Content uploaded by Pranab R Choudhury
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pranab R Choudhury on Aug 23, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Economic & Political Weekly EPW AUGUST 12, 2017 vol liI no 32 41
Improving the Drought Resilience of
the Small Farmer Agroecosystem
Pranab Ranjan Choudhury, Sumita Sindhi
Pranab Ranjan Choudhury (oridev@gmail.com) is with the
NR Management Consultants, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha.
Sumita Sindhi (sumita@ksrm.ac.in) teaches at the KIIT School of Rural
Management, Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
Droughts in 2016 affected a quarter of the Indian popula-
tion (2,55,923 villages in 254 districts in 10 states).
Debates over drought preparedness and development
priorities have been widespread. Current drought management
practices are based on crisis management and are ineffectual.
This ar ticle at tempts to arr ive at a better understanding of the
changing drought ecosystems of poor farmers. The proposed
“ecosystem of drought” framework gives a holistic view of
droughts and explores whether living with drought is possible.
Lessons from regional traditions raise questions about main-
stream agricultural trends.
Drought: A Fact and Reality
Drought, a hydro-meteorological phenomenon, is as natural as
climate and its variability. Droughts are believed to be creeping
phenomena because of their slow onset (Gillette 1950), intensity,
and uncertainty of duration. Droughts can be meteorological,
hydrological, agricultural, or socio-economic depending on
rainfall or run-off defi ciencies, the availability of water for crops
in the growing season, or the impact of drought on human activi-
ties, both direct and indirect (O’Farell et al 2009). Yevjevich et al
(1978) have suggested the term “sociological drought,” which
refers to the meteorological and hydrological conditions in
which less water is available than anticipated and relied on for
a normal level of social and economic activity in the region.
In a country like India, where rain-fed agriculture is the
dominant source of food production, drought inherently coexists
with farmers, society, and the economy. Approximately, 16% of
India’s geographic area—mostly arid, semi-arid, and sub- humid
land—is drought-prone (Reser ve Bank of India 2013). Irrigated
agricu lture is no different because most i rrigation systems rely on
su rface wa ter, so t hey are als o li nke d to pr eci pitat ion. With the
reality of climate change, rainfall is predicted to become more
variable in India and dry regions are expected to become drier;
extreme and intense droughts are expected at higher frequencies
in the coming years.
The impact of droughts appears to be increasing in develop-
ing and developed countries alike, which is a clear sign of the
unsustainable use of, and growing pressures on, natural res-
ou rces (Wilhite et al 2014). Like all natural hazards, drought has
natural and social dimensions. Different types of droughts
have varying economic, environmental, and social impacts; it
is the social dimension that turns a hazard into a disaster.
The risk associated with drought in any region is a product of
both, the region’s exposure to the event (for example, the
The farming systems followed by farmers in Asia, Africa
and Latin America have the potential to deal with the
problems t hrown up by climate change. This article
examines the changing drought ecosys tems of poor
farmers and also points out that the present paradigm of
agricultural development and what it means for small
farmers needs to be critically evaluated.
SPECIAL ARTICLE
AUGUST 12, 2017 vol liI no 32 EPW Econom ic & Political Weekly
42
probability of occurrence at various severity levels) and the vul-
nerability of society to the event (Blaikie et al 1994). Vulnera-
bility is deter mined by social factors such as population changes,
population shifts (regional and rural to urban), demographic char-
acteristics, technological advancement, government policies, en-
vironmental awareness and degradation, water use trends, and
social behaviour. These factors change over time and, thus,
vulnerability is likely to vary in response to these changes.
Human adaptation and response to drought is primarily
through evasion or endurance, which are defi ned on temporal
and spatial scales. Drought resilience is an outcome of social
and political support, cultural means and dependence, eco-
logical stability and biodiversity, livelihood diversifi cation,
and food security. Therefore, the ability to adapt to droughts is
determined by the interplay of multiple aspects.
The Making o f a Drought: The Human I nfluence
While drought is a natural “phenomenon,” a combination of
factors makes it a “disaster” or matter of concern. Even though
droughts can be predicted, their intensity and duration remain
elusive. While a lack of rainfall is the underlying cause for
drought, diverse socio-economic, biological, and agricultural
factors determine the severity of its impact (Wilhite and
Glantz 1985). Without denying the occurrence of extreme and
perennial droughts, the effects of which may be disconnected
from anthropological factors, it cannot be denied that human
activities play a crucial role in infl uencing the severity of
droughts. To understand and manage droughts, it is necessary
to accept that human infl uence is as integral to drought as
climate variability (Van Loon et al 2016).
