adapting smallholder agriculture to climate change

Most of India lives in villages. Being apredominantly agrarian society, nearly three-fourths of India’s population live in rural areas.Agriculture is the main source of livelihood fortwo-thirds of the population. The profoundchanges in Indian agriculture since the 1960s havehad cascading effects on India’s agrarian economyand society. After the ecological and economiccrisis the farmers are now faced with the changingclimate. The worst affected in the process are thesmall and marginal farmers (SMF) who constitute70 per cent of the farming community. Accordingto Census data, operational holdings below 4.0hectares (ha) constitute 93.6 per cent of alloperational holdings in 2000/01, covering 62.96per cent of the operational area, or about 100.65million ha in absolute terms (GoI 2005).

Agriculture and climate change are mutuallyimpacted. Often the impact of climate change isunderestimated, and the contributions ofagriculture to climate change are ignored. As aresult, much of the discussion and debates onclimate change and agriculture are aroundparticular technologies which can help farmingto adapt to climate change. In reality, if farmershave to adapt to the changing climate, we needto understand this in a broader context of the

ecological, economic and sociopolitical crisis thatIndian farmers are already undergoing and buildsupport systems to facilitate the process ofadaptation.

The relationship between climate change andagriculture is three-fold. First, climate changehas a direct bearing on the biology of plant andanimal growth. Second, there are changes infarm ecology – such as soil conditions, soilmoisture, pests and diseases, etc. Third, there isthe ability of the existing social and economicinstitutions, particularly in rural areas, to dealwith the challenges posed by global warming. Inthe larger context of food security and climatechange, it is also important to consider othersectors like animal husbandry and livestock,which are closely linked with agriculture.

1 Impact of climate change on agricultureClimate change is manifesting itself in many waysacross the country. Among the indicators, whilelong-term rainfall data analysis shows no cleartrend of change, regional variations as well asincreased rainfall during summer and reducednumber of rainy days can be observed. In the caseof temperature, there has been a 0.6°C rise in thelast 100 years and it is projected to rise by 3.5–5°C

113

Adapting Smallholder Agriculture toClimate Change

G.V. Ramanjaneyulu

Abstract Agriculture and climate change are mutually impacted. The worst affected are the small and

marginal farmers who constitute more than 70 per cent of the farming community in India. Extreme

weather events like increased frequency of heatwaves and cold spells, droughts and floods in the last decade

have become common. In India agriculture contributes about 28 per cent of the greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions; about 78 per cent of methane and nitrous oxide emissions are estimated to be due to the current

agricultural practices. Sustainable agriculture approaches are now acknowledged for the wide range of

ecological and economic benefits that accrue to the practitioners as well as consumers of agricultural

products. These approaches, based on low external inputs, are also less energy-intensive and less polluting

and so mitigate and help in adapting to climate change. Combined with coordinated action by groups or

communities at the local level, and supportive external institutions working in partnership with farmers,

sustainable agriculture will help to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

IDS Bulletin Volume 43 Number S1 July 2012 © 2012 The Author. IDS Bulletin © 2012 Institute of Development Studies

Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

by 2100. The carbon dioxide concentration isincreasing by 1.9ppm each year and is expected toreach 550ppm by 2050 and 700ppm by 2100.Extreme events like frequency of heatwaves andcold spells, droughts and floods have beenobserved in the last decade. The sea level hasrisen by 2.5mm every year since 1950 while theHimalayan glaciers are retreating. These are allsymptomatic of climate change (Smith et al. 2007).

Available research indicates that climate change-induced rises in temperature are going to affectrainfall patterns – farming in India depends onmonsoons and there is a close link betweenclimate and water resources.

Indian agriculture being predominantly rainfedmay be more prone to the impacts of climatechange. Rainfall extremities are being witnessedfrequently. For instance, it is reported that abouttwo-thirds of the sown area in the country isdrought-prone and around 40 million ha are flood-prone. Climate change is also poised to have asharply differentiated effect across agro-ecologicalregions, farming systems, and social classes andgroups. The poorest people are likely to be hardesthit by the impacts of climate variability andchange because they rely heavily on climate-sensitive sectors such as rainfed agriculture andfisheries. They also tend to be locatedgeographically in more exposed or marginal areas,such as flood plains or nutrient-poor soils. Thepoor are also less able to respond due to limitedhuman, institutional and financial capacity andhave very limited ability to cope with climateimpacts and to adapt to a changing hazard burden.

