recent research in agriculture in india

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 18 July 2023

Sustainable pathways toward reimagining India’s agricultural systems

• Kamaljit S. Bawa 1 , 2 &
• Reinmar Seidler   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6106-8274 1  

Communications Earth & Environment volume  4 , Article number:  262 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

3459 Accesses

15 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Agriculture
• Developing world
• Sustainability

India’s Green Revolution made the country a world leader in rice and wheat production, but it has taken its toll on people and the environment. In an era of climate change and population growth, agriculture must be made sustainable. Pathways to this ambitious goal require new approaches to agricultural policy and research.

During the 1960s and 1970s, India’s Green Revolution brought about a remarkable agricultural transformation. Over the course of two decades, the country turned from one of the world’s largest net importers of food grains into a leading exporter of rice and wheat and established its prominence in the global food market. However, the requirements for energy, water and fertilizers to sustain the production of new varieties of rice and wheat were substantial, and they had detrimental consequences. Green Revolution-based agriculture has led to the loss of soil nutrients 1 , depletion of water resources 2 , reduction in agrobiodiversity 3 and increases in greenhouse gas emissions 4 . Impacts on public health and the recurrent financial investments needed for seeds and chemical inputs helped create debt traps for many farming families, compounding the environmental impacts 5 .

Transformative changes in India’s agriculture are needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining production levels and sustaining ecosystem services. India needs to improve management of soils, water and crop residues, reduce food waste, augment biodiversity in and around farms, and ramp up carbon sequestration.

Pathways to Reducing Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions

There are alternatives to the intensive rice-wheat production promoted under the Green Revolution.- These include natural, regenerative, organic, and no-tillage farming based on agroecological principles 6 , 7 , 8 . But critically, it remains unclear whether these systems can maintain high levels of productivity and how they would respond to changing climatic conditions.

We identify five main pathways to reducing net greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector and increasing carbon sequestration in soils and biomass. Each pathway faces considerable implementation challenges, not only technical but also around knowledge and institutions.

Build soil fertility with less synthetic fertilizer

Many alternative agricultural systems emphasize a reduction in soil tillage and use of organic inputs to maintain a healthy sub-surface ecosystem while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Such approaches have been used in India 9 , 10 , 11 , but with little overall analysis of outcomes. Because at least 40 to 55% of India’s soils today are severely deficient in nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and organic carbon 12 , synthetic fertilizers may seem virtually indispensable. But fertilizers are currently used inefficiently and in skewed proportions 13 , partly because government subsidies have kept prices of nitrogenous fertilizers excessively low, leading to imbalanced use of phosphorus and potassium 14 . Crop residues and weed biomass can be put to targeted use instead of being burned. Integration of agriculture with livestock industries can provide dung and manure. Supplies of seaweed, aquatic weed biomass as well as aquaculture waste from fisheries can overcome the shortage of organic inputs. All these measures can create markets for waste products from other sectors.

Integrated nutrient management approaches 15 and pesticide-free farming methods ( https://www.safeharvest.co.in/ ), which permit limited synthetic fertilizers but restrict other chemical inputs, may avoid some destructive outcomes while upholding productivity levels—but they require systematic trials. The national Soil Health Card program—a governmental scheme implemented to help farmers monitor the status of their soils—should be reinforced and expanded. Understanding soil health and correct fertilizer use will reduce the need for perverse fertilizer subsidies and increase farmers’ ability to use fertilizers sustainably.

Above all, large-scale systematic testing is needed to establish the relative productivity of diverse place-based agricultural approaches over time. The diversity of India’s soils, hydrology, regional climate regimes and cultural characteristics means that one-size-fits-all programs are bound to fail. This was a core problem with the Green Revolution.

Improve water management and crop diversity

Paddy rice production is associated with intensive water consumption, and rice is therefore an ecologically inappropriate crop choice where water is scarce. Nevertheless, rice is currently cultivated in semi-arid regions, such as parts of Punjab 16 . This results in unsustainable rates of groundwater extraction. In addition, in hypoxic conditions inundated rice fields emit methane, a short-lived but potent greenhouse gas whose emissions must be reduced urgently 17 . Both water consumption and methane emissions can be reduced through improved water management.

Before the Green Revolution, traditional cropping choices emphasized pulses, beans, and a variety of nutritious drought-resistant crops such as millets and sorghum. Re-establishing greater crop diversity, especially in dry areas, can help address current challenges in meeting food security while adapting to climate change. However, moving toward crop diversity will require comprehensive reconsideration of agricultural land uses at the landscape scale, along with heavy investments in agricultural extension services.

Reuse crop residue as raw material

In India each year, between 92 and 122 million tons of residue from rice, wheat and sugarcane are burned in the fields. These fires emit particulate matter and greenhouse gases 18 . The residues are burned because in the Green Revolution-based rice-wheat system, there is a very short interval between the end of the rice harvest and the start of sowing wheat. The slow decomposition of crop residues inhibits their use in situ, while hiring machinery to quickly break down crop residues and assist with decomposition is expensive. Yet crop residues and weed biomass could also be useful in other sectors. Fueling biomass power plants, these residues could generate 120 Terawatt hours of electricity – nearly 10% of India’s current total energy production 19 . A functioning market for recycling crop wastes as soil amendments would also benefit farmers by providing them both with extra income and a reliable supply of organic biomass.

Expense and transport challenges hinder the development of such markets. One solution is to provide financial support to farmer cooperatives and small agribusinesses for processing crop waste with other biomass for reuse in agriculture and other industries.

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from livestock

India is currently home to over 535 million head of livestock 20 that produce greenhouse gases equivalent to 467.5 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. Three strategies have been proposed to mitigate these emissions 21 . Cattle can be fed with methane-inhibiting feed additives such as seaweed; they can be vaccinated against rumen methanogens with methanogen vaccines to control their methane emissions; and regular and time-controlled breeding can also contribute to reducing emissions.

However, all three strategies face considerable cultural and practical challenges. At the large scale, each would be expensive and administratively complex. Without a subsidized distribution system for feed additives, the benefits of reduced methane emissions would accrue to the global community whereas the costs for the additives would fall on the smallholder. Even raising the average quality of cattle feed would reduce methane emissions rates but would be prohibitively costly for smallholders. Since cattle are widely associated with sacred values, manipulating them through vaccines and breeding systems would not sit well with much of the population.

Promote agroforestry for carbon sequestration with co-benefits

In India, where many smallholders have little access to forest areas, agroforestry services may be essential for a viable agricultural system 22 . Agroforestry in mixed-use, multifunctional landscapes (e.g., Fig.  1 ) provides key ecosystem goods and services such as fuel wood, fruits, fodder, and fibers. Agroforestry’s green infrastructure helps constrain erosion, stabilize fragile soils and steep slopes, and can sequester some carbon. Protection of late-successional forests in situ, termed proforestation 23 , is far more effective in storing carbon than growing new trees through afforestation. Again, the role of trees and forests needs to be considered at the landscape scale.

Smallholder agricultural systems in mountain villages, such as this one in the Darjeeling Himalaya mid-montane, depend on close integration of crops, livestock, and forest resources. The bluish haze is from wood-burning household stoves. ( R. Seidler photo ).

Policy frameworks needed to generate the pathways

These pathways cannot be implemented at the necessary scale without explicit participation and commitment of government agencies and research institutions. Scattershot approaches will not suffice. Here we describe the steps depicted in Fig.  2 .

New policy frameworks are urgently needed to reshape institutional networks and increase their capacity to adopt and implement landscape-systems approaches to agricultural research and resource management. Key agencies such as Indian Council of Agricultural Research and government think-tank NITI-Aayog must implement programs promoting sustainability, climate resilience, biodiversity maintenance, and ecosystem services – not focusing exclusively on agroecosystems but also incorporating nearby ecosystems such as forests, wetlands, abandoned fields, urbanizing areas.

Landscape approaches should be implemented using available technologies such as controlled field trials across multiple agroecosystems and digital platforms to generate knowledge commons. These can help improve communications and facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration, promoting sectoral integration.

Field trials are needed to evaluate performance not only in terms of productivity but also of synthetic or organic soil amendments and pesticide inputs, greenhouse gas emissions, and resilience to climate extremes. Field trials can fill gaps in knowledge, enabling widespread application of agroecological principles and locally appropriate natural and organic methods. Such trials require significant changes in research paradigms to incorporate multiple actors beyond the agricultural scientists focused on agronomy, gene editing and breeding. Close participation of farmers, local non-governmental organizations and agencies is critical for collecting large-scale farm-level data. Currently, public sector extension agencies and universities rarely explore synergies or cooperation 24 .

Emerging technologies, especially digital platforms, can help create a national movement for the spread of new paradigms and action at the grassroots level. Several government initiatives are underway (e.g., KisanMitr ( https://kisanmitr.gov.in )), mKisan Portal ( http://www.mkisan.gov.in/aboutmkisan.aspx ). Civil society organizations such as Digital Green ( https://www.digitalgreen.org/ ) and e-Kisaan ( http://www.ekisaan.com/ ) already demonstrate potential to reach thousands of farmers 25 and provide transformative information and services from the start of the crop cycle to product marketing ( https://agrevolution.in/company ).

The diagram outlines the flows of information and influence needed to generate large-scale outcomes incorporating biodiversity protection, livelihoods support and climate mitigation.

Globally, and nationally in India, a radical shift in thinking about food systems and sustainability is underway. Steps toward agricultural sustainability in India must generate a multi-dimensional food system that continues producing enough food calories while sequestering carbon, protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services, and supporting rural livelihoods. Many practices will need to change to meet these goals simultaneously. A holistic lands-based approach to agricultural research can help meet the requirements of food systems in the era of climate change, while helping the country realize its ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions – thereby honoring the state’s social contract with its own people as well as with the international community.

Tilman, D. The greening of the green revolution. Nature 396 , 211–212 (1998).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Davis, K. F. et al. Alternative cereals can improve water use and nutrient supply in India. Sci. Adv. 4 , eaao1108 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Perfecto, I. et al. Nature’s Matrix: Linking Agriculture, Biodiversity Conservation and Food Sovereignty (2nd edn.) (NYC: Routledge, 2019).

Sapkota, T. B. et al. Cost-effective opportunities for climate change mitigation in Indian agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 655 , 1342–1354 (2019).

Wakchaure, S. D. Analytical study of agricultural crisis and farmers suicides in India. Int. Res. Jour. Hum. Res. Soc. Sci . 7 , 97–104 (2020).

Mukherjee, A., et al. Organic Farming in India: Status, Issues and Way Forward (Executive Summary) (ICRIER, 2017).

NAAS. Zero Budget Natural Farming - A Myth or Reality? Policy Paper 90. 20pp (National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2019).

Wezel, A. et al. Agroecological principles and elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 40 , 1–13 (2020).

Das, J. & Bhattacharyya, D. An Enquiry into the challenges of organic farming in Sikkim. Business Studies 39 , 105–112 (2018).

Google Scholar  

Erenstein, O. & Laxmi, V. Zero tillage impacts in India’s rice–wheat systems: a review. Soil Tillage Res. 100 , 1–14 (2008).

Jat, M. L. et al. Conservation agriculture for sustainable intensification in S. Asia. Nat. Sustain. 3 , 336–343 (2020).

GoI MAFW-DAFW. Soil Health Survey 2019–20. Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare - Department of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare. https://soilhealth.dac.gov.in/PublicReports/MacroNutrientsStateWiseNPK (2020).

Das, B. S. et al. Soil Health and its relationship with food security and human health to meet the Sustainable Development Goals in India. Soil Security 8 , 100071 (2022).

Gulati, A. & Banerjee, P. Rationalising Fertiliser Subsidy in India: Key Issues and Policy Options . Working Paper 307. ICRIER: New Delhi (2015).

Wu, W. & Ma, B. Integrated nutrient management (INM) for sustaining crop productivity and reducing environmental impact: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 512 , 415–427 (2015).

Gulati, A. et al. Revitalizing Indian Agriculture and Boosting Farmer Incomes , p. 372 (Springer Nature, 2021).

McKenna, P. The IPCC Understated the Need to Cut Emissions from Methane and Other Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, Climate Experts Say. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12082021/ipcc-report-methane-super-pollutants/ (2021).

Venkatramanan, V. et al. Nexus between crop residue burning, bioeconomy and sustainable development goals over North-Western India. Front. Energy Res. 8 , 614212 (2021).

Ravindra, K. et al. Emissions of air pollutants from primary crop residue burning in India and their mitigation strategies for cleaner emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 208 , 261–273 (2019).

GoI DAHD. 20 th Livestock Census . Government of India, Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying https://dahd.nic.in/sites/default/filess/Key%20Results%2BAnnexure%2018.10.2019.pdf (2019).

Kumari, S. et al. Methane production and estimation from livestock husbandry: a mechanistic understanding and emerging mitigation options. Sci. Total Environ. 709 , 136135 (2020).

Dagar, J. C. et al. Agroforestry for Degraded Landscapes (Springer, 2020).

Moomaw, W. R. et al. Intact forests in the United States: proforestation mitigates climate change and serves the greatest good. Front. Fors. Glob. Change 2 , 1–10 (2019).

Gulati, A. et al. Agriculture extension system in India: review of current status, trends and the way forward (ICRIER, 2018).

Bhaskara, S. & Bawa, K. S. Societal digital platforms for sustainability: agriculture. Sustainability 13 , 5048 (2021).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd, Boston, MA, 02125, USA

Kamaljit S. Bawa & Reinmar Seidler

Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Bengaluru, 560 064, India

Kamaljit S. Bawa

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

K.S.B. and R.S. both contributed to conceiving, researching and writing the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reinmar Seidler .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Communications Earth & Environment thanks Sylvia Helga Vetter and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Aliénor Lavergne. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Peer review file, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bawa, K.S., Seidler, R. Sustainable pathways toward reimagining India’s agricultural systems. Commun Earth Environ 4 , 262 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00902-6

Download citation

Received : 31 January 2023

Accepted : 19 June 2023

Published : 18 July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00902-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

AI for agriculture: How Indian farmers are harvesting innovation

AI for agriculture in India: Indian farmers using smartphone and collecting information in a field

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Agriculture, Food and Beverage is affecting economies, industries and global issues

Stay up to date:, industries in depth.

