Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the impact of policy-driven agricultural practices in Karnataka, India

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The classical approach of assessing sustainability with respect to its three underlying pillars, ecological, economic, and social, is adopted in this paper, with an added emphasis on estimating the simultaneous effects of each pillar on the other two. The paper assesses the impact of policy-driven changes in cultivation practices in five districts in the south-western Indian state of Karnataka. A comparative statics analysis using a simultaneous equations model is developed to capture the stability of each pillar into the future and their concurrent interactive impacts and trade-offs. Ecological and economic impacts of policies favoring organic farming are estimated to be uniformly significant and positive in the study districts. However, the impact on socio-cultural criteria is subjective to the eco-regional context. Cost savings, through producing organic inputs on-farm, maximizes synchrony among the three pillars vis-à-vis sourcing these inputs from the market. With more reliance on organic inputs, better prospects are estimated for small and rain-fed farms compared to large and irrigated farms.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the nature and impacts of the Green Revolution, please see Evenson and Gollin (2003) and Hazell (2003), respectively.

  2. Economic Survey 2011–12 is available online at: http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2011-12/estat1.pdf.

  3. At 122.5 kg/ha, the NPK application in Karnataka is still less than the national average of 131.1 kg/ha for 2005–2006.

  4. http://raitamitra.kar.nic.in/kda_booklet.pdf.

  5. A taluk is a subdistrict administrative division that entails local government for exercising certain fiscal and administrative power over the villages and municipalities within its jurisdiction.

  6. http://www.kar.nic.in/finance/bud2010/budhig10e.pdf and Karnataka State Annual Budget 2011–2012.

  7. The words ‘dimension’ and ‘criteria’ in the context of sustainability are synonymously used in this paper.

  8. Weightage for each variable constituting the CIA for any household is calculated as

    $$ W_{j} = \frac{1}{{D \times SD\left( {S_{j} } \right)}} $$

    where \( D = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{3} {\left\{ {\frac{1}{{SD\left( {S_{j} } \right)}}} \right\}} \), SD(S j ) = standard deviation of S j1 to S j3. This ensures that a lower weightage is assigned for the variable that is highly dispersed and diverse, indicating the unequal distribution of assets within a village.

  9. PIA workshops were held in all study sites involving farmers, researchers, as well as government officers and NGO representatives implementing the policy. Details of PIA can be found in Purushothaman et al. (2012b).

  10. While computing the composite index of financial criteria (F), the indicator NDT (indebtedness) is used as its reciprocal, as the absence of indebtedness contributes to financial sustainability.

  11. Karnataka state agricultural action plans can be accessed at: http://kappec.kar.gov.in/future.html, http://empri.kar.nic.in/Directives%20and%20actions%20taken%202011-02-02%20CFN%20RMNS.pdf, and http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/envis/sdev/etr15.pdf.

  12. Matrices of coefficients of endogenous and exogenous variables for comparative statics analysis: the matrices of coefficients of endogenous (of ∆E, ∆F, and ∆S as in matrix A in the first expression below) and exogenous (a 1 to a n , b 1 to b m , and c 1 to c r as in matrix B in the second expression below) were formed in order to estimate the future status of ∆E, ∆F, and ∆S.

    $$ A = \begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 & {\beta_{{\left( {\Updelta E\Updelta S} \right)}} } & {\beta_{{\left( {\Updelta E\Updelta F} \right)}} } \\ {\beta_{{\left( {\Updelta s\Updelta e} \right)}} } & 0 & {\beta_{{\left( {\Updelta S\Updelta F} \right)}} } \\ {\beta_{{\left( {\Updelta F\Updelta E} \right)}} } & {\beta_{{\left( {\Updelta F\Updelta S} \right)}} } & 0 \\ \end{array} $$
    $$ B = \begin{array}{*{20}c} {\beta_{{\left( {\Updelta Ea_{1} } \right)}} } & {\beta_{{\left( {\Updelta Ea_{2} } \right)}} \ldots } & {\beta_{{\left( {\Updelta Ea_{n} } \right)}} } \\ {\beta_{{\left( {\Updelta Sb_{1} } \right)}} } & {\beta_{{\left( {\Updelta Sb_{2} } \right)}} \ldots } & {\beta_{{\left( {\Updelta Sb_{m} } \right)}} } \\ {\beta_{{\left( {\Updelta Fc_{1} } \right)}} } & {\beta_{{\left( {\Updelta Fc_{2} } \right)}} \ldots } & {\beta_{{\left( {\Updelta Fc_{r} } \right)}} } \\ \end{array} . $$

    From matrices A and B, we find how ∆E, ∆F, and ∆S further become constant or stable in two different scenarios: WP and BAU. The scenarios capture the change in values of exogenous variables that influence ∆E, ∆F, and ∆S to reach relatively stable levels of \( \Updelta \hat{E},\Updelta \hat{F}\,{\text{and}}\,\Updelta \hat{S} . \)

  13. For instance, in the case of the WP scenario in Udupi district, the change in variable IINORG (inorganic input use, a determinant of \( \Updelta \hat{E} \)) is expected to decrease by 30 %, whereas for the BAU scenario, it is expected to increase by 30 %, both with respect to 2009 values.