The organic carbon levels and moisture in thesoil will go down while the incidence of runofferosion will increase. Crop quality may alsoundergo change with lower levels of nitrogen andprotein and an increased level of amylasecontent. In paddy, levels of zinc and iron willdecline which will impact the reproductivehealth of animals. Insect lifecycles will increasewhich in turn will raise the incidence of pestattacks and virulence. Other likely impacts arechange in farm ecology, viz. bird-insect relations,and an increase in sea levels which will causesalinity ingression and submergence.

It is projected that due to climate change, kharif1

rainfall is going to increase and this might bepositive for kharif crops. Further, for kharif crops, a

1°C rise in temperature may not have bigimplications for productivity. However,temperature rises in the rabi2 season will impactthe production of wheat, a critical foodgrain crop.

The surface air temperatures will increase by2–4°C by 2070–2100. As mentioned earlier, therabi crop will be impacted seriously and every 1°Cincrease in temperature reduces wheatproduction by 4–5 million tons, according to astudy by the Indian Agricultural ResearchInstitute. This loss can be reduced to 1–2 milliontons only if farmers change to timely planting.Increased climatic extremes like droughts andfloods are likely to increase production variability.Productivity of most cereals would decrease dueto temperature increases and a decrease in wateravailability, especially in Indo-Gangetic plains(Agarwal et al. 2010). The loss in crop productionis projected at 10–40 per cent by 2100, dependingupon the modelling technique applied.

The impacts of climate change are alreadyvisible. A network of 15 centres of the IndianCouncil for Agriculture Research (ICAR)studying climate change has reported that appleproduction is declining in Himachal Pradesh dueto inadequate chilling. This is also causing a shiftin the growing zone to higher elevations (Rana etal. 2009). Similarly in the case of marinefisheries, it has been observed that sardines areshifting from the Arabian Sea to the Bay ofBengal, which is not their normal habitat. Infact, fisheries are the sector most vulnerable toclimate change. Crops have the ability to adaptto extreme climate variability even up to, say,4°C while fish and animals do not. It has alsobeen recorded that the pest ecology of certaincrops is changing due to climate change.

Global warming may increase average watervapour and evaporation, increase precipitation inhigh-altitude regions, significantly alter themonsoon pattern resulting in long dry spells andheavy downpours and change storm patternswhich could influence the global movement ofpests, especially pathogens.

1.1 Pest and disease shift Insect populations, like all animal populations,are governed by their innate capacity to increaseas influenced by various abiotic and bioticfactors. The changes caused by the naturalevolutionary forces are accelerated with human

Ramanjaneyulu Adapting Smallholder Agriculture to Climate Change114

interventions. After changes like depletion ofnatural resources, environmental pollution andextinction of certain species of plants andanimals, climate change – particularly thatcaused by inadvertent anthropogenicdisturbances – has become more evident.

In agricultural ecosystems, soil, plant and animalinteractions are rarely persistent enough, in timeand space, to provide ecological stability butresult in dynamic equilibrium. Pest shifts areobserved with changes in the ecological balance.The natural balance between beneficial andharmful insects changes with cropping patterns,pest management practices and variability in theenvironment. Weather and climate have animpact on the pest population. Climate changeleads to shifts in the pest incidence, migrationand viability thresholds. Today, farming andfarmers’ lives are already affected by pests andthe pest management practices they adopt.Hence, understanding the intricacies of climatechange impact on pest management inagriculture is crucial.

1.1.1 Temperature All life survives within a certain narrowtemperature range. Deviations from thisoptimum range on either side are tolerated tosome extent, depending on the physiologicaladaptations of the concerned species orpopulations. Temperatures above or below theselimits can prove lethal. Exposure to lethal highor low temperatures may result in instant death,or failure to grow and reproduce normally.Harmful effects of exposure to sub-lethaltemperatures may be manifested at a latercritical stage such as molting or pupation. The

temperature rise might also have a negativeeffect on delicate natural enemies such ashymenopteran parasitoids and small predators.This may affect the natural enemy–pestrelationship. For example, the Brown PlantHopper is 17 times more tolerant to 40°C thanits predator Cyrtorrhynus lividipennis but the WolfSpider Paradosa pseudoannulata is tolerant to 40°C.

1.1.2 MoistureMost terrestrial insects live in a dry environment.The only source of water for insects is the waterobtained in food material from their host plants.These insects have therefore developed a varietyof mechanisms to conserve water. In spite ofthese mechanisms, exceptionally dry air mayprove lethal to most insects. Likewise, excessivemoisture may also adversely affect many insectsby encouraging disease outbreaks, affectingnormal development and by lowering theircapacity to withstand lower temperatures. Thereproductive capacity of the insects is alsoaffected by moisture but there are greatdifferences in the capacity of different insects totolerate conditions ranging from extremedryness to near saturated environments. Forexample, the incidence of Rice Hispa (a riceinsect pest) in the Telangana region of AndhraPradesh has increased in the last two years dueto prevailing dry situations.

In recent years a shift has been observed fromleaf/fruit-eating caterpillars to sucking pests.While monoculture of crops/varieties andchemical pest management practices areunderstood to have caused such pest shifts,climate change has also contributed. Forexample, in cotton there is a shift towards

IDS Bulletin Volume 43 Number S1 July 2012 115

Box 1 GHGs and their global warming potential

Measure of the ability of a gas in the atmosphere to trap heat radiated from the earth’ssurface compared to a reference gas, which is usually assumed to be carbon dioxide:

carbon dioxide (CO2) = 1methane (CH4) = 21nitrous oxide (N20) = 310sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) = 23,900tetrafluoromethane (CF4) = 6,500hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs): HFC-134a = 1,300chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs): CFC-114 = 9,300 hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs): HCFC-22 = 1,700

Source Smith et al. (2007)

sucking pests (mealy bugs, jassids) particularlyafter the introduction of Bt cotton.3 Similarly,aphid incidence in groundnuts, and thrips andyellow mites in chillies are observed. Most of thesucking pests are also vectors of viral diseases.With the increasing incidence of sucking pests,viral diseases are also increasing. These includebud necrosis in groundnuts, tobacco streak virusin cotton, and similar viral problems in most ofthe fruit and vegetable crops.

2 Impacts of agriculture on climate changeAgriculture contributes around 10–12 per cent oftotal global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissionsbut is the main source of non-carbon dioxide(CO2) GHGs, emitting nearly 60 per cent ofnitrous oxide (N2O) and nearly 50 per cent ofmethane (CH4) (Smith et al. 2007).

Amongst various GHGs that contribute to globalwarming, carbon dioxide is released throughagriculture by way of burning of fossil fuel;methane is emitted through agricultural practiceslike inundated paddy fields; nitrous oxide isreleased through fertilisers, combustion of fossilfuels, etc. Nitrous oxide has a global warmingpotential 310 times greater than CO2. In India, itis estimated that 28 per cent of the GHGemissions are from agriculture; about 78 per centof methane and nitrous oxide emissions are alsoestimated to be from agriculture.

2.1 Chemical fertilisers and climate changeNitrogen fertiliser manufacture and application tothe soil contributes significantly to GHGemissions and thus, climate change. Indiaconsumes ~14 million tonnes (Mt) of syntheticnitrogen every year, of which about 80 per cent isproduced within the country, making it the secondlargest consumer and producer of syntheticnitrogen fertiliser in the world, after China. TheGHG emissions from fertiliser manufacture anduse in India was estimated to have reached nearly100 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2006/07,which represents about 6 per cent of total IndianGHG emissions (Roy et al. 2010).

There are many sources of emissions in themanufacture of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers:

the manufacture of synthetic nitrogenfertiliser is a very energy-intensive process,and currently requires large amounts of fossilfuel energy;

natural gas is the main fuel and feedstock,which accounts for 62 per cent of the energyused in synthetic nitrogen fertiliser production; less efficient and more polluting fuels such asnaphtha and fuel oil also represent a highshare – 15 and 9 per cent respectively – of theenergy used in fertiliser manufacture (valuesas at 2006/07, FAO 2007); of the various forms in which syntheticnitrogen fertilisers are available, urea accountsfor a chunk of the total nitrogen fertiliserproduced and consumed (81 per cent in 2006); the synthesis of urea is based on thecombination of ammonia and CO2 and itsemissions are dominated by CO2;while other synthetic nitrogen fertiliserscomprise a smaller percentage of the fertilisermarket, they make notable atmosphericemissions during both production andconsumption. The author calculated emissionsfrom the manufacture of synthetic nitrogenfertiliser using the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC) methodology;total GHG emissions from the manufactureand transport of fertiliser are estimated at6.7kg CO2 equivalent (CO2, nitrous oxide andmethane) per kilogram of nitrogen.

Globally, an average 50 per cent of the nitrogenused in farming is lost to the environment.Significant amounts escape into the air, or seepinto the soil and underground water, which inturn results in a host of environmental andhuman health problems, from climate changeand dead zones in the oceans to cancer andreproductive risks (Galloway et al. 2008).

1.25kg of N2O emitted per 100kg of nitrogenapplied;as nitrate polluting wells, rivers, and oceans;volatilisation loss – 25–33 per cent; leaching loss 20–30 per cent.

2.2 Burning crop residuesAnother major contributor to GHGs is theburning of crop residues. In Punjab, wheat cropresidue from 5,500sq km and paddy crop residuesfrom 12,685sq km are burnt each year. Every4 tons of rice or wheat grain produce about6 tons of straw. Emission factors for wheatresidue burning are estimated as: CO –34.66g/kg; NOx – 2.63g/kg; CH4 – 0.41g/km;PM10 – 3.99g/kg, PM2.5 – 3.76g/kg (Gupta et al.2004).


Burning of crop residues also impacts soilfertility. Heat from burning straw penetratesinto the soil up to 1cm, elevating thetemperature to as high as 33.8–42.2°C. Bacterialand fungal populations are reduced immediatelyand substantially in the top 2.5cm of the soilupon burning. Repeated burning in the fieldpermanently diminishes the bacterial populationby more than 50 per cent. The economic loss dueto the burning of crop residues is colossal. Eachyear 19.6 million tonnes of straw of rice andwheat, worth crores of rupees are burnt. Used asrecycled biomass, this potentially translates into38.5 lakh tonnes of organic carbon, 59,000 tonnesof nitrogen, 2,000 tonnes of phosphorous and34,000 tonnes of potassium every year.

2.3 Inundated paddiesAnother potent GHG is methane which isemitted in copious amounts through inundatedpaddy cultivation. Rice paddies emit CH4 whenthey are flooded as the anaerobic decompositionof organic matter in the soil produces the gas,which then escapes to the atmosphere mainlythrough diffusive transport through the riceplants (Nouchi et al. 1990), or it is oxidised beforereaching the surface. The level of CH4 emissionfrom any given rice paddy is related to factorsthat control the activity of the methane-producing (methanogens) and methane-oxidising bacteria (methanotrophs) such astemperature, pH, soil redox potential andsubstrate availability, and also soil type, ricevariety, water management and fertilisation withorganic carbon and nitrogen (see reviews by LeMer and Roger 2001, and Conrad 2002).

In India, of a total area of 99.5 million hectares(Mha) under cereal cultivation, 42.3 Mha (or42.5 per cent) are under rice cultivation. Rice isgrown under flooded conditions and the seedbedpreparation involves puddling or ploughingwhen the soil is wet to destroy aggregates andreduce the rate of water infiltration. Suchanaerobic conditions lead to the emission of

methane and possibly nitrous oxide throughinefficient fertiliser use.

Emission of methane from rice paddies in Indiais differentially estimated. The average methaneflux from rice paddies ranges from 9–46g/m2over a 120–150-day growing season.