Listen to the article

• India's farmers combat climate change, pestilence, and financial burdens, with AI-driven initiatives like AI4AI offering transformative solutions.
• The "Saagu Baagu" project under AI4AI has enhanced yields and incomes for 7,000 Chilli farmers from Telangana, doubling their earnings through agritech and data management.
• Following its success, 'Saagu Baagu' is expanding to potentially impact 500,000 farmers across five value chains, demonstrating AI's vast potential in agriculture.

A wide set of climate and economic challenges.

India's smallholding farmers face significant challenges.They struggle with erratic weather and the impacts of climate change, pest infestations, and declining yields. Financially constrained, many are trapped by high-interest loans from local lenders. Post-harvest, issues such as crop wastage, logistics, and market access can add to their troubles, with up to 40% of produce lost. Market fluctuations and the inability to meet quality standards further exacerbate their struggles.

The impact of Artificial Intelligence on agriculture in India.

In response to these challenges, the World Economic Forum's Artificial Intelligence for Agriculture Innovation (AI4AI) initiative is stepping in to support India’s agricultural transformation by driving the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies for agricultural advancements. Led by the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution (C4IR) India , this initiative brings together government, academia and business representatives to develop and implement innovative solutions in the agriculture sector.

The World Economic Forum was the first to draw the world’s attention to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the current period of unprecedented change driven by rapid technological advances. Policies, norms and regulations have not been able to keep up with the pace of innovation, creating a growing need to fill this gap.

The Forum established the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution Network in 2017 to ensure that new and emerging technologies will help—not harm—humanity in the future. Headquartered in San Francisco, the network launched centres in China, India and Japan in 2018 and is rapidly establishing locally-run Affiliate Centres in many countries around the world.

The global network is working closely with partners from government, business, academia and civil society to co-design and pilot agile frameworks for governing new and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI) , autonomous vehicles , blockchain , data policy , digital trade , drones , internet of things (IoT) , precision medicine and environmental innovations .

Learn more about the groundbreaking work that the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution Network is doing to prepare us for the future.

Want to help us shape the Fourth Industrial Revolution? Contact us to find out how you can become a member or partner.

One of the most successful implementations of the AI4AI initiative is the 'Saagu Baagu' pilot, developed in partnership with Telangana state government, in its Khammam district, supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and implemented by Digital Green . The project has substantially improved the chili value chain for more than 7,000 farmers. The state government of Telangana has played a key role in this transformation by creating enabling infrastructure and policies including India’s first agriculture data exchange and agri data management framework.

Saagu Baagu has demonstrated remarkable results in its first phase of implementation. Farmers participating in the programme saw a 21% increase in chili yields per acre, a 9% reduction in pesticide use, a 5% decrease in fertilizer usage, and an 8% improvement in unit prices due to quality enhancements. As a consequence of these improvements, farmers have seen their incomes soar by more than INR 66,000 (around 800 USD) per acre per crop cycle, effectively doubling their earnings. These figures not only highlight the effectiveness of Saagu Baagu but also its contribution to sustainable and efficient agricultural practices.

Building on these successes, in October 2023, the Telangana government expanded Saagu Baagu’s scope. The project now aims to impact 500,000 farmers, encompassing five different crops across ten districts. This expansion is a strategic move to maximize the benefits of innovative agricultural technologies, potentially transforming the agricultural landscape of the region.

Have you read?

These are the seven key innovations needed to transform food and agriculture, how next-gen technology in agriculture can make food safer in india, from the field to the dinner table, ai in agriculture can create a resilient food system, join our global movement for sustainable agriculture..

As the Global South tackles the critical challenges of food security, climate resilience, and sustainable livelihoods, the AI4AI initiative stands as a concrete example of successful agricultural innovation .

C4IR India is applying these learnings not only locally but is also exporting this knowledge to other C4IR Centres in Colombia , Saudi Arabia , and South Africa . We welcome organizations and governments to join forces with the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution Network and contribute to a positive global agricultural impact.

Join us in this global movement to harness the full potential of agriculture through cutting-edge technology. Contact us to be a part of this transformative initiative.

Marco Aguilar

Related topics:

The agenda weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More impact on Industries in Depth .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Digital safety: We are shaping a more secure digital future

Marco Aguilar and Agustina Callegari

January 16, 2024

Investing in trees: global companies are protecting and restoring forests

Farms to food markets: providing solutions and collective action for sustainable food systems

August 29, 2023

Helping critical industry and transport reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050

December 15, 2021

We are closing the gap between technology and policy

September 17, 2021

Cybersecurity in aviation: Building a resilient future

June 2, 2021

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agriculture in India: Cross-sectional results from a nationally representative survey

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Systems, The University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, United Kingdom, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft

Affiliation Council on Energy, Environment and Water, New Delhi, India

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Systems, The University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, United Kingdom

Roles Methodology

Affiliation Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, India

Roles Data curation

Roles Conceptualization

Affiliation Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad, India

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

• Lindsay M. Jaacks, 
• Niti Gupta, 
• Jagjit Plage, 
• Ashish Awasthi, 
• Divya Veluguri, 
• Sanjay Rastogi, 
• Elena Dall’Agnese, 
• GV Ramanjaneyulu, 
• Abhishek Jain

• Published: August 18, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

21 Oct 2022: Jaacks LM, Gupta N, Plage J, Awasthi A, Veluguri D, et al. (2022) Correction: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Agriculture in India: Cross-Sectional Results from a Nationally Representative Survey. PLOS Sustainability and Transformation 1(10): e0000033. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000033 View correction

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted agriculture in India in many ways, yet no nationally representative survey has been conducted to quantify these impacts. The three objectives of this study were to evaluate how the pandemic has influenced: (1) cropping patterns and input use, (2) farmers’ willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices, and (3) farmers’ COVID-19 symptoms. Phone surveys were conducted between December 2020 and January 2021 with farmers who had previously participated in a nationally representative survey. Values are reported as weighted percent (95% confidence interval). A total of 3,637 farmers completed the survey; 59% (56–61%) were small/marginal farmers; 72% (69–74%) were male; and 52% (49–55%) had a below poverty line ration card. A majority of farmers (84% [82–86%]) reported cultivating the same crops in 2019 and 2020. Farmers who reported a change in their cropping patterns were more likely to be cultivating vegetables (p = 0.001) and soybean (p<0.001) and less likely to be cultivating rice (p<0.001). Concerning inputs, 66% (63–68%) of farmers reported no change in fertilizers; 66% (64–69%) reported no change in pesticides; and 59% (56–62%) reported no change in labor. More than half of farmers (62% [59–65%]) were interested in trying sustainable farming, primarily because of government schemes or because their peers were practicing it. About one-fifth (18% [15–21%]) of farmers reported COVID-19 symptoms in the past month (cough, fever, or shortness of breath) and among those with symptoms, 37% (28–47%) reported it affected their ability to work. In conclusion, COVID-19 infections had started to impact farmers’ productivity even during the first wave in India. Most farmers continued to grow the same crops with no change in input use. However, many expressed an interest in learning more about practicing sustainable farming. Findings will inform future directions for resilient agri-food systems.

Author summary

Nearly half of the Indian population is employed in agriculture, yet no nationally representative survey has explored the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on farmers. We leveraged a pre-existing nationally representative sample of 20 states/union territories to conduct surveys via phone interview between December 2020 and January 2021 with 3,637 farmers. This period coincided with the end of the first wave of COVID-19 (which peaked in mid-September 2020) and the end of the Kharif (monsoon) season–the major agricultural season when rice is primarily cultivated. Our three objectives were to evaluate how the pandemic has influenced: (1) cropping patterns and the use of inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, and labor; (2) farmers’ willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices such as organic farming; and (3) farmers’ COVID-19 symptoms. We found that symptoms associated with COVID-19 had started to impact farmers’ productivity even during the first wave in India. Most farmers continue to grow the same crops with no change in input use. However, many expressed an interest in learning about sustainable farming practices. Among the farmers who did change their cropping pattern, they were more likely to be growing nutrient-dense crops (vegetables) instead of rice. Findings will inform future directions for resilient agri-food systems.

Citation: Jaacks LM, Gupta N, Plage J, Awasthi A, Veluguri D, Rastogi S, et al. (2022) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agriculture in India: Cross-sectional results from a nationally representative survey. PLOS Sustain Transform 1(8): e0000026. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026

Editor: Prajal Pradhan, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), GERMANY

Received: February 4, 2022; Accepted: July 9, 2022; Published: August 18, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Jaacks et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: De-identified participant data is available at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/YOOU7C .

Funding: Funding to support data collection was provided by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (AJ), The Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Scottish Government (LMJ), discretionary faculty research funds from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (LMJ), and Medical Research Council/UK Research and Innovation (LMJ). ED received salary support from the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Scottish Government for this work. LMJ received salary support from Medical Research Council/UK Research and Innovation for this work. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Since its initial outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has killed more than 6 million people globally [ 1 ]. In addition, more than 100 million people are estimated to have ‘long COVID’ globally, with the highest rates of long COVID reported in Asia [ 2 ]. Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic will have long-lasting effects on population health and wellbeing. In addition, supply chain disruptions arising from government responses to control the pandemic, i.e. lockdowns and border closures, have led to a re-emergence of debates on the vulnerabilities of globalized value chains [ 3 ]. Finally, the pandemic and pandemic response led to the largest global economic crisis in more than a century with the world economy shrinking by approximately 3% and global poverty increasing for the first time in a generation [ 4 ]. Given that agriculture is the largest employer in most developing economies [ 5 ] and the important role agriculture plays in food security, an in-depth evaluation of this particular sector is warranted.

India’s agricultural system is largely based on input-intensive monocropping of staple crops. Two-thirds of irrigated land and one-third of unirrigated land is cultivated with paddy and wheat [ 6 ]. With regards to inputs, 90% of irrigated land and 63% of unirrigated land is treated with synthetic fertilizer and approximately 40% of agricultural land is treated with synthetic pesticides [ 6 ]. While there has been an increase in organic farming and other sustainable approaches such as natural farming in recent years, it still makes up less than 2% of all cultivated land [ 7 , 8 ]. The cost of cultivation has been increasing [ 9 ] and yields of rice and wheat have been stagnating [ 10 ], resulting in more than half of agricultural households being in debt [ 11 ]. Thus, even before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a crisis among Indian farmers.

In 2020, as a result of public health interventions to prevent the spread of COVID-19, there were major disruptions to India’s agri-supply chains. A phone survey of a convenience sample of Indian farmers across 12 states conducted in May 2020–during the first lockdown–found that farmers struggled to sell their produce because the market price was too low or they could not access the markets due to travel restrictions [ 12 ]. Moreover, about half of farmers reported the lockdown had affected their ability to sow for the upcoming season due to labor not being available and not being able to access or afford inputs such as seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides [ 12 ]. One might expect that the high cost of these products and disruption to accessing them during the pandemic may have led some farmers to consider agricultural practices that do not rely on external inputs, such as organic farming, natural farming, and other sustainable agricultural practices. At the same time, from the demand-side, the pandemic and increasing health-consciousness among consumers in India has stimulated growth of the organic market [ 13 ].

To address the aforementioned disruptions to the agriculture sector, the Finance Minister announced a COVID-19 economic package worth 1.5 trillion Indian Rupees (INR) (~20 billion US Dollars [USD]) aimed at strengthening infrastructure, logistics, and capacity building [ 14 ]. A majority of the funds went to setting up an “Agri Infrastructure Fund” to finance projects at the farm gate and aggregation points [ 14 ]. Other aspects of the package included the promotion of herb/medicinal plant cultivation and the extension of “Operation Greens” from tomato, onion, and potato to all fruits and vegetables [ 14 ]. These new initiatives may also shift agricultural practices, particularly cropping patterns. One previous survey found that more than 90% of farmers who were monocroppers in Kharif 2019 were monocroppers in Kharif 2020–and primarily cultivating rice–suggesting there has not been a major shift in cropping patterns as a result of the pandemic [ 15 ], but further research is needed to confirm this observation.

To date, no nationally representative study has been conducted among Indian farmers nor has any study explored whether the pandemic has shifted farmers’ crop choices, input use, and willingness to adopt more sustainable practices. Moreover, early in the pandemic–i.e., in May 2020–individuals living in urban slums were nearly twice as likely to have been infected with COVID-19 (Immunoglobulin G antibody positive in a national seroprevalence study) as compared to individuals in rural areas [ 16 ]. However, by mid-September 2020, when India’s first wave of COVID-19 peaked, rural areas had also experienced a rise in cases [ 17 ]. Whether or not this affected farmers’ ability to work has not been explored. Given that different crops have different labor requirements [ 18 ] and sustainable agricultural practices tend to be more labor-intensive [ 19 ], one might expect COVID-19 infection to affect a farmer’s decision to cultivate a certain crop or adopt chemical-free practices.

There are multiple pathways through which agriculture impacts food and nutrition security [ 20 ]. Agricultural production is a direct source of food for farmers and a source of income that can be used to purchase food. Agriculture also has indirect effects on nutrition security through influencing expenditures on health care, education, and improved water and sanitation as well as women’s empowerment and caring practices. Farming systems that promote crop diversity, such as agroecology, may have an even greater positive effect on nutrition security [ 21 ]. Indeed, during the first COVID-19 lockdown in India, it was observed that farmers who cultivated two or more crops were less likely to experience a decline in dietary diversity than farmers who cultivated one crop (i.e., monocroppers) [ 15 ]. Thus, any impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agriculture may have downstream effects on food and nutrition security.

There were three primary objectives of this study. First, to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced cropping patterns and the use of inputs by Indian farmers. Second, to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced their willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices. Third, to monitor if Indian farmers are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 that disrupt their work activities. In addition, a secondary objective was to evaluate food insecurity and diet quality in the most vulnerable group of farmers, namely, agricultural laborers. Together, findings from these objectives deepen our understanding of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on national food security and future directions for resilient agri-food systems.