References

  • Ali AMS (2007) Population pressure, agricultural intensification and changes in rural systems in Bangladesh. Geoforum 38(4):720–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altieri MA (2002) Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agric Ecosyst Environ 93:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azadi H, Schoonbeek S, Mahmoudi H, Derudder B, De Maeyer P, Witlox F (2011) Organic agriculture and sustainable food production system: main potentials. Agric Ecosyst Environ 144(1):92–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balagopal K (1988) Rich peasant, poor peasant. Seminar 352:19–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson J, Ahnström J, Weibull A-C (2005) The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 42:261–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhalla GS, Singh G (2009) Economic liberalisation and Indian agriculture: a statewise analysis. Econ Political Weekly 44(52):34–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharyya P, Chakraborty G (2005) Current status of organic farming in India and other countries. Indian J Fertilizers 1(9):111–123

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bhende MJ, Kalirajan KP (2007) Technical efficiency of major food and cash crops in Karnataka (India). Indian J Agric Econ 62(2):176–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Black JA, Paez A, Suthanaya PA (2002) Sustainable urban transportation: performance indicators and some analytical approaches. J Urban Plan Dev 128(4):184–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bose P (1981) Farmer’s agitation. Seminar 257:58–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouman BAM, Jansen HGP, Schipper RA, Nieuwenhuyse A, Hengsdijk H, Bouma J (1999) A framework for integrated biophysical and economic land use analysis at different scales. Agric Ecosyst Environ 75:55–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai YL, Smith B (1994) Sustainability in agriculture: a general review. Agric Ecosyst Environ 49:299–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chand R, Pandey LM (2008) Fertiliser growth, imbalances and subsidies: trends and implications. National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research. Discussion Paper: NPP 02/2008. Available online at: http://www.ncap.res.in/upload_files/others/oth_13.pdf

  • Croppenstedt A, Bellú LG, Bresciani F, DiGiuseppe S (2007) Agricultural policy impact analysis with multi-market models: a primer. Agricultural Development Economics Division, The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy. ESA Working Paper No. 07-26. Available online at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ai253e/ai253e00.pdf

  • Deshpande RS, Prabhu N (2005) Farmers’ distress: proof beyond question. Econ Political Weekly 40(44–45):4663–4665

    Google Scholar 

  • Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES) (2006) Agricultural Census 2005–06. DEC

  • Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES) (2011) Karnataka at a Glance 2009–2010. DEC

  • Evenson RE, Gollin D (2003) Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science 300(5620):758–762

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fan S, Gulati A, Thorat S (2008) Investment, subsidies, and pro-poor growth in rural India. Agric Econ 39:163–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government of India (GoI) (2011) Economic survey of India, 2011. Ministry of Finance, Government of India

  • Gulati A, Joshi PK, Landes M (eds) (2008) Contract farming in India: a resource book. Available online at: http://www.ncap.res.in/contract_%20farming/Resources/2.1%20Ashok%20Gulati.pdf. Accessed 22 Sep 2011

  • Hansen JW (1996) Is agriculture sustainability a useful concept? Agric Syst 50:117–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazell PBR (2003) Is there a future for small farms? In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference of Agricultural Economists (IAAE), Durban, South Africa, August 2003. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC. ISBN 0-958-46098-1. Available online at: http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/846/660/1219/151.pdf

  • Kalamkar SS (2009) Urbanisation and agricultural growth in India. Indian J Agric Econ 64(3):442–461

    Google Scholar 

  • Li XM, Xiao RB, Yuan SH, Chen AJ, Zhou JX (2010) Urban total ecological footprint forecasting by using radial basis function neural network: a case study of Wuhan city, China. Ecol Ind 10:241–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipton M (1980) Why poor people stay poor: a study of urban bias in world development. Heritage, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra S (2008) Risks, farmers’ suicides and Agrarian crisis in India: is there a way out? Indian J Agric Econ 63(1):38–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Pannell DJ, Glenn NA (2000) A framework for the economic evaluation and selection of sustainability indicators in agriculture. Ecol Econ 33:135–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretty JN (1995) Regenerating agriculture: policies and practice for sustainability and self-reliance. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Purushothaman S, Kashyap S (2010) Trends in land use and crop acreages in Karnataka and their repercussions. Karnataka J Agric Sci 23(2):330–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Purushothaman S, Patil S, Francis I (2012a) Impact of policies favouring organic inputs on small farms in Karnataka, India: a multicriteria approach. Environ Dev Sustain 14:507–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purushothaman S, Patil S, Francis I, König HJ, Reidsma P, Hegde S (2012b) Participatory impact assessment of agricultural practices using the land use functions framework: case study from India. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag. doi:10.1080/21513732.2012.721005