2.4 Large dams and GHGsAnother indirect contribution of agriculture toGHG emissions comes in the form of large dams.Large dams contribute an estimated 18.7 percent of emissions in India. Total methaneemissions from India’s large dams could be33.5 million tonnes (MT) per annum, includingemissions from reservoirs (1.1MT), spillways(13.2MT) and turbines of hydropower dams(19.2MT). The methane emission from India’sdams is estimated at 27.86 per cent of themethane emission from all the large dams in theworld, which is more than the share of any othercountry worldwide (Lima et al. 2007).

2.5 Livestock sectorIndia is now among the world’s largest producersof milk, poultry, meat and eggs. It has the world’sbiggest dairy herd, 300 million strong, comprisedof cows and buffaloes, and is the second largestglobal producer of cows’ milk and first in buffalomilk. It is also the world’s top national milkconsumer and demand for milk and other dairyproducts is growing by 7–8 per cent per year.This country is also the world’s fourth largestproducer of eggs and fifth largest producer ofpoultry meat, principally from chickens.

However, livestock in India is more distributedand household-based and mostly integratedwith crop production. The crop residues are usedas fodder and animal waste is used as themanure for the crop fields. The impacts oflivestock on climate change need to beunderstood in this context. Livestock is alsoimpacted by climate change. Possibletemperature increases in India of between2.3–4.8°C by 2050 will cause heat stress toanimals used in milk production and will affectreproduction and the amounts of milk eachanimal provides. Crossbred cows may be mostvulnerable to higher temperatures. Increasedtemperatures and sea level rises may also reducethe availability of land to grow feed, and result inlower crop yields and an increase in the severityand spread of animal diseases.


Figure 1

CH4 emissions (Tg CO2–eq.yr-1) References

55.2–138 Parashar et al. (1994)

135 Yan et al. (2003)

94.07 ± 27.37 Gupta et al. (2009)

In 2010, India was the world’s fastest growingpoultry market, outpacing Brazil, China, theUSA, the European Union and Thailand. Thecost of producing chicken for meat in the countryis the world’s second lowest, and production ofeggs in India is cheaper than in any othercountry, according to the Poultry Federation ofIndia. India is the top global exporter of buffalomeat and it also exports increased quantities ofmaize and soy, both important ingredients incommercial feed. In addition, India’s leadingpoultry producers are expanding their sales tocountries in Asia and the Middle East.

GHGs are generated at virtually every pointalong the livestock production chain. Entericfermentation in livestock released 212.10 milliontons of CO2 eq. (10.1 million tons of CH4). Thisconstituted 63.4 per cent of the total GHGemissions (CO2 eq.) from the agriculture sectorin India. The estimates cover all livestock,namely, cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, poultry,donkeys, camels, horses and others. Manuremanagement emitted 2.44 million tons of CO2

eq. (MOEF 2010).

In India, the emissions from the energy used bythe agriculture and fisheries industries totalled34 million tons of CO2 or 3 per cent of the GHGsproduced by the energy sector. This does notinclude emissions from electricity taken from thenational grid to, for instance, cool large poultryor egg operations or dairies, or to slaughter andprocess animals and their products. Soilcultivation related to animal agriculture globallyemits about 28 million tons of CO2 every year.More than half of this energy used in producingmilk and eggs can be attributed to feedproduction. There are other indirect CO2

emissions, specifically from the manufacture ofchemical and nitrogen-based fertilisers. About41 million tons of CO2 are emitted globally eachyear from the production of nitrogen fertilisersapplied to feed crops.

Carbon dioxide is also released when forests andother vegetation are destroyed to make way forfeed crops or pasture. Considerable uncertaintyexists in calculating overall GHGs from suchchanges in land use, though the Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that2.4 billion tons of CO2 are emitted every year dueto deforestation to create pasture land forlivestock or land for cultivation of feed crops. On

the top of this, 100 million tons of CO2 arereleased every year from livestock-induceddesertification of land.

2.6 GHG emissions from the use of farm machinery The other major source of energy emissions inintensive farming models is the use of fossil fuelsfor machinery like tractors, harvesters, pumpsfor irrigation, etc.