Characteristics of study sample

Of the 5,200 participants called, 4,099 (79%) answered the call and 3,637 (89%) of those who answered consented to participate ( Fig 1 ). Of the total consented participants, 3,266 were farmers and the remaining 371 were agricultural laborers. Not having time was the most common reason reported for not participating (40%). Twenty states/union territories (herein ‘states’) were represented in the sample ( S1 Table ). State-wise sample sizes ranged from 2 (Delhi and Uttarakhand) to 419 (Uttar Pradesh). The sample size was particularly small for Delhi (n = 2), Haryana (n = 16), and Punjab (n = 19), partly because farmer protests were going on at the time of the survey.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g001

The weighted mean farm size was 2.11 ha, ranging from 0.004 to 23.8 ha; 59% (95% confidence interval [CI], 56–61%) of participants were small/marginal farmers. A majority of participants were male and middle-aged; about one-third lived in households with 6 or more people; and 17% (15–19%) were illiterate ( Table 1 ). About one-third reported belonging to Other Backward Caste (OBC) and half reported having a Below Poverty Line (BPL) ration card. Landless and small/marginal farmers had smaller household sizes (p = 0.005) and were more likely to have a BPL ration card (p = 0.001).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t001

Change in cropping patterns and input use during the COVID-19 pandemic

A majority of participants cultivated in both 2019 and 2020 (83% [95% CI, 80–85%], data not shown). Among these participants, 76% (73–79%) reported no change in the area of land cultivated on their farms ( Table 2 ). The remaining 21% (18–24%) reported an increase in cultivated land and 3% (2–4%) a decrease in cultivated land. At the state level, the percent reporting no change in the area of land cultivated on their farms ranged from 41% (28–56%) in Assam to 94% (89–96%) in Gujarat ( S2 Table ). In Assam and Odisha, a much larger proportion of farmers reported an increase in the amount of land cultivated: 57% (42–71%) and 50% (39–60%), respectively ( S2 Table ). The most commonly reported reason for a change in the extent of land cultivated was a financial loss during the lockdown, which was reported by 53% (46–60%) of farmers ( Fig 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t002

With regards to cropping pattern, 84% (95% CI, 82–86%) of farmers reported cultivating the same crops in 2019 and 2020 ( Table 2 ). Among those who reported a change in the type of crop, 41% (34–49%) said it was a temporary change, but 32% (25–39%) said they were considering a permanent change. The reporting pattern was similar across all states, except Assam and Karnataka, where 36% (22–53%) and 48% (41–55%), respectively, reported a change in their cropping pattern ( S2 Table ). Rice and wheat were the most commonly cultivated crops in both Kharif 2019 and 2020 followed by pulses, vegetables, and mustard ( Fig 3 ). Vegetables were the most commonly cultivated crops in kitchen gardens with other crops (including fruit) rarely cultivated in kitchen gardens.

‘Rice’ includes basmati and other. ‘Pulses’ includes tur, urad, gram, moong, and other. Crops were presented if they were reported by >5% of participants. Rapeseed, other oilseeds, fruit, coconut, jute, and spices were reported by <5% of participants and were therefore not presented.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g003

Farmers who changed their cropping patterns were less likely to be cultivating rice (27% versus 41% among farmers who did not change their cropping patterns, p<0.001) and wheat (27% versus 36% among farmers who did not change their cropping patterns, p = 0.05). Those who changed their cropping patterns were more likely to be cultivating vegetables (26% versus 15% among farmers who did not change their cropping patterns, p = 0.001) and soybean (7% versus 3% among farmers who did not change their cropping patterns, p<0.001).

The most commonly reported reason for continuing to cultivate the same crop was that it was profitable ( Fig 4 ). Not having a specific reason to shift and not having the knowledge to change crops were also commonly reported. Among farmers who changed crops, the most commonly reported reason was weather followed by market price.

Abbreviations: MSP, minimum support price.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g004

Concerning inputs, 66% (95% CI, 63–68%) of farmers reported no change in fertilizers; 66% (64–69%) reported no change in pesticides; and 59% (56–62%) reported no change in labor ( Table 2 ). Medium and large farmers were more likely to report no change in fertilizer use compared to small/marginal farmers (p = 0.01). Participants were more likely to report a decrease in labor availability (24% [22–26%]) than an increase in availability (17% [15–19%]). In terms of state-wise differences, farmers from Andhra Pradesh (25% [16–37%]), Chhattisgarh (31% [19–46%]), Odisha (22% [16–29%]), and West Bengal (39% [33–46%]) were most likely to report an increase in the use of fertilizers ( S2 Table ). Farmers from Andhra Pradesh (34% [23–46%]), Gujarat (36% [27–45%]), and West Bengal (36% [30–43%]) were most likely to report an increase in the use of pesticides. Farmers were most likely to report a decrease in labor availability in Andhra Pradesh (37% [25–50%]), Assam (35% [21–53%]), Madhya Pradesh (49% [42–57%]), and Odisha (45% [35–56%]). Poor soil quality and too expensive were the top two reasons for reporting a change in fertilizer use ( Fig 5 ). More pests was the number one reason for reporting a change in pesticide use.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g005

Coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic and willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices

About 1 in 5 farmers (21% [95% CI, 18–23%]) had a problem in accessing bank credit during the Kharif season, with loan sanction delays identified as the main problem by half of participants ( Table 3 ). Across states, farmers in Madhya Pradesh had the greatest difficulty in accessing bank credit: 56% (48–63%) of farmers reported having a problem in this state ( S3 Table ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t003

In terms of coping strategies to help mitigate the impact of COVID-19, one-third of participants had a kitchen garden for home consumption–small/marginal farmers were more likely to have kitchen gardens than medium and large farmers (p<0.001)–and 50% reported eating their own production ( Table 3 ). More than 50% of farmers in Assam, Bihar, Odisha, and West Bengal had kitchen gardens ( S3 Table ). Other commonly reported coping strategies included reducing the price of produce (31% [95% CI, 29–34%] of farmers), finding new markets (21% [19–24%]), and storing more of their produce (17% [15–20%]) ( Table 3 ). Small/marginal and medium farmers were more likely to store their produce than larger farmers (p = 0.03).

About half of farmers (52% [95% CI, 49–55%]) reported avoiding the use of chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides to some extent and 62% (59–65%) were interested in trying these practices, primarily because of government schemes encouraging such approaches or because their peers were practicing it ( Table 3 ). Small/marginal farmers were more likely to report government schemes and peers, whereas large farmers were more likely to report high input costs (all p<0.001). In four states–Assam (74% [59–85%]), Chhattisgarh (67% [55–78%]), Madhya Pradesh (76% [69–82%]), and Tamil Nadu (84% [75–90%]), the vast majority of farmers reported avoiding the use of chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides to some extent ( S3 Table ). The lowest rates of interest in agroecology practices were in Karnataka (21% [15–27%] expressing an interest) and Gujarat (19% [14–26%] expressing an interest). Government schemes were most frequently cited as a reason in Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal. COVID-19-related reasons were most frequently cited in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Tamil Nadu, and rarely reported in other states.

COVID-19 symptoms and impact on work

With regards to COVID-19 symptoms in the past month, 8% (95% CI, 6–9%) of farmers had a cough, 12% (9–15%) had a fever, 5% (4–7%) had shortness of breath, and 18% (15–21%) had any one of these three symptoms ( Table 4 ). Among those who had COVID-19 symptoms, 22% (14–32%) said it impacted their ability to work for several days in the past month; 10% (6–17%) said it impacted their ability to work for more than half the days in the past month; and 5% (1–18%) said it impacted their ability to work nearly every day in the past month. Landless and small/marginal farmers were most likely to report COVID-19 symptoms had an impact on their work (p = 0.03).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t004

Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find an association between COVID-19 symptoms and changes in crop cultivation patterns or interest in trying agroecological practices. Among those with COVID-19 symptoms, 13% reported changing the type of crop they are cultivating compared to 16% among those without symptoms (p = 0.20). Among those with COVID-19 symptoms, 68% reported an interest in trying agroecological practices compared to 61% among those without symptoms (p = 0.17). Results were similarly non-significant for COVID-19 symptoms affecting their work: symptoms versus no symptoms, 14% versus 13%, respectively (p = 0.91), for changing the type of crop they are cultivating, and 63% versus 70%, respectively (p = 0.49), for interest in trying agroecological practices.

Food security and diet quality among agricultural laborers during the COVID-19 pandemic

Among agricultural laborers, 43% (95% CI, 35–51%) were not able to find work in the current Kharif season. Among those who were able to find work, it was mostly as agricultural laborers (82% [72–80%]), though 5% (3–8%) had work through the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (MGNREGA) ( Table 5 ). About one-third reported a decrease in the number of days employed (34% [25–44%]) and 17% (11–25%) a decrease in wage rate. In terms of support received in the past 3 months, 75% (67–81%) had received rations. One in five had not received any support during this period.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t005

A total of 44% (95% CI, 7–52%) of agricultural laborers reported having a kitchen garden for home consumption ( Table 5 ). In terms of food insecurity, 43% (36–51%) were worried about food in the past month and 21% (16–28%) ate less than usual. More severe forms of food insecurity–skipping a meal in the past month and going without eating for a whole day in the past month–were less common. Diet quality was very poor: the weighted mean dietary diversity score was 1.28 (out of a maximum of 8) and 94% (91–97%) of participants had low dietary diversity. The most commonly consumed food groups were grains (59% [50–67%] consuming daily), vegetables (24% [19–31%] consuming daily), potatoes (18% [14–23%] consuming daily), dairy (15% [9–25%] consuming daily), and pulses (14% [10–18%] consuming daily). All other food groups were consumed by <10% of the sample daily (fruit, nuts, eggs, fish, poultry, and meat).

Despite disruptions to agri-supply chains and labor mobility due to the pandemic [ 12 ], and major new policy initiatives to support development of the agriculture sector [ 14 ], we found that most farmers in a nationally representative sample did not report a change in either their cropping pattern or input use between 2019 and 2020. Among the 16% of farmers who did report cultivating a different crop in 2020 as compared to 2019, many had transitioned from growing rice to growing higher-value, nutrient-dense crops (vegetables), citing weather and the market price as underlying reasons. It was promising to find that 62% of farmers were interested in trying more sustainable farming practices. Given the recent emphasis on natural farming by the highest levels of government–including the Prime Minister of India [ 8 , 22 ]–this willingness among farmers to try sustainable farming practices is especially encouraging for achieving the Sustainable Development Goal 2 target, “to ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices” [ 23 ].

Lack of knowledge was the most frequently reported barrier to shifting cropping patterns. Farmers have consistently reported lack of knowledge and information as a key barrier to diversification towards high-value crops [ 24 ]. Access to knowledge and information is also an important factor in determining adaptation behaviors of farmers in response to climate-related risks [ 25 ]. Non-farm level factors such as access to inputs, credit, local markets, and road networks are also significantly related to crop choice and farm-level diversification [ 24 , 26 – 28 ]. Thus, external support, particularly in the form of farmer training and extension services, is necessary to enable farmers to make changes to their crop cultivation patterns.

This was among the first studies to evaluate the spread of COVID-19 to rural agricultural communities in India and the impact of infection on farmers’ productivity. About one-fifth (18%) of farmers reported COVID-19 symptoms in the past month (cough, fever, or shortness of breath) and among those with symptoms, 37% reported it affected their ability to work. This is likely to be an underestimate of the impact of the first wave on farmers’ productivity given that the survey asked farmers to recall symptoms in the past month, which would have referred to November-December 2020, after the first wave peaked in mid-September 2020. The second wave, which started in March 2021, was much more severe, and continued into the Kharif season of 2021. Continued monitoring of the impact of the spread of COVID-19 in rural communities is required, particularly considering the average age of farmers in India is 50 years and 18% of farmers are over 61 years old [ 29 ]–with age being the biggest single risk factor for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

Half of farmers in this national sample reported avoiding the use of chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides to some extent during the Kharif season following the initial lockdown. This was surprising given that 90% of irrigated land and 63% of unirrigated land is treated with synthetic fertilizer in India and approximately 40% of agricultural land is treated with synthetic pesticides according to a national census of farmers conducted in 2016–2017, before the pandemic [ 6 ]. The lockdown affected farmers’ ability to access and afford inputs including fertilizer and pesticides [ 12 ], and this may explain why a large proportion of farmers in this sample reported avoiding their use to some extent. Moreover, this may reflect the avoidance of fertilizers and pesticides on plots used for home consumption rather than commercial plots–our survey did not differentiate between the two when asking this question. Given that only 16–17% of farmers reported a decrease in fertilizers and pesticides during the COVID-19 pandemic, further exploration of trends in the use of inputs on agricultural land–both commercial and non-commercial–is warranted.

Another key finding of this survey is the substantial interest in agroecological practices among farmers. More than half (62%) of farmers reported that they were interested in trying more sustainable farming practices such as reducing their use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and the proportion was similar across farm sizes. However, the underlying drivers reported differed across farm sizes with small/marginal farmers more likely to report government schemes and the fact that their peers are practicing it, whereas large farmers were more likely to report high input costs as the reason. These findings can inform programmatic approaches to increasing adoption of these practices across India. Of note, there was variability in the proportion of farmers expressing an interest in agroecological practices across states with Gujarat and Karnataka having the lowest proportions. In contrast, in six states, more than 80% of farmers reported that they were interested in trying these practices, including Assam, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal. Recently, several state governments have taken up policy initiatives to promote sustainable agriculture in India and the central government is providing fiscal and policy support for these initiatives [ 8 ]. For example, Odisha introduced a state organic farming policy in 2018 and has undertaken various initiatives such as an organic millet mission to link farmers to the public distribution system [ 30 ].