  • Ramesh P, Singh M, Subba Rao A (2005) Organic farming: its relevance to the Indian context. Curr Sci 88(4):561–568

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramesh P, Panwar NR, Singh AB, Ramana S, Yadav SK, Shrivastava R, Subba Rao A (2010) Status of organic farming in India. Curr Sci 98(9):1190–1994

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rao CHH (1994) Agricultural growth, rural poverty and environmental degradation in India. Oxford University Press, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasul G, Thapa GB (2004) Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural systems in Bangladesh: an assessment based on environmental, economic and social perspectives. Agric Syst 79:327–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray SK (2007) Economics of change in cropping pattern in relation to credit: a micro level study in West Bengal. Indian J Agric Econ 62(2):216–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy VR, Galab S (2006) Looking beyond the Debt Trap. Econ Political Weekly 41(19):1838–1841

    Google Scholar 

  • Reganold JP, Glover JD, Andrews PK, Hinman HR (2001) Sustainability of three apple production systems. Nature 410:926–930

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rigby D, Cáceres D (2001) Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric Syst 68:21–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saha DK, Singh YV, Gajja BL, Singh R, Chand K, Amtul-Waris, Singh B, Jangid BL (2009) Livelihood opportunities and socio-economic issues. In: Kar A, Garg BK, Singh MP, Kathju S (eds) Trends in arid zone research in India. Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler C, Nagel UJ, Werner A, Zander P (2010) Integrated assessment of agricultural production practices to enhance sustainable development in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Ind 10(1):49–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satyasai KJS, Vishwanathan KU (1997) Commercialisation and diversification of Indian agriculture. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD). Occasional Paper, 5

  • Singh RB (2000) Environmental consequences of agricultural development: a case study from the Green Revolution state of Haryana, India. Agric Ecosyst Environ 82:97–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh K (2009) Environmental degradation and measures for its mitigation with special reference to India’s agricultural sector. Indian J Agric Econ 64(1):40–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh I, Squire L, Strauss J (eds) (1986) Agricultural household models: extensions, applications and policy. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Swart RJ, Raskin P, Robinson J (2004) The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global Environ Change 14:137–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor JE, Adelman I (2003) Agricultural household models: genesis, evolution, and extensions. Rev Econ Household 1(1):33–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas CP, Hengsdijk H, Wolf J, van Ittersum MK, Reimund PR, Son TT, Laborte AG (2006) TechnoGIN, a tool for exploring and evaluating resource use efficiency of cropping systems in East and Southeast Asia. Agric Syst 87:80–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasavi AR (2009) Suicides and the making of India’s agrarian distress. South African Rev Soc 40(1):94–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vashisth AK, Sujith Kumar S, Aggarwal PK, Pathak H, Joshi HC, Choudhary RC (2007) An integrated evaluation of trade-offs between environmental risk factors and food production using interactive multiple goal linear programming—a case study of Haryana. Indian J Agric Econ 62(3):511–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter C, Stützel H (2009) A new method for assessing the sustainability of land-use systems (II): evaluating impact indicators. Ecol Econ 68:1288–1300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhen L, Routray JK, Zoebisch MA, Chen G, Xie G, Cheng S (2005) Three dimensions of sustainability of farming practices in the North China Plain. A case study from Ningjin County of Shandong Province, PR China. Agric Ecosyst Environ 105:507–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors gratefully acknowledge the support from EU FP6 project ‘‘Land use policies and sustainable development in developing countries (LUPIS)", as also valuable comments from Dr Gopal Kadekodi and Rosa Abraham

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

    Seema Purushothaman, Sheetal Patil & Ierene Francis

Authors
  1. Seema Purushothaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sheetal Patil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ierene Francis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seema Purushothaman.

Additional information

Handled by Vinod Tewari, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) University, New Delhi, India.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Annexures (DOCX 36 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Purushothaman, S., Patil, S. & Francis, I. Assessing the impact of policy-driven agricultural practices in Karnataka, India. Sustain Sci 8, 173–185 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0188-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0188-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation