Author Name
Admin_niti
Choose Report Type
Publication Date
Report Upload
Download
(863.79 KB)
vertical
Agriculture & Allied Sectors
PDF Text
1 Agriculture in Post Independence India
Looking Back and Looking Ahead
Ramesh Chand
NITI Aayog
New Delhi, 24 Sept, 2021
ICAR Lecture Series
AzadiKaAmritMahotsav Five Decades of Growth Trajectory of
Agriculture and Non Agriculture 1971-2021
3
2.10
3.67
2.08
3.59
4.93
7.29
8.24
7.19
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
Growth rate %
Decade ending year
Agriculture and alliedNon-Agriculture Growth in GVA and Terms of Trade in Different Periods
Sub-SectorTrend Growth rate %
1950-51 to
1964-65
1967-68 to
1990-91
1990-91 to
2004-05
2004-05 to
2020-21
Agriculture & allied2.54 2.53 2.74 3.56
Non-Agriculture 5.86 5.31 7.39 6.90
Human population 2.03 2.22 1.88 1.38
Bovine Population 0.93 0.91 0.18 0.20
Crops2.66 2.75 2.71 2.40
Livestock 2.64 2.69 2.73 6.88
Fishing & aquaculture4.79 3.66 4.40 6.72
4
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1970-71 1972-73 1974-75 1976-77 1978-79 1980-81 1982-83 1984-85 1986-87 1988-89 1990-91 1992-93 1994-95 1996-97 1998-99 2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07 2008-09 2010-11 2012-13 2014-15 2016-17 2018-19 2020-21
ToT
Year
ToT (Agri v/s non agri)
Four stages of agriGrowth:
I: Beginning of active policy,
irrigation, land reforms. Area
expansion.
II: Revival of growth rate after
1967-67 driven primarily by
technology. TOT flat. GRT put
ag on better growth trajectory
III: Technology slowed down
but spread to other areas,
liberalized economy. GR
slightly accelerate
IV: Primarily demand and
price driven. GR further
accelerated. Livestock take
over crops and hortitake
over non hortiin growth.
Prepared sector for demand
driven transformation.
1965-66 and 1966-67 were very serious drought years, which brought
down agrioutput drastically (-12.5%). Growth Rate in OUTPUT of Different Groups
of Crops and Other Agri Products
Sub-Sector
Trend Growth rate %
1950-51 to
1964-65
1967-68 to
1990-91
1990-91 to
2004-05
2004-05 to
2020-21
All Crops 2.81 2.63 2.29 2.65
Rice+Wheat+Maize 4.28 3.36 1.38 2.37
Jowar+bajra+ragi+
small millets
2.38 0.86 -1.62 -1.94
Pulses1.68 0.98 0.20 4.04
Oilseeds 3.03 2.87 0.47 1.34
Fruits & vegetables1.73 3.46 4.70 4.84
Milk Group 1.21 5.02 3.96 5.09
Egg3.42 6.76 4.11 5.38
Meat1.62 4.03 3.37 7.18
Fish4.77 3.65 4.35 6.74
5
•First 15 years beginning plan
period show highest growth in
crop output. Low base effect.
•Beginning Green Rev,
superiority of RW established.
Millet and pulses suffered.
•Millets show falling growth
and reached negative territory
in recent years. Pulses growth
revived after 2004-05.
Lowered dietary diversity
within foodgrains.
•NFSM and BGREI raised
growth of fine cereals and
pulses.
•Nutri cereals decelerated
throughout and reached
negative zone
•Oilseeds gr lost momentum
beginning 1991 leading to
heavy import dependence.
•HVP impressive growth.
•Strong role of demand driven
factors.
Inclusion of 1965-66 and 1966-67 on either side
alter pattern of trend. Two drought years put
country into despair, which seems difficult to
overcome. Green Rev technology came to the
rescue. State-wise Growth in Gross Value Added in
Crop Sector and Total Agriculture 2011-12 to 2019-20
State Growth rate %
(avg. Y-o-Y change)
Agri & alliedCrop
Kerala -2.19 -3.63
Bihar2.02 -1.26
Chandigarh 2.03 -1.19
Uttarakhand 0.88 -0.78
A&N Islands 1.99 -0.50
Arun. Pradesh 3.46 -0.47
Goa2.66 -0.03
Jharkhand 1.96 0.08
Punjab 2.19 0.69
Tamil Nadu 4.96 0.91
Haryana 3.50 1.05
J&K2.89 1.50
Maharashtra 2.88 1.98
Rajasthan 4.69 2.01
West Bengal 2.60 2.09
Uttar Pradesh 2.72 2.27
Assam2.60 2.95
Gujarat 4.56 2.96
Karnataka 3.80 3.38
Mizoram 15.48 3.45
Meghalaya 4.04 3.58
HP4.14 3.62
Chhatisgarh 4.79 3.75
Odisha 4.54 3.98
Nagaland 1.65 4.19
Andhra Pra 8.92 5.41
Telangana 6.50 6.59
Sikkim 6.78 6.59
Tripura 8.02 6.876
Messages
•In most states GR of total agriis robust but
GR of Crop sector varies from -3.6 to 1% in
10/29 states. Only 11/29 states show more
than 3% gr in income from crop sector. Even
here, the major source of growth is due to
horticulture.