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, uptake of sustainable farming practices in India was low; less than 2% of all cultivated land was under organic farming [ 7 , 8 ]. A recent systematic review identified several factors influencing uptake of these practices by farmers [ 31 ]. For example, older farmers who typically have lower education levels than younger farmers are less likely to adopt sustainable farming practices [ 31 ]. Considering the average age of Indian farmers is 50.5 years according to the latest Input Survey (2016–17) [ 6 ], this may partially explain low uptake of sustainable farming practices in India. In addition, institutional factors, particularly visits from agriculture extension services, participation in training programs, and organizational membership are important determinants of uptake of sustainable farming practices [ 31 ]. We recently confirmed this in Andhra Pradesh, where meeting with government or non-governmental organization (NGO) extension agents was significantly positively associated with practicing zero-budget natural farming [ 32 ]. Farmers’ perceptions as relate to sustainable farming can also influence adoption. Farmers who perceive that sustainable farming is beneficial for environmental and human health or that it is more profitable because it reduces cultivation costs, are more likely to adopt this alternative approach [ 31 ]. Unfortunately, however, access to extension agents in India, particularly for women, sharply declined during the pandemic and farmers increasingly relied on social networks for information [ 33 ]. The lack of access to extension agents may hinder adoption of sustainable farming practices even if farmers express an interest in trying them.

This study also uncovered the most common coping strategies to manage their produce implemented by farmers during the first wave: (1) eating their own production (50%), (2) reducing the price of their agricultural products (31%), (3) finding new markets (21%), and (4) storing more (17%). A previous survey conducted in four states (Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Karnataka) in May 2020–approximately 8–9 months before our survey–found that 52% coped by finding new markets, 25% by reducing their price, 18% by consuming their own production, and just 5% by storing more [ 34 ]. The discrepancy between studies could suggest that in a nationally representative sample, farmers have less access to new markets but more access to storage facilities than that previous sample of World Vegetable Center program participants [ 34 ].

Among agricultural laborers, 43% were not able to find work during the Kharif season following the initial lockdown and about one-third reported a decrease in the number of days employed. The loss of wage income as a result of the pandemic was also reported in a previous survey of farmers across 12 states that found from June to July/August 2020, 38% of agricultural households no longer earned an income from wages [ 35 ]. Together, these findings are especially worrying because an estimated one-third of agricultural household income comes from wages in India [ 36 ].

Related to this, we also evaluated food insecurity and dietary diversity in agricultural laborers. We found a high proportion were worried about food in the past month (43%), and a notable proportion ate less than usual (21%), skipped a meal (15%), and went without eating for a whole day (6%). These proportions are only slightly lower than reported in a survey across 12 states conducted in May 2020 that found 52% of agricultural laborers worried about food in the past month, 18% skipped a meal, and 7% went without eating for a whole day [ 12 ]. This suggests that food insecurity remains a critical issue. It is promising that 75% of agricultural laborers reported receiving food rations and 44% had a kitchen garden as these may protect them from more severe food insecurity [ 15 ]. This finding is consistent with a previous study of smallholder farmers in two states (Haryana and Odisha), which found that a well-functioning Public Distribution System (PDS) for food rations and homestead gardening protected households from worsening food insecurity during the pandemic [ 37 ]. A survey of rural areas across nine states similarly found that receipt of food rations was high during the initial lockdown period: 52% of households had received free food rations multiple times [ 38 ]. Interestingly, that survey also found the same percent of respondents did not have a ration for the day of the survey (6%) [ 38 ]. Finally, a large-scale survey across 15 states also found that PDS had met the grain needs for the vast majority of households, but distribution of nutrient-dense foods such as pulses lagged behind [ 39 ].

Nonetheless, diet quality was poor–the diets of agricultural laborers in our sample largely consisted of grains, only one-fourth consumed vegetables daily, and less than one-fifth consumed high-protein foods such as pulses and eggs daily. Thus, while these agricultural laborers may have staved off hunger to some extent, they did not have nutritional security. The importance of nutritional security has been recognized in food security studies for over two decades. In fact as Hwalla et. al (2016) propose, there can be no food security without nutritional security and vice versa [ 40 ]. Our findings are similar to the existing literature which shows that households that are food insecure sacrifice the quality of food and food variety “in favor of food quantity, in order to avoid a state of absolute hunger” [ 40 ]. Moreover, a balanced diet plays a key role in building immunity against diseases such as COVID-19 [ 41 ]. Much more work is needed to improve diet quality for these vulnerable groups in India.

This study is not without limitations. The overall response rate was high (89%), however, response rates were differential by state with lower response rates in Haryana, Punjab, and NCR Delhi due to widespread farmer protests in these states at that time. Given that Haryana and Punjab are major agricultural states in India–they are often referred to as the “bread basket” of India–the lack of representation from these states is a major limitation of this study. Moreover, the average farm size in this sample was much larger than that reported in the latest Agriculture Census for India, conducted in 2015–2016, of 1.08 ha [ 29 ]. This study was also cross-sectional, conducted after the first wave of COVID-19 in 2020, which was less severe than the second wave in 2021. Nonetheless, as it is to the best of our knowledge the only nationally representative survey of farmers to be conducted during the pandemic, the findings are valuable for understanding farmers’ response to prepare for such disruptions in the future. Finally, a phone interview relying on self-report may result in biased responses. For example, farmers may over-report practicing sustainable farming practices because it is perceived of as the socially desirable response.

Indian agriculture and its farmers have proven to be resilient during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the Indian economy declined in the first quarter of 2020 by 15%, agriculture remained the only sector to grow–by 3.4% [ 42 ]–largely due to a good harvest with favorable monsoons and the exemption of agricultural activities during the lockdown. However, the sector is not without major challenges. Diet quality remains poor, soils are degraded, groundwater levels continue to drop, and greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase [ 43 ].

With these growing concerns, India must look at a paradigm shift in producing and consuming food. This study found that despite the severe agri-supply chain constraints stemming from the pandemic, farmers did not find it feasible or were not motivated to change their cropping patterns or input-intensive practices, though about half of farmers reported already trying to avoid the use of chemicals to some extent. The policy structure in India continues to favor intensification of a limited number of staple crops–especially rice and wheat. An encouraging finding was the substantial interest in sustainable agricultural practices among farmers, which, if scaled, have the potential to improve farmers’ livelihood, reduce environmental externalities, and increase resilience.

Materials and methods

Sampling strategy.

The sampling frame used for this survey was a sub-set of a nationally representative survey–the Indian Residential Energy Survey (IRES)–conducted by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water between November 2019 and March 2020 [ 44 ]. The original IRES study was conducted to describe the state of energy access and energy-use patterns across Indian households.

IRES surveyed 14,850 households across 152 districts in the 21 most-populous states of India, which account for 97% of the Indian population. The study used stratified multi-stage probability sampling. The primary sampling units (PSU) were villages in rural areas and wards in urban areas, according to the 2011 Census. Within each state, a select number of districts (d) were sampled randomly from d/2 number of strata. Within each of the sampled districts, two basic strata were formed: (i) rural strata comprised of all rural areas of the district and (ii) urban strata comprised of all urban areas of the district. In each district, a total of 12 PSUs were sampled from the urban and rural sampling frames, proportional to the urban and rural population in the district. From each PSU, eight households were randomly surveyed. An equal number of households were sampled from each of the sampled districts.

The IRES survey collected details on the primary source of income for the household. Those reporting agriculture and agricultural labor were contacted for this follow-up survey. There are primarily two cropping seasons in India: Kharif, which runs from May to mid-October, and Rabi, which runs from mid-October to mid-April. Our survey focused on the Kharif season. Participants who matched the IRES database and cultivated land or worked as agricultural laborers in the 2020–2021 Kharif season were included. Those who owned land, but leased it out to someone else during the 2020–2021 Kharif season were excluded.

Data collection

Surveys were conducted via phone interview between 1 December 2020 and 10 January 2021 using SurveyToGo (Dooblo Ltd, Kefar Sava, Israel). The same survey agency that conducted the original IRES survey was contracted to collect the data (Market Xcel Data Matrix Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, India). The survey took, on average, about 20 minutes to complete.

The survey is provided in the Supporting Information ( S1 Text ). Briefly, the survey had four sections. The first section included questions on landholding amount, amount of land cultivated in the current and last Kharif season, reason for change in amount of land cultivated (if applicable), what crops were cultivated in the current and last Kharif season, reason for change in type of crop cultivated and whether the participant thought it was a permanent change (if applicable), reason for sticking with the same type of crop (if applicable), whether there was a change in fertilizer or pesticide use between the current and last Kharif season, reason for change in fertilizer or pesticide use (if applicable), whether there was a change in labor availability between the current and last Kharif season, whether the participant had a kitchen garden for home consumption, what is grown in the kitchen garden (if applicable), and problems accessing bank credit. The second section included questions on coping strategies, agroecological practices, interest in trying agroecological practices, and reason for interest (if applicable). The third section included questions for agricultural laborers on receipt of support, finding work, changes in number of days of work and wage rate between the current and last Kharif season, food insecurity, and dietary intake. The fourth section included questions on COVID-19 symptoms and whether the symptoms had affected the participant’s ability to work.

Questions on agricultural practices were adapted from Government of India surveys [ 45 , 46 ]. Land values were reported in local units and converted into hectares ( S4 Table ). Four farm size categories were defined according to land ownership as landless (0 ha), small/marginal farms (0.01–2.00 ha), medium farms (2.01–4.00 ha), and large farms (>4.00 ha) [ 29 ]. The questions on practice and interest in agroecological practices was framed as: ‘Do you follow any practices in agriculture where you avoid using chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides, like organic farming?’

Food security was assessed using three questions from the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) [ 47 , 48 ]: in the past month, was there a time when you or others in your household (1) worried you would run out of food, (2) skipped a meal, or (3) went without eating for a whole day. Only three of the eight FIES questions were asked based on previous experiences administering these questions to farmers in India [ 12 ] that suggested they are very sensitive questions and cause participant discomfort. Questions on food consumption were adapted from the FAO’s Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD) [ 49 ]. Eight of the ten MDD food groups were included: (1) starchy staples (rice, wheat, and potatoes), (2) pulses, (3) nuts, (4) vegetables, (5) fruits, (6) dairy, (7) eggs, and (8) fleshy foods (meat, poultry, and fish). Those who consumed a food group every day in the past week were assigned a value of “1” and those who did not were assigned a value of “0.” Values were then summed across the eight food groups such that the dietary diversity score ranged from 0 to 8 with 8 representing maximum dietary diversity. Low dietary diversity was defined as a dietary diversity score less than 4.

Household demographic data were from the baseline IRES survey and included rural versus urban residence; age and gender of the participant; educational attainment of the primary income earner of the household; caste; household size; and whether or not they had a BPL or Antyodaya ration card.

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Centre for Media Studies (Protocol #: IRB00006230). Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Statistical analysis

All analyses were conducted using Stata Statistical Software, Release 16.1 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas, USA). Less than 5% of data were missing for all variables ( S5 Table ). State-wise analyses excluded states with sample sizes <100, including Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Delhi, Punjab, and Uttarakhand ( S1 Table ). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic characteristics, agricultural practices, food insecurity, dietary diversity, and COVID-19 symptoms, overall and by farm size and state. Values were reported as a weighted percent (95% CI). The weighted percents were calculated as weighted means of indicator variables (e.g., proportions) using Stata’s estimation commands for survey data (e.g., svy ). The 95% CIs were logit-transformed CIs derived from the standard errors of those means. Details of the IRES sampling weight derivation are described elsewhere [ 44 ]. Briefly, a sampling weight was derived for each participating household. The sampling weight equals the number of households in the population that the household represents, estimated as the reciprocal of the probability of selecting that household for the IRES sample. The IRES sampling weights were then adjusted for non-response to the COVID-19 survey using inverse propensity scores derived from a binary logistic regression model based on background characteristics of the participants [ 50 ]. We tested for differences in characteristics according to farm size using Pearson’s chi-squared tests, which are corrected for the survey design [ 51 , 52 ]. A two-sided p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Supporting information

S1 table. state-wise sample sizes..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s001

S2 Table. State-wise agricultural practices during the Kharif season in 2020 and 2019 among land-owning farmers in India.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s002

S3 Table. State-wise coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic and interest in agroecology among land-owning farmers in India.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s003

S4 Table. Land conversion factors from hextobinary.com (accessed 17 February and 11 May 2021).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s004

S5 Table. Summary of missing data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s005

S1 Text. Survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s006

Acknowledgments

We would like to sincerely thank the many farmers and agricultural laborers who responded to our survey. We would also like to express our thanks to the enumerators, without whom this study would not have been possible.

