent to -19 per cent progressively
during July and reached normal only in Central and South peninsula. Drought again
intensified after 5th August, 2009 and further forecasts were not very encouraging.
The reservoir position in the year in Northern and Eastern regions was less
by 18 to 20 per cent of past 10 year average. Weekly reservoir storage position of
81 important reservoirs of India as on 13th august, 2009 reveals that 11 states
(Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab,
Rajasthan, Tripura, UP, Uttarakhand and West Bengal) have less than 75 per cent
storage compared to corresponding period storage of last 10 years average
4
storage. This indicated that there was a significant effect of deficient monsoon on
hydrologic drought and its consequences on the remaining kharif and rabi irrigated
areas, municipal and industrial water supplies. This indicated widespread deficiency
of rainfall in the vast catchment area and loss of hydro-electric power generation.
Higher filling of Southern reservoir was mainly due to high rainfall in Karnataka.
Significantly reduced river flows adversely affected irrigation in the run of the rivers
projects and barrage based canal systems of UP, Bihar etc. Release of water and
hydroelectric power generation has been curtailed in the Northern and Southern
dams. Abnormally high consumption of diesel, purchase of electricity in the spot
market at exorbitant rates has been reported in Punjab, Haryana, UP, Bihar etc.
and subsidy on diesel also announced by the government to pump ground water for
supplementing water supplies. (Anonymous 2009a)
According to Manual for Drought Management (2009), Karnataka is one of
the chronically affected drought prone states in India. The annual rainfall in
Karnataka varies roughly from 50 cm to 350 cm. Rainfall increases significantly in
Western part of the state and reaches its maximum over the coastal belt. The
South-West Monsoon is the principal rainy season during which the State receives
80 per cent of its rainfall. Rainfall in winter season (January to February) is less
than one per cent of the annual total, in the hot weather season (March to May)
about 7 per cent and in the post-monsoon season about 12 per cent.
Rainfall during 2011 South-West Monsoon (September), the State witnessed
scanty rainfall in 17 districts of interior Karnataka with departure from normal up to
81 per cent. South interior Karnataka recorded only 44 mm rain during the month as
against the normal rainfall of 134 mm. The North interior Karnataka region received
57 mm rainfall as against normal rainfall of 152 mm. September 2011 rainfall was
the second worst event in South Interior Karnataka since 1971, and in North Interior
Karnataka, third worst event since 1971. Failure of monsoon during September
2011 caused late season drought of rare severity. The dry spell in interior
Karnataka during September 2011 continued to October 2011 in many districts. 77
talukas recorded deficit rainfall during the period October 1-14 2011. Though the
cumulative rainfall departure from normal for the State as a whole during June 1-14,
2011 was -4 per cent from normal, failure of monsoon during September and
October resulted in late season drought.
5
Assessment of agricultural drought and crop condition was carried out during
Kharif 2011 by the State in association with National Remote Sensing Centre,
Government of India. The report at the end of September indicated drought
condition prevailing in 20 districts of the Karnataka. It was also noted that out of 22
districts in the country under “moderate drought”, Karnataka had 11 districts under
the category, which accounted to 50 per cent of the total area in the country.
Similarly out of the 49 districts in the country under “mild drought”, Karnataka has
11 districts falling under the said category constituting 22 per cent of the total area
of the country. Hence Normalized Difference Vegetative Index indicator identified
the drought situation in the State. Along with the above mentioned indicators, deficit
rain, dry spell, moisture stress pattern were also vital indicators of drought.
Taking into consideration the drought indicators (continuous dry spell of 4
weeks or more, percentage departure of rain -20 per cent or more), deficit rain, dry
spell/moisture stress prevailed in 70 talukas of the state and thus they were
declared as drought affected on October 4 2011 and 14 talukas were declared as
drought affected on October 7. The situation was again reviewed on October 15
and 6 more talukas were declared as drought affected. With no respite in the
situation, 9 more talukas were declared as drought affected on November 8. Thus
in all 99 talukas were declared as drought affected in the State. With the loss of
agriculture crop of about ₹ 4245.84 lakh, horticulture crop of ₹ 299.00 lakh.
Karnataka government queried about 723.24 crore for central assistance for
different categories of relief claim under CRPF norm. (Anonymous 2012).
For Karnataka the South-West Monsoon contributes above 75 per cent of
the Annual normal rainfall. The South-West Monsoon entered on 5th June and
covered the entire State by 17th June 2012. During 2012 South-West Monsoon, the
state as a whole recorded an actual rainfall of 618 mm as against its normal of 835
with percentage departure from normal being (-) 26 per cent and being classified
under deficit category. The South-West Monsoon rainfall was (-) 35 per cent in
South-Interior Karnataka, (-) 34 per cent in North Interior Karnataka, (-) 22 per cent
in Malnad and (-) 20 per cent Coastal region. Among the 30 districts, the South-
West Monsoon rainfall was normal in 7 districts and deficit in 23 districts.
6
Out of 176 taluks South-West Monsoon rainfall was excess in one taluk,
normal in 32 taluks, and deficit in 139 taluks and scanty in 4 taluks. Month wise
distribution indicates normal rainfall during August and deficit rainfall during June,
July & September. Weekly rainfall pattern indicated that, about 50 per cent of taluks
have experienced consecutive 4 and more weeks of dry spells during the season.
Aridity Index values indicated that almost all the districts of South-Interior Karnataka
and North Interior Karnataka have falling under moderate to severe with the stress
condition. Aridity Anomaly map also indicated mild to severe departure from the
normal. Seasonal progression of Normalized Difference Vegetative Index from
June to October indicated poor to normal progression of crops all over the state.
During 2012 South-West Monsoon, against the kharif target of 71.34 lakh ha
an area of 62.88 lakh ha was sown, which was 88 per cent of the target.
The Status of water situation in the major reservoirs of the State also throws
light on the trend and pattern of drought in the state. In 2012 water levels at
Linganamakki, Supa, Varahi, Harangi, Hemavathi, K.R.S, Kabini, Bhadra,
Tungabhadra, Ghataprabha, Malaprabha and Alamatti reservoir are less when
compared to the corresponding period of previous level. The levels at
Linganamakki, Supa, Harangi, K.R.S, Kabini, Bhadra, Ghataprabha, Malaprabha
and Alamatti reservoir are less when compared to the 15 years average levels and
also previous year level for the corresponding period. Out of total 3,524 minor
irrigation tanks in the state, only 7 per cent of the tanks had storage capacity of
more than 50 per cent of their respective capacities, 29 per cent of the tanks with
storages capacities of 30 per cent to 50 per cent of their respective capacity and
remaining 64 per cent of the tanks were dry.
The area sown in 2012 under different major kharif crops as percentage of
total normal kharif area were: Cereals 94 per cent, pulses 83 per cent, oilseeds 56
per cent and cash crops 143 per cent. During kharif 2012, the total coverage by all
crops for the State as a whole was 97 per cent (104%) of the normal. The coverage
in general was not good for oil seeds and pulses. There was much reduction in the
coverage of individual crops particularly in case of jowar, bajra, minor millets, horse
gram, groundnut, sunflower and Sesamum which registered a coverage of 58 per
7
cent, 68 per cent, 53 per cent, 54 per cent, 74 per cent, 37 and 74 per cent of their
respective normal.
Among the drought affected districts in the state, Bijapur stands one among
the top drought affected districts. While normal kharif season rainfall was 429 mm, it
was 272 mm. in 2012 against the normal which was deviated by -36 per cent. And
monthly rainfall deviated by -51 per cent in June, -22 per cent in August, -58 per
cent in September and it was normal in the only month of July by (102 %). The
normal and actual area coverage of crops in Bijapur district for the years 2012 was
less when compared with previous and to normal as percentage. During 2012, the
kharif area under total cereals was 111 per cent (150 %) of the normal. The area
covered under different cereal crops were jowar and rice nil, bajra 59 per cent,
minor millets 6 per cent but whereas maize was the only crop sown more than
normal. The area covered during kharif 2012 by total cereal crops was less when
compared to the corresponding figures of the previous year. In case of pulses, the
area sown was 200 per cent (226%) of the normal. The area covered under
different pulse crops were horse gram 16 per cent; red gram and black gram was
more than 100 per cent, green gram 15 per cent and other pulses 17 per cent of the
normal. The area covered by total pulses is less when compared to corresponding
figures of the previous year. (Anonymous 2012a). Within Karnataka the districts of
Bijapur, Raichur, Bellary and southern half of Gulbarga, the rainfall is lowest varying
from 50 cm to 60 cm.
Since drought is a recurring and very disastrous natural phenomenon
resulting into untold human miseries. It has very debilitating effects on natural
resources, human beings, livestock, and the overall economy of a country.
However, its impact can be managed with suitable policy interventions. Appropriate
policy interventions can be taken with a proper understanding of the phenomenon
of development of drought and its impacts. Bijapur is one of the chronically drought
affected districts in Karnataka. Historically, the district has suffered frequent drought
resulting in untold miseries to the people due to various historical, political and
socio-economic reasons. Therefore, this study aims to study overall situation of
drought in Karnataka and at micro level, the socio economic impacts of drought on
livelihood of people in Bijapur district to facilitate policy formulation.
8
The study focusses on impact of drought on livelihoods of farmers i.e. small,
medium and large farmers with respect to crop production loss, asset loss, income
pattern, and loss of income, livestock position, livestock yield, and drinking water for
human beings, livestock. The study also aimed to analyse the coping measures
adopted by farmers to mitigate the effects of drought in 2012. And the study has
taken up with the following specific objectives
Specific objectives of the study
1. To study the extent and pattern of drought in Karnataka and Bijapur district
2. To study socio-economic profile of farmers in drought affected area of
Bijapur district
3. To assess the impact of drought on livelihoods of farmers in the study area;
and
4. To analyse the existing drought coping and mitigation measures adopted by
farmers
Hypotheses of the study
1. The extent and pattern of drought is changing over the years in Karnataka
and Bijapur district
2. Economic condition of farmers in drought affected area are not comfortable
3. There is a negative impact of drought on the livelihoods of the farmers in the
study area
4. Drought coping and mitigating measures by farmers are adequate.
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In this chapter, with a view to evaluate the objectives of the study, findings of
some of the earlier research studies have been reviewed. This would enable the
researcher to collect information and subject them to sound reasoning and meaningful
interpretation. It was hoped that such review of literature would provide a basis for
either confirming the earlier results or contradicting them and there by suggesting the
points for further improvement.
Keeping in view the objectives of the study, the reviews are presented under
the following headings;
2.1. To study the extent and pattern of drought in Karnataka and Bijapur district
2.2. To study socio-economic profile of farmers in drought affected areas of Bijapur
district
2.3. To assess the impact of drought on livelihoods of the farmers in the study area;
and
2.4. To analyse the existing drought coping and mitigation measures
2.1 Extent and pattern of drought in Karnataka and Bijapur district
Khera (2004) reported crop loss in the Rajasthan due to drought, leading to
moisture stress that in turn lead to agricultural losses in 1999-2001. While the area
under cultivation of bajra fell by just four per cent, the fall in output was to the tune of
70 per cent. Largest decline in output was for bajra, along with rice, jowar and pulses.
Makka seems to have been the only crop that managed to survive in spite of a large
decline (nearly 60 %) in the area under cultivation.
Anonymous (2005), reported that agricultural sector in Andhra Pradesh faces a
40 per cent chance of crop loss in every two or three years in the combined output
value of five major crops – paddy, maize, jowar (sorghum), sunflower and groundnut in
the drought years compared to the normal years. Loss of crop production output
exceeds 5 per cent of the “normal” year output value every 3 years, 10 per cent - every
5 years, 15 per cent - once in 10 years, and 25 per cent - once in 25 years. The
Average Annual Loss (AAL) of output due to the drought-prone climate is at 5 per cent,
10
ranging from 6 per cent in the worst affected Anantapur district to 3 per cent in
Prakasam. Individual farmers suffered greater losses because their particular crops
faced hard hit. Importantly, for many small and marginal farmers in these districts, a
loss of output value of 10 per cent or even 5 per cent was noticed.
The 2002 drought year saw a decrease in the contribution of agriculture to
Andhra Pradesh GDP. While agriculture contributed to about 21 percent of GSDP
during the normal year (2000-01), it decreased to about 15 percent the following year,
which was a severe drought year. In particular, the contribution of water intensive
crops like paddy decreased from about 7 percent in 2000-01 to about four percent in
2002-2003.
Badatya (2005) reported that in Karnataka there were 11 major drought years in
the previous five decades. Where the widespread failure of rainfall occurred and
resulted in the decline in the percentage of food grain production compared to
immediate previous year. The decline in the food grain was 4.6 per cent (1986-87)
over the 1985-86, and 1966-67 there was drastic decrease in the production, i.e. 16.9
per cent which was considered as the worst drought in the decade. However, the
decline in food grains production by 13.2 per cent in 2002-03 over 2001-02.
Ding et al. (2005), in their study of drought coping strategies in rural China
found that although drought can occur in different seasons, rice farmers suffered
heavily in summer and autumn drought. It was estimated that rice yield loss due to
drought was about 7 - 37 per cent, the production loss of rice was about 9 - 64 per
cent. The production losses of wheat, cotton, maize and beans were also substantial.
Percentage loss in values for all crops at household level was 33 per cent. These
indicated that the effect of drought at household level was widespread and could be
substantial.
Pandey et al. (2006) made a cross country analysis of monthly rainfall data for
the period 1970-2003 and indicated that drought was a regular phenomenon in the
study area. The probability of drought varied in the range 0.1 – 0.4, with the probability
being higher in eastern India relative to southern China and northeast Thailand. The
estimated average loss in rice production during drought years using the dummy
variable model described earlier for the three states of eastern India was 5.4 Mt, which
was much higher than for northeast Thailand (less than 1 mt) and southern China
11
(around 1 mt but not statistically significant). The loss (including any non-rice crops
included) during drought years was thus 36 per cent of the average value of
production in eastern India. This represented a massive loss during drought years
(estimated at $856 million).
Sharma (2006) studied Spatial Data Mining for Drought Monitoring in Karnataka
using temporal Normalized Difference Vegetative Index and Rainfall Relationship for
Karnataka. On analysing the time-series data from 1970-2004, it was found that there
was a large variation in the rainfall. To make a detailed analysis on rainfall pattern, two
specific years i.e. 1994 and 2000 were selected. It was found that in the year 1994, the
range of rainfall was between 200-4300 mm. The minimum rainfall was recorded at
Sindagi station and maximum at Karkala. For the year 2000, observed range of rainfall
was between 350-3000 mm. The minimum rainfall was recorded at three stations
namely Muddebihal, Hukkeri and Bellary. Bhatkal and Hosanagara received the
maximum rainfall. By using the mean and standard deviation for each year it was
shown that the variation in rainfall distribution for the year 1994 was much higher than
that of year 2000.
Shafiq and Kakar (2007) reported on the drought impact in Balochistan of
Pakistan, where there was a long spell of drought, on its full swing from 1996 but it
was in worst in 2000 and low rains in 2001. The province received almost 50 per cent
of the normal rains in the summer, while winter rains turned out to be only 37 per cent
of the normal. According to provincial authorities, 1.91 million people and 9.31 million
livestock were affected, out of which 1.76 million perished. A total of 1.97 million acres
cultivable land was also affected.
Anonymous (2008) reported that in India, drought of 2002 highlighted the
vulnerability of irrigated areas to drought. It was reported that in India no other drought
in the past led to such a drop in food production as the 2002 drought. Food grain
production dipped by 29 mt to 183 mt, from 212 mt in 2001. Over 18 mha of cropped
area was left unsown during the kharif season. The percentage fall of kharif crop
acreage, as compared to the normal, was the highest in Kerala (-59.3%), followed by
Rajasthan (-40.9%), Tamil Nadu (-27.3%) and Uttar Pradesh (-19.4%). During the rabi
season, Rajasthan led the list (-52.1%), as only 31.95 lakh ha was sown against the
normal of 66.69 lakh ha The other two states affected during the rabi season were
12
Gujarat (-27.9%) and Tamil Nadu (-24.6%). Production of rice fell drastically to 75.72
mt (2002-03) as against 93.08 M tonnes during the previous year. Pulse production fell
to 11.31 M tonnes. As for commercial crops, production of oilseeds declined by 13.7
per cent during the 2002-03 Rabi season. Cotton and sugarcane also recorded
negative growths of 7.7 per cent and 7.2 per cent, respectively. Kharif production
during 2002 was the lowest ever recorded, as July, normally the wettest month and
crucial for a good kharif crop, received the lowest rainfall. Rabi crops were usually
supported by irrigation. However, during 2002-03, the fall in rabi output was over 8 per
cent, or 8 M tonnes. This made the largest Rabi drought in any drought year.
Lekprichakul (2008) reported that during previous 16 years passed from 1990 to
2005, Zambia experienced six droughts and on average, drought occurred once every
2-3 years. Maize production failure in 2005 was estimated at 7.4 lakh MT, the biggest
production losses in recent history. Maize failures in the 1992 drought stood at 7.3 lakh
MT, only 6.3 MT in 2009. In 1992, the yield loss was 60 per cent vis-à-vis 46 per cent
in 2005. In response to the moderate shortfall of domestic maize supply, maize price
increased by nearly 60 per cent from $ 150/MT in 2003/2004 to $ 236/MT in
2004/2005. The percentage yield losses of sorghum and millets were significantly
higher than maize during drought in the southern and eastern region. While yield
losses of sorghum and millet were at 70 per cent, productivity losses of maize was at
only 50 per cent. In other provinces, yield losses of millet and rice were at 33 and 25
per cent, respectively whereas failure rate of maize was at 45 per cent which was
comparable to that of sorghum.
Akhtar et al. (2008) observed spatial characteristics of droughts in the northeast
of Iran based on Standard Precipitation Index (SPI) on the 12 months’ time scale.
Drought occurrence probability was plotted using Thin Plate Smoothing Splines
interpolator. The probability varied from 5 to 25 per cent. A good portion of the region
in east and southeast had above 20 per cent chance of drought probability. Central
parts were less subject to drought occurrences.
Biradar and Sridhar (2009) reported the impact of drought on crop production
area in Karnataka the drought year 2003. The state received annual rainfall of 876 mm
in 2003 as against the normal value of 1139 mm, which was compared to normal
rainfall 23 per cent less and thus the state was under deficit category. In 2002 the per
13
cent deficiency of rainfall was slightly higher and was 24 per cent less than the normal.
The actual total rainfall was 867 mm. In Chamarajnagar, the severely drought affected
district, and the area under total cereals was 65 per cent, pulses was 109 per cent,
oilseeds 77 per cent and cash crops was 18 per cent of the normal. In moderately
drought affected Gadag district, the area under total cereals was 54 per cent, pulses
was 39 per cent, oilseeds was 68 per cent and cash crops was 21 per cent. In the
Gulbarga district which was less affected, the area under total cereals was 67 per
cent, pulses was 39 per cent, oilseeds was 78 per cent and cash crops was 40 per
cent.
Sigdel and Ikeda (2010) analysed that drought in Nepal over the 33-year period
showed some extreme, severe and moderate years in terms of drought intensity. On
an average they observed 9, 5 and 5 percentages of area was covered by moderate,
severe and extreme drought, respectively with respect to Spatial Pattern Index-12.
There were certain variations with respect to time scales and spatial variability in the
drought development. The spatial mean Standardized Precipitation Index series over
Nepal was well represented by Standardized Precipitation Index-12. Droughts were
more frequent for Standardized Precipitation Index-3 and continued longer for
Standardized Precipitation Index-12.
Swain and Swain (2011) analysed the nature of vulnerability to agricultural
drought in three blocks of Bolangir district in western Orissa using Indexing and
vulnerability method. The indexing and vulnerability profile method were used for
assessing the nature of drought vulnerability, coping capacity and risk. Out of 14
blocks, Saintala was found to be the most vulnerable block with maximum Composite
Drought Vulnerability Index value (Composite Drought Vulnerability Index -3) of 0.776,
while Titlagarh was observed to be the least vulnerable with index value of 0.437.
Patnagarh experienced a moderate degree of drought vulnerability with index value of
0.675. As regards relative contribution of different biophysical factors to drought
vulnerability, it was observed from the vulnerability radar that the available water
holding capacity (Average Water holding Capacity) of soil, rainfall variability and
drought intensity were posing significant threat to the most drought vulnerable block
Saintala. However, the maximum number of biophysical factors, viz. land slope,
drought frequency and intensity and long-term rainfall variability were affecting the
moderately drought vulnerable block Patnagarh more compared to Saintala. The
14
probability of occurrence of a drought was maximum in Patnagarh, followed by
Saintala and Titlagarh.
Dey et al. (2011) reported that rainfall in the previous (normal) year was almost
46 per cent higher in North-West Bangladesh and the difference was highly significant.
At the similar notion, the average monthly sunshine hours in the drought year (1994)
was about 7 per cent higher compared to that of the previous (normal) years (<0.01).
This difference was also statistically significant. These evidences on climatic factors
and the pertinent analysis clearly indicated that, in the year 1994, the northwest region
of Bangladesh experienced severe dry and drought environment.
Anjum et al. (2012) reported that Pakistan suffered serious droughts periodically
due to below normal precipitation, especially in arid and semi-arid regions of Pakistan.
The drought of 1998-2002 was considered worst in the history of Pakistan. The
drought started in 1997 but gained intensity in 1998 and reached its peak in 2000 till
2001 and then gradually weakened in 2002. The severely affected provinces were
Balochistan and Sindh. 26 districts of Balochistan suffered from severe famine as a
result of the drought. One of the worst-affected areas was Nushki, which had not seen
any drizzle for 5 years. Drought in Balochistan affected more than 1.5 million people
and killed about two million animals. In Sindh, 127 people died, mostly in the
Tharparkar region, as a result of extreme water shortage and dehydration, and about
60 per cent of Sindh people moved to irrigate area. In 2005, the drought conditions
continued in the Sindh and Balochitsan province including Karachi city, but a post
monsoon low pressure resulted in heavy rains during September. In winter of 2005
average rainfall was 40 per cent less and snowfall was 25 per cent less than normal.
Light drought of 2009 and 2010 occurred in upper parts of Pakistan that is Punjab,
KPK, Gilgit, Kashmir and Northern Balochistan. The drought caused 30 per cent less
rain in monsoon. The farmers were worst affected, as it had impact on crop
production.
Gobin (2012) reported in drought stress on arable crop production in Belgium.
Results indicated that modelling approaches were needed to accelerate understanding
of adverse weather impacts on crop performances and yields. The aim was to elicit
bio-meteorological conditions that affected Belgian arable crop yield, commensurate
with the scale of climatic impacts. It was found that evapotranspiration linearly
15
increased on an average by 3.2±0.4mm (p < 0.001) per year from 1947 to 2008 (R2 =
0.46). Annual sine wave model exhibited a significant increase in peak amplitude from
3.654±0.0098mm to 4.073±0.0148 mm, occurring near midsummer. The annual
reference evapotranspiration significantly increased from 677±78mm before 1988 to
787±54mm for the 1988–2008 period (p < 0.001), with a considerable difference
between the seasons. The largest reference evapotranspiration increases occurred in
spring and summer (39 mm), the lowest in autumn (14 mm). The relative increases,
however, were largest during winter (30 %) as compared to summer (14 %).
Folger et al. (2013) reported that drought persisted across approximately two-
thirds of the United States and threatened agricultural production and other sectors.
More than 1,180 counties had been designated as disaster areas for the 2013 crop
season, including 286 counties contiguous to primary drought counties. In comparison,
August 2012 had more than 1,400 counties in 33 states which had been designated as
disaster counties by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.
Gichere et al. (2013) investigated the effect of drought and floods on crop and
animal production and losses among households in six regions within the Lake Victoria
Basin (LVB) of Kenya. Pooled average losses per region as a result of crop failure was
Ksh. 118,825, with Nyando region recording upto three times (Ksh. 221,709) higher
than Kisii central (Ksh. 72,577), Budalangi (Ksh. 73,804) and Bomet (Ksh. 76,365)
regions. The disaster prone regions (i.e. Bondo, Rarieda, Budalangi and Nyando) were
25 times more likely to be affected by drought, compared to regions with relatively
good weather (i.e. Bomet and Kisii central) (p = < 0.0001). In general, results showed
that crops farming had more climate related losses compared to livestock rearing
which in this case recorded very minimal losses, suggesting that LVB communities
should put more emphasis on livestock rearing which was not as sensitive to seasonal
droughts and floods as crop farming.
2.2 Socio-economic profile of farmers in drought affected area of Bijapur district
Khera (2004) reported on socio-economic profile of the sample farmers of
Rajasthan in his study. He found that the largest caste group in the study (42 %) was
“other backward castes” (OBCs), a category that included a large number of sub
castes. The other large group in the category of OBCs was that of the Muslim castes
(nearly 11 per cent of the OBC population of 42 per cent were Muslim). The Scheduled
16
Castes and Tribes formed about 17 and 19 per cent respectively of the population,
with the other castes (Brahmins and Rajputs) comprising 22 per cent of the population.
More than half of the individuals were illiterate, about a third completed school up to
primary level, and just 11 per cent finished secondary school. One-fifth of the
population was children aged less than six years and about a third of the population
was in the school-going age group (7 years to 18 years). Another third of the
population constituted the working age group (19-40 years) and 5 per cent of the
population was aged 60 years and above. Forty three per cent of the individuals were
currently married; another 2 per cent were married but had not performed the gauna,
Four per cent of the individuals were widowed and the remainder (approximately 50
per cent) had never been married.
A report on multiple impacts of drought and assessment of drought policy in
major states of India (Anonymous 2007) studied DDP and DPAP villages profile in
their study, they observed that main occupation in the villages was dominated by
agriculture and agricultural labour and other labourers. These activities together
account for more than 80 per cent of the total households. In terms of economic
diversification, other occupations were service sector particularly government services
(4.3%), other private services (4.4%), trade (2%), and animal husbandry (2%).
However, majority of households (about 53%) belonged to land less category. The
distribution of marginal farmers accounted for 15 per cent of the total households,
whereas small and medium farmers accounts for 11 per cent and 12 per cent
respectively. Large farmers in the drought areas of Gujarat were 10 per cent.
Significant variations have been observed at village level in the distribution of the size
of the land holdings. Landless households were as high as 80 per cent in Ankhi
(Bharuch) followed by Dehri (70%) of Jambusar Taluka in Baruch districts. The major
dominating caste in terms of population was also OBCs which accounted for 66 per
cent of the total surveyed households. Other Households accounts for 14 per cent
followed by SC and ST with 12 per cent and 9 per cent of the total households
surveyed. Villages level characteristics of DDP and DPAP areas in the state shows
average to poor status of population.
Biradar and Sridhar (2009) reported on the socio-economic profile of the
farmers in drought affected areas of Karnataka in 2003. Nearly half (47.97%) of the
respondents were belonged to forward castes. Among the remaining almost equal per
17
cent of the respondents belonged to other backward castes (22.87%) and schedule
castes (20.29%). Only 8.85 per cent of the respondents belonged to schedule tribes.
Majority of the respondents (42.80%) belonged to middle age group and almost equal
per cent of them belonged to young (less than 35 years, 27.30%) and old age (more
than 50 years, 29.88%) groups. The average age of the respondents was 45 years.
The average education of the respondents was four years of formal schooling i.e. 4th
standard. However, almost half of the respondents (46.49%) were illiterates followed
by primary educated (29.15%), high school educated (13.65%) and college and above
(10.70%). Each half of the respondents belonged to nuclear (49.45%) and joint
(50.55%) family systems. The landless respondents constituted only 6.27 percent,
whereas more than half (58.67%) of them owned small land holdings of 1-2 ha Almost
equal per cent of respondents owned medium size (2-4ha, 16.97%) and big size
(>4ha, 18.08%) land holdings. The average land holding size of the respondents was
2.77 ha.
Pauw et.al. (2010) reported on the farmers profile in Basic Structure of Malawi.
Most of the farmers were smallholders, with a national average holding size of 1.13 ha.
Around one-third of all households in Malawi were rural small-scale farmers, and two-
thirds of these resided in the three southern regions of Machinga, Blantyre, and
Ngabu. Most Malawian farmers fell between the small- and large-scale groups (that
was they harvested between 0.75 and 3.00 ha of land). These medium-scale farmers,
whose holdings average 1.44 ha, tended to have more diverse cropping patterns, with
similar shares of land allocated to maize and non-maize food crops. These 1.2 million
farm households also produced export-oriented crops, particularly tobacco. About 55
percent of the population living on medium-scale farms fall below the national poverty
line, which was far above the poverty rate of large-scale farms and only slightly below
that of small-scale farms. Medium-scale farmers were the third farm group identified in
the model.
Devisti and Motamed (2011) studied profile of the drought affected rice
producing farmers, in North Iran. The average agricultural experience of paddy
farmers was 35.8 years and their average age was 52 years, which showed that the
community was getting older, 61 per cent of paddy farmers were illiterate or had
elementary educations, which indicated low levels of literacy among the paddy
farmers. Regarding the training-extension classes about solutions against drought in
18
Guilan province, only 37 per cent of farmers attended in these classes and 63 per cent
not attended. Most of them stated that they were unaware of such classes.
Devisti and Motamed (2012) reported households social profile of the drought
affected rice growing farmers from Guilan, north Iran using descriptive-correlation
using SPSS. The average agricultural experience of paddy farmers was 35.8 years
and their average age was 52 years, which showed that the community was getting
old. 61 per cent of paddy farmers were illiterate or had elementary educations, which
indicated low levels of literacy among the paddy farmers. The land ownership type
indicated that most frequency related to personal ownership.
Golmohammadi (2012) in a study of environmental and socio-economic impacts
of drought in east Iran reported that average agricultural experience of barberry and
saffron farmers agricultural experience was 35.8 years average age was 52 years,
minimum being 23 and maximum 81, which indicated that the community was getting
older. 61 per cent of barberry and saffron farmers were illiterate or have elementary
educations, which indicated low levels of literacy among the barberry and saffron
farmers. The land ownership type indicated that most frequency related to personal
ownership.
Patnaik (2012) reported on socio-economic profile of villages in the study of
livelihood pattern and coping mechanisms during drought in the Odisha. Average size
of a household, and the number of adult males and females was higher in Mathanpalla
compared to Jugirata. Average size of a family in Mathanpalla was five whereas in
Jugirata there were, on an average around eight members in a family. The size of a
family was quite large extending to 22 members in Jugirata compared to Mathanpalla
where the maximum size of a family was 12 members. According to the 2001 Census,
about 54.94 per cent of the total population was literate. The literacy rates of male and
female were 70.36 percent and 39.27 percent respectively. In addition, the literacy
rates of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe people were 33.23 per cent and
24.86 per cent, respectively. Around 32.26 percent of the households obtained their
main income by working as daily labourers in Mathanpalla, whereas in Jugirata around
15 percent of the sample households earned their family's main income by working as
daily labourers. Around 54.55 percent of the small land holders, 31.82 percent of the
marginal land holders, and 34.88 landless households in Mathanpalla earned their
19
main income as migrant labourers. In Jugirata, around 83.3 percent of the marginal
land holders, 60 percent of the small land holders, and 58.62 percent of the landless
households migrated and the income generated from that source was considered as
the major income.
Ngaka (2012) in a study of drought preparedness, impact and response in
South Africa reported the respondents were mature adults 58 per cent of them were
above 55 years of age, with a mean age of 53.7 years. The average household had
five members. There was a significant difference between household size and farm
category, with small- and medium-scale farmers having, on an average larger
households than the large-scale farmers. The average size 1of the holding was 436
ha. There was a significant difference between provinces and farm category in terms
of size of the holdings. The average size of the holdings in the Eastern Cape was
much higher (661 ha) than that for the Free State (136 ha) and, as expected, holdings
for small-, medium and large-scale farmers differed significantly at 18 ha, 54 ha and
1,456 ha respectively.
Gichere et al. (2013) studied socio-economic profile of drought and flood
affected farmers in Victoria Lake Basin of Kenya and reported that, the household
population in the surveyed homes constituted of 2,602 individuals, 50.9 per cent of
whom were females and 49.1 per cent males. The population of both genders were
similar (Chi square =23.6, p = 0.352). Less than 9 per cent of the respondents
(household heads) across all the study regions had attained more than secondary
school education, with Rarieda region having recorded the highest percentage (8.7%)
and Budalangi the lowest (2.3%). Most (20.8% and 17.8%) of the uneducated
respondents were from the flood prone regions of Budalangi and Nyando, respectively.
Agropastoralism was the main land-use activity for most (60%) households followed by
agriculture (39%). Only one per cent of respondents across all the regions combined
reported pastoralism as their main land use activity. Most respondents, from the six
regions grew some crops on their farms, though the largest percentage (88%) of
households that practiced crop farming were from Bomet region (a region with
relatively good weather) while the least (47%) was recorded in Bondo (a drought prone
region). The main sources of food for households were crops grown on the farm (52%)
and food bought from the market (40%). Crops grown on the farm accounted for 94
per cent of main source of food for households living in Bomet, followed by 68 per cent
20
for Kisii central. However, they accounted for less than 50 per cent of main source of
household food for Bondo, Budalangi, Nyando and Rarieda households.
2.3 Impact of drought on livelihoods of farmers in the study area of Bijapur
district
Qureshi and Akhtar (2004) reported Impact of drought on agriculture, Farming
families reported that there was a significant reduction in crop yields and loss of
livestock in Helmand and Kandahar Provinces of Afghanistan. Due to lack of rainfall in
the spring, the production of rain-fed wheat and barley was reduced significantly,
about 40 per cent lower than in average years. This caused an acute shortage of
seeds for wheat and other crops because most of the wheat and barley was
consumed for food supply and nothing was left as a seed for the next crop. Due to
drought conditions, change in cropping pattern was reported. More than 15 per cent of
Afghanistan’s irrigated land gets water from traditional underground systems such as
Karezes (Qanats), springs and shallow wells (locally called as Arhads). This system
completely depended on the amount of rainfall during the year. Because of prolonged
multi-year drought, about 60-70 per cent karezes stopped functioning and 85 per cent
of the shallow wells were dried up. The survey results indicate that about 50-75 per
cent orchard area of each farmer was damaged due to drought during 1999-2001. In
rain-fed areas, not only orchards, but other crops were also affected due to low
precipitation.
The impact of drought in rain-fed areas of Kandahar was much more severe.
More than 80 per cent of respondents reported that high costs and unavailability of
feed and water and lack of clinical facilities were the major reasons for the death of
their livestock. The impact of drought on the life of Nomads was much more significant
than other segments of populations. Due to low germination or drying out of pastures
and lack of drinking water in the grazing areas, nomads sold about 40 per cent of their
animals at throw away prices and in some cases they even exhausted their herds.
Kazianga and Udry (2005) founded that 55 percent of changes in transitory
income of the households were passed onto consumption of Rural Burkina Faso.
Neither rich nor poor households succeed in insulating their consumption from rainfall-
induced transitory variations in income. Consumption of the poor was more sensitive
to transitory income than was that of the rich. Overall, authors indicated that changes
21
in consumption track of those in transitory income, which suggests that households
were unable to smooth consumption in the face of year-to-year fluctuations in income.
Such a pattern was incompatible with the standard permanent income model. A one
standard deviation increase in income was associated with decline of about 335 hours
of total labour, which was approximately 9 per cent of total labour use. The decline in
labour use was larger for poorer households. The decline in household labour on the
farm associated with the same transitory shock was approximately 7 per cent of total
household labour use. This decline was evident for both men and women household
members, though not for children.
Edwards et al. (2008) stated that farmers were worst affected in terms of annual
household income in Australia. Farming households in drought affected areas were $
4,267 worse off than farming households in below-average rainfall areas. Although not
statistically significant, people who were employed but not in agriculture were also
worse off (by $ 1,512) than their counterparts in below-average rainfall areas. There
were very large differences in household incomes for farmers when we used the social
definition of drought. Farmers who indicated they were currently in drought were $
20,483 worse off than those who said they had not experienced drought in the last 3
years. Farmers who were not currently in drought but had been in the last year were $
10,784 worse off than farmers who had not been in drought in the last 3 years. There
were very large differences in household incomes for farmers when we used the social
definition of drought. Farmers who indicated they were currently in drought were $
20,483 worse off than those who said they had not experienced drought in the last 3
years. Farmers who were not currently in drought but had been in the last year were $
10,784 worse off than farmers who had not been in drought in the last 3 years. The
difference in the percentage experiencing financial hardship between farmers currently
in drought and those who have not been in drought in the last 3 years was even
greater (47% compared to 25%).
The impact of drought on overall employment rates was found to be small and
limited to results defined by rainfall deficits. In drought-affected areas as defined by
rainfall deficits, the employment rates were 2 per cent lower than in above-average
rainfall areas. The largest difference (4%) in employment rates was between below-
average rainfall areas (79%) and above-average rainfall areas (83%).
22
Anonymous (2008) indicated that in India social impacts of drought on
individuals, families and communities. It included, people being reluctant to get
involved in community activities, a decline in traditional industries, volunteer stress or
burnout, or an inability to even have a volunteering effort, the need to and or ability to
seek off-farm work, increased financial pressures, a decline in the health (both
physical and mental health) of individuals and their families, dealing with questions of
whether to leave the farm and/or problems associated with succession planning, a loss
of local farm labour, an inability to leave the property because of the demands of
feeding and water regimes, the local economy impact from a postponement of capital
purchases as a result of drought, a general increase of working hours with little
opportunity for recreation and family time.
Makoka (2008) reported that drought was the most common shock affecting
households to such an extent that in both 2004 and 2006 in rural Malawi. Over 45
percent of the surveyed households reported experiencing it at least once. The second
most common reported shock in both survey rounds was large rises in food prices,
although the percentage of households that reported this shock was less in the second
round (9.7 %) than in the first round (15.8 %). In 2004, around 9 percent of the
households reported an illness or accident at least seven days prior to the survey date,
while in 2006 the figure was around 6 percent. Falling sale prices for crops was
another important economic shock reported in both rounds, with over 8 percent of
households experiencing it at least once between 1999 and 2004 and close to 7
percent encountering it at least once between 2004 and 2006. Among the significant
shocks reported in 2006 which had a very low incidence rate in 2004 include rising
prices for farm inputs. Around 7 percent of the sample reported experiencing this
shock in the second round while only 2 percent reported it in the first survey round. On
the other hand, loss of livestock affected more households in the first round than in the
second round. The major health shocks reported include deaths and births in the
households and these were reported in both rounds with low frequency.
Biradar and Sridhar (2009) reported change in annual income and herd size of
the respondents in 2003 drought from Karnataka. About three fourth (75.64%) of the
respondents earned annually more than ₹ 11,500, the average being ₹ 30,957 during
the normal rainfall years. In the drought period, this percent reduced to 31.36 and
majority (68.63%) earned less than ₹ 11,500 and the average annual income during
23
drought was ₹ 15,178.33, half of the income of normal rainfall year. In the normal
rainfall year the average livestock holding was 4.15 Adult Cattle Units. Forty-one
percent of the respondents owned 2 ACUs, 30.25% respondents owned 4 ACUs,
15.13 per cent owned 5-6 ACUs and the remaining owned (12.91%) 7 & above ACU.
The drastic reduction in livestock holding was not observed during drought year, but
the average size reduced to 3.85 ACUs. Overall reduction of annual income was by
fifty per cent in drought year. Percent reduction was more in case of income from
crops (61.42 %), followed by livestock (30 %) and least by others-labour (20%).
Edwards et al. (2009) evidenced that employment rates were lower in drought-
affected areas in Australia, but that drought had a greater impact on the employment
rates of carers than non-carers. The difference in employment rates of carers and non-
carers – already 4.5 percentage points lower for carers in above average rainfall areas
– was 8.2 percentage points in drought-affected areas. The lower employment rates of
carers in drought-affected areas were mainly due to a smaller proportion of carers
being in full-time employment in these areas.
Pandey and Bhandari (2009) reported economic cost of the drought in the
different drought affected states of rice farming countries in Asia. Results indicated
that, the total economic cost of drought for eastern India was estimated at 11 per cent
of agricultural GDP. Drought impact on rice production was substantially higher at the
farm level than at the aggregate level. Drought contributes directly to an increase in
the incidence and severity of poverty. In the three states of eastern India alone
(Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa), drought results in an additional 13 million people
falling back into poverty. This translates into an increase in rural poverty in the three
states combined of 19 percentage points – and at the national level of 1.6 percentage
points.
Patnaik (2010) reviewed on distress situation in dry land areas impacts on
livelihood pattern and the coping strategies from dry land areas of Andhra Pradesh.
Drought adversely affected the farm households of India. The economic loss of
seasonality and drought was long term. The multiple effects of the drought can be
physical, economic, social or environmental. The large-scale loss by drought leads to
a distress situation in dry land agriculture, making it more uncertain and variable. The
24
economic loss of drought leaded to disinvestment which adversely affects the asset
creation of the farm households.
Pauw et al. (2010) found that, the economic impact of droughts on maize and
tobacco production and, by extension, on GDP in Malawi. Drought reduced maize and
tobacco GDP by 2.12 and 1.49 percent, respectively. These two crops accounted for
more than one third agricultural sector’s GDP. Other export crops also contributed
significantly to the overall agricultural GDP decline of 1.12 percent during, 1-in-5-year
return period of drought. The more severe the drought, the larger was the estimated
loss in agricultural GDP. During 1-in-25-year return period of drought year, agricultural
GDP declines by as much as 21.53 percent, driven largely by the large fall in maize
production. Since two-fifths of Malawi’s economy was in agriculture, the decline in
agricultural GDP causes total or national GDP to fall substantially. During 1-in-25-year
return period of drought, total GDP declines by as much as 10.42 percent, which in
2005 prices was equal to a total economic loss of US$135.1 million. Small-scale farms
were worst affected by droughts. Total earnings generated on small farms from crop
agriculture fall by 32.34 percent under the, 1-in-25-year return period scenario,
compared to 11.24 percent for large-scale farmers. Poverty worsens under the various
drought scenarios, the national poverty headcount rate increases by 16.9 percentage
points (not percent) during the 1-in-25-year return period scenario. Based on 2005
population levels, this means that an additional 2.1 million people fall under the
poverty line as a result of 1-in-25-year return period scenario drought (out of a total
population of 12.1 million). The poverty increase under the average annual loss
scenario was 1.3 percentage points, suggesting that on average, every year, 154,000
people were poor because of droughts. However, apart from higher yields, composites
have the added benefit of being more drought resistant than local varieties. Increasing
adoption rates therefore offset some of the losses incurred during drought years. Total
GDP declined by 6.5 percent (US $ 87.83 million) when adoption rates remain
unchanged but by only 3.8 percent (US$55.4 million) when adoption rates increase by
30 percentage points during the same year. The difference between these outcomes
was US $ 36.4 million, which was greater than the purely yield-based gains during a
RP1 year (meaning, US $ 27.8 million). This gap of US $ 8.6 million was the additional
gain from adopting more drought-resilient maize varieties.
25
Anonymous (2010) founded significant social impacts caused by ongoing
drought in the year 2009 from Murray-Darling Basin. results includes, increased
bankruptcies; increased poverty particularly amongst those associated with agriculture
– farming families, farm workers and contractors; farming families forced to make
decisions about whether they can continue to farm; limited funds caused difficult
decisions as to how to stretch these across personal and farming costs; a significant
rise in levels of stress and other health impacts; a need to source off-farm income;
difficulty accessing employment; significant loss of jobs in small communities affected
by drought; involuntary separation, particularly as women leave to find work elsewhere
and men ‘commute’ away for work for extended periods of time; an inability to afford
farm labour, putting pressure on women and children to work on-farm; particularly men
being locked into farms because of the need to hand feed and water livestock;
intergenerational conflict; marital conflict; increasing social isolation particularly
amongst men; declining educational access amongst children; increasing feelings of
alienation and mistrust; small community decline; loss of social capital evidenced in a
decline in social participation; stress caused by water politics and a lack of information
dissemination; difficulties in accessing income support; older couples continuing in
farming and putting retirement plans on hold; low levels of access to services;
depopulation and a particular loss of young people; and declining levels of individual
and community resilience.
Dey et al. (2011) informed that groundwater levels were dropped more than 1
meter during 1994 drought period in Northwest Bangladesh. People were experienced
the scarcity of clean water in the drought year; many of the respondents could not use
pond or other surface water bodies due to drying up or having too little volume of water
at the bottom. In Badarganj area, 100 per cent respondents reported that in normal
situation of 1993, hand tube wells were the major source of drinking water, while in
drought year only 90 per cent of them could use HTWs for the same purpose. Nearly
37 per cent respondents reported that water for drinking and bathing of cattle was
usually from pond in the normal year; but a different picture appeared in the drought
year. i.e. due to drought only about 18 per cent respondents was able to use pond
water for the same purpose. In Kishoriganj, dug well and ponds were the secondary
sources for bathing for about 28.3 per cent and 6.7 per cent inhabitants, respectively in
1993. But due to drought year, nobody could use pond water for bathing and only 3.3
26
per cent people used dug well for this purpose. In 1993 pond was the main source for
drinking and bathing of cattle since almost 35 per cent respondents used this; but very
distinctly the use of pond water for the same purpose decreased to 10 per cent in
drought year.
In normal years the farmers in Kishoreganj and Badarganj suffered mainly from
fever. But in drought year, sufferings from both dysentery and diarrhea were recorded
to a drastically higher level. In Kishoriganj, only 5 per cent of the respondents suffered
from diarrhea in the normal year, while about 28 per cent people suffered from this
disease in the drought year. In Badarganj, the proportion of inhabitants (34%) suffered
from dysentery in drought year, which was much higher compared to those suffered in
normal year (only 6%) implying that the occurrence of dysentery in the drought period
was explicitly high. Analysis further implied that, in Badarganj only 34 per cent of the
sample respondents made consultation with the physicians during the normal years;
while in drought period about 58 per cent of the respondents had to consult with the
doctors since the level of different ailments among them were substantially higher in
the drought years.
Edwards et al. (2011) founded that employment rates were lower for carers
than non-carers irrespective of drought experience in Australia. For both carers and
non-carers employment rates were lowest in currently drought affected areas, followed
by areas which have experienced below average rainfall and highest in areas which
have experienced above average rainfall. The differences were statistically significant
for both carers and non-carers at the 95 per cent confidence level. The key point was
that the differences in employment rates between carers and non-carers was larger in
drought-affected and below average rainfall areas than in above average rainfall
areas. In above average rainfall areas, the difference between carers’ and non-carers’
employment rates was 4.5 percentage points, in above average rainfall areas the
difference was 5.8 percentage points and in drought-affected areas the difference was
8.2 percentage points. This pattern suggests that drought has a greater impact upon
the employment rates of carers than those without caring responsibilities.
Devisti and Motamed (2011) observed that drought and water shortage in
Guilan Province, North of Iran. And reported that number of the paddy farmers didn’t
cultivate part of their farms, regarding proceeding in these two years compared, results
27
indicated that the average yield reduced of 2,623 kg/ha in 2008 to 2,311 kg/ha in 2009,
and yield reduced 312 kg/ha, which directly reduces the income of rice farmers.
Among the effects of drought (environmental, economic and social), economic (3.16)
effects were the most pronounced, followed by environmental (2.95) impacts, while
social (2.79) impacts were the least.
Anjum et al. (2012) reported from Pakistan that drought was the most complex
but least understood of all natural hazards, affecting more people than any other
natural hazard. A total of fifty eight out of one hundred and six districts of Pakistan due
to drought were affected during 1998-2002. Severe drought periods affected
livelihoods, caused crop failure and human deaths, killed large number of cattle and
pushed tens of thousands people to migrate. The drought has severely hit the barani
(rainfed) areas of Pakistan. In Sindh and Balochistan, some of the areas didn’t get rain
at all. This deficiency of rainfall caused complete crop failure, shortage of water in
rivers and reservoirs, depletion of underground water and severe drought conditions.
Agriculture sector had grown at an average rate of 4.54 growth was negative 2.64 and
0.07 percent during 2000-01 and 2001-02 respectively. Drought affected about 43
percent livestock in Punjab, 40 per cent in Balochistan and KPK, and 66 per cent in
Sindh. The cumulative loss was estimated at 43 percent of the country's livestock
population. Balochistan has been hit more severely as 23 out of the 27 districts had
been declared as calamity zones. The impact of drought was more prominent on
agricultural sector.
Patnaik (2012) testified income loss and change in asset position of the farmers
due to the occurrence of the drought in two villages in Odisha. The total income loss
among the farmers due to the drought was calculated to be around 32 to 39 percent in
Mathanpalla and Jugirata respectively in comparison to the income during the normal
year (here the normal year refers to 2008). The calculation indicated that the loss of
income was higher among the households in Jugirata compared to those in
Mathanpalla. The loss of income among the small and marginal land owning
households was higher compared to the large and medium land owning households,
and the loss of income was severe among the small land owning households-both the
villages were dominated by small and marginal farmers. The adverse effect of drought
led to the failure of crop production and in turn affects the overall income of the family.
The results exhibited that about 33.33 percent of sample households sold their
28
cow/sheep during the drought period in order to cope with the distress in Mathanpalla,
whereas in Jugirata comparatively more number (57.5 %) of households sold their
livestock. This was due to the existence of forest resources near the former village.
During the drought, people in Mathanpalla depended mainly on forest for their daily
requirements, while in Jugirata without the existence of natural resources and lack of
other institutional arrangements, the families were forced to sell their pet animals in the
market for their survival. However, during the 2009 drought, one household in Jugirata
sold one acre of land. The sale of land was higher among the small and marginal
farmers compared to the large and medium farmers. This showed that there was a
downtrend in the economy, where the landed households joined the group of landless
labourers because of the drought situation.
Golmohammadi (2012) indicated from in south Khorasan province-East of Iran,
that between environmental, economic and social impacts of drought, the economic
effects were more than others, then environmental impacts and at last were social
effects. in economic part, drought leaded to; increase in costs labour and eradicating
weeds, increase in costs for water supply, decrease in purchasing power, decrease in
savings, non-payment of bank loans and obligations, increase in the false financial
relationship, decrease in price of crops due to reduction of quality, decrease in income
due to reduction of cultivation, decrease in land price, decrease in income from side
jobs, respectively. In environmental part, drought resulted in; Decrease in rivers flow,
groundwater levels, Decrease in surface water reservoirs and ponds, Increase in
weeds growing in fields, Increase in mortality of fish and other aquatic in ponds,
Decrease in water quality, Increase in pest attack, Increase in plant diseases, Increase
in soil erosion, Increase in amount and intensity of fires, Decrease in diversity of plant
species respectively. In social part, it resulted in increase in frustration, anxiety and
emotional problems, feeling of poverty and decrease in life level, decrease in
recreational activities, increase in local divisions to supply water, weakened position of
institutions and cooperative unions, weakened traditions of cooperation, increase in
tend to migrate, decrease in social ceremonies, decrease in the level of education in
children and juveniles, disintegrate of consistency and continuity in family system
respectively.
Ngaka (2012), described that livestock mortality was found to be one of the
most serious effects of the 2007/2008 drought in the Eastern Cape and Free State
29
provinces of South Africa. It clearly demonstrated that the average percentage stock
losses were higher for small-scale (14%) and medium-scale (18%) farmers than for
large-scale (6 %) farmers. The average number of livestock lost ranged from 1.2 to
14.6 for small- scale and large-scale farmers respectively. This difference was
statistically significant (p = 0.008) when small and medium were compared with large
scale farmers. One of the effects of drought was that it resulted in a number of farmers
(10 %) moving their livestock to other camps with favourable grazing conditions.
Production expenditure: large-scale farmers spent an additional ₹ 9454 during a
drought season compared to ₹ 56 and ₹ 944 for small- and medium-scale farmers
respectively. A comparison of average costs and those during the 2007/2008 season
revealed an increase in total expenditure of 25 per cent for small- and medium-scale
farmers combined and 22 per cent for large-scale farmers.
2.4 Drought coping and mitigation measures adopted by farmers
Roncoli (2001) reported coping strategies adopted for mitigating the drought in
the Burkina Faso. It included that higher ranking of households, however,
compensated for the production shortfall by buying more grain throughout the year.
Even though they managed their resources carefully and reduced household size by
sending their sons to nearby city for work. By this, they were able to manage their
consumption need, among what they produced and what they bought. On the other
hand, in lower ranking households production and purchases satisfied only 82 per cent
of their consumption requirements. Household food supply was probably
supplemented by small purchases by women, transfers from relatives and food aid.
Regardless of wealth status, most households tried to minimize grain purchases in
July and August, when prices were the highest. This was not only because of seasonal
increase but also because at this time money was very scarce and households tend to
buy by the bowl rather than by the bag, which affords a better value. Many saved their
own grain stocks to be consumed during the farming season, especially during periods
of high labour demand. Higher ranking bought one-third and lower ranking households
one-fourth of all grain purchased during the year shortly after the harvest and the
remainder shortly before the onset of the next farming season.
The coping strategies adopted by the farmers in the study area were as follows:
reducing the number of consumers by sending young men into migration and children
30
to stay with relatives. Reducing the number of women cooking and charging one
woman to cook a common meal rather than allowing each woman to cook separately.
Supervising women more strictly in how they handle grain for cooking, by using a
smaller container, to measure grain or extending the time between grain allocations to
women. Reducing the amount of grain used in preparing daily meals, i.e., cooking just
enough with no provision for leftovers. Reducing the number of meals served, by
eliminating the morning or midday meal. Relying on women’s contributions of grain
from their own fields or bought with their own money and consuming bean, cowpea or
peanut when available, or famine foods, especially at the peak of hunger during the
last two week before the new maize harvest. Households lessened the numbers of
consumers or of cooks before reducing the daily ration, and cooked less before
eliminating meals or eating famine foods. In addition to the 4 households in original
sample who went to city, 18 per cent of men, 8 per cent of women and 15 per cent
children in the remaining households left Bonam between January and June 1998.
Qureshi and Akhtar (2004) reported coping measures adopted in Helmand and
Kandahar Provinces of Afghanistan. It included the reduction in cropped area
changing cropping patterns (high delta apple crops were replaced by pomegranates),
sale of livestock and their products and doing casual labour were common coping
strategies under drought conditions. Sale of safe assets such as jewellery, watches,
domestic items and productive assets such as land, livestock, farm machinery and
sewing machines, were seen frequently during the three years of severe drought. The
survey results indicate that in Helmand, selling of livestock and their products was the
most reliable drought coping strategy, as more than 25 per cent of the people practice
it. More than 30 per cent people limit their irrigated area and change cropping patterns
to compensate for drought conditions. This ultimately reduces the crop production and
threatens the food security. As a result, more than 5 per cent people choose to do off-
farm jobs in nearby cities and towns especially in Pakistan to supplement their
household income to buy other necessities of life.
In rain-fed areas (Kandahar), use of stored grains, farm ponds to store rain
water, sale of livestock and their products, seasonal migration of humans and livestock
and change in eating habits were most common methods to live with drought
conditions. Sale of livestock and their products was even a stronger phenomenon in
rain-fed areas as more than 25 per cent people use it as a shield against drought.
31
About 36 per cent of the respondents consider it safe to migrate together with the
livestock to their relatives living in irrigated areas during the drought period and come
back after the situation was improved. During the drought period, people also change
their eating habits e.g. eating two times a day instead of three times. Their main food
also reduced to bread and yogurt shake (locally called Lasi). This causes serious
malnutrition problems especially for women and children.
Khera (2004) reported the drought coping mechanisms adopted by the
individuals in the Rajasthan and were as follows. Migration; at least one member of
their family migrated in the summer of 2001 (before the “normal” monsoon) in search
of work., the reasons for migration were related to the drought and were not instances
of usual seasonal migration. Credit; out of 397 households, 247 (62 per cent)
borrowed money in the drought year. Out of 247 individuals 123 borrowed to meet
their food consumption needs, 81 mainly for agricultural operations, 46 to buy fodder,
42 to meet medical expenses, 30 to meet marriage expenses, 18 to meet other
consumption needs and 1 to migrate out of the drought area. Hunger; A quarter of the
houses (101 out of 397) reported that they skipped meals around March 2001. Nearly
half (47 %) of these were from Udaipur district. When food was short in the house: 105
homes reported eating less than usual. 85 reported borrowing money, buying food on
credit. 18 sought the help of their neighbours and relatives. 13 resorted to changing
their food basket.
Ding et al. (2005), reported drought coping strategies of rice growing farmers in
rural China. Rice growing farmers cope with drought by various strategies. Income
diversification: 39 per cent of income was from farm cultivation, of which half was from
rice, 15 per cent from animal husbandry and 46 per cent from a range of non-farm
activities. Cultivation flexibilities: farmers cope with drought by postponing rice
transplanting timing or planting other. Adjustment in agricultural input was made by
reducing chemical use. Changes in consumption: 31 per cent of the households
reduce their consumption in food, with 18 per cent of the rich household and 44 per
cent the poor; 15 per cent reduce expenditure on other items, with 5 per cent of the
rich and 21 per cent of the poor. Local community may have its mechanisms, including
land allocation and reallocation within the village, manage local water bodies to better
cope with drought, and providing forecasting of timing of rice pests and fertilizing by
32
means of local radio, television, newspaper, which helps farmers to cope with adverse
events, such as drought.
Mishra (2007) reported reduction of food consumption and change of food
consumption pattern of tribal people in sundargarh of Orissa. The study was based on
based on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from households and key
informants in the community. The Revenue authority in the Alapaka revenue circle has
reported about 70 to 75 percent paddy loss. Out of 20 households in the study
households, 35 per cent consumed kanki (broken rice) instead of rice. Other
households have used the previous year’s stock of paddy. About 25 per cent of
households have reduced their quantity of consumption to one fourth of the normal
and 40 per cent have reduced the quantity of consumption to half. Adults normally
consume food three times a day and children consume four times a day, but there was
no fixed time for children. Some households (20 %) avoided breakfast and many
people changed breakfast to low-cost foods like broken rice (40 %), puffed rice (5 %)
and tea (25 %). As lunch, many people (95 %) used to take watery rice locally called
pakhal with or without a curry made of vegetables. Pakhal was made by preserving the
previous days’ leftover rice by adding water to it. Some households (5 %) did not
consume lunch during the lean season. Similarly, some households (15 %) did not
took dinner. Majority of households (65 %) took rice with some curry made of
vegetables as dinner. Some households (20 %) consumed only locally made liquor
during dinner. It was to be noted that this liquor costs lesser than rice.
Change of Occupation: The primary occupation of the Oraon was agriculture,
but due to crop failure, many households (60 % of the study households) tried to
survive by changing their occupation. Some people (25 %) depended on selling non-
timber forest produce and firewood in nearby villages. The remaining respondents
reported that they joined wage labouring for the first time in a compulsive situation.
From data, it was revealed that some of the respondents were preferred to work
outside (25 %) or send their wives (25 %) or children (30 %) to work, as migrants
during lean season.
Shafiq and Kakar (2007) revised the traditional management of drought in
Balochistan province by using livestock herds. Agro-pastoral societies developed their
own strategies for coping with drought. These include: Mobile or transhumant grazing
33
practices that reduce risks of having insufficient forage in any one location. Reciprocal
grazing arrangements with more distant communities were arranged for access to their
resources in drought years. Adjustment of flock sizes and stocking rates was made as
the rainy reason un-folds, to match available grazing resources. Keeping extra animals
that can be easily liquidated in a drought either for food or cash. Investment in water
availability wells, cisterns, water harvesting. Diversification of crops and livestock
(agro-pastoralism) was one of the measures especially in proximity to settlements and
storage of surplus grain-straw and forage as a reserve in good rainfall years.
Diversification among animal species (sheep, goats, cattle, camels, donkeys) and
different breeds within species was also practised. Sheep and goats were abundant on
the low rainfall rangelands. Cattle were more commonly maintained on farms, or on
grazing in canal irrigated areas. Income sources were also diversified into non-
agricultural occupations, particularly seasonal migration for off-farm employment.
Mitigation and control measures implemented in the study area, The Federal
Government as well as other government sources have already contributed more than
1.1 billion rupees in cash, while nearly ₹ 400 million worth of in kind donations were
received from various Pakistani as well as foreign organizations. The government had
initiated efforts to remedy the situation created by the drought through immediate relief
as well as rehabilitation of the drought affecters for which the Federal Government
allocated of ₹ 10 billion. As a long-term measure, the government was also intended to
allocate ₹ 120 billion for future investment in water resource development. The World
Bank was likely to provide $ 250 million to Pakistan to lessen the effects of the
drought. The Asian Development Bank was also intended to reallocate a sum of $ 125
million from existing programs for the same purpose. The socioeconomic loss was
tremendous on scale during the most recent and the severe drought of the history but
some relief effort was also under taken by different level that has mitigated the effect
of drought to some extent.
Anonymous (2007) reported coping mechanisms adopted by the households in
the Helmand and Kandahar Provinces of Afghanistan. Out of 530 households 156
(29.43 %) households reported with some preparation to cope with drought, while 18
per cent of them reported no preparation. Majority of them about 52 per cent has given
no response as their primary occupation was not agriculture. Highest number of
farmers (43 %) reported preparation against drought in Panchmahal district, followed
34
by 38 per cent in Junagadh, 30 per cent in Banaskantha district. In other words, DPAP
districts showed better preparedness of drought compared to DDP districts except for
Banaskantha districts. Least number of farmers from Kutch (18 %), followed by
Surendranagar (26 %), had been reported preparation against drought. Again the
desert (DDP) areas suffer a lot and have showed helplessness on part of farmers to
cope up with drought conditions. Amongst the various coping strategies that have
been adopted by the farmers, “late sowing” was important as about 40 per cent of the
farmers reported late saving of crop to avoid the seasonal impact of drought. This
strategies was followed by mixed cropping (35 % formers), less use of fertilizers (17 %
farmers) and the use of drought resistant crops (only 3 %). “Mixed cropping” and “Late
sowing” has been the common practices in all the districts. However, tribal districts
namely, Panchamahal (DPAP), Banaskantha (DDP), and Bharuch (DPAP), have
shown higher reposes in adopting mixed cropping to reduce the impact of drought, as
compared to other districts. Similar reposes have been reported in case of adopting to
late sowing of crops, in this case response of farmer from Junagadh districts (57 %)
has been highest, followed by Surendranagar (42 %). More than 1/3rd of the farmers
reported adapting to “late sowing” in rest of the other districts. Relatively higher
number of farmers in Surendranagar (6.45 %) and Banaskantha (5.80%) both in DDP
areas have reported adapting to drought resistance seeds.
Pandey and Bhandari (2009) reported different coping strategies adopted by
the farmers from rain fed rice farming Asian countries, farmers to cope with the
drought which included, Crop management adjustments, Consumption adjustments,
Expenditure adjustments, Credit, Asset depletion, Livestock nutrition and mortality,
Use of forests and forest products, Seasonal migration, Reliance on relief support.
Biradar and Sridhar (2009) reported that in India many programmes were
implemented by GoI to combat drought. Of those, Drought Prone Area Programme
was the earliest area development programme launched by the Central Government in
1973-74 to tackle the special problems faced by those fragile areas, which were
constantly affected by severe drought conditions. Since then many programs were
implemented including food for work programme, and farmers in the study area used
their own methods to mitigate fodder shortage. While majority (70.84 %) purchased
fodder, 32.10 per cent of them fed less to the livestock than the usual quantity. Other
35
two methods followed were to sell livestock (17 %) and grow sorghum or maize
exclusively for fodder purpose (13.28 %).
Makoka (2008) viewed the major drought responses and vulnerability to poverty
in the rural Malawi. The major shocks in 2006 attracted a variety of responses,
temporary migration was used as a major response to rising agricultural input prices
(22 %) and to large falls in sale prices for crops (12 %). While getting support from
social networks was an important strategy to cope with rising food prices, illness, and
large falls in sale prices for crops and rising input prices, it was less important in
dealing with the main covariate shock, drought. Further the majority of households that
reduced their food consumption did so to address the problem of rising food prices (32
%), rising input prices (17 %) and drought (13 %), among others. And the results show
that 47 percent of the households that reported experiencing a drought between 2005
and 2006 were vulnerable to poverty in 2004. The same pattern emerges for rising
food prices, where 53 percent who reported this shock were vulnerable in 2004.
Around 48 percent of the households that reported experienced drought only in 2004
were vulnerable, and the proportion was similar in 2006. On the other hand, over 85
percent of the households that reported experienced drought both in 2004 and 2006
were vulnerable to poverty.
Patnaik (2010) reviewed and reported that different farm households adopt
different coping mechanisms to face the distress situation. Some of the strategies
were also identified as influential in handling the distress situation. However, the
coping mechanisms differ from region to region and among different class structures,
like coping with risk can vary from large landholders to small or marginal landholders.
The cultivator can shift from superior crop cultivation to the inferior or traditional crop
varieties, but that in turn reduces the income of the cultivators compared to the normal
years and compared to cultivators in other areas. These coping mechanisms often
reduced the capital investment of poor farmers. Again, the poor backward farm
households depended on some non-market institutions for the credit to cope with
drought, but those were very costly and affected the long-term income growth of the
farm household.
Kokate et al. (2010) identified drought mitigation through knowledge advisory
programmes organized by the KVK’s in the drought affected areas. KVKs established
36
in drought hit districts took up the challenge of mitigating drought by undertaking
various activities and providing technological inputs like seeds, planting materials, bio-
fertilizers, bio-agents and by-products and through awareness and skill development
programmes. Specific technical interventions were made by KVKs by introducing
drought tolerant crops and varieties of oilseeds (soybean, groundnut, toria, etc.),
pulses (pigeon pea, urdbean and mungbean, etc.) and cereals, vegetables, fruit crops,
fodder crops, etc. Livestock related activities (animal health camp, fodder crops,
trainings, etc.) were also taken up on large scale. Major emphasis was given on
resource conservation technologies like direct seeded rice, system of rice
intensification, drum seeder, ridge & furrow method, etc. Diagnostic visits to farmer’s
fields were made for solving the agriculture & livestock related problems on the spot.
Thrust was given on large scale adoption of short duration varieties particularly of
paddy (NDR-97, PRH-10, etc.). For creating mass awareness, print and electronic
media, campaign, organization of technology weeks, farmer’s goshties, exhibitions,
etc. were extensively used. The network of KVKs acted as main actor for minimizing
risk of drought by technology advisory services to the farmers.
Devisti and Motamed (2012) indicated the impact and coping of drought using
Pearson's correlation coefficient that there was a positive and significant relationship
between the age of paddy farmers and the economic impacts of drought (P =0.157, r =
0.001) at 99 per cent level of confidence. It indicated that there was no significant
relationship between age and social impacts (P = 0.104, r = 0.088) and between age
and environmental impacts of drought (P = 0.115, r = 0.093) and that these two
variables have no effect on each other. The results of Spearman's correlation indicated
a negative and significant relationship between the literacy levels of paddy farmers
and economic impacts (S = -0.147, r = 0.003), literacy level and social impacts (S = -
0.131, r = 0.003), and between literacy level and the environmental impacts of drought
(S = -.125, r = 0.004) at 99 per cent level of confidence. Eta's correlation coefficient
showed that there was no significant relationship between land ownership status of
paddy farmers and economic impacts (Eta = 0.132, r = 0.035) and between land
ownership status and social impacts of drought (Eta =0.138, r = 0.025); however there
was a statistically significant relationship between land ownership status and
environmental impacts (Eta = 0.102, r = 0.003) at 95 per cent level of confidence.
37
Patnaik (2012) reported change in food consumption and change in pattern of
the households in the village of drought affected year in Andhra Pradesh. Around 95.7
percent of the households in Mathanpalla and 97.5 percent of the households in
Jugirata reduced their quantity of food consumption during the drought period to cope
with the distress. Adult females generally reduced their consumption of rice per day -
the female members of the household sacrificed their meal for the sake of the head of
the household, usually the male member, who took their full meal as they engaged in
economic activities. Along with a reduction in the quantity of food consumed, the
households also changed their pattern of food consumption. Out of the total sample in
Mathanpalla, around 63.44 percent ate broken rice (khuda), whose price was cheaper,
instead of normal rice. The large and medium farmers generally reduced their
consumption of ghee, milk, vegetables and fruits. There was also a shift towards
cheaper foods.
Occupational Shift: Another common coping strategy adopted among the
households was shifting their occupation from agriculture to other unskilled non-farm
activities, in Mathanpalla around 49.46 percent of the households shifted their
occupation, whereas in Jugirata around 88.75 percent of the sample households
shifted their occupation. Most of the small and marginal landholding cultivators
informed that they shifted their occupation and worked in different activities such as in
road making, construction, and as MGNREGA workers. Migration: was an important
coping mechanism adopted by the sample households during the crisis. The result
shows that around 39.71 percent of the labourers migrate out in Mathanpalla, whereas
around 68 percent migrate out in Jugirata, in order to cope with the distress situation -
the rate of migration was observed to be higher in Jugirata compared to Mathanpalla.
Ngaka (2012), studied in drought affected area of Eastern Cape and Free State
provinces of South Africa. Reported that a significant proportion (76 %) of farmers
bought or sourced livestock feed as a way of coping with drought. Further only 46 per
cent of respondents indicated that they sold their livestock as a measure to cope with
the devastating drought conditions. Inevitable selling of livestock tends to be a drastic
measure for the emerging farming sector, as only 26 per cent and 35 per cent of small-
and medium-scale farmers respectively sold livestock as a measure to alleviate the
impact of a drought disaster, compared to 85 per cent of large-scale farmers. Other
negligible coping strategies included movement of livestock to better grazing camps
38
(11 %), purchasing of remedies, particularly vitamin A supplements (5 %), fetching
livestock water (4 %), and weaning calves earlier than expected (2 %).
Jiwan (2012) reported that drought mitigation plans adopted by the Mahoba
people, despite agriculture being mainstay in village economy, 50 percent of farmers
did not implement crop contingency plan in drought owing to unawareness. Coming to
farm credit access, State Provisioning of Farm Credit; Despite Reserve Bank of India’s
guidelines and launching the Kisan Credit Card Scheme (KCC), a large number of the
households still borrow their loans from the informal sources at exorbitant rate. For
instance, more than one-third of the respondents reported to have financial assistance
from informal sources (local money lenders), especially during the period of drought in
these villages. Percentage of respondents reported to have taken financial assistance
from informal sources varies from 10 in Bamhaori Gusai to 59.09 in village Fadna.
40
3. METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals with characteristics of area selected for the study,
the methods adopted in selection of samples, nature and sources of data, and
various statistical tools and techniques employed in analyzing the data.
The methodology is presented under the following headings:
3.1 Description of the study area
3.2 Sampling procedure
3.3 Nature and sources of data
3.4 Analysis of data
3.5 Definitions of terms and concepts used
3.1 Description of the study area
Karnataka is the eighth largest state in India with an area of 190 lakh
ha. It is situated between 11.5° & 19.0° N latitude and between 74° and 78° E
longitude in the southern plateau. The State receives an average annual
rainfall of about 1139 mm both from southwest and north-east monsoons.
Important crops grown in the state were jowar, ragi, maize, bajra and wheat
among cereals; red gram, green gram, red gram and Bengal gram among
pulses; groundnut, sunflower and safflower among oilseed crops and cotton,
sugarcane and tobacco among commercial crops.
Karnataka comprises of 30 districts, of which 12 districts were located
in Northern part of the state, Bijapur district in state was preferred for the
study purposively based on the frequency of drought occurrence in the district
over the period.
Total geographical area of Bijapur district is 10.53 lakh ha comprising
1, 977 ha under forest, 8.39 1akh ha net area under cultivation and remaining
is not available for cultivation. It could be noted that, 1.89 lakh ha out of 8.39
lakh ha of net cultivated area is utilized for cultivation more than once. Net
area irrigated in the District accounts for 27% of net area under cultivation
(Anonymous 2012b).
40
INDIA KARNATAKA
Fig 1: Map of Bijapur District
N
BIJAPUR
41
Bijapur district derives its name from its headquarters town, Bijapur. It
is also called as Vijapur in Kannada which means city of victory and also
considered as Punjab of Karnataka since five rivers flow in this district namely
Don, Bhima, Krishna, Malaprabha, and Ghataprabha.
Bijapur district is situated in the Northern part of Karnataka. It is bound
on the North by Sholapur districtt (Maharastra) and on North West by Sangali
district (Maharastra). The other sides were bounded by Gulbarga, Bagalkot
and Belgaum district of Karnataka state.
Bijapur district is located in the northern part of Karnataka state. It falls
in the northern maidan region, between 150 50’- 170 28’ north latitudes and
740 59’- 760 28’ east longitudes and lies between two major rivers namely the
Krishna and the Bhima. The district is bounded on the north by Sholapur
district of Maharastra State, on the west by Belgaum district, on the east by
Gulbarga district and on the south by Bagalkot district of Karnataka. Bijapur
district is land locked district and is accessible both by rail and road. The
broad gauge line of SW Railway connecting Hubli-Sholapur passes through
the district. The NH 13 Bangalore to Sholapur and NH-213 of Hubli-Sholapur
pass through the district. Bijapur district is connected with other district
headquarters through state highways.
3.1.1. Geology
Majority of the area is dominated by Basalt and other trap intrusions.
Granite and grano-diorite followed by lime stones, flat elevated beddings
rising steep from, otherwise very gently undulating grano-diorite were
observed. Schists occur as random paths within the grano-diorite landscape.
Shale’s and sand stone patch occur as intermittent belts interspersed
between the Meta sediments and grandiosities. They give rise to deep clay
profiles mostly qualifying for Vertisols. Again critical analysis of consecutive
five yearly rainfalls indicated that of five years, one year was found to be the
worst, one year bad, moving average of two years moderate and one year the
best. However, the occurrence of these years did follow any definite pattern.
42
Because of very low rainfall with higher co-efficient of variation, (30.8
%) desiccating wind velocity, high potential evaporation and less stored soil
moisture crops frequently experience severe moisture stress.
3.1.2. Climate
The district experiences semi-arid climate with extreme summers. It
enjoys a climate with hot summers and chilly winters. Incidence of drought
occurs due to inadequate and erratic distribution of rainfall in space and time.
The dust storms and severe heat waves were common during April and May
months. The district experiences the temperature variation between 200C and
420C. The temperature begins to rise by the end of February, till the month
May, which is the hottest month. Coldest months were December and
January. The year is divided in to summer season from March to May,
monsoon season from June to September, post-monsoon season from
October to November. The highest monthly rainfall recorded 149.2 mm in
September and the lowest is 3.4 mm in the month of February. The district
receives an average annual rainfall of 578 mm. The normal rainfall of the
district received is varied from 569 to 595 mm and the normal rainy days also
varied from 36.5 to 39.5 mm in the year.
Depth of water stream of the river has been very much reduced due to
siltation. Because of deposition of silt, the water all along the run of the river
flows extremely slowly. It over flows on the cultivable lands temporarily
submerging them and making them unfit for cultivation.
3.1.3 Cropping pattern of Bijapur district
Total area under cereals and minor millets production in Bijapur was
4.09 lakh ha. Total area under pulse production in Bijapur was 3.34 lakh ha.
Total area under oil seed production was 2.11 lakh ha and total area under
commercial crop production in Bijapur was 1.81 lakh ha.
3.2 Sampling procedure
Bijapur district was selected purposively for the study based on the
frequency of drought occurrence in the district over the long period of time.
43
Table 3.1 Cropping pattern of Bijapur district (2009 -10)
(Area in ha)
Taluk Cereals & minor millets Pulses Oilseeds Commercial crops
Basavana Bagewadi 77486 53436 49632 36546
Bijapur 110592 51519 43964 41431
Indi 102713 64128 39404 38393
Muddebihal 49307 86096 39037 28482
Sindagi 68703 78746 39037 36099
Total 408801 333925 211101 180951
Source: Bijapur District at a glance, 2010-11
44
3.2.1 Selection of the sample respondents
Bijapur district was purposively selected, as the district is frequently
affecting by drought. In the first stage, all the five taluks of the district were
selected for data collection as all the taluks of the districts were also affected
by the drought in varying degrees. In the next stage, two villages will be
selected from each taluk based on the total area affected by the drought in the
year 2012-13. The stratified random sampling technique adopted to select the
farmer-respondents for the study. Further, a sample of 12 farmers consisting
of four from each of land size classes namely, large, medium and small will be
chosen as respondents. Thus, the total sample size of the study will be 120
farmer-respondents.
3.3 Nature and sources of data
3.3.1 Primary data
Data needed for the study were collected from respondents by
personal interview method using pre-tested schedule. Majority of the
respondents did not maintain records of the loss to them by drought. Hence,
data collected were based on memory of the respondents. At the time of
interview, personal bias of the sample farmers was minimized by convincing
them about the genuine of the purpose for which the data were collected.
Each one of them interviewed separately to collect necessary information.
The data pertaining to (a) general characteristics of the farm family
such as age, occupation, education qualification, size of the family,
distribution of land holding and its utilization and source of irrigation (b) impact
of drought on livelihood of farmers i.e. Cropping pattern, cropping intensity,
crop yields, extent of irrigation, water table, labour employment pattern,
migration, accessibility to credit, input use, crop yield loss, livestock position
and yields, fodder situation, availability of drinking water both for humans and
animals. (c) Analyze the existing drought coping and mitigation measures.
3.3.2 Secondary data
Secondary data pertaining to the extent of rainfall deviation in the state
and Bijapur district, crop loss, drought affected area, relief and rehabilitations
45
Table 3.1 Cropping pattern of Bijapur district (2009 -10)
(Area in ha)
Taluk Cereals & minor
millets Pulses Oilseeds
Commercial
crops
Basavana
Bagewadi 77486 53436 49632 36546
Bijapur 110592 51519 43964 41431
Indi 102713 64128 39404 38393
Muddebihal 49307 86096 39037 28482
Sindagi 68703 78746 39037 36099
Total 408801 333925 211101 180951
Source: Bijapur District at a glance, 2010-11
46
measures were collected from District Agricultural office Bijapur, Department
of Economics and Statistics, Bangalore.
3.4 Analysis of data/Analytical tools and techniques employed
To fulfill the specific objectives of the study, based on the nature and
extent of data, the following analytical tools and techniques were adopted.
1. Tabular presentation
2. Trend analysis
3. Garrett’s ranking technique
3.4.1 Tabular presentation
The data collected were presented in tabular form to facilitate easy
comparison. Tabular presentation was adopted to compile general
characteristics of the sample farmers,
Data regarding number of farmers’ affected, total area covered and
quantum of relief and rehabilitation work done were analyzed by tabular
analysis.
Tabular analysis was adopted also for analyzing the distribution of land
holding and its utilization and source of irrigation, crop loss, livestock dead,
building damaged employment pattern and household items. Simple statistical
tools like averages and percentages were used to compare, contrast and
interpret results properly.
3.4.2 Trend Analysis
Linear trend is the estimated regression equation describing a straight-
line relationship between an independent variable x and a dependent variable
y is written as
47
Where Y = Dependent variable.
b0 =Intercept of the linear trend line.
b1 = Slope of the linear trend line.
X = Independent variable.
3.4.3 Garrett’s ranking technique
To find out the most significant factor which influences the respondent,
Garrett’s ranking technique was used. As per the method, respondents have
been asked the rank for all factors and the outcome of such ranking have
been converted in to scores value with the help of the following formula:
Where
Rij= Rank given for the ith variable by jth respondents
Nj= Number of variable ranked by jth respondents
With the help of Garrett’s Table, the percent position estimated is
converted into scores. Then for each factor, the scores of each individual are
added and then total value of scores and mean values of score is calculated.
The factors having highest mean value is considered to be the most important
factor.
48
3.5 Definitions of terms and concepts used
3.5.1 Livelihood
Livelihood is sustainable when people cope with and recover from
shocks and crisis (e.g., seasonal, environmental and economic) and can
maintain or enhance their capability and assets both now and in the future,
while not undermining the natural resource base.
3.5.2 Normal rainfall
"Normal" precipitation does not equal "what you should expect."
"Normal" precipitation to a meteorologist is an average of the precipitation
values of a place over a long period.
3.5.3 Average rainfall
"Average" precipitation to a meteorologist is an average of the
precipitation of a place over a particular period or over the considered period
of time.
3.5.4 Drought
Drought is an event that results from lower than normal expected
rainfall over a season or period.
3.5.5 Meteorological drought
It is the deficiency of precipitation from expected or normal levels over
an extended period of time. Meteorological drought is when the seasonal
rainfall received over an area is less than 25% of its long-term average value.
3.5.6 Moderate drought
Moderate drought is when the seasonal rainfall received over an area
is deficit by 26–50% of its long-term average value.
49
3.5.7 Severe drought
Severe drought is when the seasonal rainfall received over an area is
deficit by more than 50% of its long-term average value.
3.5.8 Hydrological drought
It is a deficiency in surface and subsurface water supplies leading to a
lack of water for normal and specific needs.
3.5.9 Agricultural drought
Agricultural drought appears when soil moisture and rainfall are
inadequate during the crop growing season causing extreme crop stress and
wilting.
It is an period of four consecutive weeks (of severe meteorological
drought) with a rainfall deficiency of more than 50% of the long-term average
or with a weekly rainfall of 5 cm or less from mid-May to mid-October (the
kharif season) when 80% of India’s total crop is planted or six such
consecutive weeks during the rest of the year.
3.5.10 Mitigation
Mitigation is the structural and non-structural measures undertaken to
limit the adverse impact of natural hazards, environmental degradation and
technological hazards.
3.5.11 Vulnerability
Vulnerability is an intrinsic feature of people at risk. It is a function of
exposure, sensitivity to impact of the specific, unit exposed and the ability or
inability to cope or adapt.
3.5.12 Preparedness
Preparedness is a measure to ensure that communities and services
are capable of coping with the effect of disaster.
50
3.5.13 Response
It is a measure taken in anticipation of, during and immediately after a
disaster for minimizing its adverse impact.
3.5.14 Recovery
Measures are initiated to undertake reconstruction of physical
infrastructure and restoration of economic and emotional wellbeing.
3.5.15 Prevention
Measures to eliminate or reduce the incidence of severity.
3.5.16 Relief
The feeling that comes when something burdensome is removed or
reduced; as he heard the news he was suddenly flooded with relief.
51
4. RESULTS
Data collected for the study from various sources were analysed using
appropriate techniques and the results of analysis are presented in this chapter
under the following headings.
1. Extent and pattern of drought in Karnataka and Bijapur district
2. Socio-economic profile of farmers in drought affected area of Bijapur
district
3. Impact of drought on livelihoods of farmers in the study area and
4. Drought coping and mitigation measures adopted by farmers.
4.1 Extent and pattern of drought in Karnataka and Bijapur district
4.1.1 Rainfall pattern of Karnataka state (1985-2012)
Rainfall is the simple key indicator of drought or flood situations in an
area. Table 4.1 depicts rainfall pattern of Karnataka over the past 28 years
(1985-2012). While the normal rainfall of the state was 1,165 mm, the average
rainfall showed a deficit of about 13 per cent (1,026.71 mm) in the study period.
Karnataka received highest rainfall in 2005 (1,467.30 mm), followed by
2009 (1,412.40 mm), 2010 (1,359.70 mm), 2006 (1,247.80 mm) and in 2011,
(1,359.70mm). Lowest rainfall was recorded in the year 1990 (770.10 mm)
followed by 1985 (785.50 mm), 2002 (802.70 mm), 1989 (825.40 mm), and 1994
(830.60 mm). Even though there were many deviations in the annual rainfall, the
state witnessed an impressive increased positive trend (16.90) over the years
(1985-2012).
4.1.2 District wise rainfall pattern during South-west Monsoon (2012)
Karnataka depends upon South-West Monsoon for its normal agriculture
activities in any year. Table 4.2 represents the rainfall observed during the
South-West Monsoon of 2012. It can be observed that the average actual (618
mm) rainfall in the state deviated by -26 per cent over the normal (835 mm)
during 2012.
52
Table 4.1 Rainfall pattern of Karnataka (in mm)
Sl. No Year Rainfall Deviation from normal rainfall % Deviation
1 1985 785.50 -241.21 -23.49
2 1986 901.20 -125.51 -12.22
3 1987 917.20 -109.51 -10.67
4 1988 987.80 -38.91 -3.79
5 1989 825.40 -201.31 -19.61
6 1990 770.10 -256.61 -24.99
7 1991 894.30 -132.41 -12.90
8 1992 1000.70 -26.01 -2.53
9 1993 989.10 -37.61 -3.66
10 1994 830.60 -196.11 -19.10
11 1995 956.10 -70.61 -6.88
12 1996 1017.10 -9.61 -0.94
13 1997 938.60 -88.11 -8.58
14 1998 1079.60 52.89 5.15
15 1999 884.10 -142.61 -13.89
16 2000 1039.60 12.89 1.26
17 2001 847.80 -178.91 -17.43
18 2002 802.70 -224.01 -21.82
19 2003 950.90 -75.81 -7.38
20 2004 1183.40 156.69 15.26
21 2005 1457.30 430.59 41.94
22 2006 1247.80 221.09 21.53
23 2007 1151.90 125.19 12.19
24 2008 1202.50 175.79 17.12
25 2009 1412.40 385.69 37.57
26 2010 1359.70 332.99 32.43
27 2011 1206.50 179.79 17.51
28 2012 1108.10 81.39 7.93
AVERAGE 1026.71
NORMAL 1165.00
TREND 781.72+16.90x
Source: ARC section, DES Bengaluru 2013.
53
Table 4.2 District wise Rainfall pattern during South-West Monsoon (kharif 2012)
(in mm)
SI. No.
District Normal Actual Percentage Deviation
1 Ramanagara 433 200 -54
2 Chamarajanagara 317 155 -51
3 Bangalore urban 457 235 -49
4 Dharwad 499 266 -47
5 Gadag 382 205 -46
6 Mandya 297 159 -46
7 Bangalore rural 445 245 -45
8 Mysore 377 210 -44
9 Bellary 361 205 -43
10 Haveri 496 288 -42
11 Bagalkot 351 216 -39
12 Koppal 374 226 -39
13 Bijapur 428 272 -36
14 Raichur 450 289 -36
15 Yadgir 592 394 -33
16 Kodagu 2333 1595 -32
17 Belgaum 601 431 -28
18 Gulbarga 608 437 -28
19 Tumkur 360 260 -28
20 Chikkaballapura 399 291 -27
21 Davanagere 362 265 -27
22 Udupi 4460 3241 -27
23 Hassan 689 546 -21
24 Chikkamagalur 1239 1003 -19
25 Chitradurga 276 223 -19
26 Kolar 387 314 -19
27 Bidar 683 562 -18
28 Shimoga 1869 1528 -18
29 Uttara Kannada 2374 1953 -18
30 Dakshina Kannada 3441 2921 -15
State 835 618 -26
Source: Karnataka State Natural Disaster Management Centre, Bengaluru
54
It can also be seen that entire state was affected from the shortage of
rainfall. Among total 30 districts, Ramangara (-54 mm), Chamarajanagara (-51
mm), Bangalore Urban (-49 mm), Dharwad (-47 mm) and Gadag (-46 mm) were
the top five district affected. And top five districts with less effect were Dakshina
Kannada (-15 mm), Uttara Kannada (-18 mm), Shimoga (-18 mm), Bidar (-18
mm) and Kolar (-19 mm).
4.1.3 Week wise progress of South-West Monsoon in Karnataka (2012)
Table 4.3 indicates progress of South-West Monsoon 2012 (23rd to 39th
standard weeks) in the State. Monsoon was active with normal to above normal
during the standard weeks - 25th, 29th, 32nd, 34th, 35th and 36th. Monsoon was
weak and state as a whole recorded deficit rainfall during standard weeks - 20th,
21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 30th, 31st, 33rd, 37th, 38th, 39th, where in
agriculture activities were reduced to their minimum.
4.1.4 Zone wise rainfall distribution of South-West Monsoon in Karnataka
(2008-2012)
Zone wise annual deviation in rainfall from South-West Monsoon during
2008 and 2012, from the normal is presented in Table 4.4.
Annual normal rainfall of the state during the period was 835 mm. The
period showed a highest positive variation of 18 per cent during 2009 and
highest deviation of -26 per cent during 2012 in all the four regions namely South
Interior Karnataka (SIK), North Interior Karnataka (NIK), Malnad and Coastal
regions.
In the entire period, 2009 witnessed highest positive in all four regions
namely SIK (46 %), NIK (21 %), Malnad (17 %) and Coastal (5 %) of the state
from the respective normal of the region.
All the four regions of the state witnessed highest deviations in rainfall
during 2012. The deficit from the normal was highest in SIK (-35 %), followed by
NIK (-34 %), Malnad (-22 %) and Coastal region (-20 %).
55
Table 4.3 Weekly South-West Monsoon in Karnataka during 2012 (in mm)
Std. week No.
Period Normal (mm)
Actual (mm)
Percent Deviation
21 21st to 27th May 24 1 -96
22 28th May to 3rd Jun
24 1 -96
38 17th to 23rd Sep 46 8 -83
23* 1st to 10th Jun 51 19 -63
20 14th to 20th May 21 8 -62
28 9th to 15th Jul 61 24 -61
24 11th to 17th Jun 45 21 -53
33 13th to 19th Aug 49 23 -53
39 24th to 30th Sep 45 23 -49
27 2nd to 8th Jul 63 37 -41
37 10th to 16th Sep 30 18 -40
26 25th Jun to 1st Jul 60 37 -38
30 23rd to 29th Jul 62 41 -34
31 30th Jul to 5th Aug
58 39 -33
29 16th to 22nd Jul 65 56 -14
34 20th to 26th Aug 41 38 -7
25 18th to 24th Jun 48 49 2
36 3rd to 9th Sep 28 43 54
32 6th to 12th Aug 50 79 58
35 27th Aug to 2nd Sep
33 62 88
Source: Karnataka State Natural Disaster Management Centre, Bengaluru
56
Table 4.4 Zone wise rainfall distribution of South-west monsoon in Karnataka during 2012
(in mm)
Region/State Normal
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Actual % Dep Actual % Dep Actual % Dep Actua % Dep Actual % Dep
South Interior Karnataka 357 443 21 534 46 441 20 273 -24 232 -35
North Interior Karnataka 493 431 -14 603 21 601 20 419 -15 327 -34
Malnad 1469 1320 -1 1562 17 1323 -1 1415 -4 1146 -22
Coastal 3048 2475 -9 2856 5 2861 5 3098 2 2449 -20
STATE 835 782 -3 958 18 890 10 773 -7 618 -26
Source: Karnataka State Natural Disaster Management Centre, Bengalur
57
4.1.5 Crop-wise targeted area and area sown by the end of July during
kharif in Karnataka (2012-13)
In Karnataka major agriculture activities are in full swing kharif season to
their maximum because of South-West Monsoon. The sowing is done normally in
June and in first half of the July, and will be completed by the end July. Crop-
wise targeted area and actual area sown in Karnataka during Kharif 2012 is
presented in Table 4.5.
Of the total targeted area of 74.7 lakh ha, only 47 per cent was covered
until end of July 2012 where sowing area done on the maximum area in
Karnataka. The total actual area sown consisted of 8 lakh ha irrigated and about
27 lakh rain fed.
Cereals covered 39 per cent area (13.74 lakh ha) against the target of
34.89 lakh ha targeted area in 2012. The area covered less when compared to
the area sown in the previous year (18.75 lakh ha) and the normal area (22.30
lakh ha) to be covered by the end of July.
Pulses were sown in only 53 per cent area (8.44 lakh ha) against the
15.96 lakh ha targeted area. Thus area covered by this decreased when
compared with area sown in 2011 (9.26 lakh ha) and normal area (11.16 lakh ha)
to be covered by the end of July.
Oilseeds covered an area about 39 per cent (5.23 lakh ha) to the total
targeted area (13.38 lakh ha) during 2012.
Commercial crops occupied about 7.79 lakh ha (74%) area compared to
the targeted area (10.46 lakh ha) during 2012. It was less when compared to the
area covered by the previous year kharif season (8.43 lakh ha) and the area
covered was more when compared to the area to be covered (6.05 lakh ha) by
the end of the July.
4.1.6 Taluks under different classes of drought in Karnataka (October 2012)
Table 4.6 present severity of drought condition in different districts based
on the number of taluks affected in the districts.
58
Table 4.5 Targeted area and area sown by the end of July during kharif in Karnataka (2012-13)
(Area in lakh hectares)
Sl. No.
Crops
Targeted
area
Area sown 2012 % Coverage to
the targeted
area
Area
sown in
2011
Normal
coverage by
end of July
% of
Normal
coverage Irrigated Rain fed Total
1 Cereals 34.89 2.56 11.18 13.74 39.00 18.75 22.30 62.00
2 Pulses 15.96 0.19 8.26 8.44 53.00 9.26 11.16 76.00
3 Food grains 50.85 2.74 19.44 22.18 44.00 28.02 33.47 66.00
4 Oilseeds 13.38 0.27 4.97 5.23 39.00 7.61 13.18 40.00
5 Commercial Crops 10.46 5.05 2.74 7.79 74.00 8.43 6.05 129.00
Total 74.70 8.07 27.15 35.22 47.00 44.06 52.70 67.00
Source: Karnataka State Natural Disaster Management Centre, Bengaluru
59
Table 4.6 Taluks under different classes of drought in Karnataka (October 2012)
(Values in numbers)
Sl. No.
District Normal % Moderate % Severe %
1 Bagalkot 0 0 3 50 3 50
2 Bangalore Rural 0 0 2 50 2 50
3 Bangalore Urban 0 0 2 50 2 50
4 Belgaum 3 30 5 50 2 20
5 Bellary 0 0 0 0 7 100
6 Bidar 5 100 0 0 0 0
7 Bijapur 0 0 0 0 5 100
8 Chamarajanagara 0 0 1 25 3 75
9 Chikkaballapura 3 50 1 17 2 33
10 Chikkamagalur 6 86 1 14 0 0
11 Chitradurga 0 0 3 50 3 50
12 Dakshina Kannada
5 100 0 0 0 0
13 Davangere 0 0 4 67 2 33
14 Dharwad 1 20 0 0 4 80
15 Gadag 0 0 0 0 5 100
16 Gulbarga 0 0 4 57 3 43
17 Hassan 1 13 3 38 4 50
18 Haveri 1 14 3 43 3 43
19 Kodagu 3 100 0 0 0 0
20 Kolar 2 40 2 40 1 20
21 Koppal 0 0 0 0 4 100
22 Mandya 0 0 5 71 2 29
23 Mysore 0 0 4 57 3 43
24 Raichur 0 0 2 40 3 60
25 Ramanagara 1 25 2 50 1 25
26 Shimoga 7 100 0 0 0 0
27 Tumkur 1 10 6 60 3 30
28 Udupi 3 100 0 0 0 0
29 Uttara Kannada 11 100 0 0 0 0
30 Yadgir 2 67 0 0 1 33
Total 55 31 53 30 68 39 Source: Karnataka State Natural Disaster Management Centre, Bengaluru
60
Agriculture situation in the state was not comfortable during October 2012.
Trends of different crop indices were normal in Coastal Karnataka and some
parts of North and South Interior Karnataka districts indicating progressive
improvement in agriculture situation from June. At the end of October 2012, 68
taluks were categorised under “Severe Agricultural Drought” class followed by 53
taluks under “Medium Agricultural Drought” class and 55 taluks under “Normal or
Mild Agricultural Drought” class. Out of 30 districts in the state in four districts
(Bellary, Bijapur, Gadag and Koppal), 100 per cent area was under the severe
category in districts where there was a reduction in yield by 50 per cent or even
more. And, in about eight districts more than 50 per cent area was under
moderate category which resulted in chance for yield loss up to 50 per cent.
4.1.7 Major reservoir levels in the State by the end of September 2012
The position of reservoir levels from 1st June 2012 to 30th September
2012 (South-West Monsoon) with respect to their maximum levels, increase or
decrease in reservoirs level during 17 weeks period under consideration,
comparison of water levels with 15 years average level and the balance reservoir
level (RL) to reach their respective full levels which describe extent of severity of
drought in the state are given in Table 4.7
Hydel generation reservoirs
Linganamakki, Supa, Varahi are three main hydel power generation
reservoirs in the western coast of the State. During the South-West Monsoon,
the levels in Linganamakki reservoir by the end of the season was less by 0.79
feet compared to the 15 years average level and also less by 10.10 feet
compared to its full reservoir level.
In Supa reservoir during the season, water level by the end of the season
was less by 4.51 feet compared to the 15 years average level and also less by
60.15 feet compared to its FRL.
Varahi reservoir level at the end of September was more by 1.38 feet
compared to the 15 years average level and but less by 13.19 feet compared to
the FRL.
61
Table 4.7 Major reservoir levels in the State by the end of September 2012
SI. No.
Name of the Reservoir
Full Reservoir
Level (FRL)*
Average RL as on
30 September
R.L. as on 30.09.2012
R.L. of 2012
compared to the
Average R.L.
Balance R.L. as
on 30.09.2012
(a) Hydel power Generation Reservoirs (Western Coast)
1 Linganamakki 1819.00 1809.69 1808.90 -0.79 -10.10
2 Supa 1859.39 1803.75 1799.24 -4.51 -60.15
3 Varahi 1950.00 1935.43 1936.81 1.38 -13.19
(b) Reservoirs of Cauvery Basin
4 Harangi 2859.00 2855.45 2851.16 -4.29 -7.84
5 Hemavathi 2922.00 2908.59 2911.99 3.40 -10.01
6 K.R.S 124.80 117.79 109.50 -8.29 -15.30
7 Kabini 2284.00 2279.93 2273.26 -6.67 -10.74
(c) Reservoirs of Krishna Basin
8 Bhadra 2158.00 2150.83 2144.83 -6.00 -13.17
9 Tungabhadra 1633.00 1630.85 1631.67 0.82 -1.33
10 Ghataprabha 2175.00 2170.01 2168.70 -1.31 -6.30
11 Malaprabha 2079.50 2069.22 2059.84 -9.38 -19.66
12 Alamatti 1704.81 1704.24 1703.60 -0.64 -1.21
13 Narayanapur 1615.00 1612.33 1613.56 1.23 -1.44
(*In feet, above mean sea level)
Source: Karnataka State Natural Disaster Management Centre, Bengaluru
62
Reservoirs of Cauvery basin
Harangi, Hemavathi, Krishna Raja Sagara (KRS) and Kabini are four main
reservoirs of Cauvery Basin of the State.
Harangi reservoir level by the end of the September or by the end of
monsoon season was less by 4.29 feet compared to the 15 years average level
and also less by -7.84 feet compared to the FRL.
In Hemavathi reservoir level increased by 3.4 feet compared to the 15
years average level but was less by 10.01 feet compared to its FRL.
The K.R.S reservoir witnessed lesser reservoir level at the end of
September by 8.29 feet compared to the 15 years average level and less by
15.30 feet compared to its FRL.
In Kabini, reservoir level observed was lesser by 6.67 feet compared to
the 15 years average and also less by 10.74 feet compared to the FRL.
Reservoirs of Krishna basin
Alamatti, Bhadra, Ghataprabha, Malaprabha, Narayanapura, and
Tungabhadra are main reservoirs of Krishna basin.
In the Bhadra reservoir, water level was less by 6 feet when compared to
the previous 15 years average and less by 13.17 feet compared to the FRL.
Tungabhadra reservoir level recorded an average of 1630.85 feet, which
was more by 0.82 feet over the 15 years average and less by 1.33 feet
compared to the FRL.
Ghataprabha reservoir level at the end of September 2012 was also less
by 1.31 feet compared to the 15 years average level and also less by 2.53 feet
compared to the FRL.
In Malaprabha reservoir 15 year average water storage during 15 years
period was 2069.22 feet. This was less by 9.38 feet compared to the average
and also less by 19.66 feet compared to FRL.
Average level of Alamatti reservoir during 15 years period was 1704.24
feet. During September 2012 it was less by 0.64 feet compared to the average
and also less by 1.21 feet compared to the previous year level.
63
Average level of Narayanpur reservoir during 15 years period was
1613.56 feet. During September 2012 it was more by 1.23 feet compared to the
average and less by 1.44 feet compared to the previous year level.
Overall the reservoir levels of most of the reservoirs in the state during
2012 were found to be less compared to 15 years average level and the previous
year level, there by indicating prospects of water shortages for irrigation and
other purposes.
4.1.8 Zone wise/district-wise status of minor irrigation tanks
Table 4.8 presents district wise and zone wise minor irrigation tanks and
their status in 2012. Farmers in Karnataka are not only dependent on rainfall
water for agriculture activities but depend on tanks water for irrigation. Minor
irrigation tanks collect water from South-West monsoon also.
Overall, there are 3,524 minor irrigation tanks in Karnataka. During 2012,
only 105 tanks filled up to their full capacity, 154 tanks filled more than 50 per
cent (51-99%), 287 tanks filled up between 31 per cent and up to 50 per cent.
739 tanks filled up to 30 per cent of their full capacity. Remaining (63.20 %) 2239
tanks did not receive any water or rainfall till 22 September 2012. This indicated
seriousness of water scarcity in the state during 2012.
South zone of Karnataka comprised of 1,968 minor irrigation tanks from
17 districts. About 43 tanks filled up to their full capacity, 95 tanks filled up to
more than 50 per cent (51-99%), 192 tanks filled up between 31 per cent and 50
per cent. 492 tanks were reported filled up to 30 per cent of their full capacity.
Remaining 1,146 tanks did not receive any water.
There are 1,556 tanks in the North Zone consisting of 13 districts. 62
tanks filled up to their full capacity, 59 tanks filled up to more than 50 per cent
(51-99%), 95 tanks filled up between 31 per cent and 50 per cent. 247 tanks
filled up to 30 per cent of their full capacity. 1,093 tanks received no water or
rainfall.
4.1.9 Rainfall pattern of Bijapur district
As the study of present study is Bijapur district, district level data are
furnished to explain the severity of drought in the district.
64
Table 4.8 Zone wise/district-wise status of minor irrigation tanks
Sl. No.
District Total no of Tanks
No. of tanks not received
water
No of tanks level filled
≤ 30%
Between 31-50%
Between 51-99%
≥100%
Minor Irrigation, South Zone 1 Bangalore Urban 47 31 12 2 2 0
2 Bangalore Rural 98 76 19 3 0 0 3 Ramanagara 103 42 55 3 2 1 4 Kolar 138 138 0 0 0 0 5 Chikkaballapura 201 199 2 0 0 0 6 Tumkur 368 230 128 7 3 0 7 Chitradurga 133 45 81 6 1 0
8 Davanagere 92 87 4 1 0 0 9 Shimoga 306 0 105 128 44 29 10 Mysore 51 32 5 3 4 7 11 Chamarajanagara 64 50 8 4 2 0 12 Mandya 48 45 3 0 0 0 13 Hassan 163 111 32 17 3 0 14 Chikkamagalur 121 60 35 16 9 1
15 Dakshina Kannada
2 0 0 0 1 1
16 Udupi 4 0 0 0 2 2 17 Kodagu 29 0 3 2 22 2
Total (A) 1968 1146 492 192 95 43 Minor Irrigation, North Zone 1 Belgaum 255 196 24 21 6 8
2 Bijapur 149 144 0 0 5 0 3 Bagalkote 63 63 0 0 0 0 4 Dharwad 111 1 110 0 0 0 5 Gadag 29 22 6 1 0 0 6 Haveri 263 253 7 1 0 2 7 Uttara Kannada 91 0 48 16 12 15
8 Gulbarga 152 68 7 43 18 16 9 Yadgir 71 45 6 0 3 17 10 Bidar 117 71 26 8 11 1 11 Bellary 81 74 4 3 0 0 12 Koppala 106 106 0 0 0 0 13 Raichur 68 50 9 2 4 3
Total (B) 1556 1093 247 95 59 62
State total (A + B) 3524 2239 739 287 154 105 (* - As on 22.09.2012)
Source: Karnataka State Natural Disaster Management Centre, Bengaluru
65
Table 4.9 indicates that normal rainfall of Bijapur district is 656 mm but,
the average rainfall decreased to 500.89 mm during when compared to its
normal long period average.
In the 28 years considered for the study the result revealed that there
were five moderate drought years and four excess rainfall years with deviation of
more than 25 per cent in the district.
Some of the highest rainfall years in the district were 2009 (903 mm),
1998 (812 mm), 1993 (626 mm), 1989 (618 mm) and 1996 (599 mm). Lowest
rainfall was recorded in 1990 (278 mm). This was followed by 2003 (317 mm),
1985 (349 mm), 2011 (355 mm) and 1991 (380 mm).
Even though there were variations in the rainfall in the district, there was a
steady positive trend (1.95) over the years.
4.1.10 Taluk wise rainfall pattern in Bijapur district during the South-West
Monsoon (2008-12)
Taluk wise rainfall during South-West Monsoon (2012) was compared with
previous four years so as to identify the drought prone taluks in the district (Table
4.10)
District witnessed two surplus years (2009 and 2010) and three deficit
years (2008, 2011 and 2012) with highest deviation during 2012. In the five year
period district witnessed a deficit of about 36 per cent during 2012 over the
normal rainfall. Among different taluks affected, Bijapur taluk witnessed with
highest deviation of about -53 per cent. Bijapur taluk was followed by Indi (-45
%), Sindagi (-31 %), Muddebihala (-30 %) and Bagewadi (-22 %).
4.1.11 Classification of taluks/hoblis based on rainfall deviation in Bijapur
district (2012)
There are 18 hoblis in Bijapur district. And taluka/hobli wise rainfall
deviation was considered to indicate the drought affected taluks in the district
(Table 4.11).
Basavana Bagewadi taluk witnessed normal drought in 2012. All the three
hoblis of the taluk were affected by drought during this period. Out of these, two
experienced normal drought (with the deviation of rainfall from 0 % to -25 %) and
66
Table 4.9 Rainfall pattern of Bijapur district (in mm)
Sl. No Year Rainfall Deviation from normal rainfall % Deviation
1 1985 349 -151.89 -30.32
2 1986 446 -54.89 -10.96
3 1987 563 62.11 12.40
4 1988 585 84.11 16.79
5 1989 618 117.11 23.38
6 1990 278 -222.89 -44.50
7 1991 380 -120.89 -24.14
8 1992 429 -71.89 -14.35
9 1993 626 125.11 24.98
10 1994 442 -58.89 -11.76
11 1995 555 54.11 10.80
12 1996 599 98.11 19.59
13 1997 455 -45.89 -9.16
14 1998 812 311.11 62.11
15 1999 462 -38.89 -7.76
16 2000 450 -50.89 -10.16
17 2001 461 -39.89 -7.96
18 2002 405 -95.89 -19.14
19 2003 317 -183.89 -36.71
20 2004 499 -1.89 -0.38
21 2005 509 8.11 1.62
22 2006 477 -23.89 -4.77
23 2007 553 52.11 10.40
24 2008 472 -28.89 -5.77
25 2009 903 402.11 80.28
26 2010 589 88.11 17.59
27 2011 355 -145.89 -29.13
28 2012 436 -64.89 -12.96
Average 500.89
Normal 656.00
Trend 472.64+1.95x Source: ARC section, DES Bengaluru 2013.
67
Table 4.10 Taluk wise rainfall pattern during South-West monsoon (2008 – 2012)
(in mm)
Taluk Normal
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Actual % Dep Actual % Dep Actual % Dep Actual % Dep Actual % Dep
B. Bagewadi 397 347 -14 750 85 497 23 252 -36 311 -22
Bijapur 421 324 -20 566 41 486 21 250 -41 200 -53
Indi 452 305 -33 665 45 493 8 384 -15 247 -45
Muddebihal 389 365 -12 701 69 477 15 338 -13 283 -30
Sindagi 470 429 -8 680 46 581 25 322 -31 323 -31
District 429 354 -18 672 57 507 18 306 -28 272 -36
Source: Karnataka State Natural Disaster Management Centre, Bengalur
68
Table 4.11 Classification of taluks/hoblis based on rainfall deviation in Bijapur district 2012
Sl. No. Taluk/Hobli Normal Actual % Deviation Class
B. Bagewadi taluk 397 311 -22 N
1 Basavana Bagewadi 430 287 -33 M
2 Huvin Hippargi 427 407 -5 N
3 Kolhar 329 250 -24 N
Bijapur taluk 421 211 -50 S
1 Bijapur 432 244 -44 M
2 Bableshwar 407 202 -50 S
3 Mamadapur 364 178 -51 S
4 Nagathan 432 202 -53 S
5 Tikota 429 200 -53 S
Indi taluk 452 247 -45 M
1 Indi 453 303 -33 M
2 Ballolli 451 226 -50 S
3 Chadachan 452 209 -54 S
Muddebihal taluk 389 295 -24 N
1 Muddebihal 365 279 -24 N
2 Dhavalagi 389 323 -17 N
3 Talikot 402 283 -30 M
4 Nalatvad 395 295 -25 M
Sindagi taluk 470 319 -32 M
1 Sindagi 471 323 -31 M
2 Almel 476 333 -30 M
3 Devar Hipparagi 463 303 -35 M
Bijapur district 428 272 -36 M
Source: Karnataka State Natural Disaster Management Centre, Bengaluru
69
one hobli experienced moderate drought condition (-25 to -50%). Bijapur taluk as
a whole witnessed severe drought. Out of the five hoblis in the taluk, Bijapur
hobli experienced moderate drought condition, whereas remaining hoblis
suffered severe drought conditions with the deviation of rainfall more than -50 per
cent of the normal. Indi taluk experienced moderate drought with a rainfall
deviation of -45 per cent from the normal rainfall. The taluk as a whole
experienced moderate drought. Out of the three hoblis, two faced severe drought
and the other faced moderate drought. While Muddebihal taluk experienced
normal drought, two hoblis were normal and other two were under moderate
drought conditions. In case of Sindgi taluk moderate drought prevailed in all the
three hoblis.
4.1.12 Cropping/vegetation progress in different hoblis during the south
west monsoon (2012)
Table 4.12 presents the vegetation progress in different hoblis in Bijapur
district during 2012 which indicate extent of drought.
The South-West monsoon plays an important role in vegetative growth in
the district. At the beginning of the S-W monsoon (i.e. in June) there were 10
hoblis under no vegetation and eight maintained low vegetation status. In July
also there was no much progress in rainfall as a result of which nine hoblis had
no vegetation and other nine were in low vegetation state. In August there was
little progress in the rainfall, there by three hoblis shifted to low vegetation state
and one more hobli shifted to moderate vegetation state.
Finally, the district received impressive rainfall by the end of September.
With this, all the 10 hoblis which were under the no vegetation state shifted to
moderately low vegetation (5 hoblis), low vegetation (2 hoblis), better vegetation
(2 hoblis) and good vegetation (one hobli). By the end of monsoon, there were
10 hoblis with low vegetation and five under moderately low vegetation.
70
Table 4.12 Cropping/vegetation progress in different hoblies during the south west monsoon (2012)
(Values in number)
Sl. No
Category June July August September
1 Excess Vegetation 0 0 0 0
2 High Vegetation 0 0 0 0
3 Good Vegetation 0 0 0 1
4 Better Vegetation 0 0 0 2
5 Low Vegetation 8 9 12 10
6 Slightly Low Vegetation 0 0 0 0
7 Moderately Low Vegetation 0 0 1 5
8 Severely Low Vegetation 0 0 0 0
9 No Vegetation 10 9 5 0
Source: Karnataka State Natural Disaster Management Centre, Bengaluru
71
4.1.13 Agriculture crops affected and estimated input loss due to dry spell
during Kharif 2012 in Bijapur
An estimate of economic loss during kharif 2012 has been attempted
based on the extent of percentage crop loss due to drought and data are
presented in Table 4.13.
In the kharif season agriculture crops were affected to the maximum
extent in the district. Among the five taluks, Sindgi experienced maximum area
under dry spell (1.01 lakh ha) across different crops during Kharif 2012, followed
by Indi (0.54 lakh ha), Muddebihal (0.43 lakh ha), Basavana Bagewadi (0.34 lakh
ha) and Bijapur taluk (0.28 lakh ha).
Crops affected during the kharif 2012 were maize, bajra, red gram, horse
gram, green gram, moth bean, cowpea, groundnut, sunflower, cotton and
sugarcane.
Among the affected, red gram occupied highest area (84,527 ha), followed
by bajra (46,562 ha), sugarcane (44,139 ha), maize (33,741 ha), sunflower
(18,496 ha), cotton (10,175), green gram (3,373 ha), horse gram (2,852 ha), and
moth bean (1,467 ha).
The district as a whole suffered an estimated economic loss of about ₹
87,284 lakhs due to loss in inputs during the drought of 2012. The loss was
highest in sugarcane at about ₹ 39,063 lakhs followed by red gram (₹ 19,441
lakhs), maize (₹ 9,954 lakhs), bajra (₹ 6845 lakhs), groundnut (₹ 3,651 lakh),
sunflower (₹ 2,589), green gram (₹ 540 lakhs), horse gram (₹ 465 lakh), and
moth bean (₹ 235 lakhs).
4.1.14 Loss in crops yield and value in Bijapur during the kharif dry spell
2012
2012 kharif drought impacted negatively on the area sown and production
of agricultural crops like sugarcane, maize, red gram, bajra, sunflower,
groundnut, cotton, green gram, horse gram and moth bean in the district. The
information is presented in the Table 4.14.
72
Table 4.13 Agriculture crops affected (ha) and estimated input loss due to dry spell during Kharif 2012 in
Bijapur
(Area in ha)
Sl.
No. Taluk/Crops Maize Bajra
Tur
(Red gram)
Horse
gram
Green
gram
Moth
bean Groundnut Sunflower Cotton Sugarcane
Total area
affected
1 B. Bagewadi 12454 4691 9746 85 105 82 2353 1991 700 2210 34442
2 Bijapur 8080 7315 4000 610 169 413 1342 540 496 5120 28085
3 Indi 3937 10989 11653 1350 1773 464 7085 4663 400 12000 54464
4 Muddebihal 2267 10821 18671 322 924 0 2250 5863 1724 669 43604
5 Sindagi 7003 12746 40457 485 402 508 3566 5439 6855 24140 101601
Total area affected 33741 46562 84527 2852 3373 1467 16596 18496 10175 44139 262196
Cost of cultivation
(₹/ha) 29500 14700 23000 16000 16000 16000 22000 14000 44000 88500 -
Total Estimated loss
(₹ Lakhs) 9953.60 6844.61 19441.21 456.32 539.68 234.72 3651.12 2589.44 4477.00 39063.02 87283.67
Source: Joint Director of Agriculture Bijapur
73
Table 4.14 Production and output value loss during kharif due to dry spell in Bijapur district 2012
Sl.
No Crop
Target area
(ha)
Area sown
(ha) Percentage
Area affected
more than 50 %
(ha)
Percentage Normal yield
(q/ha)
Expected yield
(q/ha)
Loss in yield
(t/ha)
Value of
the loss in
(crore ₹)
1 Maize 66000.00 36089.00 54.68 33741.00 93.49 30.00 0.00 101223.00 116.41
2 Bajra 57500.00 48279.00 83.96 46562.00 96.44 8.00 0.00 37249.60 29.80
3 Tur 196000.00 86888.00 44.33 84527.00 97.28 11.00 0.00 92979.70 418.41
4 Horse gram 8000.00 2859.00 35.74 2852.00 99.76 5.00 0.00 1426.00 4.99
5 Green gram 25000.00 3373.00 13.49 3373.00 100.00 8.00 0.00 2698.40 16.19
6 Moth bean 5000.00 1469.00 29.38 1467.00 99.86 5.00 0.00 733.50 5.87
7 Groundnut 35500.00 16596.00 46.75 16596.00 100.00 12.00 0.00 19915.20 119.49
8 Sunflower 18000.00 18507.00 102.82 18496.00 99.94 12.00 0.00 22195.20 99.88
9 Cotton 10300.00 10175.00 98.79 10175.00 100.00 15.00 0.00 15262.50 68.68
10 Sugarcane
(yield in t) 46683.00 46683.00 100.00 44139.00 94.55 75.00 25.00 2206950.00 441.39
Total 467983.00 270918.00 57.89 261928.00 96.68 181.00 25.00 2500633.10 1321.11
Source: Joint Director of Agriculture Bijapur
74
The targeted crop area in the district during 2012 was 4.67 lakh ha. Of the
target only 2.7 lakh ha area was sown. Out of the actual sown area, about 2.62
lakh ha was affected to the extent of more than 50 per cent.
Loss of crop yield in the district was in the order of 22.07 lakh tons in case
of sugarcane. This was followed by 1.01 lakh tons in maize, 0.92 lakh tons in red
gram, 0.037 lakh tons in bajra, 0.022 lakh tons in sunflower, 0.019 lakh tons in
groundnut, 0.015 lakh tons in cotton, 0.0026 lakh tons in green gram, 0.0014
lakh tons in horse gram and 0.0014 lakh tons in moth bean.
In terms of value loss of output, highest loss was noticed in sugarcane (₹
441.39 crore). This was followed by red gram (₹ 418.41 crore), groundnut (₹
119.49 crore), maize (₹116.41 crore), sunflower (₹ 99.88), cotton (₹ 68.68 crore),
bajra (₹ 29.80 crore), green gram (₹ 16.19 crore), moth bean (₹ 5.87 crore) and
horse gram (₹ 4.99 crore). Total economic loss due to loss in output was of the
order of ₹ 1321 crores.
4.1.15 Economic loss due to drought in Bijapur district
Total economic loss due to negative impact of drought in the district during
2012 is worked out as sum of input loss and output loss. The data are presented
in Table 4.15.
Estimated input economic loss was highest in sugarcane at about ₹
39,063 lakhs followed by red gram (₹ 19,441 lakhs), maize (₹ 9,954 lakhs), bajra
(₹ 6845 lakhs), groundnut (₹ 3,651 lakh), sunflower (₹ 2,589), green gram (₹ 540
lakhs), horse gram (₹ 465 lakh), and moth bean (₹ 235 lakhs), respectively.
The district as a whole suffered an economic loss of about ₹ 87,284 lakhs
due to loss in inputs only during the drought of 2012.
In terms of estimated value loss of output, highest loss was noticed in
sugarcane (₹ 441.39 crore). This was followed by red gram (₹ 418.41 crore),
groundnut (₹ 119.49 crore), maize (₹116.41 crore), sunflower (₹ 99.88 crore),
cotton (₹ 68.68 crore), bajra (₹ 29.80 crore), green gram (₹ 16.19 crore), moth
bean (₹ 5.87 crore) and horse gram (₹ 4.99 crore).
Based on both input loss and output loss, the estimated loss suffered by
farmers in Bijapur district would be worth ₹ 2,19,395 lakhs. The loss was highest
75
Table 4.15 Total Economic loss due to drought in Bijapur district
Crops Maize Bajra Tur Horse
gram
Green
gram
Moth
bean
Ground
nut Sunflower Cotton Sugarcane
Total
affected
Estimated input value loss
Total area affected
(ha) 33741.00 46562.00 84527.00 2852.00 3373.00 1467.00 16596.00 18496.00 10175.00 44139.00 262196.00
Cost of cultivation
(₹/ha) 29500.00 14700.00 23000.00 16000.00 16000.00 16000.00 22000.00 14000.00 44000.00 88500.00 -
Total Estimated loss
(₹ Lakhs) 9953.60 6844.61 19441.21 456.32 539.68 234.72 3651.12 2589.44 4477.00 39063.02 87283.67
Estimated output loss
Area affected more
than 50 % (ha) 33741.00 46562.00 84527.00 2852.00 3373.00 1467.00 16596.00 18496.00 10175.00 44139.00 261928.00
Loss in yield (t) 101223.00 37249.60 92979.70 1426.00 2698.40 733.50 19915.20 22195.20 15262.50 2206950.00 2500633.10
Value loss of output
(₹ Lakhs) 11641.00 2980.00 41841.00 499.00 1619.00 587.00 11949.00 9988.00 6868.00 44139.00 132111.00
Total Value loss(₹
Lakhs) 21594.60 9824.61 61282.21 955.32 2158.68 821.72 15600.12 12577.44 11345.00 83202.02 219394.67
Source: Joint Director of Agriculture Bijapur
76
in sugarcane (₹ 83,202 lakhs), followed by tur (₹ 61,282 lakhs), maize (₹ 21,595
lakhs), groundnut (₹ 15,600 lakhs), sunflower (₹ 12,577 lakhs), cotton (₹ 11,345
lakhs), bajra (₹ 9,825 lakhs), green gram (₹ 2,158 lakhs), horse gram (₹ 955
lakhs) and moth bean (₹ 822 lakhs).
4.2 Socio-economic profile of farmers in drought affected area of Bijapur
district
An attempt has been made in the study to examine some of the important
socio-economic characteristics of sample farmers and the same are presented
below.
4.2.1 Age of sample farmers
Table 4.16 presents the age group classification of sample farmers.
Majority of the farmers (47.5%) belonged to middle age group (36 – 50 years).
Young farmers (<35 years) accounted for about 32 per cent and the remaining
(21%) were old (50> years). There were differences in age group across farm
size categories.
4.2.2 Literacy level of sample respondents
It can be observed from Table 4.17 that in the district majority of farmers
(35 %) belonged to illiterate group. Of the remaining, about 24.17 per cent
studied up to primary level, about 16 per cent up to secondary level and 12 per
cent up to secondary school. About eight per cent of sample farmers were
educated up to pre university level and about four per cent completed the
degree. A marginal portion of sample farmers (0.83 %) were post graduates.
Variation in literacy levels were noticed across farm size groups.
4.2.3 Family type of sample farmers
Most of the farming families in the district were nuclear families (78.33%)
and joint families accounted for 21.67 per cent of the sample in the district.
Average family size in the nuclear family was five members, whereas in
joint family it was 20 members.
Variations noticed in both family type and size across farm size groups
were not significant.
77
Table 4.16 Age of the respondents in the study area
Age (Years) Large Percentage Medium Percentage Small Percentage Total Percentage
Young (<35) 16 40.00 15 37.50 07 17.50 38 31.67
Middle (36-50) 19 47.50 13 32.50 25 62.50 57 47.50
Old (50<) 05 12.50 12 30.00 08 20.00 25 20.83
Grand Total 40 100.00 40 100.00 40 100.00 120 100.00
78
Table 4.17 Literacy level of the sample farmers in the study area
Education Large Percentage Medium Percentage Small Percentage Total Percentage
Illiterate 13 32.50 12 30.00 17 42.50 42 35.00
Primary (1-7) 13 32.50 8 20.00 8 20.00 29 24.17
Secondary (8-9) 3 7.50 11 27.50 5 12.50 19 15.83
SSLC 5 12.50 4 10.00 5 12.50 14 11.67
PUC 4 10.00 3 7.50 3 7.50 10 8.33
Degree 1 2.50 2 5.00 2 5.00 5 4.17
Postgraduate 1 2.50 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.83
Total 40 100.00 40 100.00 40 100.00 120 100.00
79
Table 4.18 Family type of respondents in the study area
Family type Large Percentage Medium Percentage Small Percentage Total Percentage
Nuclear family 32 (5.69) 80.00 31 (5.29) 77.50 31 (5.39) 77.50 94 (5.46) 78.33
Joint family 8 (28.25) 20.00 9 (17.33) 22.50 9 (16.22) 22.50 26 (20.31) 21.67
Grand Total 40 100.00 40 100.00 40 100.00 120 100.00
Note: Values in the parentheses indicate average family size.
80
4.2.4 Occupation of sample farmers
Agriculture was the main occupation of majority (80.83 %) of the farmers
in the district. And non-agriculture occupation (teaching, driver, carpentry, stone
mining) was practiced by 19.19 per cent of the respondents. Similar results were
observed in different farm size classes also.
Subsidiary occupation was followed by the 90 per cent of the sample
farmers (Table 4.19) in the district. 78.70 per cent of the farmers practiced non-
agriculture occupation (agricultural daily wages, carpentry work, stone mining,
and auto or tractor-driving) as the secondary key occupation. This was followed
by agriculture (19.97 %).
In different farm size classifications, small farmers were more relayed on
Agriculture as secondary occupation that means small farmers are more
primarily more relayed on non-agricultural occupation as primary occupation.
4.2.5 Asset position of sample farmers
Table 4.20 indicates the asset position of sample households in Bijapur
district Land, farm implements, buildings, vehicles, machinery livestock and
some financial instruments like LIC and savings formed components of assets.
Asset position of farmers is an indicator of risk to farm household in times of
crisis. Average value of assets of households across farm classes was about
₹11.16 lakhs. Among the farming categories large farmers (21.49 lakhs) owned
higher asset value compared to medium (8.05 lakhs) and small (3.94 lakhs).
Per cent contribution to total asset was more in case of land of about 94
per cent. This was followed by buildings (2.70 %), vehicles (1.30 %) livestock
(0.96 %), machinery (0.25 %), farm implements (0.13 %) and savings in the form
of life insurance (0.12 %).
4.3 Impact of drought on livelihoods of farmers in the study area
Impact of drought in the district is studied in terms of its effects on
changes in cropping pattern, loss in crop yield and value, loss in livestock loss in
milk yield, fodder situation, changes in consumption, expenditure and income
pattern, employment situations, accessibility to credit facilities, drinking water are
discussed under different sub heads.
81
Table 4.19 Occupation of sample respondents
Occupation Large Percentag
e Medium
Percentage
Small Percentag
e total
Percentage
Main Occupation
Agriculture 35 87.50 36 90.00 26 65.00 97 80.83
Non-Agriculture 5 12.5 4 10.00 14 35 23 19.17
Grand Total 40 100.00 40 100.00 40 100.00 120 100.00
Subsidiary Occupation
Agriculture 5 12.50 4 10.00 14 35.00 23 19.17
Non-Agriculture 29 85.29 34 89.47 22 61.11 85 78.70
Grand Total 34 100.00 38 100.00 36 100.00 108 100.00
82
Table 4.20 Asset position of the respondents in the study area
(Value in ₹Lakhs)
Farmers/Particulars Large Medium Small Average
Land Value 142.77 53.17 25.33 73.78
Percent 94.90 94.35 91.95 94.42
Farm implements Value 0.36 0.13 0.09 0.20
Percent 0.24 0.09 0.06 0.13
Buildings Value 3.74 1.50 1.09 2.11
Percent 2.49 2.67 3.94 2.70
Vehicles Value 1.81 0.67 0.56 1.01
Percent 1.21 1.18 2.03 1.30
Machinery Value 0.37 0.12 0.08 0.20
Percent 0.25 0.22 0.31 0.25
Livestock Value 1.21 0.69 0.36 0.75
Percent 0.80 1.22 1.30 0.96
LIC/Savings Value 0.17 0.07 0.04 0.09
Percent 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.12
Average Value 21.49 8.05 3.94 11.16
83
Table 4.21 presents cropping pattern of sample farmers in Bijapur district.
Bajra, maize, sorghum, and wheat were the major cereal food crops, red gram
and chickpea were pulses, groundnut and sunflower were oil seeds. Onion was
the seasonal horticultural crop grown in different seasons. Lime, grape,
pomegranate and custard apple were the major perennial crops cultivated in the
study area. Sugarcane was the only cash crop cultivated. Field crops as well as
horticultural crops were grown in all three seasons by the farmers.
4.3.1 Cropping pattern of farmer respondents during 2012 drought
In any normal year crops were taken up in all three seasons of the year
namely kharif, rabi and summer.
Kharif season 2012
Normal cropping pattern during kharif included bajra, red gram, sunflower,
groundnut, maize, onion and other minor crops.
Among these crops, across different farming categories, farmers on an
average, cultivated 2.94 ha of land. Out of total area cultivated red gram
occupied highest per cent area of about 59 per cent (1.74 ha). Bajra, sunflower,
maize, groundnut, other crops and onion occupied, on an average, 17 per cent
(0.5 ha), 7 per cent (0.22 ha), 5 per cent (0.16 ha), 5 per cent (0.15 ha), and 4
per cent (0.12 ha) 2 per cent (0.06 ha) of land, respectively.
Among different farming categories, Large farmers (5.22 ha) cultivated
higher acreages of land when compared to that of medium farmers (2.48 ha) and
small farmers (1.12 ha).
Rabi season 2012
During rabi, sorghum, chickpea, wheat, and other crops were grown by
farmers across the different farm categories.
Farmers grew sorghum, chickpea, wheat and other crops on about 51 per
cent (0.55 ha), 33 per cent (0.35 ha), 11 per cent (0.12 ha) and five percentage
(0.05 ha) area, respectively.
Different farming categories cultivated on an average area about 1.07 ha
land. Among farming categories, large farmers cultivated, on an average about
84
Table 4.21 Cropping pattern of farmer respondents during the drought 2012 (Area in ha/HH)
Season/Crop Large Farmers Medium Farmers Small Farmers Average
Area Percentage Area Percentage Area Percentage Area Percentage
Kharif
Bajra 0.76 14.56 0.49 19.67 0.24 21.18 0.50 16.84
Ground nut 0.25 4.79 0.16 6.25 0.04 3.56 0.15 5.04
Maize 0.26 4.98 0.17 6.85 0.05 4.45 0.16 5.44
Onion 0.10 1.92 0.06 2.42 0.02 1.78 0.06 2.04
Red Gram 3.10 59.39 1.52 61.19 0.60 53.29 1.74 59.12
Sunflower 0.43 8.24 0.06 2.42 0.17 14.84 0.22 7.44
Other crops 0.32 6.13 0.03 1.21 0.01 0.89 0.12 4.08
Total Average 5.22 100.00 2.48 100.00 1.12 100.00 2.94 100.00
Rabi
Chickpea 0.64 38.10 0.35 30.62 0.06 15.62 0.35 32.67
Sorghum 0.78 46.43 0.59 51.88 0.27 68.01 0.55 51.02
Wheat 0.17 10.12 0.15 13.12 0.05 11.34 0.12 11.34
Other crops 0.09 5.36 0.05 4.37 0.02 5.04 0.05 4.97
Average 1.68 100.00 1.14 100.00 0.40 100.00 1.07 100.00
Summer
Ground nut 0.02 13.33 0.02 26.09
Maize 0.02 13.33 0.02 26.09
Onion 0.11 73.33 0.05 100.00 0.03 100.00 0.06 82.61
Total Average 0.15 100.00 0.05 100.00 0.03 100.00 0.08 100.00
Horticulture/Cash crop
Custard apple 0.01 1.63 0.01 2.48
Grape 0.31 49.69 0.18 48.53 0.07 35.09 0.19 46.10
Lime 0.24 38.29 0.13 33.78 0.10 47.62 0.15 37.80
Pomegranate 0.01 1.63 0.03 8.01 0.01 5.01 0.02 4.14
Sugarcane 0.05 8.76 0.04 9.68 0.02 12.28 0.04 9.48
Total Average 0.61 100.00 0.37 100.00 0.20 100.00 0.40 100.00
Cropping Intensity (%)
100.84 151.06 168.27 103.08
85
1.68 ha, medium farmers cultivated in about 0.05 ha and small farmers cultivated
on 0.08 ha, respectively.
Summer season 2012
During summer, crops like groundnut, maize and onion were grown by the
farmers.
The percentage area covered was highest in case of onion (83 %), while
maize and ground nut occupied about 26 per cent each. Medium and small
farmers, both grew only onion crop during summer in an area of about 0.05 ha
and 0.03 ha each.
Across different farming categories the area cultivated was 0.08 ha. Large
farmers cultivated about 0.15 ha, medium farmers cultivated about 0.05 ha and
small farmers cultivated on 0.03 ha.
Horticulture/cash crops (2012)
Horticulture/cash crops like grape, sugarcane, lime, pomegranate and
custard apple were grown by the farmer respondents.
Farmers cultivated on average area about 0.40 ha. Among the different
crops cultivated grape occupied highest per cent area of about 46 per cent (0.19
ha). Followed by lime 38 per cent (0.15 ha), sugarcane 9 per cent (0.04 ha),
pomegranate 4 per cent (0.02 ha) and custard apple 2 per cent (0.01 ha).
Custard apple was grown only by the large farmers.
The average cropping intensity on farms was 103 per cent, which varied
from 168 per cent in case of small farmers through 151 per cent in case of
medium farmers to 101 per cent in case of large farmers.
4.3.2 Crop yield loss due to drought
Table 4.22 presents crop yield loss due to drought. Cropping pattern of
respondent farmers included bajra, red gram, sunflower, groundnut, maize,
onion, sorghum, chick pea, wheat, grape, sugarcane, lime, pomegranate, custard
apple and other crops in different seasons in the study area during 2012.
86
Kharif season 2012
The average per hectare crop loss during kharif 2012 was worked out at
about 52 per cent across all farm categories and crops. Among the crops, by
percentage loss was found to be highest in bajra about 75 per cent (11.97 q/ha).
This was followed by sunflower 72 per cent (11.72 q/ha), red gram 71 per cent
(7.99 q/ha), other crops 71 per cent (12.79 q/ha), maize 70 per cent (20.47 q/ha),
ground nut 65 per cent (10.64 q/ha) and onion 40 per cent (68.83 q/ha).
Among the farm categories, the loss was highest with small farmers (80
%) when compared with that in case of large (66 %) and medium farmers (58 %).
Rabi season 2012
During rabi, Sorghum, chickpea, wheat and other crops were grown by
farmers.
Among the crops the percentage yield loss was more in case of sorghum
with a per cent loss of about 78 per cent (13 q/ha). The loss in sorghum was
followed by that in chickpea 75 per cent (11 q/ha), wheat 69 per cent (12 q/ha)
and other crops 51 per cent (8 q/ha).
Overall per cent yield loss across the different farming categories was
about 68 per cent (11 q/ha/farmer). With respect to different farming categories,
loss in rabi was highest in case of medium farmers (77 %) followed by small (66
%) and large farmers (65 %).
Summer season 2012
During summer, onion, maize and groundnut crops were grown by the
farmer.
Onion was the only crop cultivated in summer by all the types of farmers.
Average loss to onion in summer was about 43 per cent (65.33 q/ha) across the
farming categories, whereas loss was highest with small farmers (47 %) when
compared medium (43 %) and large farmers (41 %).
Remaining crops like ground nut and maize were cultivated only by large
farmers. However, highest percent loss of about 80 per cent (10 q/ha) was
incurred in case of groundnut followed by maize about 60 per cent (18.75 q/ha).
87
Table 4.22 Crop yield loss due to drought during 2012 (Qtls/ha/HH)
Season/ Crop
Large Farmers Medium Farmers Small Farmers Average
Normal Year
Drought Year
Net qty loss
% Loss
Normal Year
Drought Year
Net qty loss
% Loss
Normal Year
Drought Year
Net qty loss
% Loss Normal
Year Drought
Year Net qty
loss %
Loss
Kharif
Bajra 15.39 4.42 10.97 -71.28 14.86 2.64 12.22 -82.23 17.44 4.73 12.71 -72.88 15.90 3.93 11.97 -75.28
Red Gram 10.95 3.31 7.65 -69.77 11.36 3.89 7.47 -65.76 11.31 2.44 8.87 -78.43 11.21 3.21 7.99 -71.33
Sunflower 16.74 4.77 11.98 -71.51 15.83 6.67 9.17 -57.86 16.04 2.02 14.01 -87.41 16.20 4.49 11.72 -72.31
Ground nut 13.70 3.00 10.70 -78.10 19.52 11.13 8.39 -42.98 15.63 2.81 12.81 -82.02 16.28 5.65 10.64 -65.32
Maize 27.88 7.40 20.48 -73.46 37.06 13.38 23.68 -63.90 22.50 5.25 17.25 -76.67 29.15 8.68 20.47 -70.23
Onion 180.00 129.25 50.75 -28.19 208.33 158.84 49.49 -23.76 125.00 18.75 106.25 -85.00 171.11 102.28 68.83 -40.23
Other crops 16.48 4.77 11.72 -71.06 25.00 8.33 16.67 -66.68 12.50 2.50 10.00 -80.00 17.99 5.20 12.79 -71.10
Average 40.16 22.42 17.75 -66.20 47.42 29.27 18.16 -57.60 31.49 5.50 25.99 -80.34 39.69 19.06 20.63 -51.97
Rabi
Sorghum 17.50 4.58 12.92 -73.83 16.86 3.46 13.41 -79.48 14.63 2.92 11.71 -80.04 16.33 3.65 12.68 -77.63
Chickpea 17.19 5.68 11.50 -66.96 14.07 3.07 11.00 -78.18 13.71 2.32 11.39 -83.08 14.99 3.69 11.30 -75.38
Wheat 16.18 3.75 12.43 -76.82 14.67 5.50 9.17 -62.51 19.44 6.39 13.06 -67.13 16.76 5.21 11.55 -68.90
Other crops 16.48 9.54 6.94 -42.11 13.00 1.50 11.50 -88.46 18.75 12.50 6.25 -33.33 16.08 7.85 8.23 -51.19
Average 16.84 5.89 10.95 -64.93 14.65 3.38 11.27 -77.16 16.63 6.03 10.60 -65.90 16.04 5.10 10.94 -68.20
Summer
Onion 172.73 102.73 70.00 -40.53 150.00 85.00 65.00 -43.33 130.00 69.00 105.00 -46.92 150.91 85.58 65.33 -43.29
Maize 31.25 12.50 18.75 -60.00 31.25 12.50 18.75 -60.00
Ground nut 12.50 2.50 10.00 -80.00 12.50 2.50 10.00 -80.00
Average 72.16 39.24 32.92 -60.18 150.00 85.00 65.00 -43.33 130.00 69.00 105.00 -46.92 64.89 33.53 31.36 -48.33
Horticulture/Cash crop
Custard Apple 75.00 25.00 50.00 -66.67 75.00 25.00 50.00 -66.67
Grape 301.29 170.88 130.41 -43.28 285.89 150.99 134.9 -47.19 240.11 110.98 129.13 -53.78 275.76 144.28 131.48 -47.68
Lemon 239.36 83.40 155.96 -65.16 257.12 89.00 168.12 -65.39 156.84 47.63 209.21 -69.63 217.77 73.34 144.43 -66.32
Pomegranate 175.00 62.50 112.50 -64.29 208.33 83.33 125.00 -60.00 125.00 50.00 75.00 -60.00 169.44 65.28 104.17 -61.48
Sugarcane 816.89 587.28 229.61 -28.11 788.75 487.98 300.77 -38.13 721.89 290.00 431.89 -59.83 775.84 455.09 320.76 -41.34
Average 321.51 185.81 135.70 -53.50 385.02 202.83 182.20 -52.68 310.96 124.65 211.31 -60.81 302.76 152.60 150.17 -49.60
Total Average 112.67 63.34 49.33 -61.20 149.27 80.12 69.16 -57.69 122.27 51.30 88.22 -63.49 105.85 52.57 53.27 -50.33
88
89
Horticulture/Cash crops (2012)
Perennial crops grown by the farmers included lime, pomegranate, and
custard apple.
There was about 50 per cent of yield loss across different farming
categories among horticulture and cash crop in 2012. Across different farming
categories small farmers (61 %) expressed highest loss when compared with
large farmers (54 %) and medium farmers (53 %).
In the year 2012 because of drought farmers faced a loss of about 50 per
cent (53.27 q/ha/HH) across the different farming categories. Among the different
farming categories small farmers faced highest loss of about 63 per cent followed
by large (61 %) and medium farmers (58 %).
4.3.3 Crop value loss due to drought
Table 4.23 represents the value loss observed due to drought in three
seasons of the year 2012.
Kharif value loss 2012
Among the different crops grown by the farmers across different farm
categories, average per cent value loss was about 54 per cent (₹ 35, 207/ha).
Percentage value loss was in the order of about 75 per cent (₹ 32,350/ha maize),
73 per cent (sunflower, ₹ 38,281/ha), 72 per cent (red gram, ₹ 32,739/ha), 72 per
cent (bajra, ₹ 16,737/ha), 68 per cent (other crops, ₹ 20,175/ha), 63 per cent
(ground nut ₹ 36,896/ha) and 34 per cent (onion, ₹ 69,269/ha).
Among the different farm categories, in kharif season small farmers were
affected to the extent 79 per cent (₹ 33,150/ha) when compared with large
farmers 68 per cent (₹ 39,177/ha) and medium farmers 57 per cent (₹
33,291/ha).
Rabi value loss 2012
In rabi season the percentage value loss at the farmers was in the order
of, about 76 per cent (chick pea, ₹ 36,266/ha), 69 per cent (wheat, ₹ 31,068/ha),
61 per cent (sorghum, ₹ 25,669/ha) and 42 per cent (other crops, ₹ 36,466/ha),
over the different farming categories.
90
Table 4.23 Crop value loss due to drought during 2012
(₹/ha/HH)
Season/ Crop Large Farmers Medium Farmers Small Farmers Average
Normal Year
Drought Year
Net value loss
% Loss
Normal Year
Drought Year
Net value loss
% Loss
Normal Year
Drought Year
Net loss %
Loss Normal
Year Drought
Year Net loss
% Loss
Kharif
Bajra 22927.16 6944.66 15982.50 -69.71 24216.19 4810.45 19405.74 -80.14 22351.03 7529.60 14821.43 -66.31 23164.79 6428.24 16736.56 -72.25
Red Gram 48638.85 14684.78 33954.07 -69.81 43750.00 14685.44 29064.56 -66.43 44617.68 9418.11 35199.57 -78.89 45668.84 12929.44 32739.40 -71.69 Sunflower 54000.00 16104.65 37895.35 -70.18 49875.00 20708.33 29166.67 -58.48 53991.81 6210.03 47781.77 -88.50 52622.27 14341.00 38281.27 -72.75
Ground nut 50690.00 8050.00 42640.00 -84.12 66354.84 45932.42 20422.41 -30.78 59375.00 11750.00 47625.00 -80.21 58806.61 21910.81 36895.81 -62.74
Maize 33628.85 6225.00 27403.85 -81.49 65882.35 17735.29 48147.06 -73.08 30000.00 8500.00 21500.00 -71.67 43170.40 10820.10 32350.30 -74.94
Onion 279000.00 188650.00 90350.00 -32.38 270833.33 206500.00 64333.33 -23.75 62500.00 9375.00 53125.00 -85.00 204111.11 134841.67 69269.44 -33.94
Other crops 39768.55 13752.93 26015.63 -65.42 33750.00 11240.50 22504.00 -66.69 15000.00 3000.00 12000.00 -80.00 29506.18 9331.14 20175.04 -68.38 Average 75521.92 36344.57 39177.34 -67.59 79237.39 45944.63 33291.97 -57.05 41119.36 7968.96 33150.40 -78.65 65292.89 30086.06 35206.83 -53.92 Rabi
Sorghum 33375.00 10573.72 22801.28 -68.32 49091.25 20214.77 28876.48 -58.82 44766.67 19437.96 25328.70 -56.58 42410.97 16742.15 25668.82 -60.52
Chickpea 59726.56 17824.22 41902.34 -70.16 40963.49 7434.92 33528.57 -81.85 41951.61 8584.68 33366.94 -79.54 47547.22 11281.27 36265.95 -76.27
Wheat 46911.76 10191.18 36720.59 -78.28 34320.00 12420.00 21900.00 -63.81 52986.11 18402.78 34583.33 -65.27 44739.29 13671.32 31067.97 -69.44
Other crops 31320.31 17598.09 13722.22 -43.81 46800.00 9900.00 36900.00 -78.85 181250.00 122474.63 58775.37 -32.43 86456.77 49990.91 36465.86 -42.18 Average 42833.41 14046.80 28786.61 -65.14 42793.69 12492.42 30301.26 -70.83 80238.60 42225.01 38013.59 -58.45 55288.56 22921.41 32367.15 -58.54 Summer
Onion 251818.18 149767.16 102051.02 -40.53 262500.00 42500.00 220000.00 -83.81 200000.00 20000.00 180000.0
0 -90.00 238106.06 70755.72 167350.34 -70.28
Maize 78125.00 59375.00 18750.00 -24.00 78125.00 59375.00 18750.00 -24.00
Ground nut 50000.00 10000.00 40000.00 -80.00 50000.00 10000.00 40000.00 -80.00
Average 126647.73 73047.39 53600.34 -48.18 262500.00 42500.00 220000.00 -83.81 200000.00 20000.00 180000.0
0 -90.00 196382.58 45182.46 151200.11 -76.99
Horticulture/Cash crop
Custard Apple 112500.00 37500.00 75000.00 -66.67 112500.00 37500.00 75000.00 -66.67
Grape 93399.90 52972.80 40427.10 -43.28 88625.90 46806.90 41819.00 -47.19 74434.10 34403.80 40030.30 -53.78 85486.63 44727.83 40758.80 -47.68
Lemon 512917.93 175471.12 337446.81 -65.79 509098.10 211234.18 297863.92 -58.51 300505.44 91259.08 209246.3
6 -69.63 440840.49 159321.46 281519.03 -63.86
Pomegranate 2625000.0
0 937500.00
1687500.00
-64.29 208333.33 83333.33 125000.00 -60.00 187500.00 75000.00 112500.0
0 -60.00
1006944.44
365277.78 641666.67 -63.72
Sugarcane 1075027.2
4 772860.48 302166.76 -28.11 954687.23 590641.23 364045.99 -38.13 908808.98 362769.70
543719.28
-60.08 979507.81 575423.80 403310.68 -41.25
Average 835954.46 300860.98 535093.48 -60.01 268685.78 113791.47 154894.31 -55.23 187479.85 66887.63 120592.2
2 -61.14 430706.69 160513.36 270193.33 -62.73
Total Average
270239.38 106074.94 164164.44 -60.23 163304.21 53682.13 109621.88 -66.73 127209.45 34270.40 92939.05 -72.06 186917.68 64675.82 122241.86 -65.40
91
92
Among the different farm categories in rabi season, medium farmers faced
highest percentage loss 71 per cent (₹ 30,301/ha), followed by large farmers 65
per cent (₹ 28,787/ha) and small farmers 58 per cent (₹ 38,014/ha).
Summer value loss 2012
In summer onion, maize and ground nut crops were grown by the large
farmers. And onion was the only crop cultivated by the medium and small
farmers.
Summer season on an average anticipated 80 per cent (₹ 1,51,200/ha)
value loss across the different farm categories. Highest per cent loss was in the
direction of, about 80 per cent (ground nut, ₹ 40,000/ha), 70 per cent (maize, ₹
18,750/ha) and 24 per cent (onion, ₹ 1,67,350/ha).
Wherein small farmers anticipated about 90 per cent (₹ 1,80,000/ha) value
loss, medium farmers anticipated 84 per cent (₹ 2,20,000/ha) value loss by the
onion crop and large farmers anticipated about 48 per cent (₹ 53,600/ha) value
loss.
Horticulture/Cash crops 2012
Perennial crops included grape, custard apple, lime, and pomegranate
and cash crops included sugarcane. Per cent value loss across the different
farm categories was in the order of 67 per cent in custard apple (₹ 75,000/ha), 64
per cent both in lime and pomegranate (₹ 2,81,519/ha and ₹ 6,41,667/ha) and
grape 48 per cent (40,758/ha). In case of sugarcane it was about 41 per cent
(4,03,300/ha).
Overall, in the year 2012 because of drought farmers across the different
farming categories incurred a loss ₹ 1,22,241/ha/household which was about 65
per cent of their expected income. Among the different farming categories small
farmers were more seriously by losing 72 per cent of crop value when compared
with medium (67 %) and large farmers (60 %).
4.3.4 Loss of livestock (number) due to drought condition
Loss in livestock is assumed in terms of number of herds during drought
and normal periods. Accordingly the average loss in livestock among the sample
households is given in Table 4.24.
93
The average value of livestock which was 0.90/household in a normal
period reduced to 0.45/household indicating 50 per cent loss.
The average loss among different animals, loss was highest in case of
sheep and goat (60 %), followed by cross bred (57 %), buffalo (50 %), cow (39
%). The loss was lowest in case of bullocks (34 %).
Among the farm categories, the loss in livestock was highest in case of
medium farmers (61 %) followed by that in case of small farmers (52 %) and
large farmers (37 %).
4.3.5 Livestock value loss due to drought
The average loss in livestock value among the sample households is
presented in Table 4.25.
The overall average value of livestock which was ₹ 22,060/animal during
normal times reduced to ₹ 18,754/animal thereby indicating 16 per cent loss of
livestock value.
The average value loss among different categories of animals was highest
in case of bullocks (29 %), followed by sheep and goat (25 %), cow (14 %), cross
bred (12 %) and least among was buffalo (1 %).
Among the farm categories, the loss in livestock value was highest in case
of large farmers (24 %) followed by medium (13 %) and small farmers (8 %).
4.3.6 Loss in milk production in drought condition
Table 4.26 indicates milk yield loss, number of milking days and value loss
to the household.
In terms loss in milk yield, there was about 30 per cent decrease in milk
yield among different farm categories. However, the percentage milk yield loss
was more in case of small farmers (38.76 %), when compared to large (28.61 %)
and medium farmers (21.90 %).
About 18 per cent reduction in number of milking days was noticed across
all farm categories. Reduction in milking period was more among medium
farmers (20.29 %), as compared to large farmers (17.83 %) and small farmers
(15.95 %).
94
Table 4.24 Loss of livestock (number) due to drought
(Animals/HH)
Livestock
Large Farmer Medium Farmer Small Farmer Average
Normal Drought Sold %
Sold Normal Drought Sold
% Sold
Normal Drought Sold %
Sold Normal Drought Sold
% Sold
Cow 0.75 0.52 0.23 -30.67 0.80 0.40 0.40 -50.00 0.55 0.37 0.18 -32.73 0.70 0.43 0.27 -38.57
Buffalo 1.28 0.80 0.48 -37.50 0.53 0.10 0.43 -81.13 0.38 0.20 0.18 -47.37 0.73 0.37 0.36 -49.77
Cross Bred
0.23 0.10 0.13 -56.52 - - - - - - - - 0.23 0.10 0.13 -56.52
Bullock 1.03 0.85 0.18 -17.48 1.00 0.60 0.40 -40.00 0.68 0.35 0.33 -48.53 0.90 0.60 0.30 -33.58
Goat 2.83 1.55 1.28 -45.23 2.00 0.55 1.45 -72.50 0.93 0.20 0.73 -78.49 1.92 0.77 1.15 -60.07
Average 1.22 0.76 0.46 -37.48 1.08 0.41 0.67 -60.91 0.64 0.28 0.36 -51.78 0.90 0.45 0.45 -50.00
95
Table 4.25 Livestock value loss due to drought
(₹/animals/HH)
Livestock
Large Farmer Medium Farmer Small Farmer Average
Value in Normal season
Sold value in Drought
Value Loss
% Value Loss
Value in Normal season
Sold value in Drought
Value Loss
% Value Loss
Value in Normal season
Sold value in Drought
Value Loss
% Value Loss
Value in Normal season
Sold value in Drought
Value Loss
% Value Loss
Cow 18500.00 13083.33 -5416.67 -29.28 20000.00 19312.50 687.50 -3.44 19818.18 17071.43 -2746.75 -13.86 19439.39 16718.25 -2721.14 -14.00
Buffalo 22313.73 19973.68 -2340.05 -10.49 20470.59 20333.33 137.26 -0.67 21866.67 24571.43 -2704.76 -12.37 21671.90 21550.33 -121.57 -0.56
Cross Bred
34000.00 30000.00 -4000.00 -11.76 - - - - - - - - 34000.00 30000.00 -4000.00 -11.76
Bullock 27780.49 21428.57 -6351.92 -22.86 25000.00 14937.50 10062.50 -40.25 24074.07 18076.92 -5997.15 -24.91 25618.19 18147.66 -7470.52 -29.16
Goat 14061.95 7656.86 -6405.09 -45.55 7500.00 6879.31 620.69 -8.28 7517.24 7162.16 -355.08 -4.72 9693.06 7232.78 -2460.29 -25.38
Average 23331.23 18428.49 -4902.75 -23.99 18242.65 15365.66 2876.99 -13.16 18319.04 16720.49 -1598.56 -7.78 22060.19 18754.12 -3354.70 -16.17
96
An economic analysis of loss due to reduction in milk production revealed
that, on an average, the value of milk during normal period which was ₹
7,217/HH reduced by 49 per cent to ₹ 3,672/HH.
4.3.7 Fodder situation during drought
Table 4.27 presents the reduction in fodder production and the extent of
fodder purchased by the farmers during drought.
Fodder situation in terms of quantity
On an average, the quantity of fodder produced by all categories of
farmers decreased by about 67 per cent due to drought. However the reduction
was highest in case of small farmers (70 %) when compared to large (68 %) and
medium farmers (60 %).
Fodder purchased during drought increased about 86 per cent (0.5
ton/HH) in different farm categories. Small famers purchased relatively more
fodder (115 %), when compared to large (96 %) and medium farmers (52 %).
Fodder situation in terms of value
On an average, the value of fodder produced during drought accounted
for 55 per cent of production during normal season. Among different farm
categories, small farmers (57 %) produced lower quantity of fodder, when
compared with large farmers (56 %) and medium farmers (49 %).
On an average, during drought period the fodder purchase increased from
2,488 tons/HH to 7906 tons/HH showing an increase of about 218 per cent.
Among the farm categories per cent increase in value of fodder purchase was
highest in case of small farmers (277 %) when compared to large (241 %) and
medium farmers (143 %).
4.3.8 Consumption pattern of respondents during drought and normal
seasons
Consumption pattern of respondents in the study area is presented in
Table 4.28. The consumption of households mainly included cereals, pulses,
fruits and vegetables. There was a change in consumption expenditure pattern of
farmers during drought compared with normal season.
97
Table 4.26 Loss of milk yield, milking period (days), and value due to drought (2012)
Farmer Season Yield (ltr/Annum/HH) Value (₹/Annum/HH) Milking period (Days/HH)
Large Farmer
Normal 3.53 15965.08 122.69
Drought 2.52 8765.29 100.82
Loss 1.01 7199.79 21.87
% Loss -28.61 -45.10 -17.83
Medium Farmer
Normal 1.58 2763.65 90.08
Drought 1.23 1250.80 71.80
Loss 0.35 1512.85 18.28
% Loss -22.15 -54.74 -20.29
Small farmer
Normal 1.78 2922.50 95.18
Drought 1.09 1002.80 80.18
Loss 0.69 1919.70 15.00
% Loss -38.76 -65.69 -15.76
Average
Normal 2.30 7217.08 102.65
Drought 1.61 3672.96 84.27
Loss 0.68 3544.11 18.38
% Loss -29.75 -49.11 -17.91
98
Table 4.27 Fodder situation during drought (2012)
(Quantity in t/HH)
Fodder/Farmers Large farmers Medium Farmers Small farmers Average
Quantity
Produced
Normal 0.91 0.45 0.50 0.62
Drought 0.29 0.18 0.15 0.21
Loss 0.62 0.27 0.35 0.41
% Loss -68.13 -60.00 -70.00 -66.67
Purchased
Normal 0.84 0.56 0.34 0.58
Drought 1.65 0.85 0.73 1.08
Additional 0.81 0.29 0.39 0.50
% Loss 96.43 51.79 114.71 85.63
Value (₹)
Produced
Normal 3975.00 1700.00 2012.50 2562.50
Drought 1762.50 862.50 862.50 1162.50
Loss 2212.50 837.50 1150.00 1400.00
% Loss -55.66 -49.26 -57.14 -54.63
Purchased
Normal 3537.50 2350.00 1575.00 2487.50
Drought 12075.00 5706.25 5937.50 7906.25
Loss -8537.50 -3356.25 -4362.50 -5418.75
% Loss 241.34 142.82 276.98 217.84
99
Overall, there was about 20 per cent fall in consumption expenditure of
households per annum during drought. The fall was highest among medium
farmers (21.52 %) followed by large farmers (18.97 %) and small farmers (18.63
%).
On an average, among the consumption items, the household
consumption expenditure for cereals declined by 1.78 per cent per annum. The
decrease was more in case of medium farmers (3.90 %) followed by small (1.44
%) and large farmers (2.05 %).
Expenditure on pulses reduced to the tune of about 37 per cent among
different farm categories. Expenditure of medium farmers (39.42 %) was higher
when compared to small farmers (37.06 %) and large farmers (34.78 %).
There was a large reduction in consumption expenditure of fruits and
vegetables, (43.51%) across different farm categories. Medium farmers
experienced more reduction (49 %) in expenditure when compared with small
(40.39 %) and large farmers (40.39 %).
4.3.9 Expenditure pattern of respondents during drought and normal
seasons
Expenditure pattern of a household included expenditure on food items,
clothing, education, transport, entertainment, medical, social participation and
farming (Table 4.29).
The total household expenditure of sample respondents noticed about 24
per cent decrease during drought over the normal year.
Across different consumption items, highest reduction was noticed in the
purchase of cloths (58.37 %). It was followed by reduction in entertainment
(36.85 %), social participation (35.44 %), transport (32.72 %), farming (21.95 %),
food items (19.70 %), and education (2.70 %). There was about one per cent
increase in medical expenditure during drought.
100
Table 4.28 Food consumption pattern of respondents during the drought and normal seasons
(₹/Annum/HH)
Particulars/Farmers Large Farmers Medium Farmers Small Farmers Average
Cereals
Normal 26,212.50 24,937.50 22,131.25 24,427.08
Drought 26,200.00 23,962.50 21,812.50 23,991.67
Change 12.50 975.00 318.75 435.41
% Change -0.05 -3.91 -1.44 -1.78
Pulses
Normal 17,537.50 13,412.50 12,631.25 14,527.08
Drought 11,437.50 8,125.00 7,950.00 9,170.83
Change 6,100.00 5,287.50 4,681.25 5,356.25
% Change -34.78 -39.42 -37.06 -36.87
Fruits/Veg
Normal 10,212.50 7,350.00 6,150.00 7,904.17
Drought 6,087.50 3,777.50 3,530.00 4,465.00
Change 4,125.00 3,572.50 2,620.00 3,439.17
% Change -40.39 -48.61 -42.60 -43.51
Average
Normal 17,987.50 15,233.33 13,637.50 15,619.44
Drought 14,575.00 11,955.00 11,097.50 12,542.50
Change 3,412.50 3,278.33 2,540.00 3,076.94
% Change -18.97 -21.52 -18.63 -19.70
101
4.3.10 Change in the income of respondents during drought over normal
years
Principal income sources of farmer respondents included income from
agricultural crops, horticultural crops, dairy, farm wages, off-farm wages and
salary (Table 4.30).
The income of average household which was ₹66,401 per annum reduced
to ₹32,121 per annum indicating about 52 per cent reduction. Among the
different farm categories, per cent loss was highest in case of large farmers (54
%) when compared to medium farmers (47 %) and small farmers (49 %).
Field crops lead the list with loss of about 72 per cent followed by loss in
horticultural crops (67 %), dairy (62 %), farm wages (34 %), and off farm wages
(15 %). No loss in salary income was observed during drought in the study area.
4.3.11 Employment situation during drought and normal periods
Table 4.31 indicates the agriculture and non-agriculture employment
pattern of respondents in drought situation.
Average agriculture employment days to of the respondents family across
the different farm size classification was about 24 per cent. And highest per cent
loss was noticed in case of medium farmers (27 %), when compared to the large
farmers (24 %) and small farmers (19 %). And in case of non-agriculture average
percentage loss of employment was seven Per cent. And small farmers (10%)
were affected much when compared to medium farmers (2 %) and large farmers
(7 %).
4.3.12 Credit accessibility of drought affected farmers
Table 4.32 presents a picture of farmer’s barrowings from formal and non-
formal sources during normal and drought periods.
On an average all farmers barrowed ₹ 18,450 per annum during normal
period, in which share of formal source and non-formal source was ₹ 15,508 and
₹ 2,942. And during drought farmers barrowed ₹ 41,183 per annum, in which
share of formal source and non-formal sources was ₹ 29,475 and ₹ 11,708
respectively.
102
Table 4.29 Expenditure pattern of respondents during drought and normal season
(Value in ₹/HH)
Particulars/Farmers Large Medium Small Average
Food Consumption
Normal 17,987.50 15,233.33 13,637.50 15,619.44
Drought 14,575.00 11,955.00 11,097.50 12,542.50
% Change -17.44 -21.52 -18.63 -19.70
Clothing
Normal 11100.00 9750.00 8375.00 9742.00
Drought 6087.50 3950.00 2130.00 4056.00
% Change -45.16 -59.49 -74.57 -58.37
Education
Normal 11912.50 4400.00 4025.00 6779.00
Drought 11537.50 4500.00 3750.00 6596.00
% Change -3.15 2.27 -6.83 -2.70
Transport
Normal 14907.50 10137.50 8680.00 11242.00
Drought 10681.30 6345.00 5665.00 7564.00
% Change -28.35 -37.41 -34.74 -32.72
Entertainment
Normal 4662.50 3875.00 3020.00 3853.00
Drought 3200.00 2250.00 1847.50 2433.00
% Change -31.37 -41.94 -38.82 -36.85
Medical
Normal 9425.00 6712.50 4680.00 6939.00
Drought 9937.50 6375.00 4695.00 7003.00
% Change 5.44 -5.03 0.32 0.92
Social Participation
Normal 12800.00 9100.00 8225.00 10042.00
Drought 9150.00 5575.00 4725.00 6483.00
% Change -28.52 -38.74 -42.55 -35.44
Farming
Normal 72500.00 43400.00 31085.00 48995.00
Drought 59550.00 32525.00 22650.00 38242.00
% Change -17.86 -25.06 -27.14 -21.95
Average
Normal 23783.75 16634.38 13625.31 18014.48
Drought 19233.60 12173.13 9844.38 13750.37
% Change -19.13 -26.82 -27.75 -23.67
103
Table 4.30 Income Pattern of respondents during the drought and normal year
(₹/HH/Annum)
Farmers Large Medium Small Average
Field crops
Normal 270058.75 125738.25 50865.00 148887.33
Drought 70035.00 42928.00 14013.75 42325.58
% Change
-74.07 -65.86 -72.45 -71.57
Horticultural crops
Normal 144250.00 54000.00 63875.00 88208.33
Drought 49450.00 19587.50 17937.50 28991.67
% Change
-65.72 -63.73 -71.92 -67.13
Dairy
Normal 42621.50 11364.50 8054.75 20680.25
Drought 14352.69 4379.44 5044.31 7925.48
% Change
-66.33 -61.46 -37.37 -61.68
Farm wages
Normal 51741.25 62501.25 58090.00 57444.17
Drought 38616.25 42127.50 32967.50 37903.75
% Change
-25.37 -32.60 -43.25 -34.02
Off farm wages
Normal 86950.00 28025.00 37338.75 50771.25
Drought 76575.00 27375.00 25545.00 43165.00
% Change
-11.93 -2.32 -31.59 -14.98
Salary
Normal 40600.00 24600.00 32045.00 32415.00
Drought 40600.00 24600.00 32045.00 32415.00
% Change
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Normal 106036.92 51038.17 41711.42 66401.06
Drought 48271.49 26832.91 21258.84 32121.08
% Change
-54.48 -47.43 -49.03 -51.63
104
Overall, there was increased borrowing by the farmers during drought by
123 per cent over the normal period. Borrowings from formal source have
increased by about 98 per cent, whereas borrowings from non-formal sources,
increased by 307 per cent. There by indicating predominance of non-institutional
sources of credit.
4.3.13 Source of drinking water and distance travelled
Table 4.33 depicts a picture of drinking water, percentage of people
depending upon taps and open wells decreased and the percentage of people
depending on bore-wells and commercial water supply units increased.
Dependency on taps and open wells decreased by 34 per cent and 51 per cent,
respectively. Dependency on commercial water supply units and bore-wells was
increased by 33 per cent and 22 per cent, respectively.
While during a normal season the person of a household travelled an
average distance of 0.73 km to get water and during drought it increased to 1.68
kms. Among the different classes, small farmers had to travel longer distances
(2.10 km) compared to medium (1.5 km) and large farmers (1.43 km)
4.4 Drought coping and mitigation measures adopted by farmers
Present investigation elicited opinion of farmers regarding drought coping
strategies adopted by households during drought and also the relief measures
implemented by different Government Departments.
4.4.1 Coping strategies adopted by farmers during drought
The coping strategies adopted by the households during drought are
classified into farming strategies and off-farm strategies and are presented in
Table 4.34.
105
Table 4.31 Employment situation during drought and normal periods
(Man days/HH/Annum)
Farmers Agriculture Non-Agriculture
Normal Drought % Change Normal Drought % Change
Large 64.13 48.94 -23.68 51.32 47.82 -6.82
Medium 80.07 58.00 -27.56 39.75 39.00 -1.89
Small 83.13 67.07 -19.32 55.69 49.94 -10.33
Average 75.78 58.00 -23.46 48.92 45.59 -6.82
Table 4.32 Credit accessibility of drought affected farmers (₹/HH/Annum)
Farmers Formal Non-formal Total
Normal Drought % Change Normal Drought % Change Normal Drought % Change
Large 13125.00 38250.00 191.43 3000.00 12625.00 320.83 16125.00 50875.00 215.50
Medium 19250.00 27425.00 42.47 4125.00 15125.00 266.67 23375.00 42550.00 82.03
Small 14150.00 22750.00 60.78 1700.00 7375.00 333.82 15850.00 30125.00 90.06
Average 15508.33 29475.00 98.22 2941.67 11708.33 307.11 18450.00 41183.33 123.22
106
Table 4.33 Source and distance travelled for drinking water (Values in No.)
Farmers
Tap Bore well Open well Commercial Water Supply Average distance travelled
(km)
Normal Drought %
Change Normal Drought
% Change
Normal Drought %
Change Normal Drought
% Change
Normal Drought %
Change
Large 12.00 10.00 -16.67 19.00 25.00 31.58 9.00 2.00 -77.78 0.00 3.00 25.00 0.83 1.43 72.29
Medium 14.00 7.00 -50.00 20.00 23.00 15.00 6.00 5.00 -16.67 0.00 5.00 41.67 0.59 1.50 154.24
Small 15.00 10.00 -33.33 20.00 24.00 20.00 5.00 2.00 -60.00 0.00 4.00 33.33 0.78 2.10 169.23
Total 41.00 27.00 -34.15 59.00 72.00 22.19 20.00 9.00 -51.48 0.00 12.00 33.33 0.73 1.68 131.92
107
Farming strategies
Farming strategies included crop diversification, use of resistant crop
varieties, protective irrigation, mixed cropping and bore well recharge.
Ranks were assigned to the strategies as adopted by the farmers. Crop
diversification received the highest rank (I) in terms opinion of farmer
respondents. Similarly rankings assigned were, adoption of drought resistant
crops (II), life saving irrigation (III), mixed cropping/intercropping (IV) and bore-
well recharge (V).
Off-farm strategies
Ranks were also assigned to the off strategies as adopted by the
households. Utilizing past savings received the highest rank (I) in terms opinion
of farmer respondents. Similarly rankings assigned were, sale of assets (II),
additional barrowings (III), reduced consumption expenditure (IV), engaging
woman or children to work (V), migration (VI) and support from drought mitigating
programmes like MNREGA (VI).
108
Table 4.34 Coping strategies adopted by farmers in drought condition
Sl. No
Strategies Mean Score Ranking
Farming strategies
1 Crop diversification 53.17 I
2 Adoption of drought resistant crops 46.67 II
3 Life saving (protective) irrigation 36.00 III
4 Mixed cropping/Intercropping 24.67 IV
5 Bore-well recharge 16.17 V
Off farm strategies
1 Utilizing the past savings 87.83 I
2 Additional barrowings 76.83 II
3 Sale of assets 52.83 III
4 Reduced consumption expenditure 45.00 IV
5 Engaging woman/children to work 34.17 V
6 Migration 17.58 VI
7 Support from drought mitigating programmes (MNREGA, DPAP etc.)
5.18 VII
Drought Prone Area Programme* - -
Crop Insurance* - -
*Included in the schedule but not reported by respondents
109
4.4.2 Kharif agriculture crop loss, Karnataka (2012)
Kharif season is the main season where all the farmers cultivate land.
Average crop loss in terms of area and value loss to the small and marginal
farmers and other than small and marginal farmers is presented in the Table
4.35.
The failure of monsoon in timely onset during kharif 2012, resulted
reduction in the area sown to 35.22 lakh ha from the targeted area 74.70 lakh ha
across different farm categories. In the area sown, about 16.21 lakh ha was
exposed to dry spell where more than 50 per cent crop yield was reduced.
In case of crop value loss, total damage was up to ₹ 48,599.87 lakhs in
the state across the different farm categories. Small and marginal farmers
suffered to the tune of ₹ 43,433.26 lakh from the 11,34,726 ha area and other
than small and marginal farmers suffered to the extent about₹ 51,66.61 by the
4,86,274 ha. (Annexure – II).
4.4.3 Funds required for mitigating drought situation in Karnataka (2012)
Government took up many measures so as to mitigate the drought
situation prevailing in the state. The mitigating measures were taken up under
three headings like short term measures, short term proposals other than
National Disaster Response Fund and Long term Proposals and are presented in
the Table 4.36.
Short term measures were implemented immediately next to the drought
declaration and it included providing compensation to farmers so as to maintain
their livelihood. (Annexure – III, IV).
110
Table 4.35 Amount dispersed by state Government for coping with drought in Karnataka
Targeted area 74.70 lakh ha.
Area Covered (up to 31st July 2012) 35.22 lakh ha.
Area affected by Dry spell (Annexure – II) 16.21 lakh ha.
Area where crop loss is >50% 16.21 lakh ha.
Affected Area belonging to - Small & Marginal farmers 11,34,726 ha
Farmers other than small & Marginal 4, 86,274 ha.
Value in loss
For Small & Marginal farmers (Annexure – III) ₹ 43,433.26 lakhs
For Farmers other than small and Marginal (Annexure – IV) ₹5166.61 lakhs
Total ₹ 48599.87 lakhs
₹ In Crore ₹ 486.00
Source: State Emergency Operation Centre, Revenue Department (Disaster Management)
Table 4.36 Funds required for mitigating drought situation in
Karnataka 2012
Sl. No.
Item ₹ (in
Crore)
Funds required (₹ in
Crore)
A. Short Term Measures-Claims as per NDRF guidelines
1 Kharif 2012- Crop Loss 5273.81
Assistance pursued as per NDRF Guideline 486.00
TOTAL 486.00
B. Short Term proposals other than NDRF Guidelines
1 Distribution of Seed Mini Kits (Annexure – V) 157.05
2 ‘Swabijabhivrudhi’ Yojana 20.50
3 ISOPOM (Annexure – VI) 24.00
4 INSIMP 18.49
5 NFSM(Annexure – VII) 20.50
TOTAL 240.54
C. Long Term Proposals
1 Farm Mechanization Mission-Macro Management of Agriculture (Annexure – VIII)
100.00
2 National Mission on Micro Irrigation (Annexure –IX) 300.00
3 Custom Hire & Service Centres 196.30
TOTAL 596.30
GRAND TOTAL 1942.84
Source: State Emergency Operation Centre, Revenue Department (Disaster Management)
111
Under Short term measures other than National Disaster Response Fund
claims government invested about ₹ 240.54 crore in different ways like
distribution of seed mini kits (₹ 157.05 crore), swabijavrudhi Yojana (₹ 20.50
crore) so as to make farmers self-sufficient in case of sowing seeds for the next
growing season, and other schemes like ISOPOM (₹ 24 crore), INSIMP (₹ 18.49
crore) and in NFSM scheme ₹ 20.50 crores were invested.
Long term mitigating proposals included, ₹ 100 crore for farm
mechanization mission for the macro level management of agriculture, ₹ 300
crore for National Mission on Micro irrigation and ₹ 196.30 crores for developing
Custom Hire Service centres.
took up retrieval of 670fractured bore wells in the district at the cost of ₹ 268
lakhs. Also district administration drilled about 89 new bore wells in the district at
the cost of ₹ 268 lakhs.
112
Table 4.37 Contingent Action Plan to tackle drinking water crisis in the rural areas of Bijapur and
Karnataka (April 2012 to July 2012) (₹ in Lakhs)
Sl. No.
District Total No. of Habitations
Emergency works proposed & approximate cost estimates Total requirement of funds in Lakh ₹
Revival of PWS Revival of MWS Retrieval/ hydro
fracturing of bore wells Drilling of New bore
wells
Nos. Approx.
Cost Nos.
Approx. Cost
Nos. Approx.
Cost Nos.
Approx. Cost
1 Bijapur 1050 30 180 44 176 670 268 89 268 1448
2 Karnataka 59532 814 4884 1226 4904 18226 7292 2430 7296 39798
Source: State Emergency Operation Centre, Revenue Department (Disaster Management)
113
Table 4.38 Assistance provided under Natural Disaster Reserve Fund for maintaining livestock in Karnataka during 2012
Sl.
No. Particulars
Grants (₹ in
crores) Percentage
1.
Opening of cattle camps (Goshala) to
maintain 500 animals for 9 months.
200 Goshalas @ ₹ 17.07 lakh per
month for each goshala.
307.00 65.88
2.
Procurement of fodder / fodder bank
(2.16 lakh metric tonnes of fodder will
be procured @ ₹ 6000/- per ton
inclusive of transportation cost)
130.00 27.90
3. Cultivation of fodder in Government
farms 21.00 4.51
4. Supply of mini kits 5.00 1.07
5. Health care 3.00 0.64
Total 466.00 100.00
Source: State Emergency Operation Centre, Revenue Department (Disaster Management)
114
4.4.5 Assistance pursued under NDRF for maintaining livestock in
Karnataka during 2102
Table 4.38 presents the relief measures provided to the drought in
Karnataka during 2012.
Government opened cattle camps (goshalas) at the cost of ₹307 lakhs.
Support was given for procurement of fodder to the tune of ₹ 130 lakhs.
Government also encouraged cultivation of fodder on government farms by
spending ₹21 lakhs and supplied mini kits worth ₹five lakhs. A meagre amount of
₹three lakh was spent on livestock health.
In total ₹466 lakhs was spent for providing relief to livestock in the state
during 2012 drought.
115
5. DISCUSSION
Results of investigation presented in the preceding chapter are discussed
in detail in this chapter. Main focus here is to throw light on possible causes for
the results in the study and their likely impact on policy to be adopted by the
farmers and policy makers. Keeping specific objectives of the study in view, the
results are discussed under following heads;
1. Extent and pattern of drought in Karnataka and Bijapur district
2. Socio-economic profile of farmers in drought affected area of
Bijapur district;
3. Impact of drought on livelihoods of farmers in the study area; and
4. Drought coping and mitigation measures adopted by farmers
5.1 Extent and pattern of drought in Karnataka and Bijapur district
5.1.1 Rainfall pattern of Karnataka state (1985-2012)
Rainfall is the most important indicator of drought in any region. The
rainfall data of Karnataka during previous 28 years were analysed and results
are presented in Table 4.1.
Annual rainfall in Karnataka varied between 770.10 mm in 1990 (-25 %)
and 1457.30 mm in 2005 (42 %). It overall, followed a negative trend in 17 years
and a positive in 11 years of the study period. It followed a positive trend
(781.72+16.90) from 1985 to 2012.
5.1.2 District wise rainfall pattern during South-West monsoon 2012
An analysis of district wise rainfall pattern of 2012 indicated that
Karnataka experienced a moderate drought condition as 20 districts
experienced “moderate drought” situation, eight districts belonged to “normal
drought” category, and only two districts experienced “severe drought”.
On an average, there was 26 per cent deviation in rainfall during 2012
over the normal. In terms of per cent deviation, highest deviation was
experienced by Ramanagara. (-54 %) and lowest by Dakshina Kannada lowest (-
15 %).
116
786
901 917
988
825
770
894
1001 989
831
956
1017
939
1080
884
1040
848803
951
1183
1457
1248
11521203
14121360
1207
1108
-32.58
-22.64-21.27
-15.21
-29.15
-33.90
-23.24
-14.10-15.10
-28.70
-17.93
-12.70
-19.43
-7.33
-24.11
-10.76
-27.23
-31.10
-18.38
1.58
25.09
7.11
-1.12
3.22
21.24
16.71
3.56
-4.88
y = 16.89x - 32740
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Rai
nfa
ll d
evia
tio
n i
n p
erce
nta
ge
Time in years
Rai
nfa
ll i
n m
m
Rainfall pattern of Karnataka
Rainfall Deviation from normal rainfall % deviation Linear (Rainfall)
Figure 2. Rainfall pattern, deviation of rainfall in Karnataka (1985-2012)
117
297 317 351 360 361 362 374 377 382 387 399 428 433 445 450 457 496 499592 601 608
683 689
1239
1869
2333 2374
3441
4460
-46
-51
-39
-28
-43
-27
-39
-44
-46
-19
-27
-36
-54
-45
-36
-49
-42
-47
-33
-28 -28
-18
-21
-19-18
-32
-18
-15
-27
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Per
cen
t D
evia
ion
in
Rain
all
Rain
fall in
mm
Districts
District wise Rainfall Pattern during kharif 2012
Normal Actual Percentage Deviation
Figure 3. District wise distribution of South-West Monsoon Rainfall in Karnataka (2012)
118
5.1.3 Week wise progress of South-West Monsoon 2012
Regarding week wise progress in precipitation of the South-West
Monsoon in the state, it was observed that there was a negative deviation in 3/4th
of the standard weeks. There was a severe deviation in rainfall in six standard
weeks, moderate in five weeks, and in the remaining weeks three weeks
recorded normal rainfall and other three weeks received higher rainfall. Of the 20
weeks period considered, 16 weeks observed negative deviation and three
weeks noticed heavy rainfall and only one week observed normal rainfall.
5.1.4 Zone wise rainfall distribution of South-West monsoon in Karnataka
during 2008-2012
Table 4.4 indicated zone wise rainfall distribution of South-West monsoon
in Karnataka from 2008 to 2012. Coastal region received more rainfall in the
state followed by Malnad (Hilly zone), North Interior Karnataka (NIK) and South
Interior Karnataka (SIK) regions.
All the four regions of the state witnessed highest deviations in rainfall
during 2012. The deficit from the normal was highest in SIK (-35 %), followed by
NIK (-34 %), Malnad (-22 %) and Coastal region (-20 %).
Table 4.4 confirmed that in previous five years, it was affected by drought,
which aggravated impact in 2012. NIK was affected more in drought years
followed by SIK, Malnad and Coastal regions during this period.
5.1.5 Crop-wise targeted area and area sown in the state during kharif 2012-
13
In Karnataka major agriculture activities are in full swing kharif season to
their maximum because of South-West Monsoon. The sowing is done normally in
June and in first half of the July, and will be completed by the end July. Crop-
wise targeted area and actual area sown in Karnataka during Kharif 2012 is
presented in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 provides a picture of normal and the actual sowing areas during
the kharif season 2012 in Karnataka. During kharif 2012 only 47 per cent was
sown as against a target of 74.70 lakh ha. Of the total area covered, share of
commercial crops was 74 per cent, which was followed by pulses (53 %), cereals
119
2124 24
5145
48
6063 61
6562
58
50 49
41
3328 30
46 45
8
1 1
19 21
49
37 37
24
5641 39
79
23
38
62
43
18
8
23
-62
-96 -96
-63
-53
2
-38-41
-61
-14
-34 -33
58
-53
-7
88
54
-40
-83
-49
-120
-110
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Ra
infa
ll in
mm
Standard weeks
Weekly Rainfall Pattern
Normal (mm) Actual (mm) Percentage Deviation
Figure 4. Weekly rainfall distribution by South-West Monsoon in Karnataka (2012)
120
34.89
15.96
50.85
13.38
10.46
74.7
13.74
8.44
22.18
5.23
7.79
35.22
22.3
11.16
33.47
13.18
6.05
52.7
39
53
4439
74
47
62
76
66
40
129
67
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Cereals Pulses Food grains Oilseeds Commercial Crops Overall
Per
cen
t a
rea
sow
n
Are
a in
la
kh
ha
Crops
Area sown in kharif 2012
Targeted Area Area covered Normal Coverage by end of July % Coverage to the Targeted Area % of Normal coverage
Figure 5. Crop-wise targeted area and area sown in kharif by the end of July during kharif in Karnataka 2012-13
121
(39 %) and oilseeds (39 %). Area covered by each crop was less compared to its
respective targeted area during 2012. The area covered was also less when
compared to the area covered by the kharif of previous year and the area that
would be covered normally by the end of July every year.
In 2012 drought, cereals and oilseeds were affected more when compared
to pulses and commercial crops because the pulses could sustain with lower
moisture condition. Commercial crops were sown in a larger area because most
of these were irrigated crops. The percentage of sowing in oilseeds and cereals
was less when compared to pulses and commercial crops.
5.1.6 Taluks under different classes of drought in Karanataka (2012)
Of the total 176 taluks of the state, 39 per cent were under severe drought
during 2012. About 31 per cent fell under normal drought situation and the
remaining 30 per cent experienced moderate drought. All the taluks of Bellary,
Bijapur, Gadag and Koppal districts were under severe drought situation.
5.1.7 Major reservoir levels in the State by the end of September 2012
Shortage of water in reservoirs is an indicator of extent of drought in the
state. These reservoirs provide water for drinking purpose and irrigation in the
respective command areas. Among the 13 major reservoirs of the state only four
reservoirs filled up to their 15 year average level and the remaining reservoirs
suffered from lack of water inflow during 2012. The reservoirs which were filled
up to their full capacity were, Hemavathi from Cauvery basin, Varahi from
Western coast and Narayanapura and Tungabhadra reservoirs in Krishna Basin.
Table 4.7 indicated that overall levels of most of the reservoirs in the state
during 2012 were found to be less compared to 15 years average level and the
previous year level. This indicated the prospects of water shortages for irrigation
and other purposes added to drought in the state. One of the major reasons for
not filling of reservoirs up to the mark might be the residual impact of 2011
drought where there was shortage of rainfall and inflow to these reservoirs.
5.1.8 Zone wise/district-wise status of minor irrigation Tanks
Status of minor irrigation tanks (Table 4.8) indicates the prosperity of
agriculture in the state.
122
There are 3,524 minor irrigation tanks in Karnataka. Only three per cent of
tanks filled up to their full capacity, four per cent tanks filled up to more than 50
per cent (51-99 %), eight per cent filled up to between 31 per cent and up to 50
per cent. 21 per cent filled up to 30 per cent of their full capacity. Remaining
2,239 tanks (63.20 %) did not receive any water till 22 September 2012. Major
source of water for tanks is South-west monsoon, which was poor during 2012.
Level of tank water during 2012 might also be affected due to shortage of
precipitation in the previous years.
5.1.9 Rainfall pattern of Bijapur District.
Table 4.9 presents rainfall pattern of Bijapur district which shows that
district was often drought prone district. Out of 28 years rainfall considered for
the study (1985-2012) there was negative deviation in rainfall in 17 years and
positive deviation in 11 years. That means the district faced more number of
drought years during period. In the 17 years, drought was moderate in 5 years
and normal in 12 years. In case of positive deviation, only in two years the rainfall
was more than 50 per cent which resulted in flood in the district (1998 and 2009).
The rainfall of the district deviated from the normal rainfall over long period
average. Highest rainfall was observed in 2009 (80.28 % deviation) which
resulted in devastating floods and human misery. Lowest rainfall was seen year
1990 (-44.50 %). It is interesting to note that the rainfall followed a positive trend
during the investigation period (472.64+1.95x). In spite of this trend, the district
experienced more number of droughts, because of improper spatial and temporal
distribution of rainfall.
5.1.10 Taluk wise Rainfall Pattern during South-West Monsoon
Drought in Bijapur district was analysed in terms of situation in a five year
period from 2008 to 2012. Taluk wise rainfall distribution of South-West monsoon
in the district from 2008 to 2012 is presented in Table 4.10. The district as whole
experienced a maximum deviation (-36 %) in rainfall compared to the normal
rainfall during the five year period under analysis.
In 2012 the district experienced moderate drought (-36 %). Other deficit
years in the district were 2008 (-18 %) and 2011 (-28 %). In terms of deviation in
actual rainfall from the normal in the district, Bijapur taluk was affected most (-53
123
124
%) followed by Indi (-45 %), Sindgi (-31 %), Muddebihal (-30 %) and Bagewadi (-
22 %) taluks. Table 4.10 also depicts that Bijapur taluk was frequently affected
by the drought situations as three out of five years received deficit rains. Drought
taluk is a matter of concern as the taluk has limited source of water for irrigation
and implications of drought would be severe. Further, the taluk is dominated by
vulnerable horticultural crops the grape, lime and pomegranate economic losses
would be great. The best way to mitigate drought in these taluks would be
extension of irrigation facility through canal and tank irrigation and watershed
development.
5.1.11 Classification of taluks/hoblis based on rainfall deviation in Bijapur
district 2012
Taluk wise rainfall pattern of Bijapur district during 2012 (Table 4.11)
indicated that out of 18 hoblis in the district, six faced severe drought, four were
under normal drought, and remaining eight hoblis experienced moderate
drought.
During out of five taluks of the district, Bagewadi and Muddebihal taluks
were under normal with 22 per cent and 24 per cent deficit respectively. Sindgi (-
32 %) and Indi (-45 %) taluks faced moderate drought and Bijapur taluk
experienced severe drought with 50 per cent deficit rainfall. In Bijapur taluk all
hoblis were in severe drought condition except Bijapur hobli which experienced
moderate drought. The farming conditions in villages Babaleshwar, Marradapura,
Nagathan and tkota hoblies were really serious. These villages suffered in terms
of crop loss and loss in livestock. The villages in these hoblies are affected by
the recurring drought frequently but their conditions is complicated due to lack of
suitable policy intervention. There is enough scope in terms of tank irrigation and
watershed development in the region, which needs attention.
5.1.12 Cropping/vegetation progress in different hoblis in Bijapur during
the South-West Monsoon (2012)
The South-West monsoon plays an important role in vegetative growth in
the district. At the beginning of the South-West monsoon (June) majority of the
hoblis were under no vegetation in Bijapur district and some hoblis were in the
state of low vegetation. The district received better rainfall by the end of
125
126
September and there by all the 10 hoblis that were under the no vegetation state
shifted to moderately low vegetation (5 hoblis), low vegetation (2 hoblis), better
vegetation (2 hoblis) and one hobli to good vegetation. Vegetation is important
for the livestock as it provides green fodder. Lack of vegetation discourages
farmers to maintain livestock.
5.1.13 Agriculture crops affected due to dry spell during Kharif 2012 in
Bijapur.
Economic loss in agriculture is estimated in terms of reduction in cropped
area and input loss from sown area. During kharif 2012 about 2.62 lakh ha of
agricultural land was affected in Bijapur district.
Among the different agriculture crops affected by dry spell, the maximum
area affected was under red gram followed by bajra, sugarcane, maize,
sunflower, groundnut, cotton, green gram, horse gram, moth bean and cowpea in
that orders. In terms of taluks affected by the dry spell, Sindgi was affected most
in the district, followed by Indi, Bijapur Basavana Bagewadi and Bijapur taluk.
In terms of estimated input loss, the district experienced a large economic
loss of about ₹ 87,284 lakhs. The per hectare input losses ranged from a highest
of ₹88,500 in case of sugarcane to lowest of ₹12,000 in case of sesamum. This
is an unbearable loss to the cultivators which must be compensated adequately.
Based on average estimates of cost of cultivation in different crops, the
total economic loss of inputs from estimated area was ₹87,284 lakhs. This
amount is not only a loss to the farming sector, but great disincentive to the
individual farmer as he has to invest this money from borrowed funds. Therefore,
appropriate loss assessment mechanism and compensation procedures are
required to be in place.
5.1.14 Loss in crop yield and value in Bijapur district during the kharif dry
spell 2012
Drought of 2012 kharif in Bijapur district impacted agriculture negatively
on production of agricultural crops (Table 4.14).
Ten major crops were considered for assessing loss. Physical loss in the
crop yield varied between a highest of 22.07 lakh tons in case of sugarcane and
127
0.0014 lakh tons in moth bean in the district. In terms of value loss of output,
highest loss was noticed in sugarcane (₹ 441.39 crore) and lowest in case of
horse gram (₹ 4.99 crore) in Bijapur district.
Out of the targeted area of 4.67 lakh ha in the district, only 58 per cent
was sown of which 97 per cent was affected more than 50 per cent. Expected
physical yield was zero in all the crops except sugarcane (250 q/ha) which is an
irrigated crop. There was a total loss of 25,000 lakh tonnes of major crops yield
loss in the district due to drought 2012.
5.1.15 Economic loss due to drought in Bijapur
The total economic loss from crops is worked out in firms of value of input
loss and value of expected output loss. Table 4.13 presented a loss of about
₹87,284 lakhs due to loss in inputs. Similarly, Table 4.14 revealed a loss of about
₹1,32,111 lakhs from estimated loss in output from major crops. Thus, the total
economic loss from crop production was calculated to be ₹ 2,19,395 lakhs during
2012 drought in the district. This means, the farmers suffer a double loss of both
inputs and output during a natural disaster like drought. With a given narrow
asset base and lack of alternate occupations, the very base of farm household is
shattered during drought. However, to recover and to continue in the farming
business farmers has to barrow money, often from the non-formal exploitative
sources. This ultimately ends up in debt.
5.2 Socio-economic profile of drought affected farmers in Bijapur district
An information on socio-economic profile of respondents help us to
understand the implications of drought on livelihoods of different classes of
farmers.
5.2.1 Age of sample farmers
Age distribution pattern of sample respondents indicated that a majority of
the respondents belonged to middle age (47 %) and young age groups (32 %)
and the old aged accounted for one fifth of the respondents in the study area
(Table 4.16). Hence, in the study area in general, the respondents were of
middle age, indicating that the middle aged and youth took up agriculture and
related occupations owing to their deprived education levels and lack of
128
alternative opportunities, while the older ones left agriculture and made their way
to youngsters.
5.2.2 Literacy rate of the respondents
Age and education are the main features for an alternative thinking and to
cope up with the drought situation. It can be observed from Table 4.17 that in the
district one ninth of the farmers were illiterate, primary educated and secondary
educates. Very few were educated up to pre university and degree level. A
marginal portion of sample farmers were post graduates. Wide variation in
literacy levels were noticed across farm size groups.
5.2.3 Family type of the respondents in the study area.
Findings of the study revealed that majority of farm families (78 %) were
nuclear type, while the remaining were joint families (Table 4.18). There was no
significant differences across farm size categories.
Family size
The average family size in the nuclear families was 5.46 and in case of
joint family it was about 20 members. There was no significant difference in
family size across different farm categories.
Family type and size do count in sustaining the stress arising out of
distress like drought.
5.2.4 Occupation of respondents in the study area
Main occupation of sample respondents was found to be agriculture (81
%), which indicated that the district was still predominantly agrarian without much
scope for non-farming occupations. This makes farming more vulnerable to
drought impacts. Therefore, alternate employment opportunities need to be
created in the district. Among farm categories, majority of large (87.5 %) and
medium (90 %) farmers depended upon agriculture. Whereas, percentage of
small farmers depending upon farming was relatively low (65 %), which indicated
that these farmers did practice some alternate occupations like carpentry,
mining, tractor driving etc.
129
5.2.5 Asset position of the respondents in the study area
Asset position of farmers is an indicator of risk bearing farm household in
times of crisis. Average value of assets of households across farm classes was
about ₹11.16 lakhs. While the per cent contribution was more in case of land of
about 94 per cent. This was followed by buildings (2.70 %), vehicles (1.30 %)
livestock (0.96 %), machinery (0.25 %), farm implements (0.13 %) and savings in
the form of life insurance (0.12 %).
5.3 Impact of drought on livelihoods of the farmers in the study area
It is evident from Table 4.21 that in Bijapur district bajra, maize, sorghum,
wheat were the major cereal food crops. Red gram and chickpea were important
pulses and groundnut and sunflower were major oil seeds. Onion was seasonal
horticultural crop grown in different seasons. Grape, Lime, pomegranate and
custard apple were the major perennial crops and sugarcane was the annual or
biannual commercial crop cultivated by respondents in the study area. Crops
were grown during all the three seasons as well as perennial crops by the
respondents.
5.3.1 Cropping pattern of farmer respondents during the drought
In any normal year crops are taken up in all the three seasons of the year
viz., kharif, rabi and summer. In the present study large and medium farmers
cultivated crops along with some perennial crops in all three seasons. But, small
farmers cultivated only during kharif and rabi seasons.
In kharif, among the different crops and across different farming
categories, farmers on an average, cultivated about 2.94 ha of land. Among the
crops cultivated in the district, red gram occupied highest area of about 60 per
cent followed by bajra (17 %), sunflower (7 %), groundnut (5 %), maize (5 %)
and onion (2 %). In different farming categories large farmers cultivated higher
acreages of land compared to medium farmers and small farmers because of
their larger land holdings.
During rabi season sorghum was cultivated comparatively on a larger
proportion of land (51 %) than chickpea (33 %), wheat (11 %) and other crops.
130
Sorghum was cultivated on higher acreage because it is one of the major staple
food crops of the district.
During summer, onion was the major crop (83 %) grown by the different
farming categories followed by maize (26 %) and ground nut (26 %).
Horticulture and cash crops were grown on average area of about 0.40
ha. Among the different crops cultivated, grape occupied highest per cent area
about 46 per cent followed by lime (38 %), sugarcane (9 %), pomegranate (4 %)
and custard apple (2 %).
Cropping intensity is an indicator of extent of land utilization by the
cultivators in each season of the year. The average cropping intensity was about
103 per cent, across different farm categories. However, it was slightly more in
case of small farmers (168 %) as compared to small (151 %) and large farmers
(101 %).
The average cropping intensity in the discipline in any normal year was
122 per cent with respondents (www.agricoop.nic.in). Compared to cropping
pattern in any normal year, cropping intensity affected in drought season.
5.3.2 Crop yield loss due to drought.
Table 4.22 presented a picture of crop yield loss suffered by farmers
during drought, calculated as percentage loss in actual yield in the affected year
over the normal year.
During kharif 2012 average yield loss across the different farming
categories was 52 per cent. Where crop yield average reduced from 39.69
q/ha/HH to 19.06 q/ha/HH. However, among different farming categories loss
was highest in case of small farmers (80 %) when compared to that in case of
large (66 %) and medium farmers (58 %).
Yield loss in rabi across the different farming categories was about 68 per
cent. Among different farming categories, loss in rabi was highest in case of
medium farmers (77 %) followed by small farmers (66 %) and large farmers (65
%).
There was about 49 per cent of yield loss across different farming
categories among perennial crops during 2012. Across different farming
131
categories small farmers experienced highest loss (60 %) when compared to
large (54 %) and medium farmers (53 %).
5.3.3 Crop value loss due to drought.
Table 4.23 presented a picture of crop value loss suffered by the farmers
during drought.
From an overall picture (Table 4.23) findings revealed that in the year
2012 because of drought farmers faced 61 per cent crop yield loss due to
drought across the different farming categories. Among the different farming
categories small farmers faced highest loss of about 72 per cent followed by
medium farmers (67 %) and small farmers (60 %). The extent of loss is a matter
of concern from the point of view of regional food security and livelihoods of
individual household.
Season wise analysis revealed among the different crops grown by the
farmers across different farm categories that, during kharif 2012, average value
loss was about 54 per cent (₹ 35, 207/household). Among the different farm
categories, small farmers were affected to the extent 79 per cent (₹
33,150/household) when compared with large farmers 68 per cent (₹
39,177/household) and medium farmers 57 per cent (₹ 33,291/household).
In rabi season the average crop value loss among farm categories was 59
per cent (₹ 32,367/household). Among the different farm categories, medium
farmers faced highest percentage loss 71 per cent (₹ 30,301/household),
followed by large farmers 65 per cent (₹ 28,787/household) and small farmers 58
per cent (₹ 38,014/household).
In summer onion, maize and ground nut crops were grown by the large
farmers. And onion was the only crop cultivated by the medium and small
farmers because of lakh of irrigation water availability.
During summer season anticipated crop value loss across the different
farm categories was 59 per cent. While small farmers suffered about 90 per cent
loss (₹ 1,80,000/household), medium farmers suffered 84 per cent and large
farmers suffered 48 per cent value loss.
132
133
Percent value loss across the different farm categories in perennial crops
was in the order of 63 per cent. While large farmers suffered about 60 per cent.
Small farmers and medium farmers too faced losses to the extent of 61 per cent
and 55 per cent, respectively.
5.3.4 Loss of livestock (number) due to drought condition
Livestock is another component of farming which is affected most during
natural disasters. Due to shortage of drinking water and availability of fodder in
times of drought, farmers sell off their animals under distress. On an average,
about 50 per cent of animals maintained during normal times were sold off by the
farm families during drought in the district.
Loss of animals through distress sales was more among medium farmers
(61 %), followed by small (52 %) and large farmers (37 %). Among the different
animals, loss was more in case of sheep and goat (60 %), followed by cross
breeds (57 %), buffaloes (50 %), cows (39 %) and bullocks (34 %).
5.3.5 Livestock value loss due to drought
Generally, the demand for livestock falls during drought thereby reducing
their value in the market. Demand for livestock is reduced due to severe scarcity
of fodder and drinking water.
Overall, average livestock value of ₹ 22,060/HH reduced to ₹ 18,754/HH
which indicated 16 per cent value loss of livestock due to distress sales during
drought.
The average loss among animals was highest in case of bullock, followed
by sheep and goat, cow, cross bred and least among the buffalo. Among the
farm categories, the loss in livestock value was highest in case of large farmers,
medium farmers and small farmers. The medium and small farmers did not
maintain cross bred.
Distress sale of livestock during drought affected future farm activities.
Governments do take measures to protect the farmers by establishing animal
camps (goshalas), quite often the arrangements are not adequate as opined by
the respondents during study.
134
135
5.3.6 Milk production during drought condition
In terms loss in milk yield, there was about 30 per cent decrease in milk
yield among different farm categories. However, the percentage milk yield loss
was more in case of small farmers, when compared to large and medium
farmers. An economic analysis of loss due to reduction in milk production
revealed that, on an average, the value of milk produced during normal period
was ₹ 7,217/HH. But this reduced by 49 per cent to ₹ 3,672/HH due to drought.
About 18 per cent reduction in number of milking days was noticed across
all farm categories. Reduction in milking period was more among medium
farmers, as compared to large farmers and small farmers. Milk production is an
important supplementary activity of agriculture and any loss in milk would affect
livelihoods of people especially the small farmer households.
5.3.7 Fodder situation during drought
On an average, the quantity of fodder produced by different categories of
farmers decreased by about 67 per cent due to drought. Reduction was highest
in case of small farmers when compared to that of medium and large farmers. In
terms of financial loss, on an average, the value of fodder produced by all
categories of the farmers decreased by about 55 per cent due to drought.
Reduction was highest with small farmers when compared to medium and large
farmers. To maintain the existing livestock farmers need to purchase fodder
during drought, which is often very costly. Fodder purchased during drought
increased by about 86 per cent in different farm categories. Highest fodder was
purchased by the small farmers compared to large and medium farmers.
Value of fodder purchase was increased by 218 per cent in different farm
categories. Highest per cent increase was noticed in case of small farmers (277
%) when compared with large (241 %) and medium farmers (143 %). This could
be due to the fact that small farmers had to supplement their limited farm
production. On farm production as well as external purchases, both reveal
greater loss suffered by small holders.
136
5.3.8 Food consumption pattern of respondents during drought and normal
seasons
A comparative study of food consumption pattern of farm families during
drought and normal seasons is depicted in Table 4.28.
The table reveals that food consumption expenditure of farm households
decreased to the tune of about 20 per cent across the different farming
categories due to drought. Among different food items considered for the study,
percentage change was highest in case of fruits and vegetables (44 %) followed
by pulses (37 %) and cereals (2 %). This was so because fruits and vegetables
are costlier compared to grains and secondly grains are must for a family food
basket. Among the different farming categories loss in per cent consumption
expenditure was highest in case of medium farmers (21.52 %), when compared
with small (18.63 %) and large farmers (18.63 %).
However, the variation in the consumption pattern of farm categories was
not so wide. While large farmers’ consumption pattern varied slightly, whereas
medium and small farmers kept their habit constant without much change.
5.3.9 Expenditure pattern of respondents during drought and normal
periods
The general expenditure pattern of sample respondents is given in Table
4.29. There was a change of about 24 per cent in drought year over normal year.
Across different consumption items, highest reduction was noticed in the
purchase of cloths (58 %) and it was followed by entertainment (37 %), social
participation (35 %), transportation (33 %), farming (22 %), food (22 %), and
education (3 %). There was increase in of medical expenses by about one per
cent during drought season because of lack of proper drinking water facilities and
adverse weather conditions.
There was variation in the expenditure pattern over the different
categories (1.27) and it was significant in case of medium farmers (1.52).
Similarly, variation in expenditure among consumption items, clothing,
transportation, entertainment, social participation and farming was observed. The
137
138
Figure 11. General family expenditure of households during drought
139
variation was non-significant in case of medical and education in drought
over the normal year.
5.3.10 Income of respondents during drought and normal years.
Physical as well as financial losses estimated in different aspects like
crops, milk yield etc. are compiled into income loss during drought and are
presented in Table 4.31. Principal income sources of the farmer respondents
included field crops, horticultural crops, dairy, farm wages, off-farm wages and
salary.
In an overall situation, the percentage loss in household witnessed during
drought season across different farm categories was about 52 per cent. Among
the sources of income, field crops lead the list with loss of about 72 per cent.
And, it was followed by loss in horticultural crops (67 %), dairy (62 %), farm
wages (34 %), and off farm wages (15 %). There was change in income among
the farm categories also, where per cent loss was highest in case of large
farmers (54.48 %) compared to small (49.03 %) and medium farmers (47.43 %).
5.3.11 Employment situation during drought and normal periods
As a consequence of loss in farm and off-farm activities due to drought,
the employment situation of households affected and it is depicted in Table 4.31.
On an average, there was about 23 per cent loss in employment of
households due to drought as compared to a normal year. Highest per cent loss
was noticed in case of medium farmers followed by large farmers and small
farmers. In case of non-agriculture activities, average loss of employment was
about seven percent. Small farmers were affected much when compared to
medium and large farmers.
5.3.12 Credit accessibility of drought affected farmers
Generally farmers availed credit from formal and non-formal sources in
the study area.
On an average all farmers barrowed ₹ 18,450 per annum during normal
period, in which share of formal source and non-formal source was ₹ 15,508 and
₹ 2,942. And during drought farmers barrowed ₹ 41,183 per annum, in which
140
1,48,887.33
88,208.33
20,680.25
57,444.17
50,771.25
32,415.00
66,401.06
42,325.58
28,991.67
7,925.48
37,903.75
43,165.00
32,415.00 32,121.08
-71.57
-67.13
-61.68
-34.02
-14.98
0.00
-51.63
-80.00
-70.00
-60.00
-50.00
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.000.00
20,000.00
40,000.00
60,000.00
80,000.00
1,00,000.00
1,20,000.00
1,40,000.00
1,60,000.00
Field crops Horticultural crops Dairy Farm wages Off farm wages Salary Average
Inco
me in
₹
Sources of income
Impact of drought on income
Normal Drought % Loss
Figure 12. Family income loss pattern during drought
141
64.13
80.07
83.13
75.78
48.94
58
67.07
58
-23.68
-27.56
-19.32
-23.46
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Large Medium Small Average
% l
oss
in
Em
plo
ym
ent
Em
plo
ym
ent
da
ys
Farming categories
Agriculture Employment loss
Normal Drought % Change
Figure 13. Agriculture employment loss during drought
142
51.32
39.75
55.69
48.9247.82
39
49.94
45.59
-6.82
-1.89
-10.33
-6.82
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
00
10
20
30
40
50
60
Large Medium Small Average
Per
cen
t lo
ss
Non
-Ag
ricu
ltu
re E
mp
loym
ent
da
ys
Farming categories
Non-Agriculture Employment Loss
Normal Drought % Change
Figure 14. Non-agriculture employment loss during drought
143
16,125.00
23,375.00
15,850.00
18,450.00
50,875.00
42,550.00
30,125.00
41,183.33
215.50
82.03
90.06
123.22
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
0.00
10,000.00
20,000.00
30,000.00
40,000.00
50,000.00
60,000.00
Large Medium Small Average
% C
ha
ng
e in
am
ou
nt
Bo
rro
wed
Am
ou
nt
Bo
rro
wed
Farming categories
Credit borrowed in Drought
Normal Drought % Change
Figure 15. Credit accessibility by farmers in drought season
144
0.83
0.59
0.780.73
1.43
1.5
2.1
1.68
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Large Farmers Medium Farmers Small Farmers Overall
Dis
tan
ce
tra
vel
led
in
km
Farmers
Distance travelled for fetching drinking water
Normal Drought
Figure 17. Distance travelled by households to fetch drinking water during drought
145
41
27
59
72
20
9
0
12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Normal Drought Normal Drought Normal Drought Normal Drought
Tap Bore well Open well Commercial Water Supply
Nu
mb
er o
f h
ou
seh
old
s
Water source and distance travelled
Sources of drinking Water
Figure 16. Source of drinking water for households during drought
146
share of formal source and non-formal sources was ₹ 29,475 and ₹ 11,708
respectively.
Overall, there was increased borrowing by the farmers during drought by
123 per cent over the normal period. Borrowings from formal source have
increased by about 98 per cent, whereas borrowings from non-formal sources,
increased by 307 per cent. There by indicating predominance of non-institutional
sources of credit.
5.3.13 Source of drinking water and distance travelled.
Drinking water was in short supply during drought periods. Table 4.33
depicts a picture of problem during drought in Bijapur district. The problem of
drinking water discussed in terms of source wise availability of water and
average distance travelled by the member of households to fetch both during
normal and drought. Accordingly, the percentage of people depending upon taps
and open wells decreased and the percentage of people depending on bore-
wells and commercial water supply units increased. While dependency on taps
decreased by 34 per cent. Similarly dependency on open wells was decreased
by 51 per cent. On the contrary, dependency on commercial water supply units
and bore-wells was increased by 33 per cent and 22 per cent, respectively. This
indicated that water was not easily available from taps and open wells whereas
the need arose for water from bore-wells and commercial water supply units,
which put the households in distress.
In terms of distance travelled for fetching water, while during a normal
season a person travelled on an average distance of 0.73 km to get water, during
drought it increased to 1.68 km. Thus, average distance travelled for collecting
water during drought increased by about 132 per cent, which put the households
especially the women folk in distress.
5.4 Drought coping and mitigation measures adopted by farmers
Present investigation elicited opinion of farmer regarding coping strategies
adopted by households during drought. And the mitigation measures proposed
and implemented by the government departments like Agriculture, RDPR, and
Animal Husbandry.
147
5.4.1 Coping strategies adopted by farmers during drought condition
Coping strategies are adopted by the farming community households
during drought period. The major coping strategies adopted by the households
during drought are classified into two categories, namely farming strategies and
off-farm strategies.
Among the farming strategies, crop diversification was the most important
coping approach as expressed by the respondents (53.17 %) followed by
adoption of drought resistant crops, life saving (protective) irrigation, mixed
cropping/intercropping and bore-well recharge.
As opined by the respondents utilizing the income savings was the most
important strategy among the off-farm strategies followed by selling assets,
seeking financial assistance, reduced food expenditure or consumption, sending
woman/children to work migration and support from drought mitigating
programmes like MNREGA.
The coping strategies adopted by affected people, help maintain their
livelihoods and social productivity. Crises like droughts, reoccurring year after
year, will have severe impact on the livelihoods of the medium and small
farmers. Droughts erode the livelihood base of farm families. Therefore, to
prevent this situation, capabilities of farming communities should adopt
innovative coping strategies.
5.4.2 Agriculture crop loss during kharif 2012 in Karnataka
In the year 2012 as monsoon failed to set in the early months of kharif
season, reduced the area sown by 53 per cent from the targeted area of 74.70
lakh ha. Of the net area sown, about 16.21 lakh ha, was exposed to dry spell
where more than 50 per cent crop yield was expected.
In case of crop value loss, the estimated damage was up to about ₹
48,600 lakhs in Karnataka. Small and marginal farmers suffered to the tune of ₹
43,433 lakh and others to the extent about ₹ 5,167 lakhs.
5.4.3. Fund required for mitigating drought situation in Karnataka 2012
Short term measures were implemented immediately after the drought
declaration and it included providing compensation to farmers so as to maintain
148
their livelihood. In 2012 kharif the total estimated amount of loss in the state was
to the order of about ₹ 486 crore.
Under short term measures other than National Disaster Response Fund
claims, Government invested about ₹ 240.54 crore under different components
like distribution of seed mini kits, Swbijavrudhi Yojana, ISOPOM, INSIMP and in
NFSM schemes.
Long term mitigating proposals included ₹596.30 crores in different
schemes like farm mechanization mission for the macro level management of
agriculture, National mission on Micro Irrigation and developing Custom Hire
Service Centres. These are good means to mitigate the droughts. But during
data collection, it was observed that the problem is with identification of
beneficiaries, extent of damage assessment and disbursal of relief. These call for
improvements in Governance delivery mechanisms.
5.4.4. Contingent Action Plan to tackle drinking water crisis in the rural
areas of Karnataka (April 2012 to July 2012).
Drinking water was major problem arising in every summer season but it
grows to its peak level during the drought years. Table 4.37 presents the detailed
contingent action plan taken up by the government to tackle drinking water
problem.
At the state level, the State Government invested ₹ 39,798 lakh on 59,552
villages that suffered from the lack of drinking water. Government took up revival
of 814 public water supply systems at the cost of ₹ 4,884 lakh and revival of
1,226 mass water system at the cost ₹ 4,904 lakh. It also took up retrieval of
18,226 fractured bore wells at the cost of ₹ 7,292 lakhs. Also Government also
drilled about 2,430 new bore wells at the cost of ₹ 7,296 lakhs. These again are
good gestures of the Governments but what the public demands is the
effectiveness in implementation. Relief measures should arrive a little early to
lessen the impacts of drought.
149
5.4.5. Assistance provided under NDRF for maintaining livestock in the
state (2102)
Drought affected regions usually witnessed either distress sale of milch
and drought animals and in extreme cases abandoning them. To prevent this,
the households make arrangements for water and fodder. In case it is beyond
the capacity of individual farmer, Government intervenes to provide support in
the form of setting up of cattle camps.
Government opened cattle camps (goshalas) at the cost of ₹ 307 lakhs.
Support was given for procurement of fodder to the tune of ₹ 130 lakhs.
Government also encouraged cultivation of fodder on government farms by
spending ₹ 21 lakhs and supplied mini kits worth ₹ 5 lakhs. A meagre amount of
₹ 3 lakh was spent on livestock health. In total ₹ 466 lakhs was spent for
providing relief to livestock in the state during 2012 drought.
6. SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Drought is a situation in which there is a prolonged deficiency of rainfall
over a wide area resulting in serious depletion of soil moisture and consequent
poor agricultural production and general water shortage, resulting in low incomes
and great public suffering and distress. According to National Commission on
Agriculture (1976), there are three types of drought namely; Meteorological
drought, Hydrological drought, and Agricultural drought. Agriculture is the first
sector to be affected by drought. Within the agricultural sector, marginal and small
farmers are more vulnerable to drought because of their dependence on rain fed
agriculture and related activities. As a consequence, they face much greater loss
of assets, thus widening disparities between small and large farmers. Also, as
unemployment increases purchasing power decreases- credits shrink and the cost
of credit increases. Consequently, the vulnerable segments are either forced to
migrate, work at lower wages or live in near hunger conditions. Pressure and fear
of losing social status due to drought induced poverty forces farmers to take
drastic steps like suicides.
Drought is a recurring and disastrous natural phenomenon resulting into
untold human miseries. It has very debilitating effects on natural resources, human
beings, livestock, and the overall economy of a country. However, its impact can
be managed with suitable policy interventions. Appropriate policy interventions can
be taken with a proper understanding of the phenomenon of development of
drought and its impacts. Bijapur is one of the chronically drought affected districts
in Karnataka. Historically, the district has suffered frequent droughts resulting in
untold miseries to the people due to various historical, political and socio-
economic reasons. Therefore, the study aimed to study overall situation of drought
in Karnataka and at micro level, the socio economic impacts of drought on
livelihood of people in Bijapur district to facilitate policy formulation.
The study focussed on impact of drought on livelihoods of farmers i.e.
small, medium and large farmers with respect to crop production, assets, income
status of, livestock position, livestock yield, and drinking water for human beings,
and livestock. The study also analysed the coping measures adopted by farmers
151
to mitigate the effects of drought in 2012. Specific objectives of the study were as
follows
6.1.1 Specific objectives of the study
1. To study the extent and pattern of drought in Karnataka and Bijapur
district
2. To study socio-economic profile of farmers in drought affected area of
Bijapur district
3. To assess the impact of drought on livelihoods of farmers in the study
area; and
4. To analyse the existing drought coping and mitigation measures
adopted by farmers
6.1.2 Hypotheses of the study
1. The extent and pattern of drought is changing over the years in
Karnataka and Bijapur
2. Economic profile of farmers in drought affected area is not comfortable
3. There is a negative impact of drought on the livelihoods of farmers in the
study area
4. Drought coping and mitigating measures adopted by farmers are
adequate
6.2 Sampling procedure
6.2.1 Study area
Bijapur is one of the chronically drought affected districts in Karnataka. The
district has suffered frequent droughts resulting in untold miseries to the people
due to various historical, political and socio-economic reasons. Therefore, this
study aims to study overall situation of drought in Karnataka and at micro level, the
socio economic impacts of drought on livelihood of people in Bijapur district to
facilitate policy formulation.
6.2.2 Selection of the sample respondents
In the first stage, all the five taluks of the district were selected for data
collection as all the taluks of the districts were affected by the drought in varying
degrees. In the next stage, two villages were selected from each taluk based on
152
the total area affected by the drought in 2012-13. The stratified random sampling
technique was adopted to select farmer-respondents for the study. Further, a
sample of 12 farmers consisting of four from each of land size classes namely,
large, medium and small were chosen as respondents. Thus, the total sample size
of the study was 120 farmer-respondents.
6.3 Nature and sources of data
6.3.1 Primary data
The data pertaining to (a) general characteristics of the farm family such as
age, occupation, education qualification, size of the family, distribution of land
holding and its utilization and source of irrigation (b) impact of drought on
livelihood of farmers i.e. cropping pattern, cropping intensity, crop yields, extent of
irrigation, water table, labour employment pattern, migration, accessibility to credit,
input use, yield losses, livestock position and yields, fodder situation, availability of
drinking water both for humans and animals. (c) Existing drought coping and
mitigation measures were compiled from farmer respondents through pre-tested
questioner.
6.3.2 Secondary data
Secondary data pertaining to the extent of deviation of rainfall in the state
and Bijapur district, crop loss, drought affected area, relief and rehabilitations
measures were collected from District Agricultural office Bijapur, Department of
Economics and Statistics, Bangalore and other published sources.
6.4 Analytical tools and techniques employed
To fulfill the specific objectives of the study, based on nature and extent of
data, the following analytical tools and techniques were adopted.
1. Tabular presentation
2. Simple Linear Trend
3. Garrett’s ranking technique
6.5 Findings of the study
The results and discussions of the study drawn the following
findings/conclusions viz..,
153
1. Rainfall of Karnataka varied between 770.10 mm in 1990 (-25 %) and
1457.30 mm in 2005 (42 %). And it followed a positive trend (781.72+16.90)
from 1985 to 2012.
2. Out of 30 districts Karnataka, Chamarajanagra district received lowest (155
mm) and Udupi received highest rainfall (3,241 mm) in 2012. Ramangara and
Dakshina Kannada districts experienced highest (-54 %) and lowest (-15 per
cent) per cent deviation in rainfall, respectively.
3. In 2012 kharif the Karnataka experienced moderate drought condition. In the
state, 20 districts were under “moderate”, eight districts “normal drought”
conditions while two experienced “severe drought” situation. Out of total 176
taluks of the State, 39 per cent, 31 per cent, 30 per cent were under severe,
normal, moderate drought situation, respectively.
4. Table 4.4 confirmed that in previous five years, it was affected by drought,
which aggravated impact in 2012. NIK was affected more in drought years
followed by SIK, Malnad and Coastal regions during this period.
5. During kharif 2012 only 47 per cent of cultivated land in the state was sown
as against a target of 74.70 lakh ha. In the total area covered, share of
commercial crops was 74 per cent, which was followed by pulses (53 %),
cereals (39 %) and oilseeds (39 %).
6. Among the 13 major reservoirs of the State only four reservoirs filled up to
their 15 years average level and the remaining reservoirs suffered from lack
of water inflow during 2012. Among them, Hemavathi reservoir from Cauvery
river basin, Varahi reservoir from Western coast and Narayanapura and
Tungabhadra reservoirs in Krishna Basin crossed their 15 years average
level.
7. There are 3,524 minor irrigation tanks in Karnataka. Only three per cent, four
per cent, eight per cent and 21 per cent of tanks filled up to their full capacity,
more than 50 per cent (51-99%), filled up between 31 per cent and 50 per
cent and up to 30 per cent of their full capacity, respectively. About 21 per
cent of the tanks filled upto 30 per cent, and remaining tanks did not receive
any water.
8. In Bijapur district highest rainfall was observed in the year 2009 and lowest in
the year 1998. Out of 28 years rainfall considered for the study there was
154
negative deviation in rainfall in 17 years and positive deviation in 11 years.
And rainfall followed a positive trend (472.64+1.95x) during the investigation
period.
9. In terms of rainfall deviation of South-West Monsoon from the normal in 2012,
the district was under moderate drought (-36 %) condition and was more
severe (-18 % 2008, -28 in 2011) compared with previous years. Within the
district Bijapur taluk was affected most (-53 %) followed by Indi (-45 %),
Sindgi (-31 %), Muddebihal (-30 %) and Bagewadi taluks (-22 %).
10. Out of five taluks of the district, Bijapur taluk was worst affected with 50 per
cent deficiet in rainfall. Indi taluk experienced a moderate drought with 45 per
cent deficit in rainfall. Bagewadi and Muddebihal taluks faced normal drought
conditions in kharif 2012. Out of 18 hoblis in Bijapur district, six faced severe
drought, four were under normal drought condition, and the remaining eight
hoblis experienced moderate drought.
11. In Bijapur district out of targeted area 4.68 lakh ha cultivated land, only 58 per
cent was sown. Of this sown area 97 per cent was affected more than 50 per
cent. There was a total loss of 25,000 lakh tonnes of major crops in the
district due to 2012 drought.
12. The total economic loss in the district due to lost inputs and estimated loss in
output was of the order of ₹2,19,395 lakhs. In this the share of input loss was
₹87,284 lakhs, and output loss ₹1,32,111 lakhs.
13. Age distribution pattern of sample respondents indicated that a majority of the
respondents belonged to middle age (47 %) and youth (32 %) and the old
ones accounted for one fifth of sample respondents in the study area.
14. In the district one ninth of the farmer-respondents were illiterate and educated
up to primary and secondary. Very few were educated up to pre university
and degree level. A marginal section of sample farmers were post graduates.
15. Majority of the large farmers were living jointly. While in case of small farmers
and medium farmers one third of the respondents were nuclear families. The
average family size in the nuclear families was 5.46 and in case of joint family
it was about 20 members.
155
16. Agriculture was main occupation of majority of farmers in the district. Major
non-agriculture occupations were teaching, driving, carpentry, and stone
mining etc.
17. Average value of assets of households across farm classes was about ₹
11.16 lakhs. Average value of assets of large farmer was ₹ 21.49 lakhs
followed by that of medium farmers (₹ 8.05 lakhs) and small farmers (₹ 3.94
lakhs).
18. On an average in kharif, farmers cultivated about 2.94 ha of land in the
district. In rabi it was 1.07 ha and during summer 0.08 ha. Perennial crops,
were grown on an average area of about 0.40 ha per household.
19. Average crop yield loss due to 2012 drought, in kharif and rabi across
different farming categories was 52 per cent and 68 per cent, respectively. In
summer about 48 per cent loss was noticed and there was about 51 per cent
of yield loss across different farming categories in perennial crops.
20. In 2012 drought year there was about 65 per cent loss (₹ 1,22,242/HH) in
crop value. In kharif, average value loss from crops was about 54 per cent (₹
35, 207/HH). Rabi witnessed about 59 per cent (₹ 32,367/HH), and summer
about 77 per cent (₹ 1,51,200/HH) loss. In perennial crops loss was about 63
per cent (₹ 2,70,193/HH)
21. Due to shortage of drinking water and availability of fodder in times of drought
during 2012 farmers sold off their animals under distress. On average about
50 per cent of animals maintained during normal times were sold off during
drought in the district.
22. There was a loss of animals through distress sales too during 2012 drought.
And it was more among medium farmers (61 %), followed by small (52 %)
and large farmers (37 %). Among the different animals, loss was more in
case of sheep and goat (60 %), followed by cross breeds (57 %), buffaloes
(50 %), cows (39 %) and bullocks (34 %).
23. The average value of livestock which was ₹ 22,060/animal during normal
years reduced to ₹ 18,754/animal during drought which indicated 16 per cent
value loss.
24. In terms of loss in milk production, there was about 30 per cent decrease in
milk yield among different farm categories. On an average, the value of milk
156
during normal period which was ₹ 7,217/annum/HH, reduced by 49 per cent
to ₹ 3,672/annum/HH due to adverse effects of drought during 2012. About
18 per cent reduction in number of milking days was noticed across all animal
types and farm categories.
25. On an average, the quantity of fodder produced by all categories of farmers
decreased by about 67 per cent due to drought over the normal season. In
terms of financial loss, the value of fodder produced by all categories of the
farmers, decreased by about 55 per cent due to drought. Value of purchased
fodder during drought increased to the tune of 218 per cent across different
farm categories which put the farmers to distress.
26. Food consumption expenditure of farm households decreased by 20 per cent
across different farming categories due to drought. Among different food
items considered in the study, percentage change was highest in case of
fruits and vegetables (44 %) followed by pulses (37 %) and cereals (2 %).
27. The general household expenditure of sample respondents decreased by
about 24 per cent in drought year over the normal year.
28. The loss in household income witnessed during drought season across
different farm categories was about 52 per cent.
29. On an average, there was about 23 per cent loss in employment of
households due to drought as compared to a normal year. Highest per cent
loss was noticed in case of medium farmers followed by large farmers and
small farmers.
30. Overall, there was increased borrowing by the farmers during drought by 123
per cent over the normal period. Borrowings from formal source have
increased by about 98 per cent, whereas borrowings from non-formal
sources, increased by 307 per cent. There by indicating predominance of
non-institutional sources of credit.
31. Percentage dependency on the drinking water sources varied. The
percentage of people depending upon taps (34 %) and open wells (51 %)
decreased, while that depending on bore-wells (33 %) and commercial water
supply units (22 %) increased.
157
32. In terms of distance travelled for fetching water, it increased to an average of
1.68 km from 0.73 km. Thus, average distance travelled for collecting water
during drought increased by about 132 per cent.
33. In the coping strategies crop diversification was the most important coping
approach as expressed by the respondents (53.17 %) followed by adoption of
drought resistant crops, lifesaving (protective) irrigation, mixed
cropping/intercropping and bore-well recharge.
34. Utilizing income savings was the most important strategy among the off-farm
strategies followed by selling assets, seeking financial assistance, reduced
food expenditure or consumption, sending woman/children to work and
migration were different mitigation measures followed by farmers.
35. At the macro level in case of crop value loss, the estimated damage was up
to about ₹ 48,600 lakhs in the Karnataka. Small and marginal farmers
suffered to the tune of ₹ 43,433 lakh and other than small and marginal
farmers suffered as economic loss to the extent about ₹ 5,167 lakhs. In 2012
kharif the total estimated amount of loss in the state was of the order of about
₹ 486 crore.
36. Short term measures were implemented by the state Government
immediately after the drought declaration which included providing
compensation to farmers so as to maintain their livelihood.
37. Under short term measures other than National Disaster Response Fund
claims, Government invested about ₹ 240.54 crore under different
components like distribution of seed mini kits, Swbijavrudhi Yojana, ISOPOM,
INSIMP and in NFSM schemes.
38. Long term mitigating proposals included ₹ 596 crores in different schemes
like farm mechanization mission for the macro level management of
agriculture, National Mission on Micro Irrigation and developing Custom Hire
Service Centres.
39. At the state level, the Government invested ₹ 39,798 lakh on 59,552 rural
areas that suffered from lack of drinking water. Government also opened
cattle camps (goshalas) by spending ₹ 466 lakhs and to provide relief to
livestock in the state during 2012 drought.
158
6.5 Policy Implications
Based on the findings of the study, following policy measures have been
suggested to evolve a drought proofing and mitigating
The opportunities for irrigating drought hit Bijapur district need to be fully
exploited by competing the ongoing irrigation projects. The tank filling
scheme implemented in the district is novel one but needs to be accelerated
and extended to the whole district.
Effective watershed development and afforestation programmes are essential
in the district, as it is an established fact that Bijapur is frequently haunted by
the drought. These programmes are especially crucial in Bijapur taluk as the
topography is challenging and the taluk holds high potential in terms of export
of valuable fruit crops like grape and pomegranate.
Implementation of drought proofing programmes like MGNREGA must be
fine-tuned for drought proofing in the district. And drought proofing
programmes like DPAP should be implement in the district as implemented in
Rajasthan state so as to increase production and to maintain farmer’s
livelihoods and prevent distress migration.
Sustainable tank management started under JSYS should be continued and
harnessed to mitigate drought. Contingency plans for drought mitigation
developed by the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad have to be
effectively implemented by various line Departments of the Government.
Traditional water harvesting structures should be rejuvenated and put to
effective use. Crop insurance scheme holds some hope for mitigating the
effects of drought But, it was gathered during discussions with farmers and
officials that the scheme was not operating effectively due to lack of
coordination among the agency, banks and revenue officials. This needs to
be viewed seriously and a special cell needs to be created in the revenue
offices to deliver compensation effectively to the affected.
Disaster Management Cell at the State and District levels must be
strengthened in terms of expertize, skills and other logistics to deal with
drought. The cell should work on bench marks, predictions, policy analysis
159
and advisory on disaster management on continual basis. Water budget of
the district should be worked out and contingency plans must be prepared for
managing deficit situations.
Crop compensation provided by the Government according to NDRF norms
must be revised upward by at least 3 folds from the existing norms (₹
3,000/ha Rain fed and ₹ 6,000/ha Irrigation crops). Crop loss assessment
methodology needs to be revised to take care of livelihoods of farm
households.
REFERENCES
Akhtari, R., Bandarabadi, S. R. and Saghafian, B., 2008, Spatio-temporal
pattern of drought in Northeast of Iran. CIHEAM, Options
Mediterraneennes, Series A (80): 71-77.
Anjum, S. A., Saleem, M. F., Cheema, M. A., Bilal, M. F. and Khaliq, T.,
2012, An Assessment to Vulnerability, Extent, Characteristics and
Severity of Drought hazard in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of
Science. 64(2):138-150.
Anonymous, 1976, National Commission on Agriculture. www.nrsc.gov.in.
Anonymous, 2005, Drought in Andhra Pradesh: Long term impacts and
adaptation strategies. South Asia Environment and Social
Development Department, World Bank, 1: 13.
Anonymous, 2007, Multiple Impacts of Droughts and Assessment of
Drought Policy in Major Drought Prone States in India - Report
submitted to The Planning Commission, Government of India.
Centre for Development Alternatives, Ahmedabad Gujarat. 63-77.
www.cfda.ac.in
Anonymous, 2008, Assessment of the social impacts of drought and
related government and non-government social support services.
Drought policy review Expert social panel. Issues Paper.
www.daff.gov.au.
Anonymous, 2008a, Drought in India: Challenges & initiatives. Poorest
areas civil society (PACS) programme 2001-2008. New Delhi, p:
11-12. www.empowerpoor.org
Anonymous, 2009, Drought Management Strategies. Annual report
National Rainfed Area Authority Government of India.
www.nrega.nic.in/DroughtStratDraft.pdf.
Anonymous, 2010, The Social Impacts of declining water availability and
ongoing drought in the Murray-Darling Basin. A short report by,
Gender Leadership and Social Sustainability Research Unit.
161
Department of Social Work School of Primary Health Care Monash
University.
Anonymous, 2012, India Disaster Report – 2011. National Institute of
Disaster Management. New Delhi.
Anonymous, 2012a, South-West Monsoon – 2012. Karnataka State
Natural Disaster Monitoring Centre. Yelahanka, Bengaluru.
Anonymous, 2012b, Bijapur District at a Glance 2011-12. Office of the
District Statistical Officer, Bijapur. P: 82-97.
Anonymous, 2012c, Joint Director of Agriculture Bijapur.
Anonymous, 2013, ARC section, Directorate of Economics and Statistics,
Multi Stored Building, Bengaluru.
Anonymous, 2013a, Karnataka State Natural Disaster Management
Centre, Yelahanka, Bengaluru.
Anonymous, 2013b, State Emergency Operation Centre, Revenue
Department (Disaster Management), Directorate of Economics and
Statistics, Multi Stored Building, Bengaluru.
Anonymous, 2014, www.vasat.icrisat.org, accessed on 13th January.
Anonymous, 2014a, www.agricoop.nic.in, accessed on 19th Febraury.
Anonymous, 2014b, www.nrsc.gov.in accessed on 30th April.
Badatya, K.C. 2005, Managing Risks of Drought in Indian Agriculture: Role
of Credit Institutions. Agricultural Economics Research Review,
18(Conference Issue): 19-34.
Biradar, N. and Sridhar, K., 2009, Consequences of 2003 Drought in
Karnataka with Particular Reference to Livestock and Fodder.
Journal of Human Ecology, 26(2): 123-130.
Devisti, H. and Motamed, M. K., 2011, Impacts of Drought on Socio-
Economic Conditions of Paddy Farmers in Guilan Province, North
of Iran. International Journal of Agricultural Management &
Development, 1(2): 73-79.
162
Devisti, H. and Motamed, M. K., 2012, Environmental and Socio-Economic
Impacts of Drought from the Viewpoint of Guilan paddy farmers,
North Iran. Caspian Journal Environmental Sciences, 10(2): 227-
235.
Dey, N. C., Alam, M. S., Sajjan, A. K., Bhuiyan, J. A., Ghose, L., Ibaraki,
Y. and Karim, F., 2011, Assessing Environmental and Health
Impact of Drought in the Northwest Bangladesh. Journal of
Environmental Science and Natural Resources. 4(2): 89-97
Ding, S., Pandey, S., Chen, C. and Bhandari, H., 2005, Drought and
farmers’ coping strategies in poverty-afflicted rural China. The
Rockefeller Foundation, The Natural Sciences Foundation of China,
International Rice Research Institute, Philippines,
Www.sed.manchester.ac.uk.
Edwards, B., Gray, M. and Hunter, B., 2008, Social and economic impacts
of drought on farm families and rural communities: Submission to
the Drought Policy Review Expert Social Panel. Australian Institute
of Family Studies, www.pc.gov.au.
Edwards, B., Gray, M. and Hunter, B., 2009, A sunburnt country: the
economic and financial impact of drought on rural and regional
families in Australia in an era of climate change. Australian Journal
of Labour Economics, 12(1):109 –131.
Edwards, B., Gray, M. and Hunter, B., 2011, The Impact of Drought on
Carers. Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 14(2): 199 – 214.
Folger, P., Cody, A. B. and Carter, T. N., 2013, Drought in the United
States: Causes and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research
Service. Report for Congress.7-5700, RL34580. www.crs.gov.
Gichere, K. S., Olado, G., Anyona, D. N., Matano, A. S., Dida, O. G.,
Abuom, O. P., Amayi, J. and Ofulla, O. V. A., 2013, Effects of
Drought and Floods on Crop and Animal Losses and Socio-
economic Status of Households in the Lake Victoria Basin of
163
Kenya. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management
Sciences, 4(1): 31-41.
Gobin, A., 2012, Impact of heat and drought stress on arable crop
production in Belgium. Natural Hazards and Earth System
Sciences, 12:1911–1922.
Golmohammadi, F., 2012, Drought and it’s Environmental and Socio-
Economic impacts in the viewpoint of farmers in south Khorasan
province-East of Iran. Indian Research Journal of Extension
Education, I (Special Issue): 238 – 244.
Jiwan, J., 2012, Sustainable Drought Management in India. International
Journal of Social Science Tomorrow, 1(4): 1-8.
Kazianga, H. and Udry, C., 2005, Consumption Smoothing? Livestock,
Insurance and Drought in Rural Burkina Faso. Journal of
Development Economics, 79(2): 413–446.
Khera, R., 2004, Drought Proofing in Rajasthan: Imperatives, Experience
and Prospects. Human Development Resource Centre, Discussion
Paper Series – 5.
Kokate, K. D., Singh, A. K. and Singh, L., 2010, Drought Mitigation through
Knowledge Advisory. Indian Research Journal of Extension
Education, 10(1): 1-7.
Lekprichakul, T., 2008, Impact of 2004/2005 Drought on Zambia’s
Agricultural Production: Preliminary Results. Working Paper on
Social-Ecological Resilience Series No. 2008-002, Vulnerability and
Resilience of Social-Ecological Systems RIHN Research Project 1-
3FR. Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN).
Makoka, D., 2008, The Impact of Drought on Household Vulnerability: The
Case of Rural Malawi. Centre for Development Research,
University of Bonn Germany. Paper Presented at the 2008 United
Nations University (UNU-EHS) Summer Academy on
“Environmental Change, Migration and Social Vulnerability”.
164
Mishra, S., 2007, Household Livelihood and Coping Mechanism During
Drought among Oraon Tribe of Sundargarh District of Orissa, India.
Journal of Social Sciences, 15(2): 181-186.
Ngaka, M. J., 2012, Drought preparedness, impact and response: A case
of the Eastern Cape and Free State provinces of South Africa.
Jamba: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 4(1): 47.
www.jamba.org.za.
Pandey, S. and Bhandari, H., 2009, Drought, coping mechanisms and
poverty, Insights from rainfed rice farming in Asia. International
Fund for Agricultural Development, The seventh in a series of
discussion papers produced by the Asia and the Pacific Division,
IFAD
Pandey, S., Bhandari, H., Ding, S., Prapertchob, P., Sharan, R., Naik, D.
and Taunk. S. K., 2006, Coping with Drought in Rice Farming in
Asia: Insights from a Cross-Country Comparative Study.
International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference,
Held at Gold Coast, Australia, August.
Patnaik, I., 2010, Distress Situation in Dryland Areas Impacts on
Livelihood Pattern and the Coping Strategies: A Review. Research
Unit for Livelihoods and Natural Resources, Centre for Economic
and Social Studies Research, Working Paper No. 91(RULNR 6).
Patnaik, I., 2012, Livelihood Pattern and Coping Mechanisms during
Drought: A Study of Two Villages in Odisha. Research Unit for
Livelihoods and Natural Resources, Hyderabad. Working Paper No.
116, (RULNR 17)
Pauw, K., Thurlow, J. and Seventer, V. D., 2010, Droughts and Floods in
Malawi. Assessing the Economy wide Effects. International Food
Policy Research Institute, Discussion Paper 00962.
Qureshi, A. S. and Akhtar, M., 2004, A Survey of Drought Impacts and
Coping Measures in Helmand and Kandahar Provinces of
165
Afghanistan. Internal Report International Water Management
Institute.,
Roncoli, C., Ingram, K. and Kirshen, P., 2001, The costs and risks of
coping with drought: livelihood impacts and farmers’ responses in
Burkina Faso. Climate research, 19: 119–132.
Shafiq, M. and Kakar M. A., 2007, Review: Effects of Drought on Livestock
Sector in Balochistan Province of Pakistan. International Journal of
Agriculture and Biology, 9(4):657 – 665.
Sharma, A., 2006, Spatial Data Mining for Drought Monitoring: An
Approach Using temporal NDVI and Rainfall Relationship. M. Sc.
Thesis, International Institute for Geo-information Science and
Earth Observation, Netherlands.
Sigdel, M. and Ikeda, M., 2010, Spatial and temporal Analysis of Drought
in Nepal using Standardized precipitation Index and its relationship
with Climate Indices. Journal of Hydrology and Meteorology Nepal,
7(1):59-74.
Swain, M. and Swain, M., 2011, Vulnerability to Agricultural Drought in
Western Orissa: A Case Study of Representative Blocks.
Agricultural Economics Research Review, 24(1): 47-56.
166
Annexure – I
Targeted area and area sown by the end of July during kharif in Karnataka
(2012-13)
(Area in lakh ha)
Sl. No.
Crops Targeted Area
Area Sown 2012 % Coverag
e
Area Sow
n 2011
Normal Coverage by end of July
% of Normal coverag
e
Irrigated
Rain fed
Total
I Cereals
1 Rice 10.74 0.63 2.51 3.13 29.00 3.59 4.32 73.00
2 Jowar 2.18 0.12 1.15 1.28 59.00 1.72 3.05 42.00
3 Ragi 7.54 0.04 0.85 0.90 12.00 1.92 2.96 30.00
4 Maize 11.49 1.63 5.02 6.66 58.00 9.43 8.00 83.00
5 Bajra 2.62 0.13 1.57 1.69 65.00 1.95 3.60 47.00
6 Minor Millets
0.32 0.00 0.08 0.08 25.00 0.15 0.38 21.00
Total Cereals 34.89 2.56 11.18 13.74
39.00 18.75 22.30 62.00
II Pulses
1 Tur (red gram)
8.74 0.16 5.36 5.52 63.00 4.99 4.89 113.00
2 Horse gram 0.99 0.00 0.05 0.05 5.00 0.08 0.33 14.00
3 Black gram 1.04 0.00 0.89 0.89 86.00 0.82 1.12 79.00
4 Green gram
3.44 0.01 1.37 1.38 40.00 2.55 3.83 36.00
5 Cowpea & others
0.80 0.01 0.48 0.49 61.00 0.61 0.64 76.00
6 Avare (Field bean)
0.87 0.00 0.10 0.11 12.00 0.18 0.31 35.00
7 Moth bean 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 18.00 0.03 0.05 27.00 Total Pulses 15.96 0.19 8.26 8.44 53.00 9.26 11.16 76.00 Total food grains
50.85 2.74 19.44 22.18
44.00 28.02 33.47 66.00
III Oilseeds
1 Groundnut 7.05 0.09 2.08 2.17 31.00 3.55 5.80 37.00
2 Sesamum 0.76 0.00 0.34 0.35 46.00 0.55 0.80 44.00
3 Sunflower 2.77 0.13 0.70 0.83 30.00 1.21 4.63 18.00
4 Castor 0.29 0.00 0.06 0.06 21.00 0.12 0.22 28.00
5 Niger 0.28 0.00 0.03 0.03 13.00 0.07 0.19 18.00
6 Mustard 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 12.00 0.02 0.03 20.00
7 Soybean 2.18 0.04 1.74 1.78 82.00 2.09 1.52 117.00 Total Oilseeds 13.38 0.27 4.97 5.23 39.00 7.61 13.18 40.00 IV Commercial Crops
1 Cotton 4.75 0.96 1.85 2.81 59.00 3.69 2.12 133.00
2 Sugarcane 4.52 4.07 0.05 4.12 91.00 3.77 3.08 134.00
3 Tobacco 1.19 0.01 0.84 0.86 72.00 0.98 0.85 100.00 Total Com. Crops
10.46 5.05 2.74 7.79 74.00 8.43 6.05 129.00
Grand Total 74.70 8.07 27.15 35.22
47.00 44.06 52.70 67.00
Source: State Emergency Operation Centre, Revenue Department (Disaster Management)
167
Annexure - II
Details of agriculture crops affected due to dry spell during Kharif 2012-13 (in ha)
Sl. No.
District Crop
Paddy Jowar Ragi Maize Bajra M. millets Tur (Red gram) Black gram Green gram Cowpea
1 Bangalore(U)
208 3 5 68
2 Bangalore(R) 2500 500
463 55
3 Ramanagar 3500 195 20 792 468
4 Kolar 2000
90 1000
761
5 Chikkaballapur 5000 3000
1200 472
6 Tumkur 6 6318 3039 20 7873 664 13112 2160
7 Shimoga 17500
15000
2 242
8 Chitradurga 12 790 9228 40065 450 1250 2377 5 7513 182
9 Davanagere 200 1500
41000 500 15 1500 6 392 197
10 Mysore 7400 1659 19001 4363 12084 8462 23924
11 Chamarajanagar 20958 152 220 640 802 8694 4912 1131
12 Mandya 77 34 65 483 300 250 3171
13 Kodagu
45
14 Hassan 2500 2350 1200 12000 1325 2740 12265 10635
15 Chikkamagalur 1750 500 350 6000 515 470 4275 470
16 Dharwad 12500 750
7500 304 1535 315 1402 548
17 Gadag 0 2000 5000 580 92 1011 17296 143
18 Haveri 8000 2000
23000 195 1275 3171 200 2879 370
19 Belgaum 29726 8966 107 10591 2149 508 1659 1116 3849 649
20 Bijapur 2062 10500 25880 2157 98
21 Bagalkot 300 1500 4156 205 1095 30
22 Raichur 1500 20 15220 8500 405
23 Koppal 25 393 8500 8540 293 1500 1625 670
24 Bellary 60 1545
21000 2000 748 2665 495 94
25 Gulbarga
1200 650 5800 626 135000 12500 12000 257
26 Yadgir
5000 1008 15000 1645 6000 358
Total Area affected 73773 50735 32048 219908 55730 6249 219027 40742 100391 47198
Cost of cultivation ₹/ha. 44000 25800 23000 29500 14700 14700 23000 19000 16000 16000
Total Estimated loss (₹Lakhs) 32460.12 13089.63 7371.04 64872.86 8192.31 918.603 50376.21 7740.98 16062.56 7551.68 Source: State Emergency Operation Centre, Revenue Department (Disaster Management).
168
Details of Agriculture crops affected due to dry spell during Kharif 2012-13 (in ha)
Sl.No. District Avare Ground nut Sesamum Sunflower Castor Soybean Cotton Tobacco Sugarcane Total area affected in Ha.
1 Bangalore(U) 100 9 41 33 467
2 Bangalore(R) 225 115 25
24 3907
3 Ramangar 775 804 572 5 25 7156
4 Kolar 3878 9760 226 42 17757
5 Chikkaballapur 1617 16781
4
28074
6 Tumkur 606 71341 853 230 640 41 106903
7 Shimoga 183
46
600 4 33577
8 Chitradurga 404 25650 2042 3329 426 6780
100503
9 Davanagere 336 2663 143 1380 110 8507
2798 61247
10 Mysore 224 2564 6465 1055 2341 48157 73715 1375 212789
11 Chamarajanagar 538 6512 2422 9012 65 5993 10 3904 65965
12 Mandya 3 112 4118 1 435 14246 23295
13 Kodagu 15 115 175
14 Hassan 225 325 3330 235 405 10 10425 1500 61470
15 Chikkamagalur 2290 6100 3440 185 1462 27807
16 Dharwad 15 5778 189 25053 9768 65657
17 Gadag 41 10704 87 1316 15 3501 41786
18 Haveri 81 4308 213 185 38 5732 40752 92399
19 Belgaum 204 16857 82 81 16 44431 12666 43519 177176
20 Bijapur 6030 61 9906 998 8384 66076
21 Bagalkot 125 65 870
10 23327 31683
22 Raichur 1256 110 10855 495 15845 54206
23 Koppal 213 2133 1183 4922 224
30221
24 Bellary 16661 97 1686 95 8299 55445
25 Gulbarga 148 635 2180 10935 28 11328 8277 2237 203801
26 Yadgir 105 3350 365 7770 120 10650 51371
Total Area affected 9738 206961 30969 67213 5812 86544 182316 84269 101290 1620913
Cost of cultivation ₹/ha. 16000 22000 16000 14000 16000 24000 44000 78000 88500
Total Estimated loss (₹Lakhs) 1558.08 45531.42 4955.04 9409.82 929.92 20770.56 80219.04 65729.82 89641.65 527381.343
Source: State Emergency Operation Centre, Revenue Department (Disaster Management).
169
Annexure - III
Agriculture input subsidy for SMF in Karnataka 2012
Sl No.
Name of affected District
Total Agriculture area affected (in ha)
Total Agriculture area where crop
loss is > 50%
Out of (4) area belonging to SMF Assistance Pursued for different categories of
crops Total
assistance Pursued
(₹ In lakh) Rain fed Irrigated Perennial
Rainfed (₹ 3000 * col 5A)
Irrigated (₹ 6000 * col
5B)
Perennial (₹ 8000 * col 5C)
1 Bangalore(U) 467 467 327 0 980700 0 9.81
2 Bangalore(R) 3907 3907 2735 0 8204700 0 82.05
3 Ramangar 7156 7156 5009 0 15027600 0 150.28
4 Kolar 17757 17757 12430 0 37289700 0 372.9
5 Chikkaballapur 28074 28074 19652 0 58955400 0 589.55
6 Tumkur 106903 106903 74832 0 224496300 0 2244.96
7 Shimoga 33577 33577 23504 0 70511700 0 705.12
8 Chitradurga 100503 100503 70352 0 211056300 0 2110.56
9 Davanagere 61247 61247 40914 1959 122742900 11751600 1344.95
10 Mysore 212789 212789 147990 963 690669400 5775000 6964.44
11 Chamarajanagar 65965 65965 43443 2733 130328100 16396800 1467.25
12 Mandya 23295 23295 6334 9972 19002900 59833200 788.36
13 Kodagu 175 175 123 0 367500 0 3.68
14 Hassan 61470 61470 41979 1050 125937000 6300000 1322.37
15 Chikkamagalur 27807 27807 19465 0 58394700 0 583.95
16 Dharwad 65657 65657 45960 0 137879700 0 1378.8
17 Gadag 41786 41786 29250 0 87750600 0 877.51
18 Haveri 92399 92399 64679 0 194037900 0 1940.38
19 Belgaum 177176 177176 93560 30463 520679700 182779800 7034.6
20 Bijapur 66076 66076 40384 5869 121153200 35212800 1563.66
21 Bagalkot 31683 31683 5849 16329 17547600 97973400 1155.21
22 Raichur 54206 54206 37944 0 113832600 0 1138.33
23 Koppal 30221 30221 21155 0 63464100 0 634.64
24 Bellary 55445 55445 38812 0 116434500 0 1164.35
25 Gulbarga 203801 203801 141095 1566 663284400 9395400 6726.8
26 Yadgir 51371 51371 35960 0 107879100 0 1078.79 TOTAL 1620913 1620913 1063736 70903 0 3917908300 425418000 0 43433.26
₹ In Crore 391.79 42.54 0 434.33 Source: State Emergency Operation Centre, Revenue Department (Disaster Management).
170
Annexure – IV
Agriculture input subsidy for other than SMF in Bijapur in 2012.
Sl. No.
Name of affected District
Total Agriculture area where crop loss is >50% (in
ha)
out of (3) area belonging to farmers other than SMF
No of farmers affected other than SMF
Assistance Pursued for different categories of crops
Total assistance
Pursued (₹ In lakh)
Rain fed Irrigated Perennial RF Irrigated Perennial Affected first time
Rainfed @ ₹3000/ha
Irrigated @ ₹6000/ha
Perennial @ ₹8000/ha.
1 Bangalore (U) 467 140 0 0 47 0 0 140100 0 0 1.4
2 Bangalore (R) 3907 1172 0 0 391 0 0 1172100 0 0 11.72
3 Ramangar 7156 2147 0 0 716 0 0 2146800 0 0 21.47
4 Kolar 17757 5327 0 0 1776 0 0 5327100 0 0 53.27
5 Chikkaballapur 28074 8422 0 0 2807 0 0 8422200 0 0 84.22 6 Tumkur 106903 32071 0 0 10690 0 0 32070900 0 0 320.71
7 Shimoga 33577 10073 0 0 3358 0 0 10073100 0 0 100.73
8 Chitradurga 100503 30151 0 0 10050 0 0 30150900 0 0 301.51
9 Davanagere 61247 17535 839 0 5845 280 0 17534700 1678800 0 192.14
10 Mysore 212789 63424 413 0 21141 138 0 63424200 825000 0 642.49 11 Chamarajanagar 65965 18618 1171 0 6206 390 0 18618300 2342400 0 209.61
12 Mandya 23295 2715 4274 0 905 1425 0 2714700 8547600 0 112.62
13 Kodagu 175 53 0 0 18 0 0 52500 0 0 0.53
14 Hassan 61470 17991 450 0 5997 150 0 17991000 900000 0 188.91
15 Chikkamagalur 27807 8342 0 0 2781 0 0 8342100 0 0 83.42
16 Dharwad 65657 19697 0 0 6566 0 0 19697100 0 0 196.97 17 Gadag 41786 12536 0 0 4179 0 0 12535800 0 0 125.36
18 Haveri 92399 27720 0 0 9240 0 0 27719700 0 0 277.2
19 Belgaum 177176 40097 13056 0 13366 4352 0 40097100 26111400 0 662.09
20 Bijapur 66076 17308 2515 0 5769 838 0 17307600 5030400 0 223.38
21 Bagalkot 31683 2507 6998 0 836 2333 0 2506800 13996200 0 165.03
22 Raichur 54206 16262 0 0 5421 0 0 16261800 0 0 162.62 23 Koppal 30221 9066 0 0 3022 0 0 9066300 0 0 90.66
24 Bellary 55445 16634 0 0 5545 0 0 16633500 0 0 166.34
25 Gulbarga 203801 60469 671 0 20156 224 0 60469200 1342200 0 618.11
26 Yadgir 51371 15411 0 0 5137 0 0 15411300 0 0 154.11 TOTAL 1620913 455887 30387 0 151962 10129 0 455886900 60774000 0 5166.61
₹ In Crore 45.59 6.08 0 51.67
Source: State Emergency Operation Centre, Revenue Department (Disaster Management)
171
Annexure - V
Requisite of Seed Minikit
SL. No.
CROP
Contingent Area under Kharif 2012
(L.ha.)
Additional Area under
Rabi/Summer 12-13 (L.ha.)
Addl. Seed Requirement (Quintals)
Total Value (In lakh ₹) Kharif-
12 R/S 12-
13 Total
1 Paddy 0.5 0.4 23438 18750 42188 1265.63
2 Jowar 2 0 7500 7500 450
3 Ragi 1 0.25 7500 938 8438 253.13
4 Maize 1 0.55 15000 8250 23250 3255
5 Bajra 0.5 0 2500 0 2500 350
6 Wheat 0.15 0 5625 5625 196.88
Total Cereals 3 3.35 48438 41063 89500 5770.63
7 Redgram 0.25 3750 0 3750 300
8 Greengram 0.1 0 1125 1125 87.75
9 Blackgram 0.07 0 788 788 74.81
10 Cowpea 0.05 0 750 750 45
11 Fieldbean 0.03 0 188 188 9.38
12 Horsegram 0.65 0 4063 4063 121.88
13 Bengalgram 2 0 93750 93750 5156.25
Total Pulses 0.25 2.9 3750 100663 104413 5795.06
14 Groundnut 0.25 0 11719 11719 878.91
15 Sunflower 1 1 5000 5000 10000 3200
16 Safflower 0.3 0 1500 1500 60
Total oilseeds 1 1.55 5000 18219 23219 4138.91
17 Cotton 0 0.4 0 0 0 0
Grand Total 4.25 8.2 57188 159944 217131 15704.59
Source: State Emergency Operation Centre, Revenue Department (Disaster Management)
172
Annexure - VI
Additional funds required under ISOPOM
Sl. No.
Relaxation Additional funds
essential (in lakh ₹)
1
a. Distribution of Maize (11250 quintals) & Sunflower (3750 quintals) Seed kits for 1.00 ha area to SC, ST, Small and Marginal farmers.
1621.88
b. Enhancement of Seed distribution subsidy from ₹ 12/Kg to ₹ 30/Kg
c. Distribution of all popular Groundnut and Sunflower variety/hybrids
d. Distribution of TL seeds in addition to Certified seeds
e. Distribution of Private Maize hybrids which have been evaluated and considered for distribution in the State by Tender Evaluation Committee for 2012-13
2 Extending production incentives to popular Groundnut varieties viz., TMV-2 and JL-24
309.5
3 Distribution of Plant Protection chemicals and equipment
318.75
4 Water conveying pipes 150
TOTAL 2400.13
Source: State Emergency Operation Centre, Revenue Department (Disaster Management)
173
Annexure - VII
Relaxation of guidelines and additional funds required
under NFSM are as follows:
Sl. No.
Relaxation required/Particulars Additional
funds required (in lakh ₹)
NFSM (RICE)
1 Enhancement of subsidy from ₹5/Kg to ₹12/Kg 300
2 Distribution of Plant Protection Chemicals & Bio-agents 300
3 Enhancement of pump sets subsidy from ₹ 10,000/- per unit to ₹ 20,000/- per unit
100
4 Distribution of weedicides 100
5 Relaxation to purchase other popular agricultural implements apart from the equipment approved
0
Total for Rice 800
NFSM (PULSES)
1
Enhancement of Certified seed distribution subsidy from ₹ 12/- Kg to ₹40/- per Kg. Permission to distribution of TL seeds due to non-availability of certified seeds in required quantities because of low production due to drought condition
600
2 Enhancement of pump sets subsidy from ₹ 10,000/- per unit to ₹ 20,000/- per unit
100
3 Enhancement of sprinkler subsidy from ₹ 7,500/- per unit to ₹ 15,000/- per unit
50
4 Seed production incentives at ₹ 1000/- per quintal for all popular varieties of Pulses
500
Total for Pulses 1250
Grand Total 2050
Source: State Emergency Operation Centre, Revenue Department (Disaster Management)
174
Annexure – VIII
1. Farm Mechanization Mission – Macro Management of Agriculture (MMA)
Sl. No. Component Physical
programme(No.)
Funds required (in
lakh ₹)
1 Power tillers 7964 3583.8
2 Self-propelled Reaper, Paddy Trans planter and other self-propelled machines
2500 1000
3 Specialized Power driven equipment-POWER WEEDERS
6502 975.2
4 Specialized Power driven equipment’s-ROTAVATOR
6000 1200
5 Power driven equipment- MB-PLOUGH/DISC PLOUGH/CULTIVATOR
5600 560
6 Power Threshers 5300 636
7 Diesel Pump sets with BIS markings 7000 700
8 Power operated Plant Protection equipments.
2500 50
9 Tractor operated Plant Protection equipments.
5000 200
10 Aero-blast sprayer 30 7.5
11 Combine harvesters 725 1087.5
Total 49121 10000
Source: State Emergency Operation Centre, Revenue Department (Disaster Management)
175
Annexure –IX
National Mission on Micro Irrigation
Sl. No.
Component Area proposed to be covered
(ha)
Funds required (in
lakh ₹)
1 Drip irrigation system 36888 14400
2 Sprinkler irrigation system
204702 15600
Total 241590 30000
Source: State Emergency Operation Centre, Revenue Department (Disaster Management)
176
Annexure - X
Fodder Availability in the State as on 30.7.2012
Sl. No.
Districts
Fodder dependent livestock
population in districts
Fodder stock till end of the
week (in Lakhs MTs)
For how many weeks
fodder is sufficient
No. of functioning
goshalas and Animals
No. of fodder Banks
1 Bangalore (U) 151018 80616 8 - - -
2 Bangalore (R) 193545 72229 10 5 22086 -
3 Ramnagara 295039 48355 5 - - 4
4 Kolar 292268 116731 12 - - -
5 Chikkaballapur 284697 31504 3 5 15295 15
6 Tumkur 717431 295412 10 12 16717 -
7 Chitradurga 492124 86269 5 4 2973 -
8 Davanagere 617898 362750 17 1 86 -
9 Shimoga 808381 110359 4 - - -
10 Mysore 591158 310789 8 2 350 3
11 Chamarajnagara 530876 37672 4 - - 3
12 Mandya 516852 223456 12 - - -
13 Kodagu 148063 137281 28 - - -
14 Dakshinna Kannada
360467 259119 8 - - -
15 Udupi 284776 153635 6 - - -
16 Chikkamagalure 519194 188195 11 - - -
17 Hassan 735614 124337 5 - - -
18 Belgam 1208780 255608 5 42 35829 -
19 Bijapur 378609 82693 4 16 8572 -
20 Dharwad 305718 381032 34 1 202 2
21 Gadag 205000 114922 15 5 766 -
22 Haveri 405995 195832 12 - - -
23 Uttara Kannada 469600 77397 5 - - -
24 Bagalkote 439146 214733 13 10 2708 -
25 Gulbarga 606694 122730 6 1 250 13
26 Yadgiri 435719 147791 14 1 26 10
27 Bidar 455183 15896 3 - - 30
28 Raichur 620206 193031 9 2 175 7
29 Ballary 556265 625871 31 - - -
30 Koppal 326658 77027 6 21 18588 -
Total 13952974 5143772 - 128 124623 87
Source: State Emergency Operation Centre, Revenue Department (Disaster Management)
177
Annexure - XI
Agriculture input subsidy for SMF in Bijapur in 2012
Taluk Agriculture
area affected (in ha)
Agriculture area where
crop loss is > 50% (ha)
Out of (column 3) area belonging to SMF
Assistance Pursued for different categories of crops Total
assistance pursued
(₹ in lakh) Rain fed Irrigated Perennial
Rain fed (₹ 3000/ha)
Irrigated (₹ 6000/ha)
Perennial (₹ 8000/ha)
B. Bagewadi 34442 34340 6942 7298 0 20826000 43788000 0 646.14
Bijapur 28085 28085 8351 8500 0 25053000 51000000 0 760.53
Indi 54464 41996 20480 7500 0 61440000 45000000 0 1064.4
Muddebihal 43604 32504 16906 2596 0 50718000 15576000 0 662.94
Sindagi 101601 101601 22556 18084 0 67668000 108504000 0 1761.72
Total Area affected
262196 238526 75235 43978 0 225705000 263868000 0 4895.73
Source: JDA Office, Bijapur.
178
Annexure - XII
Agriculture input subsidy for other than SMF in Bijapur in 2012
Taluk
Agriculture area
affected (in ha)
Agriculture area where crop loss is >50% (in ha)
out of (3) area belonging to farmers other than SMF
No of farmers other than SMF affected by successive calamity
Assistance Pursued for different categories of crops Total
assistance Pursued
(₹ In lakh) Rain fed Irrigated Perennial Rain fed Irrigated Perennial Affected for successive calamities
Rain fed (₹ 3000/ha)
Irrigated (₹ 6000/ha)
Perennial (₹ 8000/ha)
B. Bagewadi 34442 34340 10151 9949 0 3220 2450 0 19320000 29400000 0 487.20
Bijapur 28085 28085 5431 5803 0 2700 2750 0 16200000 33000000 0 492.00
Indi 54464 41996 10000 4016 0 4650 1950 0 27900000 23400000 0 513.00
Muddebihal 43604 32504 11290 1712 0 4515 685 0 27090000 8220000 0 353.10
Sindagi 101601 101601 33835 27126 0 13534 10851 0 81204000 130212000 0 2114.16
Total 262196 238526 70707 48606 0 28619 18686 0 171714000 224232000 0 3959.46
Source: JDA Office, Bijapur.
Remarks : In case of farmers other than SMF the assistance may be provided subject to a ceiling of 1 ha / farmer and up to 2 ha / farmer in case of successive calamities irrespective of the size of his holding being large
179
Annexure - 13. Farmers Interaction in a village of Basavana Bagewadi taluk
180
180
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD
_______COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, BIJAPUR________
“Survey schedule” on
“A Socio-Economic Probe into Impact of Drought on Livelihood of Farmers
in Bijapur, Karnataka”
Schedule No._________ Date._________
Village: __________ Taluk: __________ District: Bijapur
I. INTRODUCTION
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Name:______________________ Age:__________ Education:______________
2. Village:______________ Taluk:______________ District:______________
3. Family type: Nucleus/ Joint
4. Occupation: Main:___________________ Subsidiary:________________
5. Association with Social organization: ZP/TP/VP/NGO/SHG/Water use groups
6. Community: General/SC/ST/CatI/OBC
7. Annual income (Rs.):
I Main occupation.__________ Subsidiary occupation.__________ Total.____________
B. Family composition: Number of family members: Male: Female:
Sl.no Name Sex Age Education Occupation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
181
181
C. Land holdings:
Area: Acre/Ha Soil Type: _____________
Sl
No Particulars Irrigated Rainfed Total
Field
crops
Horticul.
crops
Net cultivated
area Other
1 Owned
2 Leased in*
3 Leased out*
4 UN cultivated
5 Permanent fallow
Total
If Leased in rent paid (Rs/Ac/yr):__________ If leased out, rent received (Rs/Ac/yr):_________
Value of land (Rs/ac):
Dry land____________ Wetland: __________ Fallow land____________
D. Source of Irrigation
Sl No Source Area Irrigated (Acre/ha)
Kharif Rabi Summer
1 Open Well
2 Bore well
3 Canal
4 Tank
5 Farm pond
6 Other
E. Asset position:
Sl.
No Asset
Drought Situation Asset sold
because of
drought
Normal Year
No./
Qty
Year of
Purchase
Present
Value
No.
/Qty
Working
condition
Present
Value
1
Land
Rain fed
Irrigated
Buildings
House: Shed
Thatched
Tile
RCC
Implements
Iron plough
Wooden plough
Seed drill
182
182
Harrows
Bullock kart
Cultivator
Leveler
Sprayer
Rotovator
Sprinkler set
Others
Farm:
Farm house
Cattle shed
Storage godown
Pump house
Others
Vehicles:
Cycle
Two wheeler
Three wheeler
Car
Cart
Tractor
Others
Machinery
Combined Harvesters
Thresher
Power tiller
Pump set
Livestock Position
Cows (Local)
Cross bred
Buffalo
Bullock
Sheep
Goat
Poultry
Investments
Savings
Recurring Deposit
Fixed Deposit
Bonds and Shares
LIC
Others
Others
183
183
II. Cropping pattern
A. Cropping pattern during the drought Season (2012-13)
Area: Acre/ Ha
Sl.
No. Season/Crop Area Ir/Rf
Approx
Cost of
Cultivation
Output (Qty) Output if
Normal
Market Price
(Rs/Unit)
MP BP MP BP MP BP
1 Kharif
i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
2 Rabi
i
ii
iii
iv
v
3 Summer
i
ii
iii
iv
v
4 Perennial
Crops
i
ii
iii
iv
184
184
III. Livestock
A. Livestock Position
Sl.
No. Animals
Normal Year Drought Year Animals sold in drought
Year
Adult Calf Adult Calf Adult Calf
No. Present
Value No.
Present
Value No.
Present
Value No.
Present
Value No.
Present
Value No.
Present
Value
1 Cow
2 Buffalo
3 Cross bred
4 Bullock
5 Sheep
6 Goat
7 Poultry birds
8 Fishery
9 Apiary
Total
B. Milk Yield
Sl.
No Animals
Normal Year Drought Year
No Average
Yield/day
No. of
milking days
Price
/ ltr
Total
Value No
Average
Yield/day
No. of
milking days
Price/
ltr
Total
Value
1 Cow
2 Buffalo
3 Cross bred
4 Goat
5 Sheep
6 Other
185
185
C. Fodder situation
Sl.
No Types of fodder
Normal situation Drought
Qty Value (`) Qty Value
1 Owned
Green fodder
Dry fodder
Concentrated feed
Other
2 Purchased
Green fodder
Dry fodder
Concentrated feed
Other
D. Drinking water availability for livestock
Sl.
No. Source
Drought season Normal season
Quality Adequacy
Quality Adequacy
Kharif Rabi Summer Kharif Rabi Summer
1 Bore well
2 Open well
3 Farm pond
4 Canal
5 Tank
6 Other
186
186
IV. Savings and Expenditure
A. Savings
Sl.
No. Savings
Drought Non-drought
Frequency
/ year
Amt. per
Frequency
Total
Amount
Frequency
/year
Amt. per
Frequency
Total
Amount
1 Banks (FD, RD,
Savings)
2 Post Office
3 Life Insurance
Corporation
4 Bond shares
5 Gold/Jewelry
6 Purchase of rare
articles
7 Provident fund
8 Cash in Hand
9 Others (specify)
B. Consumption Pattern
Sl.
No. Particulars
Drought Year Normal Year
Frequency
D/W/MY Quantity Value
Frequency
D/W/MY Quantity Value
1 Cereals
i
ii
iii
iv
v
2 Pulses
i
ii
iii
3 Chicken/Egg
i
ii
iii
4 Vegetables
i
ii
iii
5 Fruits
i
ii
iii
187
187
C. Expenditure Pattern
Sl.
No Particulars
Normal Drought
Quantity Value Quantity Value
1 Food items
2 Cloths
3 Education
4 Fuel and Light
5 Medical
6 Entertainment
7 Transport
8 Social participation
9 Construction of Houses
10 Bore well
11 Farm implements
12 Farm inputs
13 Land purchase
14 Purchase of rare articles
15 Other (specify)
V. Credit Sources
A. Sources of credit during drought
Sl.
No Amount
Drought Year Normal Year
Interest
Rate
Repayment
plan
Amount
repaid
Due
amount
Interest
Rate
Repayment
plan
Amount
repaid
Due
amount
1 Formal
i Bank
ii RRB
iii Co-operatives
iv
2 Informal
I Money
Ii Friends
Iii Relatives
Iv
3 Gift
4 Drought Relief
programmes
5 Other
188
188
B. Labor Employment
Sl.
No Activities
Drought Year Normal Year
No of
Days/Month
Wage
rate/day
No of
Days/Month
Wage
rate/day
1 Agriculture M
F
2 Non Agriculture M
F
3 Total M
F
C. Sources of Income
Sl.
No. Sources of Income
Drought Non Drought
Qty Price/value Total
amount Qty Price/value
Total
amount
1 Field crops
2 Horticultural
crops
3 Plantation crops
4 Dairy
5 Bullock
6 Sheep/Goat
7 Poultry
8 Farm wages
9 Off farm income
10 Salary
11 Income from
Business
D. Impact of drought on Children Education
Sl.
No. Education level Regular Irregular Discontinued Dropped Remarks
1 Primary
2 Secondary
3 PUC
4 Degree and above
189
189
E. Migration of respondents
Sl.
No. Year
Migration
to Activity
No. of
Days
No. of Members Temporary Permanent
Male Female
1 Drought
2 Normal
F. Drinking water availability during drought for family
Sl.
No Sources
Member involved in
bringing Water Distance
Quantity/
day Cost Quality
1 Tap
2 Bore well
3 Open well
4 Commercial water units
5 If any other specify
G. Coping strategies adopted by Households to mitigate drought.
Sl.
No. Strategy Low Medium High Nil
1 Crop diversification
2 Adoption of drought resistant crops
3 Adoption of drought resistant varieties
4 Mid-season correction
5 Lifesaving (protective) irrigation
6 Mixed cropping/Intercropping
7 Enrichment of roughages
8 Rain water harvesting
9 Bore-well recharge
10 Utilizing the income savings
11 Selling assets
12 Taking loans
13 Reduced food expenditure/consumption
14 Withdrawing children from the education
15 Sending woman/children to work
16 Seeking financial assistance
17 Gift and help received
18 Migration
Others specify
A Socio-Economic Probe into Impacts of Drought on Livelihoods of Farmers in Bijapur District, Karnataka
LOKESH S. 2014 R. S. PODDAR Major Advisor
ABSTRACT
A study on “Socio-economic probe into impacts of drought on livelihoods of
farmers in Bijapur district, Karnataka” was conducted. Both primary (for the year
2012-13) and secondary data were used for the study. Total sample size of the study
was 120 farmer-respondents. Results revealed that rainfall of Karnataka varied
between 770.10 mm in 1990 (-25 %) and 1457.30 mm in 2005 (+42 %) and it
followed a positive trend (781.72+16.90) from 1985 to 2012. A probe into losses due
to drought in the district revealed that there was about 65 per cent loss in crop value.
Drought also caused loss of animals through distress sales (61 %) and about 30 per
cent decrease in milk yield. Food consumption expenditure of farm households
decreased by 20 per cent across different farming categories and 24 percent
decrease in general family expenditure in drought year over normal years
expenditure. On an average, there was about 23 per cent loss in employment of
households due to drought as compared to a normal year. In coping strategies crop
diversification was the most important coping approach and utilizing income savings
was the most important strategy among the off-farm strategies adopted by the
respondents. Crop failure, fodder shortage to the livestock, drinking water and
reduced food consumption expenditure were some of the difficulties encountered by
farmers. Important policy recommendations are completing the ongoing irrigation
projects, traditional water harvesting structures of the district should be rejuvenated
and put for the effective use, implementation of effective watershed development
programmes, afforestation, and drought proofing programmes like MGNREGA,
DPAP and crop insurance should be implemented in an effective manner. Revision of
crop compensation norms of the Government is required and it is necessary to create
more awareness pertaining to contingent crop planning and insitu moisture
conservation techniques recommended by SAU’s.