•Farmers in most cases identify their income
with income from crop sector only. Bulk of
farmers experienced negative or meagre
growth from crop sector.
•Share of crop sector squeezing:
•2011-12: 65.4%. 2018-19: 55.3%.
•This is a wake up call for crop sciences? And
policy makers?
•Farm protests around field crops issue. Changes in Workforce in Agriculture
YearTotal
Population
Average Annual
Exponential
Growth Rate(%)
Rural
Population
Total
Workers
Agricultural Workers
CultivatorsAgricultural
Labourers
Total
1971548.2 2.20 439.0 180.4 78.2 47.5 125.7
(80.1) (62.2)* (37.8)*(69.7)**
1981683.3 2.22 525.6 244.6 92.5 55.5 148.0
(76.9) (62.5) (37.5) (60.5)
1991846.4 2.16 630.6 314.1 110.7 74.6 185.3
(74.5) (59.7) (40.3) (59.0)
20011028.7 1.97 742.6 402.2 127.3 106.8 234.1
(72.2) (54.4) (45.6) (58.2)
20111210.8 1.50 833.7 481.7 118.8 144.3 263.1
(68.9) (45.1) (54.9) (54.6)
7
•Till 2001 it was going BAU after which two significant changes in agriworkforce:
•Number of cultivators and % of agriworkers in total workforce witnessed
significant decline.
•Some cultivators who left agriand joined rank of agrilabour(compulsion)
•Highest growth of non agriduring 2001-2011 helped in pulling some workers from
agriculture
Note: * Share in agriworkers. ** share of agriworker in total workforce Food Intake and Nutrition: An Indian Enigma
Indicator %IndiaBangla
-desh
NepalPaki-
stan
Sri-
Lanka
Population undernourished 15.39.7 4.812.9 6.8
Wasting Children: under 5 year17.39.812.07.1 15.1
Stunting Children: under 5 year30.930.230.436.7 16.0
Anemia in women: 15-49 year53.036.735.741.3 34.6
Country/
Region
Hunger/ Under-
nourishment
1995/
97
2005/
07
2010/
12
2015/
17
IndiaPeople under-
nourished (million)
204.4 228.8195.0187.6
Prevalence % 20.8 19.615.614.2
WorldPeople under-
nourished (million)
787.5 762.3636.7616.6
Prevalence % 14.0 11.5 9.0 8.2
1.05
1.18
1.25
1.60
1.73
1.04
1.14
1.19
1.49
1.59
1980 to
83
1990 to
93
2000 to
03
2010 to
13
2016-17
Food production/person/day
Kg
Demand
Changes in hunger last two decades
Nutrition and health indicators in South Asia
Significant improvement after 2005 when gr ^
Despite being food
surplus and net
exporter, nutrition
and health outcome?
Paradox Recent Situation Assessment Survey of Agri
Households: Serious Definitional Issues
Land Size
Group
Monthly
Income, All
source Rs
Land less 11204
0.01-0.4 hec 7522
0.4-1 hec 8571
1.01-2 hec 11449
2.01-4 hec 16435
4.01-10 hec 28292
10+ hec 60758
All Size 10218
9
Source of IncomeJuly 2012-
June 2013
July 2018 -
June 2019
Wages/salary2071
(32.2)
4063
(39.8)
Leasing out of land - 134
(1.3)
Cultivation3081
(47.9)
3798
(37.2)
Farming of animals 763
(11.9)
1582
(15.5)
Non-farm business 512
(8.0)
641
(6.3)
Total Income6426
(100)
10218
(100)
•Lot of care needed in interpreting this data. Need consistency check.
•Agriculture household and farmers not same.
•Landless with subsidiary occupation included in AgriH. hold. Mainly wage earners
•Those who cling to tiny holdings, earn less than landless
•Study def carefully. Agri Performance in Global Context
10
90.0
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
150.0
160.0
170.0
180.0
190.0
200.0
Index
Year
Food production Index (Year 2000= 100) ie Putting Food
Prod of each country in 2000 as 100
India China Brazil
USA World
Source: FAOstat-2021
India 3.42
World 2.32
China 2.67
Brazil 3.46
USA 1.31
Trend GR
2000-2019 Some Myths About Indian Agriculture
•Feminisationof agriculture. PLFS 2017-18 Rural
–Female 30% of Ag workforce but agriemploys
73% of total rural female workers. Fact
•Profit is squeezing. No evidence at national level.
See States.
•Indian farmers receive much less support as
compared to other countries. Fact
•Fertiliser use is much imbalanced in the Country.
Fact.
•Indian agriculture is net taxed as AMS is negative.
Fact
11 Subsidies and Public Investments in
Agriculture and Allied Sectors
Year Agri subsidy (000 Crore at
current prices)
Public
Investment in
Agri 000 cr
Subsidy/hecRs.
Incl. power
subsidy
Excl. power
subsidy
Incl.
power
Excl.
power
2011-12 165 100.5 35.7 11707 7128
2012-13 181 107.6 39.7 12924 7631
2013-14 176 103.2 40.8 12457 7319
2014-15 195 106.2 47.3 13888 7532
2015-16 216 108.1 56.2 15431 7670
2016-17 - 97.6 66.9 - 6923
2017-18 - 127.3 67.1 - 9029
2018-19 - 151.3 92.6 - 10728
Subsidy as % of GDP Agri (incl. power): >10.0
PM Kisan Samman Nidhi:2.0
Pub Investments as % of GDP agri: 2.62
Private Corporate share in agriinvestments %: 1.22 Traditional Crop Sector which Affect Vast Majority of
Farmers show Minimal Growth despite Maximum Support
Sub SectorPolicies Pub. Int&
support
Output Growth rate %
2014-15 to 2018-19
Fishery Littleor no subsidy. No intervention of govt.
FDI allowed. Some institutional support
Very low 7.45
Livestock MMPO liberalised. No restrictions on private
investments in milk plants. No market
regulation. Co-op, Milkplant, private milkman
procure from farmers directly. Aggregator.
Little or no subsidy.
Very low 6.38
Fruits and
Vegetables
No price support. Enjoy input subsidy.
Regulated by APMC
Moderate 2.45
Cereals, oilseeds,
pulses
(MSP crops)
Heavilysubsidised. MSP, Proc. Over regulated.
APMC Act. Little corporate inv. in prod and
mkg.
Very high 1.15
Fish (7.45)
Livestock
(6.38)
Horticulture
(2.45)
Field crops
(1.15)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Little LittleModerate High
Growth Rate %
Govt. intervention
•More liberalised sector, higher
the growth.
•Lesser govt intervention higher
the growth
•Putting more resources in
subsidies and support not
leading to growth Recent Initiatives for Agri. and Farmers
•Pradhan Mantri Krishi SinchaiYojana, E-NAM, Soil Health
Card, PMFBY, Kisan SampadaYojana: How working?
•Revision of norm for fixing MSP
•Public procurement expanded to more areas and
commodities
•KCC for animal husbandry and fisheries.
•Interest subvention extended to dairy sector
•PM ASHA: PSS, PDP, Private StockistsScheme
•Buffer stock for pulses
•PM Kisan Nidhi and State Initiatives for direct payment
•Reforms in agriculture
•AIF and FPO
•Export subsidy sugar, rice, wheat
•Oil palm promotion scheme
14 How Much Agriculture Matters Now
•Share in GDP: 20 per cent
•Employment ~ 42 per cent. Welfare implications
•Inclusive character of agrigrowth
•Net foreign exchange earnings.
–Export $41 Billion Import: $20 Billion
•Sustaining Food and nutrition security of 1.3 billion
people
•Backward and forward linkages
•Social stability
•Savior from shocks
•Matters for Natural Resource Sustainability
15
Ramesh Chand Main Issues for Future
1.Sustainability and ecology.
•Water consumption ~ 80-90 per cent
•Land under agriculture ~ 46 per cent
•Green house gases ~ 17 per cent
•Bio diversity loss
2.Serious concern about Climate change. Lot of talk about Nature
positive, Regenerative agri.
3.Issue of farmers income –declining farm size. Scale issues
4.Rising cost, efficiency, and Global competitiveness
5.Food security, nutrition, safety and health
6.Growing opposition to modern methods of farming and use of
chemicals in agriculture.
7.Food composition: Production and consumption imbalances
8.Alternative agriculture
9.SDG goals and Food systems transformation
10.AgriR&D and Technology for 21
st
Century
16
Ramesh Chand Main Issues for Future….2
11.Support to startups coming with transformative ideas
12.Growth and sustainability tradeoffs
13.Excess workforce in agriculture. What is the way out
14.Paradigm shift in policy ecosystem: Centre and state
15.Lot of changes in food demand
16.Inter and intra Regional disparities
–Programmeslike aspirational district
17.Remunerative employment
17
Ramesh Chand Sustainability: Paradigm Shift in Approach
Agro-Climatic Regional Planning
18
•Bringing back the forgotten concept
–Shortage: used for production maximisation
–Followed by indiscriminate push to production
•Paddy in semi arid tropics
•Ground nut in peak summer
•Water intensive crops in low rainfall area
–Dubious distinction of biggest exporter of embedded water
•Exporting water intensive products and importing environment friendly
•Surplus: Can afford trade-offs in favour of sustainability
–What does it imply
•To balance environment health and economic profitability
•Shift: from conflict with nature to comply with nature
•Unit of planning
–Administrative point: district(s)
–Agro climatic endowments: trans-boundary
–Can be super imposed and delineated.
Ramesh Chand, NITI Aayog Diversification to Achieve Multiple Goals
•Multiple goals: Match demand. Promote efficiency, better nutrition and
health, sustainability and profitability. Export.
•Choices, Goals and pathways
•At district(s) level. Avoid glut. District diversification plan.
•Dovetail with various initiatives of Centre and states.
19
DivtowardsMain goalPathways
Nutri-cereals Nutrition and sustainabilityTech, Price support, value
chains
Pulses Nutrition and sustainability.
Import substitution
Upgrade technology, address
market risk
Oilseeds Improve self sufficiency. Technology upgradation.
Horticulture Profitability. Import substitution.Processing, shelf life
Livestock Regular and stable income. Productivity, health, export
Medicinal and
aromatic plants
Supplement income. Health.
Export
Seed, Plant prop material.
SHG/FPO mkg Prospects of Growth and Demand
•No threat to meet future demand in medium term
•Proj. growth in output >3% and domestic demand 2-2.5%/year
•Need to export sizable quantity and compete in global market
•Growth turning costlier over time. Fiscally unsustainable, nature
exploitative and environmentally suffocating. Must change.
•Problem of uneconomic surpluses and rising deficit of edible oil,
pulses, nutracereals.
20
1.63
2.43
3.07
2.43
3.49
3.50
2.28
2.16
1.99
1.53
1.30
1.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
1970-71 to 1979-
80
1980-81 to 1989-
90
1990-91 to 1999-
00
2000-01 to 2009-
10
2010-11 to 2019-
20
Proj. Towards
2030
Annual growth rate in Agri-food Output and Human Population 1970s to 2030
Agriculture outputPopulation Fast Changes in Demand Pattern, and Dietary Divide
•Under nutrition, malnutrition. Health
implications –deprivation and obesity co exist
•Emphasis on food for health will increase
•Globalisation of diets and also demand for ethnic
food
•Superior and inferior cereals def may be reversed
•Dietary divide:
–Food for elite: Organic, natural, exotic
•Different type of value chains. Labeling, Traceability
–Food for masses
•Quality, safe, healthy and attribute based food
21
Ramesh Chand, NITI Aayog Food processing and agrobased industry
•Food processing and agrobased industry
–Demand shift towards processed, ready made food. Value
addition. Job creation.
–MSME: Packaged products, ethnic and traditional food.
–Several new initiatives esp. under AtmaNirbharBharat:
•PM-FME (Formalisation of Micro Food Proc Enterprises). One
district one product. Existing and new micro food processing
unit
•Prod Linked Incentive Scheme in 10 key sectors, including food
processing
•Pradhan Mantri KisanSAMPADA Yojana (PMKSY)
–1.Mega Food Parks,
–2. Integrated Cold Chain and Value Addition infrastructure
–3. Infrastructure for Agro-processingClusters,
–4. Creation of Backward and Forward Linkages
–5. Creation/ Expansion of Food Processing &Preservation Capacities
–6. Operation Greens
•Competition among districts for above
22 Required New Pathways
•Costly growth to efficient growth
•Balancing interest of future and present generation
–sustainable use of natural resources
•Supply driven growth to demand driven growth
•Food security to nutrition security and health
•Unregulated food to safe and healthy food
•Enabling farmers to become price setter: Farmers org
•Overcome scale disadvantage: making small stronger
•Matching willingness to pay with willingness to supply
•Attract modern capital and knowledge to agriculture
•Attracting technology start-ups to agriculture
•Linking production to processing for job creation
•Dependent agriculture to self reliant agriculture
•Balancing need with capacity
“What farmers deserve and seek v/swhat nation can afford and pay”
23
Ramesh Chand Some Messages for NARS
•Reprioritiseand reallocate resources and manpower over
commodities, themes and space based on future scenario.
•Redefine goal of research.
–Wider adaptation, to, agroclimatic based productivity
–Yield maximization, to, minimization of average cost/unit of output
–Crop duration: do not enable crop intensity beyond sustainable limit.
–Examine food system approach; is it possible to change research portfolio
as envisaged in FS approach
–High priority to agroforestry with cropping system
•Precision farming and new tools of science
–Strong in biotechnology. Collaborate with IIT etcfor space, digital, design,
drone, mechanization, post harvest, waste to wealth, hi-tech agri
•More active involvement with private sector
24
Ramesh Chand Thank you!
25
Looking Back and Looking Ahead
Ramesh Chand
NITI Aayog
New Delhi, 24 Sept, 2021
ICAR Lecture Series
AzadiKaAmritMahotsav Five Decades of Growth Trajectory of
Agriculture and Non Agriculture 1971-2021
3
2.10
3.67
2.08
3.59
4.93
7.29
8.24
7.19
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
Growth rate %
Decade ending year
Agriculture and alliedNon-Agriculture Growth in GVA and Terms of Trade in Different Periods
Sub-SectorTrend Growth rate %
1950-51 to
1964-65
1967-68 to
1990-91
1990-91 to
2004-05
2004-05 to
2020-21
Agriculture & allied2.54 2.53 2.74 3.56
Non-Agriculture 5.86 5.31 7.39 6.90
Human population 2.03 2.22 1.88 1.38
Bovine Population 0.93 0.91 0.18 0.20
Crops2.66 2.75 2.71 2.40
Livestock 2.64 2.69 2.73 6.88
Fishing & aquaculture4.79 3.66 4.40 6.72
4
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1970-71 1972-73 1974-75 1976-77 1978-79 1980-81 1982-83 1984-85 1986-87 1988-89 1990-91 1992-93 1994-95 1996-97 1998-99 2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07 2008-09 2010-11 2012-13 2014-15 2016-17 2018-19 2020-21
ToT
Year
ToT (Agri v/s non agri)
Four stages of agriGrowth:
I: Beginning of active policy,
irrigation, land reforms. Area
expansion.
II: Revival of growth rate after
1967-67 driven primarily by
technology. TOT flat. GRT put
ag on better growth trajectory
III: Technology slowed down
but spread to other areas,
liberalized economy. GR
slightly accelerate
IV: Primarily demand and
price driven. GR further
accelerated. Livestock take
over crops and hortitake
over non hortiin growth.
Prepared sector for demand
driven transformation.
1965-66 and 1966-67 were very serious drought years, which brought
down agrioutput drastically (-12.5%). Growth Rate in OUTPUT of Different Groups
of Crops and Other Agri Products
Sub-Sector
Trend Growth rate %
1950-51 to
1964-65
1967-68 to
1990-91
1990-91 to
2004-05
2004-05 to
2020-21
All Crops 2.81 2.63 2.29 2.65
Rice+Wheat+Maize 4.28 3.36 1.38 2.37
Jowar+bajra+ragi+
small millets
2.38 0.86 -1.62 -1.94
Pulses1.68 0.98 0.20 4.04
Oilseeds 3.03 2.87 0.47 1.34
Fruits & vegetables1.73 3.46 4.70 4.84
Milk Group 1.21 5.02 3.96 5.09
Egg3.42 6.76 4.11 5.38
Meat1.62 4.03 3.37 7.18
Fish4.77 3.65 4.35 6.74
5
•First 15 years beginning plan
period show highest growth in
crop output. Low base effect.
•Beginning Green Rev,
superiority of RW established.
Millet and pulses suffered.
•Millets show falling growth
and reached negative territory
in recent years. Pulses growth
revived after 2004-05.
Lowered dietary diversity
within foodgrains.
•NFSM and BGREI raised
growth of fine cereals and
pulses.
•Nutri cereals decelerated
throughout and reached
negative zone
•Oilseeds gr lost momentum
beginning 1991 leading to
heavy import dependence.
•HVP impressive growth.
•Strong role of demand driven
factors.
Inclusion of 1965-66 and 1966-67 on either side
alter pattern of trend. Two drought years put
country into despair, which seems difficult to
overcome. Green Rev technology came to the
rescue. State-wise Growth in Gross Value Added in
Crop Sector and Total Agriculture 2011-12 to 2019-20
State Growth rate %
(avg. Y-o-Y change)
Agri & alliedCrop
Kerala -2.19 -3.63
Bihar2.02 -1.26
Chandigarh 2.03 -1.19
Uttarakhand 0.88 -0.78
A&N Islands 1.99 -0.50
Arun. Pradesh 3.46 -0.47
Goa2.66 -0.03
Jharkhand 1.96 0.08
Punjab 2.19 0.69
Tamil Nadu 4.96 0.91
Haryana 3.50 1.05
J&K2.89 1.50
Maharashtra 2.88 1.98
Rajasthan 4.69 2.01
West Bengal 2.60 2.09
Uttar Pradesh 2.72 2.27
Assam2.60 2.95
Gujarat 4.56 2.96
Karnataka 3.80 3.38
Mizoram 15.48 3.45
Meghalaya 4.04 3.58
HP4.14 3.62
Chhatisgarh 4.79 3.75
Odisha 4.54 3.98
Nagaland 1.65 4.19
Andhra Pra 8.92 5.41
Telangana 6.50 6.59
Sikkim 6.78 6.59
Tripura 8.02 6.876
Messages
•In most states GR of total agriis robust but
GR of Crop sector varies from -3.6 to 1% in
10/29 states. Only 11/29 states show more
than 3% gr in income from crop sector. Even
here, the major source of growth is due to
horticulture.
•Farmers in most cases identify their income
with income from crop sector only. Bulk of
farmers experienced negative or meagre
growth from crop sector.
•Share of crop sector squeezing:
•2011-12: 65.4%. 2018-19: 55.3%.
•This is a wake up call for crop sciences? And
policy makers?
•Farm protests around field crops issue. Changes in Workforce in Agriculture
YearTotal
Population
Average Annual
Exponential
Growth Rate(%)
Rural
Population
Total
Workers
Agricultural Workers
CultivatorsAgricultural
Labourers
Total
1971548.2 2.20 439.0 180.4 78.2 47.5 125.7
(80.1) (62.2)* (37.8)*(69.7)**
1981683.3 2.22 525.6 244.6 92.5 55.5 148.0
(76.9) (62.5) (37.5) (60.5)
1991846.4 2.16 630.6 314.1 110.7 74.6 185.3
(74.5) (59.7) (40.3) (59.0)
20011028.7 1.97 742.6 402.2 127.3 106.8 234.1
(72.2) (54.4) (45.6) (58.2)
20111210.8 1.50 833.7 481.7 118.8 144.3 263.1
(68.9) (45.1) (54.9) (54.6)
7
•Till 2001 it was going BAU after which two significant changes in agriworkforce:
•Number of cultivators and % of agriworkers in total workforce witnessed
significant decline.
•Some cultivators who left agriand joined rank of agrilabour(compulsion)
•Highest growth of non agriduring 2001-2011 helped in pulling some workers from
agriculture
Note: * Share in agriworkers. ** share of agriworker in total workforce Food Intake and Nutrition: An Indian Enigma
Indicator %IndiaBangla
-desh
NepalPaki-
stan
Sri-
Lanka
Population undernourished 15.39.7 4.812.9 6.8
Wasting Children: under 5 year17.39.812.07.1 15.1
Stunting Children: under 5 year30.930.230.436.7 16.0
Anemia in women: 15-49 year53.036.735.741.3 34.6
Country/
Region
Hunger/ Under-
nourishment
1995/
97
2005/
07
2010/
12
2015/
17
IndiaPeople under-
nourished (million)
204.4 228.8195.0187.6
Prevalence % 20.8 19.615.614.2
WorldPeople under-
nourished (million)
787.5 762.3636.7616.6
Prevalence % 14.0 11.5 9.0 8.2
1.05
1.18
1.25
1.60
1.73
1.04
1.14
1.19
1.49
1.59
1980 to
83
1990 to
93
2000 to
03
2010 to
13
2016-17
Food production/person/day
Kg
Demand
Changes in hunger last two decades
Nutrition and health indicators in South Asia
Significant improvement after 2005 when gr ^
Despite being food
surplus and net
exporter, nutrition
and health outcome?
Paradox Recent Situation Assessment Survey of Agri
Households: Serious Definitional Issues
Land Size
Group
Monthly
Income, All
source Rs
Land less 11204
0.01-0.4 hec 7522
0.4-1 hec 8571
1.01-2 hec 11449
2.01-4 hec 16435
4.01-10 hec 28292
10+ hec 60758
All Size 10218
9
Source of IncomeJuly 2012-
June 2013
July 2018 -
June 2019
Wages/salary2071
(32.2)
4063
(39.8)
Leasing out of land - 134
(1.3)
Cultivation3081
(47.9)
3798
(37.2)
Farming of animals 763
(11.9)
1582
(15.5)
Non-farm business 512
(8.0)
641
(6.3)
Total Income6426
(100)
10218
(100)
•Lot of care needed in interpreting this data. Need consistency check.
•Agriculture household and farmers not same.
•Landless with subsidiary occupation included in AgriH. hold. Mainly wage earners
•Those who cling to tiny holdings, earn less than landless
•Study def carefully. Agri Performance in Global Context
10
90.0
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
150.0
160.0
170.0
180.0
190.0
200.0
Index
Year
Food production Index (Year 2000= 100) ie Putting Food
Prod of each country in 2000 as 100
India China Brazil
USA World
Source: FAOstat-2021
India 3.42
World 2.32
China 2.67
Brazil 3.46
USA 1.31
Trend GR
2000-2019 Some Myths About Indian Agriculture
•Feminisationof agriculture. PLFS 2017-18 Rural
–Female 30% of Ag workforce but agriemploys
73% of total rural female workers. Fact
•Profit is squeezing. No evidence at national level.
See States.
•Indian farmers receive much less support as
compared to other countries. Fact
•Fertiliser use is much imbalanced in the Country.
Fact.
•Indian agriculture is net taxed as AMS is negative.
Fact
11 Subsidies and Public Investments in
Agriculture and Allied Sectors
Year Agri subsidy (000 Crore at
current prices)
Public
Investment in
Agri 000 cr
Subsidy/hecRs.
Incl. power
subsidy
Excl. power
subsidy
Incl.
power
Excl.
power
2011-12 165 100.5 35.7 11707 7128
2012-13 181 107.6 39.7 12924 7631
2013-14 176 103.2 40.8 12457 7319
2014-15 195 106.2 47.3 13888 7532
2015-16 216 108.1 56.2 15431 7670
2016-17 - 97.6 66.9 - 6923
2017-18 - 127.3 67.1 - 9029
2018-19 - 151.3 92.6 - 10728
Subsidy as % of GDP Agri (incl. power): >10.0
PM Kisan Samman Nidhi:2.0
Pub Investments as % of GDP agri: 2.62
Private Corporate share in agriinvestments %: 1.22 Traditional Crop Sector which Affect Vast Majority of
Farmers show Minimal Growth despite Maximum Support
Sub SectorPolicies Pub. Int&
support
Output Growth rate %
2014-15 to 2018-19
Fishery Littleor no subsidy. No intervention of govt.
FDI allowed. Some institutional support
Very low 7.45
Livestock MMPO liberalised. No restrictions on private
investments in milk plants. No market
regulation. Co-op, Milkplant, private milkman
procure from farmers directly. Aggregator.
Little or no subsidy.
Very low 6.38
Fruits and
Vegetables
No price support. Enjoy input subsidy.
Regulated by APMC
Moderate 2.45
Cereals, oilseeds,
pulses
(MSP crops)
Heavilysubsidised. MSP, Proc. Over regulated.
APMC Act. Little corporate inv. in prod and
mkg.
Very high 1.15
Fish (7.45)
Livestock
(6.38)
Horticulture
(2.45)
Field crops
(1.15)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Little LittleModerate High
Growth Rate %
Govt. intervention
•More liberalised sector, higher
the growth.
•Lesser govt intervention higher
the growth
•Putting more resources in
subsidies and support not
leading to growth Recent Initiatives for Agri. and Farmers
•Pradhan Mantri Krishi SinchaiYojana, E-NAM, Soil Health
Card, PMFBY, Kisan SampadaYojana: How working?
•Revision of norm for fixing MSP
•Public procurement expanded to more areas and
commodities
•KCC for animal husbandry and fisheries.
•Interest subvention extended to dairy sector
•PM ASHA: PSS, PDP, Private StockistsScheme
•Buffer stock for pulses
•PM Kisan Nidhi and State Initiatives for direct payment
•Reforms in agriculture
•AIF and FPO
•Export subsidy sugar, rice, wheat
•Oil palm promotion scheme
14 How Much Agriculture Matters Now
•Share in GDP: 20 per cent
•Employment ~ 42 per cent. Welfare implications
•Inclusive character of agrigrowth
•Net foreign exchange earnings.
–Export $41 Billion Import: $20 Billion
•Sustaining Food and nutrition security of 1.3 billion
people
•Backward and forward linkages
•Social stability
•Savior from shocks
•Matters for Natural Resource Sustainability
15
Ramesh Chand Main Issues for Future
1.Sustainability and ecology.
•Water consumption ~ 80-90 per cent
•Land under agriculture ~ 46 per cent
•Green house gases ~ 17 per cent
•Bio diversity loss
2.Serious concern about Climate change. Lot of talk about Nature
positive, Regenerative agri.
3.Issue of farmers income –declining farm size. Scale issues
4.Rising cost, efficiency, and Global competitiveness
5.Food security, nutrition, safety and health
6.Growing opposition to modern methods of farming and use of
chemicals in agriculture.
7.Food composition: Production and consumption imbalances
8.Alternative agriculture
9.SDG goals and Food systems transformation
10.AgriR&D and Technology for 21
st
Century
16
Ramesh Chand Main Issues for Future….2
11.Support to startups coming with transformative ideas
12.Growth and sustainability tradeoffs
13.Excess workforce in agriculture. What is the way out
14.Paradigm shift in policy ecosystem: Centre and state
15.Lot of changes in food demand
16.Inter and intra Regional disparities
–Programmeslike aspirational district
17.Remunerative employment
17
Ramesh Chand Sustainability: Paradigm Shift in Approach
Agro-Climatic Regional Planning
18
•Bringing back the forgotten concept
–Shortage: used for production maximisation
–Followed by indiscriminate push to production
•Paddy in semi arid tropics
•Ground nut in peak summer
•Water intensive crops in low rainfall area
–Dubious distinction of biggest exporter of embedded water
•Exporting water intensive products and importing environment friendly
•Surplus: Can afford trade-offs in favour of sustainability
–What does it imply
•To balance environment health and economic profitability
•Shift: from conflict with nature to comply with nature
•Unit of planning
–Administrative point: district(s)
–Agro climatic endowments: trans-boundary
–Can be super imposed and delineated.
Ramesh Chand, NITI Aayog Diversification to Achieve Multiple Goals
•Multiple goals: Match demand. Promote efficiency, better nutrition and
health, sustainability and profitability. Export.
•Choices, Goals and pathways
•At district(s) level. Avoid glut. District diversification plan.
•Dovetail with various initiatives of Centre and states.
19
DivtowardsMain goalPathways
Nutri-cereals Nutrition and sustainabilityTech, Price support, value
chains
Pulses Nutrition and sustainability.
Import substitution
Upgrade technology, address
market risk
Oilseeds Improve self sufficiency. Technology upgradation.
Horticulture Profitability. Import substitution.Processing, shelf life
Livestock Regular and stable income. Productivity, health, export
Medicinal and
aromatic plants
Supplement income. Health.
Export
Seed, Plant prop material.
SHG/FPO mkg Prospects of Growth and Demand
•No threat to meet future demand in medium term
•Proj. growth in output >3% and domestic demand 2-2.5%/year
•Need to export sizable quantity and compete in global market
•Growth turning costlier over time. Fiscally unsustainable, nature
exploitative and environmentally suffocating. Must change.
•Problem of uneconomic surpluses and rising deficit of edible oil,
pulses, nutracereals.
20
1.63
2.43
3.07
2.43
3.49
3.50
2.28
2.16
1.99
1.53
1.30
1.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
1970-71 to 1979-
80
1980-81 to 1989-
90
1990-91 to 1999-
00
2000-01 to 2009-
10
2010-11 to 2019-
20
Proj. Towards
2030
Annual growth rate in Agri-food Output and Human Population 1970s to 2030
Agriculture outputPopulation Fast Changes in Demand Pattern, and Dietary Divide
•Under nutrition, malnutrition. Health
implications –deprivation and obesity co exist
•Emphasis on food for health will increase
•Globalisation of diets and also demand for ethnic
food
•Superior and inferior cereals def may be reversed
•Dietary divide:
–Food for elite: Organic, natural, exotic
•Different type of value chains. Labeling, Traceability
–Food for masses
•Quality, safe, healthy and attribute based food
21
Ramesh Chand, NITI Aayog Food processing and agrobased industry
•Food processing and agrobased industry
–Demand shift towards processed, ready made food. Value
addition. Job creation.
–MSME: Packaged products, ethnic and traditional food.
–Several new initiatives esp. under AtmaNirbharBharat:
•PM-FME (Formalisation of Micro Food Proc Enterprises). One
district one product. Existing and new micro food processing
unit
•Prod Linked Incentive Scheme in 10 key sectors, including food
processing
•Pradhan Mantri KisanSAMPADA Yojana (PMKSY)
–1.Mega Food Parks,
–2. Integrated Cold Chain and Value Addition infrastructure
–3. Infrastructure for Agro-processingClusters,
–4. Creation of Backward and Forward Linkages
–5. Creation/ Expansion of Food Processing &Preservation Capacities
–6. Operation Greens
•Competition among districts for above
22 Required New Pathways
•Costly growth to efficient growth
•Balancing interest of future and present generation
–sustainable use of natural resources
•Supply driven growth to demand driven growth
•Food security to nutrition security and health
•Unregulated food to safe and healthy food
•Enabling farmers to become price setter: Farmers org
•Overcome scale disadvantage: making small stronger
•Matching willingness to pay with willingness to supply
•Attract modern capital and knowledge to agriculture
•Attracting technology start-ups to agriculture
•Linking production to processing for job creation
•Dependent agriculture to self reliant agriculture
•Balancing need with capacity
“What farmers deserve and seek v/swhat nation can afford and pay”
23
Ramesh Chand Some Messages for NARS
•Reprioritiseand reallocate resources and manpower over
commodities, themes and space based on future scenario.
•Redefine goal of research.
–Wider adaptation, to, agroclimatic based productivity
–Yield maximization, to, minimization of average cost/unit of output
–Crop duration: do not enable crop intensity beyond sustainable limit.
–Examine food system approach; is it possible to change research portfolio
as envisaged in FS approach
–High priority to agroforestry with cropping system
•Precision farming and new tools of science
–Strong in biotechnology. Collaborate with IIT etcfor space, digital, design,
drone, mechanization, post harvest, waste to wealth, hi-tech agri
•More active involvement with private sector
24
Ramesh Chand Thank you!
25