Globally agriculture is a major source of GHG, accounting for about 14% of emissions. If we combine the emissions caused by deforestation for farming, fertiliser manufacturing and agricultural energy use, the sector becomes the largest contributor to global emissions. At the same time, technical mitigation potential is high in the sector—about two-third of the sectoral GHG. When it comes to global action on climate mitigation, however, agriculture sector is somehow undervalued. Much of attention and effort have been put on industry, electricity and transportation sectors.
This is equally true in case of India. The agriculture sector accounts for 17.6% of total emissions in the country. At the same time, by consuming a quarter of electricity, it is indirectly responsible for another 10% of GHG. If we combine these figures with the emissions caused by the fertiliser industries, catering solely to agriculture, and use of diesel, the sector becomes the largest contributor of GHG in India. At the same time, Indian agriculture has one of the highest technical mitigation potential. For these simple reasons, the sector should be prioritised in India’s climate mitigation strategy.
Has agriculture received due importance in India’s climate mitigation strategy and action? We do not believe so. Keeping with the global trend, India has been prioritising electricity, industries and transportation for low-carbon development. Whatever little effort has been put in agriculture, it is primarily technology-driven, without a clear governance strategy. Will this narrow approach take Indian agriculture
on a low-carbon pathway?
Under the provisions of the National Action Plan on Climate Change, India has launched a dedicated National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) to define its strategies for climate mitigation and adaptation within the agriculture sector. NMSA has been successful in identifying the larger challenges faced by Indian agriculture and how they will be exacerbated in a changing climate context. However, the strategies proposed to meet these challenges are largely drawn from past policies and are highly technology focused. Much of the proposed strategies target the big farmers, while the small and marginal farmers are left vulnerable. While the mission document has given importance to water use efficiency, it has ignored overuse of chemical fertilisers, which is a major driver of rising demand for irrigation water. Though the mission is technology-driven, it neither clarifies how the technologies will be governed nor addresses the weak extension services. Finally, NMSA lacks adequate regulatory framework required to meet climate change related challenges to agriculture. Such an obscure strategy that merely addresses few adaptation concerns certainly falls short of a low-carbon agriculture sector.
Simultaneously, under the National Mission on Enhanced Energy Efficiency, India has launched Agricultural Demand-Side Management (AgDSM) programme to curb agricultural electricity consumption. Taking another narrow and technology-centric approach, the programme seeks to improve pump efficiency by replacing existing pumps with energy efficient pumps. Can these new pumps save energy? The goals seem to be far from the reality.
Considering the past experiences in Indian electricity, we are not very optimistic about
the replacement of 18.5 million irrigation pumps installed across India. The proposed ESCO model of investment seems unrealistic and financially unviable; the energy service companies (potential investors) are taking hands off actual implementation. Even if India manages to implement the AgDSM programme, there is no hope for energy saving. The new pumps being promoted are claimed to be capable of drawing more water with the limited electricity supplied to Indian farmers. Considering the fact that farmers need water—not electricity—and water demand is much higher than current extractable quantity, improving pump efficiency will increase water use and, thus, cause further depletion of groundwater table. The demand for electricity rises symmetrically as the water table goes down. This way, in long run, the AgDSM programme might raise electricity demand in agriculture.
Agriculture sector in India contributes to one-sixth of national GDP, employs more than half of the labour force and is a source of livelihood for two-thirds of the population. The sector is not only most vulnerable to climate change impacts but also has most potential for mitigation. Yet, in global climate negotiations, India has been maintaining a long-standing position that any discussion on agriculture must be held in the realm of adaptation, not mitigation. This partly explains India’s domestic action for low-carbon development within the sector. India may resist inclusion of agriculture in climate mitigation debate at global level, but it will be unaffordable to avoid much of these mitigation needs at domestic level, particularly when adaptation and resilience is closely linked
with and dependent on mitigation efforts.
If India is serious about its voluntary commitment to reduce the carbon intensity of its GDP by 20-25% in comparison to the 2005 level, it must prioritise agriculture sector for domestic climate mitigation. In the current context, India needs to take a much wider approach cutting across energy, water and climate concerns in the sector. The priority should be managing water demand and use in agriculture. Simple modifications in agricultural practices that neither require technological innovation nor need large investment can produce better results than current narrow strategies. At the same time, the country needs to redesign its agricultural subsidy and procurement policies emphasising efficient use of limited resources. Most of these measures will not only take the sector on a low-carbon pathway but also make the two-third agriculture-dependent citizens resilient to climate change impacts, by securing their livelihood.
Ashwini K Swain is an independent energy & climate policy analyst. Olivier Charnoz is a research officer at Agence Française de Développement, where he leads a multi-country research programme called ‘Local Politics, Global Impacts: Climate Change, Biodiversity, and Health’