3 Adapting to climate changeConventional approaches to understandingclimate change were limited to identifying andquantifying the potential long-term climateimpacts on different ecosystems and economicsectors. While this approach is useful in depictinggeneral trends and dynamic interactions betweenthe atmosphere, biosphere, land, oceans and ice,this top-down, science-driven approach failed toaddress the regional and local impacts of climatechange and local abilities to adapt to climate-induced changes (TERI 2005).

3.1 Approaches to climate change adaptationThe two main types of adaptation are autonomousand planned adaptation. Autonomous adaptationis the reaction of, for example, a farmer tochanging rainfall patterns, in that s/he changescrops or uses different harvest and planning/sowing dates, by trial and error.

Planned adaptation measures are consciouspolicy options or response strategies, oftenmultisectoral in nature, aimed at altering theadaptive capacity of the agricultural system orfacilitating specific adaptations. For example,deliberate crop/varieties selection, promoting/discouraging certain practices by incentivising/regulating, etc. And the adaptation measures areto be considered holistically, including trade-offsamong biophysical and sociopolitical factors.


Figure 2

Operation type Emission level (kg CO2 – eq.ha-1)

Tillage 4.40–73.60

Drilling or seeding 8.10–14.30

Application of agrochemicals 1.80–37.00

Combine harvesting 22.10–42.10

Source Calculated from data in Lal (2004).

Biodiversity in all its components (genes, species,ecosystems) increases resilience to changingenvironmental conditions and stresses.Genetically diverse populations and species-richecosystems have greater potential to adapt toclimate change. It is essential to use indigenousand locally adapted plants and animals, thusensuring the selection and multiplication of cropvarieties and animal species that are locallyadapted and resistant to adverse conditions.

Work on adapted crops and animals cannot beseparated from their management optionswithin agro-ecosystems. For example, rice, one ofthe staple food crops of India, has severalvarieties with different abilities to tolerate hightemperature, salinity, drought and floods. Ricevarieties with salinity tolerance have been usedto expedite the recovery of production in areasdamaged by the 2004 tsunami (FAO 2007).Similarly, practices like the System of RiceIntensification (SRI) can reduce water usage andthereby methane emissions from the paddyfields. It was observed that methane emissionsare four times lower and nitrous oxide emissionsare five times lower from SRI fields compared toconventional paddy fields (Karki 2010).

Climate change adaptation for agriculturalcropping systems requires a higher resilienceagainst both excess of water (due to high-intensity rainfall) and lack of water (due toextended drought periods). A key element toboth problems is organic soil matter, whichimproves and stabilises the soil structure sothat the soils can absorb higher amounts ofwater without causing surface runoff, whichcould result in soil erosion and, furtherdownstream, in flooding. Soil organic matteralso improves the water absorption capacity ofthe soil so that it can withstand extendeddroughts. While intensive tillage reduces soilorganic matter through aerobic mineralisation,low tillage and the maintenance of permanentsoil cover (through crops, crop residues or covercrops and the introduction of diversified croprotations) increase soil organic matter. A non-or low-tilled soil conserves the structure of soilfor fauna and related macropores (earthworms,termites and root channels) to serve as drainagechannels for excess water. Surface mulch coverprotects soil from excess temperatures andevaporation losses and can reduce crop waterrequirements by 30 per cent. Thus

organic/ecological farming can increase soilorganic carbon, reduce mineral fertiliser useand reduce on-farm energy costs.

A broad range of agricultural water managementpractices and technologies are available tospread and buffer production risks. Enhancingresidual soil moisture through land conservationtechniques assists significantly at the margin ofdry periods while buffer strips, mulching andzero tillage help to mitigate soil erosion risks inareas where rainfall intensities increase. Theinter-annual storage of excess rainfall and theuse of resource-efficient irrigation remain theonly guaranteed means of maintaining croppingintensities.

The negative impact of ruminants on GHGemissions can be addressed through changes inanimal husbandry including ruminant diets andanimal stocking ratios to avoid nitrous oxideemissions. Effective waste management in theform of biogas, etc. can also reduce methaneemissions.

The risks to and vulnerabilities of the poor wholive in insecure places and need to build theirresilience to cope with climatic fluctuations areamong the more important challenges inadapting to increasing climate variability andclimate change.

To sum up, sustainable agriculture (ecologicalfarming/organic farming/LEISA4/Non-PesticidalManagement [NPM]/SRI, etc.) approaches arenow acknowledged for the wide range ofecological and economic benefits that accrue tothe practitioners as well as consumers ofagricultural products. These approaches, basedon low external inputs, are also less energy-intensive and less polluting and so mitigate andhelp in adapting to climate change.

However, the promotion of sustainableagriculture on a large scale is often challengedabout its potential as well as its practicallimitations. In the last five years, two large-scaleinitiatives – scaling up NPM (Community-Managed Sustainable Agriculture – CMSA) inAndhra Pradesh (Ramanjaneyulu and Rao 2008)and SRI promotion in Tripura, Orissa and TamilNadu – have brought in new learnings anddiluted earlier apprehensions on scaling up suchpractices and their relevance on a large scale.


These successful experiences had three elementsin common. First, all have made use of locallyadapted resource-conserving technologies.Second, there has been coordinated action bygroups or communities at the local level. Third,there have been supportive external (or non-local) government and/or non-governmentalinstitutions working in partnership with farmers.Almost every one of the successes has beenachieved despite existing policy environmentsthat still strongly favour ‘modern andestablished’ approaches (technology and supportsystems) to agricultural development.

Now the challenge is how these can be scaled uponto a large scale across the nation given thewide diversity of situations. This needs a newerapproach in terms of capacity building,horizontal learning, newer institutional systemsand newer forms of financial support. Theprogrammatic support to agriculture todayfavours only high external input-basedagriculture. As a result, none of the mainstreamprogrammes provide any support for promotionof these new, sustainable models. This needs therecasting of programme guidelines or initiatingnewer programmes to provide support to moresustainable models in agriculture which can beeasily accessible to small and marginal farmers.

Therefore any effort to initiate a programmaticsupport to scale up sustainable agriculture musthave a broad framework of:

reducing the risks attached to uncertainweather conditions and degraded and limitednatural resources in these regions, byadopting suitable cropping patterns andproduction practices;diversifying the assets and income sources tosustain livelihoods by integrating livestockand horticulture into agriculture andpromoting on-farm and off-farm employmentopportunities;conserving and efficiently using the availablenatural resources like soil and water, andpromoting biomass generation;organising farmers into institutions which canhelp them to have better planning, greatercontrol over their production, help to accessresources and support, improve food securityand move up the value chain;building livelihood security systems towithstand natural disasters like drought,floods and other climate uncertainties.


Notes1 Kharif is the rainy season from June to

September.2 Rabi is the winter season from October to

February.

3 Bt cotton is genetically modified cotton whichproduces a toxin to manage bollworminfestation.

4 Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture.

References Agarwal, Pramod K.; Kumar, S. Naresh and

Pathak, Himanshu (2010) Impacts of ClimateChange on Growth and Yield of Rice and Wheat inthe Upper Ganga Basin, study by IndianAgricultural Research Institute (IARI),published by World Wide Fund for Nature

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations) (2007) Adaptation to ClimateChange in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries:Perspective, Framework and Priorities, report of theInterdepartmental Committee on ClimateChange, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/j9271e/j9271e.pdf (accessed 24 April 2012)

Galloway, J.N.; Townsend, A.R.; Erisman, J.W.;Bekunda, M.; Cai, Z.; Freney, J.R.; Martinelli,L.A.; Seitzinger, S.P. and Sutton, M.A. (2008)‘Transformation of the Nitrogen Cycle:

Recent Trends, Questions, and PotentialSolutions’, Science 320: 889–92

GoI (Government of India) (2011) Census, NewDelhi: Government of India,www.censusindia.gov.in (accessed 23 April 2012)

GoI (Government of India) (2005) AgriculturalCensus, New Delhi: Government of India,http://agcensus.dacnet.nic.in/ (accessed23 April 2012)

Gupta, P.K.; Gupta, V.; Sharma, C.; Das, S.N.;Purkait, N.; Adhya, T.K.; Pathak, H.; Ramesh,R.; Baruah, K.K.; Venkatratnam, L.; GulabSingh and Iyer, C.S.P. (2009) ‘Development ofMethane Emission Factors for Indian PaddyFields and Estimation of National MethaneBudget’, Chemosphere 74: 590–98

Gupta, P.K.; Sahai, Shivraj; Singh, Nahar; Dixit,C.K.; Singh, D.P; Sharma, C.; Tiwari, M.K.;

Gupta, Raj K. and Garg, S.C. (2004) ‘ResidueBurning in Rice–Wheat Cropping System:Causes and Implications’, Current Science 87.12

Karki, Sudeep (2010) ‘System of RiceIntensification: An Analysis of Adoption andPotential Environmental Benefits’, MSc thesissubmitted to Department of InternationalEnvironment and Development Studies,Norwegian University of Life Sciences, As,Norway

Lal, R. (2004) ‘Carbon Emission from FarmOperations’, Environment International 30: 981–90

Le Mer, J. and Roger, P. (2001) ‘Production,Oxidation, Emission and Consumption ofMethane by Soils: A Review’, European Journalof Soil Biology 37: 25–50

Lima, B.T. Ivan; Ramos, Fernando M.; Bambace,Luis A.W. and Rosa, Reinaldo R. (2007)‘Methane Emissions from Large Dams asRenewable Energy Resources: A DevelopingNation Perspective’, Mitigation and AdaptationStrategies for Global Change 13.2: 193–206

MOEF (Ministry of Environments and Forests)(2010) India: Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2007,New Delhi: India Network on Climate Change

Nouchi, I.; Mariko, S. and Aki, K. (1990)‘Mechanism of Methane Transport from theRhizosphere to the Atmosphere through RicePlants’, Plant Physiology 94: 59–66

Parashar, D.C.; Mitra, A.P.; Sinha, S.K.; Gupta,P.K.; Rai, J.; Sharma, R.C.; Singh, N.; Kaul, S.;Lal, G.; Chaudhary, A.; Ray, H.S.; Das, S.N.;Parida, K.M.; Rao, S.B.; Kanungo, S.P. et al.(1994) ‘Methane Budget from Indian PaddyFields’, in K. Minami, A. Mosier and R. Sass(eds), CH4 and NO: Global Emissions and Controlsfrom Rice Fields and Other Agricultural andIndustrial Sources, Tokyo: Yokendo Publishers

Ramanjaneyulu, G.V. and Rao, Rukmini V.(2008) ‘Sustaining Agriculture-Based

Livelihoods: Experiences with Non-pesticidalManagement in Andhra Pradesh’, Development51.4: 541–46

Rana, Ranbir Singh; Bhagat, R.M; Kalia,Vaibhav and Lal, Harbans (2009) ‘Impact ofClimate Change on Shift of Apple Belt inHimachal Pradesh’, proceedings of workshopon Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture,ISPRS, www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXVIII/8-W3/b2/10-B10-179_ISRO%20F.pdf(accessed 25 April 2012)

Roy, B.C.; Chattopadhyay, G.N. and Tirado,Reyes (2010) Subsidising Food Crisis: SyntheticFertilisers Lead to Poor Soil and Less Food,Greenpeace India

Smith, P.; Martino, D.; Cai, Z.; Gwary, D.;Janzen, H.H.; Kumar, P.; McCarl, B.; Ogle, S.;O’Mara, F.; Rice, C.; Scholes, R.J.; Sirotenko,O.; Howden, M.; McAllister, T.; Pan, G.;Romanenkov, V.; Rose, S.; Schneider, U. andTowprayoon, S. (2007) ‘Agriculture’, inB. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Daveand L.A. Meyer (eds), Climate Change 2007:Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to theFourth Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change, Cambridge UK andNew York NY: Cambridge University Press

TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute)(2005) Adaptation to Climate Change in the Contextof Sustainable Development, www.teriin.org/events/docs/adapt.pdf (accessed 23 April 2012)

Yan, X.Y.; Ohara, T. and Kimoto, H. (2003)‘Development of Region-specific EmissionFactors and Estimation of Methane Emissionfrom Rice Fields in the East, Southeast andSouth Asian Countries’, Global Change Biology9: 237–54


adapting smallholder agriculture to climate change

Documents