• 1. Our World in Data. Daily new confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people Oxford: University of Oxford; 2022 [cited 2022 May 17]. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?facet=none&Metric=Confirmed+deaths&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=~OWID_WRL .
• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 4. World Bank. World Development Report 2022: Finance for an Equitable Recovery. Washington DC: The World Bank; 2022.
• 5. World Bank. Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) Washington, DC: World Bank; 2019 [cited 2021 June 16]. Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS .
• 6. Agriculture Census Division. All India Report on Input Survey 2016–17. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, 2021.
• 7. Gupta N, Pradhan S, Jain A, Patel N. Sustainable Agriculture in India 2021: What We Know and How to Scale Up. New Delhi: Council on Energy, Environment and Water, 2021.
• 8. NITI Aayog. Natural farming New Delhi: NITI Aayog,; 2021 [cited 2022 January 20]. Available from: https://naturalfarming.niti.gov.in/ .
• 11. Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation. India—Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households, January—December 2013, NSS 70th Round New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation,; 2019 [cited 2021 February 8]. Available from: http://microdata.gov.in/nada43/index.php/catalog/133 .
• 13. USDA. India—Organic Industry Market Report—2021. New Delhi,: United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, 2021 Contract No.: IN2021-0095.
• 14. Ministry of Finance. Finance Minister announces measures to strengthen Agriculture Infrastructure Logistics, Capacity Building, Governance and Administrative Reforms for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Processing Sectors New Delhi: Press Information Bureau; 2020 [cited 2022 January 20]. Available from: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1624153 .
• 17. Mohanan M, Malani A, Krishnan K, Acharya A. Prevalence of COVID-19 in rural versus urban areas in a low-income country: findings from a State-Wide study in Karnataka, India. University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper. 2021;(2021–92).
• 18. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI). Labour in Indian Agriculture: A Growing Challenge. New Delhi: FICCI, 2015.
• 22. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, editor Prime Minister’s Address (Virtual). National Conclave on Natural Farming; 2021 December 16; Anand, Gujarat, India.
• 23. United Nations. Goal 2: Zero Hunger. Goal 2 Targets. New York: United Nations,; 2022 [cited 2022 January 23]. Available from: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/ .
• 24. Haque TB M; Sinha G; Kalra P; Thomas S;. Constraints and Potentials of Diversified Agricultural Development in Eastern India. New Delhi: Council for Social Development, 2010.
• 25. Bahinipati CS, Patnaik U. What Motivates Farm Level Adaptation in India? A Systematic Review. In: Haque E, editor. Climate change and community resilience Insights from South Asia: Springer; 2021.
• 29. Department of Agriculture C, and Farmers Welfare;. All India Report on Agriculture Census 2015–16. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, 2020.
• 36. NABARD. NABARD All India Rural Financial Inclusion Survey 2016–17. Mumbai: National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development (NABARD), 2018.
• 38. Rapid Community Response to COVID-19 (RCRC). Resilient Communities. RCRC Centre for Monitoring Rural India during COVID-19 Times. RCRC Hosehold Survey. May 2020. New Delhi: RCRC, 2020.
• 39. Dalberg. Efficacy of government entitlements for low income families during Covid 19. Mumbai: Dalberg, 2020.
• 42. Ministry of Finance. Indian Agriculture contributes to green shoots of the Indian Economy with a Growth Rate of 3.4 Per Cent Despite COVID-19 Pandemic New Delhi: Press Information Bureau; 2021 [cited 2022 January 24]. Available from: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1693205 .
• 44. Agrawal SM, Sunil Jain, Abhishek Ganesan, Karthik Urpelainen, Johannes India Residential Energy Survey (IRES) 2020. Design and data quality. New Delhi Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), 2020.
• 45. Ministry of Agriculture GoI. Agriculture Census 2015–16: Manual of Schedules and Instructions for Data Collection. New Delhi, India: Government of India, 2015.
• 46. Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation. National Sample Survey (NSS), 70th round. New Delhi: Government of India; 2013.
• 47. Ballard TJ, Kepple AW, Cafiero C. The food insecurity experience scale: development of a global standard for monitoring hunger worldwide. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization 2013.
• 49. FAO. Minimum dietary diversity for women: a guide for measurement. Rome: FAO, 2016.
• 50. Potter F, Grau E, Williams S, Diaz-Tena N, Carlson BL, editors. An application of propensity modeling: Comparing unweighted and weighted logistic regression models for nonresponse adjustments. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section American Statistical Association; 2006.

How agtech is poised to transform India into a farming powerhouse

India’s agriculture industry is at a crossroads. When India became an independent nation 75 years ago, agriculture was the driver of the economy, contributing more than half of the nation’s GDP. Today, India is still one of the world’s largest and most diversified food producers, and agriculture—the source of more than 20 percent of India’s income—remains a central part of the economy.

About the authors

This article is a collaborative effort by Namrata Dubashi , David Fiocco , Avinash Goyal , Ayush Gupta, Nitika Nathani, and Abhik Tandon, representing views from McKinsey’s Agriculture Practice.

But there are significant problems holding back the nation’s untapped potential. If solved, a flourishing agriculture industry could both boost the economy and significantly improve farmer livelihoods and income. By 2030, agriculture could contribute around $600 billion 1 India’s turning point: An economic agenda to spur growth and jobs , McKinsey Global Institute, August 2020. to India’s GDP—an increase of 50 percent over its contribution in 2020. 2 Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, 2020. But to get there, India must unlock growth and productivity for the sector.

The key to expanding India’s transformation into a farming powerhouse is agricultural technology, or agtech. India lags behind developed farming nations in agtech. Simply put, India’s farmers are competing at a disadvantage: half lack basic farming equipment, three of every four farms are at risk of crop damage from pests and weather, and 50 percent of India’s farmers lack access to traditional financing sources. Those who can get credit often pay inflated interest of 10 to 25 percent above market rates.

In this article, we examine agtech’s potential, how it is already improving outcomes, and what investors are looking for as rural India embraces modern farming. Agtech can be a shot in the arm for India’s farmers, making them more profitable and boosting the contribution of agriculture to India’s economy.

Historically, the farmer was just one of the many stakeholders involved in a market that centered on mandis —the local markets where farmers sell their products at auction. The advent of digital technologies and the evolution of multiple agtechs have put the farmer right at the heart of the entire ecosystem. Solutions have begun to be more farmer-centric: each part of the value chain that is digitizing, be it finance, inputs (products needed to grow crops such as seeds, agrochemicals, and fertilizers), or advisory—are directly targeting the farmer.

Agtech is already boosting Indian agriculture

Between 2013 and 2020, the agtech landscape in India grew from less than 50 start-ups to more than 1,000, fueled by increased farmer awareness, rising internet penetration in rural India, and the need for greater efficiency in the agriculture sector. 3 Vaishnavi Dayalani, “The farming 3.0 opportunity: Inside India’s $24.1 bn agritech market,” Inc42, December 24, 2020. Moreover, India’s regulatory environment is gradually evolving to facilitate the growth of digital technologies in agriculture.

Agtech in India continues to ramp up—from core companies in the value chain using digital technologies like “super apps” to innovations by start-ups, or “agrifintechs,” and large technology companies.

Fully nurtured, the agtech ecosystem has the potential to propel Indian farmers’ incomes to grow by 25 to 35 percent.

Existing agriculture incumbents use digital technologies to either go direct to the farmer or to expand products and services across adjacencies. Suppliers are becoming buyers, advisers are adding finance—any combination is possible and happening:

• Providers of farming supplies such as agrochemicals, fertilizers, and seeds are using technology to create direct-to-farmer sales channels that bypass middlemen and retailers. For example, UPL (traditionally a core agrochemicals player) is providing mechanization services and agrochemicals to farmers through its nurture.farm digital platform. The company has also expanded to provide financing, advisory, and market services.
• Firms, including banks and nonbanks, primarily engaged in providing finance through farm and rural loans, are using technology to better understand the farmer, provide targeted products, and reduce loan risks. For example, the State Bank of India (SBI) developed the YONO Krishi app to meet farmers’ finance, inputs, and advisory needs.
• Companies that sell farm equipment have also started providing mechanization as a service to farmers. Mahindra, for example, offers a tractor rental service.
• Firms that operate in procurement, processing, or the selling of agricultural products have started to integrate backward into the supply chain and create market linkages for the farmer. For example, ITC, a core outputs player, used its e-Choupal network to expand direct-from-farm procurement over the past 20 years. It has now launched the ITCMAARS super app. Using a partnership approach, the app gives farmers access to modern tools, quality inputs at the right prices, and finance.

Fully nurtured, the agtech ecosystem has the potential to propel Indian farmers’ incomes to grow by 25 to 35 percent , and add $95 billion to the Indian economy, through reduction of input costs, enhanced productivity and price realization, cheaper credit, and alternative incomes (Exhibit 1). 4 McKinsey analysis.

The government’s role in enabling agtech

India’s government has also taken several policy steps and conducted pilots to foster technology and innovation in the agricultural sector:

• Easier digital reach through farmer collectivization. The government has promoted farmer–producer organizations (FPOs), granting $750 million to set up over 10,000 FPOs in the next five years. 5 “Budget 2020-21: Govt to announce Rs 10,000-crore 5-year plan for FPOs,” Financial Express , January 21, 2020. FPOs collectivize the otherwise fragmented farmer base, helping agtech companies (such as Samunnati) to easily access and scale up their business models.
• Development of the “agristack.” 6 Shreehari Paliath, “What is a digital AgriStack and why Indian farmers are opposed to it,” Business Standard , January 13, 2022. India is creating a unified database of agricultural data sets, which will be linked to farmers based on their land holdings. This will enable agtech companies to customize offerings and products based on farmers’ needs, which vary by land size, crop sown, and soil conditions.
• Digital soil-health cards. 7 “Soil health card scheme completes 5 years on 19-2-2020,” Government of India Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Press Information Bureau, February 17, 2020. A digital soil-health-card program entails mapping soil composition and quality at the farmer level. It could help agtech companies in India to promote precision-farming initiatives and tailor offerings for specific farmer groups.
• Digitally enabled direct benefit transfer in fertilizer sales. 8 Direct benefit transfer (DBT), Government of India Department of Fertilizers, accessed December 2022. This initiative directly transfers subsidies for fertilizers and other goods to the farmer. It authenticates the farmer’s identity at points of sale and through verification. It could significantly encourage the adoption of fertilizers and reduce leakages in transportation, maintaining affordability for smallholder farmers.
• National Agriculture Market (eNAM). 9 IBEF Blog , “ENAM – India’s nationwide electronic trading portal,” IBEF, February 24, 2022. This pan-India electronic online trading portal connects existing Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC) mandis , forming a unified national market for agricultural commodities that ensures better prices for farmers through the transparent auction process.
• Agricultural Accelerator Fund and digital public infrastructure. The government has recently announced a new fund for promoting the agtech ecosystem, potentially seeding new start-ups that may increase digital adoption and the range of digital solutions available to farmers. 10 “Budget 2023: Agriculture accelerator fund to increase productivity,” Mint , February 1, 2023. Additionally, the government announced its intent to build an open-source digital public infrastructure that will likely support agtechs with relevant information services across the value chain. 11 Mansi Verma, “Union Budget 2023: FM sows digital public infrastructure plan for agriculture,” Moneycontrol, February 1, 2023.

These initiatives are building an agtech ecosystem in the country, supporting farmers in areas where they need the most help.

What are investors looking for?

With government initiatives and the openness of farmers to tech adoption, agtechs are poised to engage with India’s farmers, but to be successful, they will need stable sources of funding and a vibrant, supportive ecosystem. 12 Salil Panchal, “Agritech investors: Not for the faint-hearted,” Forbes India , September 1, 2022.

Agriculture technology in India has flourished with the growing attention from venture capital (VC) in recent years. Accel and Sequoia Capital invested in companies such as Samunnati, Ninjacart, DeHaat, and Bijak. 13 AgFunder AgriFood Tech Investing Report - 2018 , AGFunder. During the past four years, agtechs in India have raised roughly $1.6 billion. VC firms invested more than $1.2 billion in 2022 alone through 114 deals, a 50 percent increase from 2021 and triple the investment made in 2020. The average deal size is growing, indicating that start-ups are maturing in this space despite an economic slowdown during the past two years (Exhibit 2). 14 PitchBook analysis, data extracted April 2022.

Of nine agtech categories, 90 percent of all VC funding was directed at five categories in 2022 (Exhibit 3): 15 PitchBook analysis, data extracted April 2022.

• Downstream agtechs:  These are primarily B2B or B2C platforms or brands to connect farmers with businesses or consumers. In 2022, such firms as Ninjacart, Absolute and Waycool raised more than $707 million in funding. Funding decisions are driven by the maturity of business models, the need for follow-up rounds of investments and highly accessible and monetizable opportunities across categories.
• End-to-end ecosystems: These are platforms that play across the value chain and have a significant presence in multiple segments, such as inputs and outputs. In 2022, such firms, for example, DeHaat, attracted more than $113 million in funding.
• Digital solutions and precision agtech: These are digital solutions or products which provide farmers with services such as advisory, precision farming and sensor-based solutions. In 2022, companies such as Cropin attracted more than $92 million in funding.
• Midstream agtechs: These are agtechs that help provide supply chain solutions that improve efficiencies in areas such as logistics and warehousing. In 2022, firms such as Arya attracted more than $80 million in funding.
• Agribiotech: These are agtechs that leverage biotechnology to create green and sustainable new products, or ingredients such as food additives. In 2022, firms like String Bio attracted more than $63 million in funding.

Unlike the rest of the world, where agricultural investment has centered on innovative foods—think Impossible Burgers or other plant-based foods—investment in India has centered on the basics: financing and technology to improve agriculture and farm practices and to avoid climate risks (such as droughts, pests, and flooding).

As a result, investors approach India with a different view. Our interviews with VC firms suggest that they focus on five factors when making decisions about new technologies: the size of the market, the breadth of offerings, traction with customers, an ability to scale, and the X factor (intangibles such as the learning curve it takes to use the new technologies efficiently).

Grow or die: Agtech success in India

Investors in Indian agtech are, or should be, asking some basic questions, including the following.

Does an agtech invest in multiple touchpoints and a breadth of offerings? Unlike e-commerce, agtechs get low transaction volumes for farmers but pay high acquisition costs, such as to get a farmer to install an app and try a product. This is complicated by the ceaseless efforts of multiple agtechs and incumbents to enter the space, lowering costs, and the farmers themselves being willing to experiment with multiple apps in the quest for most value.

To overcome this challenge, start-ups such as Gramophone, Samunnati, DeHaat, and more are offering more touchpoints and broadening their product portfolios to provide services across the value chain, from inputs and financing to advisory. Even platforms that start out with a single use case are expanding into adjacent parts of the value chain.

Does the agtech embrace a ‘phygital’ model? In rural India, both physical and digital infrastructure are important. Although 75 to 80 percent of farmer households have access to a smartphone, 16 McKinsey Farmer Survey 2021. most still prefer to have physical touchpoints for digital support such as tutorials or help with app installation. Agtechs such as Agrostar and DeHaat have field teams to make on-ground visits and to drive campaigns for greater penetration of their apps.

One way to support a customer: the ITC e-Choupal ecosystem has managed to bridge the gap in rural digital infrastructure through a network of central sanchalaks (overseers), who act as physical touchpoints for the ecosystem and on whom farmers continue to rely.

In-person contact with the farmer can happen in multiple ways. Field representatives are one option. Other examples include a fertilizer supplier’s presence in India’s local micromarkets or rural bank branches for agrifintechs.

Is the agtech charging for the right product or service? The right monetization model is crucial. Some firms are trying to monetize advisory services, but most farmers—not just Indian farmers—are reluctant to pay for advice. In general, advice is a gateway to business, not a business itself.

Is the agtech light on assets? Agtechs that rely less on investments in assets can scale up across geographies quickly. For example, Agribazaar had reached $2,250 million of gross merchandise value in fiscal year 2021, 17 “Agribazaar eyes 65% growth in merchandise value this fiscal,” Free Press Journal , August 16, 2021. with a fixed-asset base of around $2.5 million. 18 Agribazaar return-on-capital filings, fiscal year 2021. It did so by shifting the responsibility of storage, quality checks, and transport to buyers and sellers on the platform for the majority of transactions. 19 McKinsey analysis.

Agtechs that require investments in physical infrastructure or assets typically try to keep their models dependent on local entrepreneurs who make the investments in equipment and facilities. For example, DeHaat and Agrostar use village entrepreneurs to provide last-mile service and deliveries within villages, enabling them to aggregate demand and deliver larger volumes.

The potential for a bumper crop Indian agriculture

The investors and agtechs that navigate India’s unique hurdles may see boundless potential. The next three to five years will be critical for incumbents and new players.

It likely won’t become a winner-takes-all market. A few major players, especially those with strong supply chain linkages to the farm, could emerge as dominant players in this space. These companies could support a host of smaller, niche players that will in turn leverage the end-to-end platforms for growth.

Collaboration will be crucial. While agtechs might facilitate better decision making and replace manual farming practices like spraying, reducing dependence on retailers and mandis , incumbents remain important in the new ecosystem for R&D and the supply of chemicals and fertilizers.

There are successful platforms already emerging that offer farmers an umbrella of products and services to address multiple, critical pain points. These one-stop shop agri-ecosystems are also creating a physical backbone/supply chain—which makes it easier for incumbents and start-ups to access the fragmented farmer base.

Agtechs have a unique opportunity to become ideal partners for companies seeking market access. In this scenario, existing agriculture companies are creating value for the farmer by having more efficient and cost-effective access to the farmer versus traditional manpower-intensive setups. It’s a system that builds: the more agtechs know the farmer, the better products they can develop.

India’s farms have been putting food on the table for India and the world for decades. Digital technologies could enhance production at every step, from high-quality agriculture inputs to world-class agriculture outputs. This could help create sustainable growth for the Indian farmer, boost economic fortunes in rural areas in a flourishing ecosystem, and benefit the entire economy.

Namrata Dubashi is a partner in McKinsey’s Kolkata office, where Ayush Gupta is a consultant; David Fiocco is a partner in the Minneapolis office; Avinash Goyal is a senior partner in the Mumbai office, where Abhik Tandon is an associate partner; and Nitika Nathani is a partner in the Gurugram office.

This article was edited by David Weidner, a senior editor in the Bay Area office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

The food and agriculture sector’s transition to net zero: Production reform and demand shifts

How digital innovation is transforming agriculture: Lessons from India

Agtech: Breaking down the farmer adoption dilemma

Agriculture and Irrigation in India—Trends and Turning Points

• First Online: 19 April 2024

Cite this chapter

• Kuppannan Palanisami 5 &
• Udaya Sekhar Nagothu 6  

Part of the book series: Advances in Geographical and Environmental Sciences ((AGES))

India’s ultimate irrigation potential is about 139.9 million hectares (m·ha) and the irrigation potential created (up to the Eleventh Plan period) is about 113.53 m·ha (81.16%). The total annual replenishable water supply is about 1122 billion cubic metres (bcm) and the annual reliable supply will be only 744 bcm. The future water demand is projected as 910 bcm in 2025 and 1072 bcm in 2050. Major problems in Indian water sector include low irrigation project efficiency (36%), overexploitation of groundwater (up to 30% including critical and semi-critical areas), declining tank irrigation (about 50%), less coverage under micro irrigation (17.4%), poor technology adoption (8–10%), low wastewater treatments and reuse (26%), reduction in water supplies and increasing crop demand due to climate change, less focus on water management in hill ecosystems, use of old crop water requirement data for water planning, poor cost recovery, inappropriate subsidy calculations, weak institutional and governance structure. Appropriate interventions to sustain the irrigation sector are discussed in this chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Ahmed M, Araral (2019) Water governance in India: evidence on water law, policy, and administration from eight Indian States. Wat 11:2071. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11102071 .

Amanullah, Khalid S, Imran, Khan HA, Arif M, Altawaha AR, Adnan M, Fahad S, Shah A, Parmar B (2020) Effects of climate change on irrigation water quality. In: Fahad S, Hasanuzzaman M, Alam M, Ullah H, Saeed M, Khan IA, Adnan (ed) Environment, climate, plant and vegetation growth. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49732-3_6

Amarasinghe UA, Shah T, Turral, H Anand BK (2007) India’s water future to 2025–2050: business-as-usual scenario and deviations. Research Report 123, International Water Management Institute, Colombo. https://iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/IWMI_Research_Reports/PDF/PUB123/RR123.pdf

Araral E, Ratra S (2016) Water governance in India and China: comparison of water law, policy and administration. Wat Pol 18:14–31

Article   Google Scholar  

Ashish C, Parthasarathy R (2021) Understanding water institutions and their impact on the performance of the water sector in India. Wat Pol 23:466–486

Bjornlund V, Bjornlund H, Van Rooyen AF (2020) Exploring the factors causing the poor performance of most irrigation schemes in post-independence sub-Saharan Africa. Inter J Wat Res Dev 36(sup1):S54–S101. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2020.1808448

Census (2011) Government of India. https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website/data/census-tables

Central Water Commission (CWC) (2022) Annual Report (2021–22) Department of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Ministry of Jalshakti. New Delhi. https://cwc.gov.in/sites/default/files/annual-report-21-22.pdf

Central Ground Water Board (2022). http://cgwb.gov.in/documents/2022-11-11-GWRA%202022.pdf

Chaturvedi RK, Joshi J, Mathangi Jayaraman G, Bala, Ravindranath NH (2012) Multi-model climate change projections for India under representative concentration Pathways. Curr Sci 103(7):1–12

Google Scholar  

Chaudhuri S, Roy M (2019) Irrigation water pricing in India as a means to conserve water resources: challenges and potential future opportunities. Envir Conser 46(1):99–102. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291800036X

Chauhan MK, Shobha R (2023) Rehabilitation of canal irrigation schemes in India: a qualitative analysis. Wat Poli 25(1):59. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2022.237

Chowdhury K, Behera B (2018) Is declining groundwater levels linked with the discontinuity of traditional water harvesting systems (tank irrigation)? empirical evidence from West Bengal, India. Ground Sustain Dev 7:185–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2018.05.007

CPCB (2022) Status of water supply, wastewater generation and treatment in class I cities and class II towns of India. Series: CUPS/70/2009–10. Central Pollution Control Board, India

Cruz RV, Harasawa H, Lal M, Wu S, Anokhin Y, Punsalmaa B, Honda Y, Jafari M, Li C, Ninh NH (2007) Asia, climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, Van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Contribution of working group ii to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp 469–506

Central Water Commission (CWC) (2017) Pricing of water in public system in India. Information systems organisation—Water planning and projects wing. Retrieved April 27, 2020. http://cwc.gov.in/sites/default/files/Pricing%20of%20Water%20in%20Public%20System%20in%20India%202017.pdf

Deshpande RS (2022). Under the shadow of development: rainfed agriculture and droughts in agricultural development of India. NABARD Research and Policy Series No. 2. Department of Economic Analysis and Research. https://www.nabard.org/auth/writereaddata/tender/2007223429Paper-2-%20Rainfed-Agriculture-Dr.-Deshpande.pdf

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry –FICCI (2011) Water use in Indian industry survey, FICCI Water Mission, New Delhi

GOI (2000) National Agricultural Policy, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi

GOI (2012) National Water Policy, Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi. https://nwm.gov.in/sites/default/files/nwp20025617515534.pdf

Government of Andhra Pradesh (2019) Action plan for usage of treated waste water from sewage treatment plants. Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Andhra Pradesh, India

Halder S, Roy MB, Roy PK (2020) Analysis of groundwater level trend and groundwater drought using Standard Groundwater Level Index: a case study of an eastern river basin of West Bengal India. SN Appl Sci 2:507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2302-6

https://wdcpmksy.dolr.gov.in/aboutus

ICAR (2015) Vision, 2050, Government of India. https://icar.org.in/files/Vision-2050-ICAR.pdf

IIT (2022) Water reuse-a vital step towards water value, Roorkee

Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment (INCCA) (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India

Joshi PK, Jha AK, Wani SP, Laxmi J, Shiyani RL (2005) Meta-analysis to assess impact of watershed program and people’s participation.Research Report 8, Comprehensive Assessment of watershed management in agriculture, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics and Asian Development Bank, pp 21

Joshi PK, Pangare V, Shiferaw B, Wani SP, Bouma J, Scott C (2004) Socioeconomic and policy research on watershed management in India: Synthesis of past experiences and needs for future research. Global Theme on Agroecosystems Report no.7. Patancheru 502324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, pp 88

Mali SS, Shirsath PB, Islam AA (2021) High-resolution assessment of climate change impact on water footprints of cereal production in India. Sci Rep 11:8715. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88223-6 .

Minhas PS, Jayanta KS, Dotaniya ML, Abhijit S, Madhumonti S (2022) Wastewater irrigation in India: current status, impacts and response options. Sci of the Total Environment 808:152001

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (2021) Land Use Statistics at a Glance, 2010–11 to 2018–19, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of India. https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/LUS_2018-19/LAND%20USE%20STATISTICS%20AT%20A%20GLANCE%202009–10%20to%202018–19.pdf

Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (MoA and FW) (2022) Annual Report 2022–23, Ministry of agriculture and farmers welfare, Government of India. https://agricoop.nic.in/Documents/annual_report_english_2022_23.pdf

Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (2022) Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2021. Directorate of Economics and Statistics. Government of India. https://agricoop.nic.in/Documents/CWWGDATA/Agricultural_Statistics_at_a_Glance_2021_1.pdf

Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (2023) Land use statistics at a glance, 2010–11 to 2019–20 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of India. https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/LUS_2019-20/Cover%20page.pdf

Ministry of Rural Development (MoRL) (2022) Notes on Demands for Grants, (2023–2024) 305 No. 88/Department of Land Resources. https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/doc/eb/sbe88.pdf

Ministry of Jal Shakti (2023) Government of India. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1895757

Narayanamoorthy A (2006) Potential for drip and sprinkler irrigation in India, Gokhale Institute for Politics and Economics, Pune

Narayanamoorthy A (2022) Is investing in canal irrigation a bad idea? Hindu Business Line. The writer is a former Full-Time Member (Official), Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, New Delhi. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/is-investing-in-canal-irrigation-a-bad-idea/article65802538.ece

NareshK APK, Swaroopa R, Surabhi J, Rani S, Nitin C (2011) Impact of climate change on crop productivity in Western Ghats, coastal and northeastern regions of India. Curr Sci 101(3):332–341

Neto S (2016) Water governance in an urban age. Utili Pol 43:32–41

Palanisami K, Easter KW (2000) Tank Irrigation in the 21st century-what next? Discovery Publications, New Delhi

Palanisami K, Suresh Kumar D (2005) Impact assessment of watershed development – issues, methods and experiences. Associated Publishing Company, New Delhi

Palanisami K, SureshKumar D, Wani SP (2009) A Manual on impact assessment of watersheds. global theme on agro-ecosystems, Report no. 53, ICRISAT, Patancheru, Hyderabad

Palanisami K (2022) Tank irrigation in India: future management strategies and investment options. NABARD Research and Policy Series No. 10/2022. Department of Economic Analysis and Research. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai. https://www.nabard.org/auth/writereaddata/tender/2911220521paper-10-tank-irrigation-in-india-by-dr-palanisami.pdf

Palanisami K, Kakumanu KR, Malik RPS (2015) Water pricing experiences in India: Emerging issues. In: Dinar A, Pochat V, Albiac-Murillo J (eds) Water pricing experiences and innovations. Global Issues in Water Policy. Springer, Cham, p 9

Palanisami K, Raman S, Mohan K (2012) Micro irrigation- economics and outreach. MacMillan Publishers India, New Delhi

Palanisami K, Shiferaw B, Joshi PK, Nedumaran S, Suhas P, Wani (2011) Impact of watershed projects in India: application of various approaches and methods. Chapter 11

Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture, pp 349. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4930.3684

Pathak H, Pramanik P, Khanna M, Kumar A (2014) Climate change and water availability in Indian agriculture: impacts and adaptation. Ind J Agri Sci 84 (6):671–679

Press Information Bureau (PIB) (2014) National Water Policy 2012. Ministry of Water Resources. Government of India

Rodella A-S, Zaveri E, Dilip; Bertone, Francois Maurice Denis Charles. (2023) The Hidden Wealth of Nations: The Economics of Groundwater in Times of Climate Change. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Raychaudhuri M, Raychaudhuri S, Jena SK, Ashwani Kumar, Srivastava RC (2014) WQI to Monitor Water Quality for Irrigation and Potable Use. DWM Bulletin No. 71 Directorate of Water Management, Bhubaneswar, India, p 43

Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS) (2016) India and sustainable development goals: the way forward. http://ris.org.in/sdg/india-and-sustainable-development-goals-way-forward

Saleth MR (2004) Strategic analysis of water institutions in India: application of a new research paradigm. Research Report 79. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute

Sarangi A, Rajender Kumar, Kaur R (2016) Irrigation management, Agriculture World. 20. https://issuu.com/krishijagran1/docs/aw_final_25-10-2016/20

Sanjeevaiah SH, RudrappaKS LMT, Huggi L, Hanumanthaiah MM, VenkatappaSD LingegowdaN, Sreeman SM (2021) Understanding the temporal variability of rainfall for estimating agro-climatic onset of cropping season over south interior Karnataka. India. Agron. 11:1135. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061135

Shiferaw B (2021) Addressing groundwater depletion: lessons from India, the world’s largest user of groundwater. Independent evaluation Group (IEG). https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/blog/addressing-groundwater-depletion-lessons-india-worlds-largest-user-groundwater

The Economic Times (2020) Retrieved on July 10, 2020. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/govt-on-track-to-doubling-farmers-income-by-2024-agriculture-ministry-official/articleshow/76897730.cms?from=mdr

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

International Water Management Institute, New Delhi, India

Kuppannan Palanisami

Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Ås, Norway

Udaya Sekhar Nagothu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kuppannan Palanisami .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Palanisami, K., Nagothu, U.S. (2024). Agriculture and Irrigation in India—Trends and Turning Points. In: India's Water Future in a Changing Climate. Advances in Geographical and Environmental Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-1785-9_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-1785-9_1

Published : 19 April 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-97-1784-2

Online ISBN : 978-981-97-1785-9

eBook Packages : Earth and Environmental Science Earth and Environmental Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Screen Reader
• Skip to main content
• Text Size A
• Language: English
• Case Studies
• EXIM Procedure

Media & Events

• Image Gallery
• Media Coverage

Other Links

• GI of India
• Experience India
• Indian Trend Fair 2022
• India Organic Biofach 2022
• Gulfood Dubai 2023

INDIA ADDA – Perspectives On India

IBEF works with a network of stakeholders - domestic and international - to promote Brand India.

• Agriculture (20)
• Automobiles (17)
• Banking and Financial services (22)
• Consumer Markets (27)
• Defence (5)
• Ecommerce (18)
• Economy (55)
• Education (10)
• Engineering (5)
• Exports (18)
• Healthcare (19)
• India Inc. (6)
• Infrastructure (22)
• Manufacturing (17)
• Media and Entertainment (5)
• Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) (14)
• Miscellaneous (29)
• Perspectives from India (29)
• Pharmaceuticals (3)
• Railways (4)
• Real Estate (11)
• Renewable Energy (12)
• Research and Development (2)
• Services (4)
• Startups (15)
• Technology (41)
• Textiles (4)
• Tourism (9)

RECENT POSTS

Agriculture 4.0: Future of Indian Agriculture

• Mar 23, 2023, 14:35
• Agriculture

Overview of Agriculture in India Agriculture plays a significant role in India’s growing economy. With around 54.6% of the total workforce involved in agriculture and allied sector activities, the sector contributes to 17.8% of the country’s gross value added (GVA). During 2021-22, the country recorded US$ 50.2 billion in total agriculture exports with a 20% increase from US$ 41.3 billion in 2020-21. It is projected that the Indian agriculture sector will grow by 3.5% in FY23.

With the use of conventional farming methods, there’s comparatively less improvement in efficiency and agricultural yields which resulted in lower productivity. Due to this concern, the government initiated the fourth wave of revolution in the agricultural sector to introduce technological advancement in these activities to improve yields and promote the involvement of the population in this sector.

Agriculture 4.0 is a considerably advanced version of precision farming methods. It has the potential to transform the existing methods of farming. Precision farming focuses on a comprehensive approach towards maintaining the field and soil well-being with a focus on improving the quality and quantity of yield with minimum environmental harm. The idea of revolution in agriculture involves the use of the Internet of Things (IoT), big data, artificial intelligence, and robotics to accelerate and improve the efficiency of activities throughout the entire production chain. It has the potential to transform the conventional farming industry. Conventional farming practices control crop watering and spraying pesticides or fertilisers uniformly across the field. Instead, the farmers will need to be more targeted and data-driven in the context of farming. Future farms will be more productive owing to the employment of robotics, temperature and moisture sensors, aerial photos, and GPS technology. These cutting-edge methods will improve farm profitability, efficiency, safety, and environmental friendliness. They are together referred to as advanced or high-tech precision farming.

Around one-third of food produced for consumption which is worth over US$ 1 trillion is lost or wasted in transit. This leads to millions of people sleeping hungry every night. The UN World Food Programme reports state that the primary cause of rising hunger around the globe is food wastage or loss due to uneven handling of food.

The concern about food wastage gave rise to the involvement of technology in agriculture to improve productivity and reduce wastage by proper handling of food. The data analytics and AI will help farmers to monitor the activities of seeds to the final crop. This will result in better yield and as a result, people will be involved in agriculture and eventually, the nation will target the least hunger issues. These challenges led to the introduction of Agriculture 4.0 wherein farmers won’t be dependent on water facilities, fertilizers, and pesticides uniformly across entire fields. Instead, farmers will be suggested to use minimum quantities and target specific areas for different crops to get better productivity.

Prospects of Indian Agriculture The continuous technological innovation in the Indian agriculture sector plays a critical role in the growth and development of the Indian agriculture system. It will be crucial for ensuring agricultural production, generating employment, and reducing poverty to promoting equitable and sustainable growth. Constraints include diminishing and degraded land and water resources, drought, flooding, and global warming generating unpredictable weather patterns that present a significant barrier for India's agriculture to grow sustainably and profitably. The future of agriculture seems to involve much-developed technologies like robotics, temperature and moisture sensors, aerial images, and GPS technology. Farms will be able to be more productive, efficient, safe, and environmentally sustainable owing to this cutting-edge equipment, robotic systems, and precision agriculture. 

Various factors such as data analysis matrix and technological advancement in the existing agricultural machinery contribute to the production of food grains for consumption and commercial needs. The production of commercial food grain support the economy and improves the GDP.

Hence, the future growth of Indian agriculture appears to be growing with an upward graph which is backed by technological advancements and government initiatives.

Recent Trends in Agriculture India’s agriculture mainly depends on nature, however changing climate and global warming are making farming unpredictable. The need to use modern technologies to increase productivity and profitability led to the emergence of Agriculture 4.0 in India. There have been significant changes in India in the context of agriculture over the decades and many new technologies have been developed. Several new-age farmers are using soil mapping software as well to determine the optimum level of fertilizers used in the farms. These emerging technologies in farming and agriculture pave the way for more opportunities. The aggrotech start-ups and traditional farmers are also using the latest solutions and trends to improve production in the food value chain. It includes the adoption of new technologies such as cloud-based solutions and other relevant advanced agricultural management techniques to increase farmer efficiency and produce more crops.

• Grape farmers in India who have begun spotting and geo-locating crop diseases or pestilence, allowing them to control infestations earlier and in a more precise manner. This also leads to lower use of harmful pesticides on the crop. Soil mapping software is used by several new farmers to determine the optimum level of fertiliser use in their farms. They are also using drones which allow spraying pesticides in a more targeted manner.
• Sugarcane farmers in India have started using technology to gauge the most appropriate time to harvest their crops, which allows them to better plan their harvest and maximise output. Several Indian farmers have also begun to use AI/ML-powered technologies to forecast crop yield, weather conditions and price trends in mandis. A few farmers have also begun testing self-driving tractors and seed-planting robots to free their farms from the vagaries of labour shortages.

Emerging trends in the agricultural sector that are quite prominent in the post-liberalization era include increased production, increased investment, diversification of the sector, use of modern techniques, development of horticulture and floriculture, increasing volume of exports and development of the food processing industry.

Some of the recent trends in agricultural technology:

• Agricultural Drone Technology-

Drones are used widely for medical delivery to protection assistance and are used in agriculture to improve the growth of crops, maintenance, and cultivation methods. For example, these ariel carriers are used to access crop conditions and execute better fertilization strategies for more yields. Even the accessibility of hovering robots help farmers through a survey of large areas and data collection to generate better insights about their farms. Using drones in agriculture has provided more frequent, cost-effective remote monitoring of crops and livestock. It also helps analyse field conditions and determine appropriate interventions such as fertilizers, nutrients, and pesticides.

• Diversification of Agriculture-

The agricultural sector produces generic consumption needs as well as crops like fruits, vegetables, spices, cashews, areca nuts, coconuts, and floral products such as flowers, orchids, etc. With the increasing demand for these products, there’s a huge potential in terms of production and trade of these products. This shows how the agricultural sector is being transformed into a dynamic and commercial sector by shifting the mix of traditional agricultural products towards higher quality products, with a high potential to accelerate production rates.

The diversification in agriculture is being supported by changes in technology or consumer demand, trade or government policy, transportation, irrigation, and other infrastructure developments.

• Increasing Trend in Horticulture Production-

The availability of diverse physiographic, climatic, and soil characteristics enables India to grow various horticulture crops. It includes fruits, vegetables, spices, cashew, coconut, cocoa, areca etc. The total horticulture production in FY22 is estimated at 342.333 million tonnes which is an increase of about 7.03 million tonnes (2.10% increase) from 2020-21. 

• Development of Agriculture in Backward Areas-

In the post-green revolution era, the introduction of new agricultural strategies, research, and technology was mostly limited to producing specific food grains, i.e., wheat and rice. However, under the wave of liberalization, with the growing demand for agricultural exports, many new sectors of agricultural activities have become favourable and profitable.

In some agriculturally backward areas with no irrigation system and access to fewer resources, dryland farming has been introduced. Other activities were also encouraged such as horticulture, floriculture, animal husbandry, fisheries, etc. To support the development in those areas, various modern techniques have been installed in the backward areas.

• Ariel Imaging-

Ariel imaging involves the use of geographic information system (GIS) technology to analyse the potential of irrigation projects and their impact on land degradation, erosion, and drainage. The visuals of this technology allow assessment of an individual plant’s foliage. These visuals are actively used to detect pests and diseases to protect crops from environmental threats. It mostly helps farmers to monitor the soil conditions of farms and is useful in the summer season when there is the least availability of water.

• Hydroponics and Vertical Farming

The concept of hydroponics farming focus towards better yields, texture, and taste of the final product with less water consumption. Plants which are grown hydroponically do not need extensive root systems and it allows them to contribute more energy towards the production of leaves and fruits. Because of indoor cultivation, these plants mature quickly and possess better immunity against pests and other diseases. In the context of sustainability, vertical farming allows farms to be located near or within areas of high population density which reduces the need for transportation and any harmful emissions. Vertical farming provides the ability to grow crops in urban environments and contributes to the availability of fresh foods conveniently. This farming significantly reduces the amount of land space required to grow crops compared to conventional farming methods.

• Various farm sensors such as autonomous vehicles, wearables, button cameras, robotics, control systems, etc help in the collection of data to analyse the performance of the farm.
• Use of aerial and ground-based drones for crop health assessment, irrigation, monitoring and field analysis.
• Use of tools to predict rainfall, temperature, soil, humidity, and other forecasted natural calamities.

Government Initiatives The government has taken various initiatives to enable the potential digitalization of the agricultural sector in India. It focuses on promoting Agri-tech businesses which are working towards boosting productivity.

• The government has finalised an India Digital Ecosystem of Agriculture (IDEA) framework that will establish the architecture for the federated database of farmers. This database is being built by taking the publicly available data as existing in various schemes and linking them with the digitalized land records. The IDEA would serve as a foundation to build innovative Agri-focused solutions leveraging emerging technologies to contribute effectively to creating a better Ecosystem for Agriculture in India. This Ecosystem shall help the Government in effective planning towards increasing the income of farmers and improving the efficiency of the agriculture sector.
• To facilitate agricultural engineering research, operations, and technology diffusion, the Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal (ICAR-CIAE) of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has created the Krishi Yantra App. A web portal has been made available by ICAR-CIAE on their website to guarantee that businesses choose the proper mechanisation technology. This aids current and potential business owners in choosing machines and purchasing options. The portal also offers the option of user and specialist engagement.
• Farm Safety app was developed by ICAR-CIAE which provides information about safety guidelines and Safety Gadgets to avoid accidents while using different types of agricultural machinery.
• A smartphone app called Water Balance Simulation Model for Roof Water Harvesting assists decision-makers in recommending design criteria. It provides that where the implementation of a roof water harvesting system may result in water savings and water security.

Conclusion Agriculture is an important sector of the country. It is one of the market-driven industries that employ a large segment of the country’s population. The new changes over the last few years have been enormously helpful to contribute more towards economic growth. Recent advancements such as drones, and data-driven facilities help to monitor the process of farming. It has been supporting farmers to increase productivity and contribute more towards the agricultural economy.

The future of Indian agriculture seems bright and promising with the advent of new technologies. The government has increased its focus on the sector, implementing various policies and initiatives to boost productivity and growth. India’s vast and diverse agricultural landscape, coupled with advancements in technology, provides immense opportunities for farmers to harness their potential and increase yield. In addition, start-ups in the agricultural sector are working towards providing innovative solutions to farmers in terms of supporting them with better productivity, measuring tools and other data-driven strategies.

Not a member

Director of Economics & Statistics

• Documents & Reports

Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2021

Last updated : 28-07-2022, 12:31 PM

• Mission / Vision Document
• History / Background
• Role Functions, Responsibilities, Activities
• Organization Chart
• State Agricultural Statistics Authorities (SASA)
• Photo Gallery
• Administration Division
• Agricultural Statistics Division
• Agricultural Statistics Improvement (ASI)
• Agricultural Wages Division
• Agro-Economic Research (AER)
• Commercial Crops (CC)
• Cost Studies (CS)
• Crop Forecast Coordination Centre (CFCC)
• Coordination
• Food Economics (FE)
• International Agriculture & Compilation (IAC)
• Prices & Markets (P&M)
• Publication
• Special Data Dissemination Standards (SDDS)
• Planning, Management & Policy Formulation Scheme
• Agriculture Census Scheme
• Improvement of Agricultural Statistics (IAS) Scheme
• Agro-Economic Research Scheme
• Comprehensive Scheme for Studying Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops in India.
• Forecasting Agricultural Output Using Space, Agro-meteorology And Land Based Observations (FASAL)
• Agriculture Statistics -At a Glance
• Pocket Book of Agricultural Statistics
• Agricultural Situation in India
• Agricultural Prices in India
• Agriculture Wages in India
• State of Indian Agriculture
• Weekly Minutes of the Meeting of CWWG
• Weekly CWWG Data
• Crop Complex For The Year
• Cost of Cultivation/Production Estimates
• Selected Zone/Tehsil/District block year-wise
• Plot-wise Summary Data
• Farm Harvest Prices of Principle Crops in India
• Land Use Statistics – At a Glance
• Monthly Bulletin
• De-husked Coconut
• Office Order
• Seniority List and Criteria
• Recruitment Rules
• Application Form
• Appointments and Transfers
• Latest Minimum Support Price (MSP) Statement
• District-wise
• Indices (Area)
• Indices (Production)
• Indices (Yield)
• Land Use Statistics (LUS)
• Right to information
• Central Public Information Officer

• Agriculture

Agriculture in India - statistics & facts

Farming india’s vast lands and its livestock, fisheries and forestry contribution in india, imbalanced workforce and economic contribution, key insights.

Detailed statistics

GVA from agriculture, forestry and fishing sector India FY 2012-2021

Agricultural land in India 2009-2021

Aquaculture production APAC 2021, by country

Editor’s Picks Current statistics on this topic

Gross domestic product (GDP) in India 2029

Leading agriculture companies in India 2023, based on net sales

Crop Production

Gross value added from the crop industry India FY 2012-2021

Further recommended statistics

Economic contribution.

• Basic Statistic GVA from agriculture, forestry and fishing sector India FY 2012-2021
• Premium Statistic Gross value added in agriculture per worker India FY 2016-2023
• Premium Statistic Number of employees in agriculture industry India FY 2017-2023
• Premium Statistic GVA share of agriculture and allied sector in India FY 2022, by sector
• Premium Statistic Share of budget expenditure towards agriculture in India FY 2024, by state

Gross value added from agriculture, forestry and fishing in India from financial year 2012 to 2021 (in trillion Indian rupees)

Gross value added in agriculture per worker India FY 2016-2023

Gross value added (GVA) per worker in agriculture in India from financial year 2016 to 2023 ( in 1,000 Indian rupees)

Number of employees in agriculture industry India FY 2017-2023

Number of people employed across the agriculture sector in India from financial year 2017 to 2023 (in millions)

GVA share of agriculture and allied sector in India FY 2022, by sector

Gross value added (GVA) share of agriculture and allied sector in India in financial year 2022, by sector

Share of budget expenditure towards agriculture in India FY 2024, by state

Share of budget expenditure towards agriculture in India in financial year 2024, by state

International trade

• Premium Statistic Export value of agricultural sector from India FY 2016-2022
• Premium Statistic Leading agricultural and allied sector export value India FY 2023, by commodity
• Premium Statistic Agriculture as a share of total import value in India FY 2018-2023
• Premium Statistic Leading agricultural and allied sector import value India FY 2023, by commodity

Export value of agricultural sector from India FY 2016-2022

Value of agricultural exports from India in financial year 2016 to 2022 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Leading agricultural and allied sector export value India FY 2023, by commodity

Leading agricultural and allied sector exports from India in financial year 2023, by commodity (in billion Indian rupees)

Agriculture as a share of total import value in India FY 2018-2023

Agriculture as a share of total import value in India from financial year 2018 to 2023

Leading agricultural and allied sector import value India FY 2023, by commodity

Leading agricultural and allied sector imports to India in financial year 2023, by leading commodity (in billion Indian rupees)

• Premium Statistic Agricultural land in India 2009-2021
• Premium Statistic Cultivated area under crops India FY 2019, by type
• Basic Statistic Annual growth rate of meat production in India from FY 2015-2022
• Premium Statistic Production volume of meat in India FY 2006-2022
• Premium Statistic Number of eggs produced in India FY 1986-2022

Agricultural land in India from 2009 to 2021 (in square kilometers)

Cultivated area under crops India FY 2019, by type

Cultivated area under crops across India in financial year 2019, by type (in million hectares)

Annual growth rate of meat production in India from FY 2015-2022

Annual growth rate of meat production in India from financial year 2015 to 2022

Production volume of meat in India FY 2006-2022

Volume of meat produced across India from financial year 2006 to 2022 (in million metric tons)

Number of eggs produced in India FY 1986-2022

Number of eggs produced across India from financial year 1986 to 2022 (in billions)

Fisheries and aquaculture

• Premium Statistic Share of fishing in agriculture GVA India FY 2012-2020
• Premium Statistic Fish production volume in India FY 2011-2022
• Premium Statistic Marine fish production in India FY 2011-2022
• Premium Statistic Marine fish production in India FY 2022, by state
• Premium Statistic Inland fish production in India FY 2011-2022
• Premium Statistic Inland fish production in India FY 2022, by state

Share of fishing in agriculture GVA India FY 2012-2020

Fishing and aquaculture as a share of agriculture gross value added (GVA) in India from financial year 2012 to 2021

Fish production volume in India FY 2011-2022

Volume of fish production across India from financial year 2011 to 2022 (in million metric tons)

Marine fish production in India FY 2011-2022

Marine fish production in India from financial year 2011 and 2022 (in million metric tons)

Marine fish production in India FY 2022, by state

Production of marine fish in India in financial year 2022, by state (in 1,000 metric tons)

Inland fish production in India FY 2011-2022

Volume of inland fish production in India from financial year 2011 to 2022 (in million metric tons)

Inland fish production in India FY 2022, by state

Production of inland fish in India in financial year 2022, by state (in million metric tons)

• Premium Statistic Open forest area in India 2001-2021
• Premium Statistic Gross value added from forestry and logging in India FY 2012-2021
• Premium Statistic Diverted forest land for non-forestry use India FY 2013-2023
• Premium Statistic Diverted forest land for non-forestry India FY 2009-2023, by use

Open forest area in India 2001-2021

Open forest area in India from 2001 to 2021 (in 1,000 square kilometers)

Gross value added from forestry and logging in India FY 2012-2021

Gross value added from the forestry and logging industry in India from financial year 2012 to 2021 (in trillion Indian rupees)

Diverted forest land for non-forestry use India FY 2013-2023

Diverted forest land for non-forest use across India from financial year 2013 to 2023 (in hectares)

Diverted forest land for non-forestry India FY 2009-2023, by use

Diverted forest land for non-forest activity across India between financial year 2009 and 2023, by use (in hectares)

• Premium Statistic VC deal size for agritech in India 2018-2022
• Premium Statistic Number of deals for venture capital in agritech in India 2018-2022
• Premium Statistic Agritech funding in India 2018-2022, by sector

VC deal size for agritech in India 2018-2022

Venture capital deal size for agritech in India from 2018 to 2022 (in million U.S. dollars)

Number of deals for venture capital in agritech in India 2018-2022

Number of deals for venture capital investments in agritech in India from 2018 to 2022

Agritech funding in India 2018-2022, by sector

Venture capital investment in agritech in India from 2018 to 2022, by sector (in billion U.S. dollars)

Further reports

Get the best reports to understand your industry.

Mon - Fri, 9am - 6pm (EST)

Mon - Fri, 9am - 5pm (SGT)

Mon - Fri, 10:00am - 6:00pm (JST)

Mon - Fri, 9:30am - 5pm (GMT)

Recently Articles

Indexed and abstracted in.

New Research: Iran Rural Health, Philanthropic Timeliness, Graciela Olivarez, and Chilean Agriculture

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)

We are pleased to offer this snapshot of some recent archival research at RAC. The New Research series presents newly published reports submitted by RAC travel stipends recipients who have pursued their studies in our reading room. In this edition, reports cite records from the Rockefeller Foundation , as well as the papers of Frederick T. Gates , John D. Rockefeller, Sr. , and David K. Lelewer . We encourage you to read through these reports from our reading room visitors and discover a bit about the wide range of topics covered and research approaches used.

“The Rockefeller Foundation’s Rural Health Program and the Oil Nationalization Crisis in Iran, 1949-1951” by Kelly Shannon

Kelly Shannon’s research report looks at a little-known episode in Rockefeller Foundation (RF) history – the foundation had an office in Tehran in the years immediately after World War II. In her report, “ The Rockefeller Foundation’s Rural Health Program and the Oil Nationalization Crisis in Iran, 1949-1951 ,” she explores the RF archival records regarding its plans to conduct a rural health project there. This program was viewed favorably by the Shah and by government officials, as they sought to modernize Iran’s healthcare system. However, the plan ultimately was ill-timed. The 1951 nationalization of the oil industry, a crisis with both domestic and international implications, overwhelmed these efforts. Though these political developments were not aimed at the RF’s presence in Iran, the foundation did not see a way to continue when the government’s focus was elsewhere. As Dr. Shannon observes, this short-lived engagement between a major American philanthropy and Iran was a positive moment in an often-rocky relationship between the two countries.

Kelly J. Shannon is associate professor of history at Florida Atlantic University (FAU). Since July 2020, she has also been the director of the university’s Peace, Justice, and Human Rights Initiative. Her research focuses on US relations with the Islamic world, US relations with Iran, Muslim women’s human rights, transnational history, and human rights and US foreign policy. She was a 2020 RAC research stipend recipient.

“Frederick Gates and Philanthropic Timeliness” by Benjamin Soskis

In “ Frederick Gates and Philanthropic Timeliness ,” Benjamin Soskis explores Gates’s thinking on a fundamental question confronting modern philanthropy: how best to time and allocate funding so that it has the most overall beneficial impact. As John D. Rockefeller, Sr.’s trusted advisor from the earliest days of his giving, Frederick T. Gates’s view of these issues helped shape the framework under which then-new Rockefeller philanthropies such as the General Education Board and the Rockefeller Foundation operated. Analyzing Gates’s correspondence and memos, appearing both in his personal papers and various other RAC collections, Dr. Soskis notes that Gates drew many of his ideas from his Baptist faith and charity experiences. Yet, as Soskis also points out, Gates’s thinking on questions of endowments, temporal responsibilities, and the notion of foundation perpetuity evolved over time.

Benjamin Soskis is a senior research associate in the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the Urban Institute, with a particular interest in the ways in which historical inquiry can inform contemporary philanthropic practice. He is also the coeditor of HistPhil, a web publication devoted to the history of the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors.

“Graciela Olivarez: From Mexican American Civil Rights and Antipoverty Activism to the Presidential Commission on Population Growth and the American Future” by Robert Bauman

Graciela Olivarez was a Mexican American civil rights activist, who later became the first Latina to lead a federal agency when, in 1977, President Jimmy Carter appointed her head of the Community Service Administration. Robert Bauman’s study of her life and career brought him to RAC to look at records related to earlier work she had done in a presidential administration. In 1970, Graciela Olivarez was selected by President Nixon to be a chair on his Presidential Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. In “ Graciela Olivarez: From Mexican American Civil Rights and Antipoverty Activism to the Presidential Commission on Population Growth and the American Future ,” Prof. Bauman provides details about the RAC archival material he found in the papers of a John D. Rockefeller, 3rd associate, David Lelewer. Bauman describes how these records allowed him to successfully fill in a number of gaps about why Olivarez was selected for the Commission and provided documentation of her positions on the issues which the Commission sought to address. Graciela Olivarez’s anti-poverty activism, her support for Mexican American rights, and her Catholic faith all shaped her views on population issues.

Robert Bauman is professor of history and academic director of arts and sciences at Washington State University Tri-Cities. His teaching interests are in 20th Century US social policy, religion, and race in the American West. He was a 2023 RAC research stipend recipient.

“Wheat and Meat: The Rockefeller Foundation and the Chilean Agricultural Program” by Joshua Frens-String

Joshua Frens-String’s research report, “ Wheat and Meat: The Rockefeller Foundation and the Chilean Agricultural Program ,” traces the development of the Chilean Agricultural Program funded by the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) during the 1950s and 1960s. It some ways, it was a “spin-off” of the 1940s Mexican Agricultural Program that marked the beginning of the RF’s intense engagement with the concept of modernizing agricultural production in then-called “developing” regions of the world. Yet Frens-String notes that the RF’s Chilean program differed from the earlier endeavors in a number of ways. While it did build on past experiences, it also contended with farming in uniquely Chilean long- and short-season climates, as well as a different level of local expertise. Reflecting on his exploration of the RF archives, Dr. Frens-String emphasizes that current research on the Green Revolution differs from earlier studies that looked at the enterprise “from the top down.” Instead, he notes that “the multi-directional and often reciprocal flows of agrarian knowledge that moved both between the Global South and Global North and within the Global South itself” were clearly evident in the Chilean program.

Joshua Frens-String is a historian specializing in modern Latin American history at the University of Texas at Austin. His research and teaching interests include revolution in modern Latin America, popular politics, labor history, global agricultural history, food politics, and US-Latin American relations. He was a 2020 RAC research stipend recipient.

About the RAC Research Stipend Program

The Rockefeller Archive Center offers a competitive research stipend program that provides individuals up to $5,000 for reimbursement of travel and accommodation expenses. Learn more on our  Research Stipend page .

Explore Further

New Research: Kenyan Wildlife, Westchester Housing, US-China Exchanges, and Institute of International Education

The latest in the RAC New Research series highlights reports from archival research by stipend recipients, covering subjects from Kenyan Wildlife Preserves, Westchester Housing Plans, US-China Music Exchanges, and Institute of International Education. This month’s installment uses many personal papers from the RAC collections.

“A very small number of men control all the money and the ideas”: Women Revolutionize Population Programs in the 1970s

Women and technocratic elites clashed at the 1974 World Population Conference. At stake was women’s control over their own bodies.

New Research: Prison Plastic Surgery, Indian Fellowships, Thai Nursing Program, and Nam June Paik

The latest RAC New Research series highlights reports from archival research by stipend recipients, covering diverse subjects from prison plastic surgery policies in the Civil Rights era to Indian art fellowship impacts and the roots of Thai nursing education. It includes discussions on the effects of patronage on video art and Thai-Filipino-American healthcare interactions, revealing the historical role of Rockefeller and Ford Foundations in enabling progressive social and cultural studies.