Poor selection of crops (for example, sugar cane), ineffi cient
methods of irrigation, and the imbalanced use of ground and
stored water also lead to what is now commonly known as
“man-made drought.” Maharashtra has faced man-made
droughts since 2012. Irrigation projects in the state are plagued
with delays, cost overruns, and implementation irregularities.
Premised on an acceptance that drought will remain a fea-
ture of Indian agriculture in this profoundly human-infl u-
enced Anthropocene era, this paper attempts to explore if the
impact of drought can be minimised on agriculture, food pro-
duction, rural India, and importantly, on the millions of small
farmers who are most affected by it. More particularly, it seeks
to examine whether such vulnerabilities have been accentuat-
ed of late as a result of development. Skewed development has
a generic effect and also an infl uence on the agricultural sec-
tor, particularly on policies, research, extension, and markets.
The article discusses some traditional practices that are gradu-
ally dying out, and how they are being reconsidered in future
drought management policies.
Current Dr ought Manageme nt: A Reactive Appro ach
The government’s response to droughts and related practices
is more reactive than planned. Therefore, the response is to
treat the effects of drought rather than the underlying causes
and associated vulnerabilities. The typical government app-
roach is to “wait till it rains” and provide some emergency
assistance to affected localities and hope that a catastrophe
can be avoided. For many years, drought programmes have
been enacted too late to augment water supplies. Moreover,
these programmes are usually inconsistent and inequitable
and are implemented in a confusing manner.
At the local level, drought planning in many areas is given
low priority because of the randomness of droughts, the
limitedness of planning resources and jurisdiction, and the in-
effectiveness of federal government disaster relief pro gra-
mmes. As a result, local governments are encouraged to acc ept
the implicit policy of acting only after a crisis has occurred. A
recent example is the 2017 drought in Tamil Nadu, where
government action began much too late. The state declared
that it was drought-hit on 10 January 2017 only after around
40 farmers protested outside the Tiruchirapalli collector’s of-
fi ce on the premise that 47 farmers in the state had committed
suicide in the previous two months. A farmer suicide study in
Odisha shows that 30% of farmers commit suicide due to crop
loss and 87% of crop loss is caused by droughts. Coping mec h-
anisms used earlier have diminished over time and adjust-
ment and adaptation require more time and resources.
Despite attempts to design cost-effective measures to support
people at key points in the drought cycle (for pastoral liveli-
hoods), the backbone of international drought management is
direct food aid and labour-intensive public works projects. Even
during an impending crisis, there is great reluctance to impose
water conservation measures. Decision-makers are faced with a
dilemma as to when they must halt or reduce industrial activity,
curtail domestic water use, or prohibit non-essential services.
As a result, timely action is rarely achieved (Vlachos 1982).
Understanding Drought: Proposing a Multidimensional
Framework
While it is diffi cult to mark the onset and end of a drought, its
impacts can be severe and can affect the poorest and most
deprived sections of society (NRSC 2008). Keeping the millions
of farmers who bear the brunt of drought at the forefront, this
paper adopts a human angle to propose a comprehensive “eco-
system of drought” framework to understand and analyse the
drought vulnerabilities of the poor—especially the small and
marginal farmers in the Indian context. As drought is most
easily characterised by its impact on the poor farming commu-
nity and their realities, the ecosystem of drought framework
can aid in better appreciating the impact of drought.
The “ecosystem of drought framework” at tempts to understand
the small farmer’s environment from a holistic and multidisci-
plinary perspective. The framework analyses how the social,
economical, and ecological environments of farmers have
changed with the recent political and cultural churn and
whether the changes have led to increased vulnerability.
A multidimensional diagnostic tool (as shown in Figure 1,
p 43) helps drought stakeholders better appreciate vulnerabili-
ties and act accordingly to address issues. This can help to build
a long-term perspective and strengthen drought preparedness
and adaptation, and to augment the resilience of small and
marginal farmers while also providing a holistic perspective on
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Economic & Political Weekly EPW AUGUST 12, 2017 vol liI no 32 43
Figure 1: Ecos ystem of Drou ght in the Conte xt of Small Far mers to
Determine Their Vulnerability
Political
(right s and
governance; control
over and access to
land, see d, inputs)
Social
(institutional
support /access,
collective action,
equity and justice)
Economic
(grain- produ ctivity,
profit, efficiency,
financial inclusion)
Cultural
(Local food, cultural
identity and
practices)
Ecological
(biodiversity,
integration,
external input,
local variety)
Policy and institutional
environment
Small & Marginal Farmer
responding to drought in the post-drought period. The ecosystem
of drought captures different components associated with
drought. The word “ecosystem” encompasses the interactions
between the biotic and abiotic components and integrates them
into a complete system. Similarly, the ecosystem of drought talks
about social, economic, eco logical, political, and cultural
dim e nsions and how their interactions affect humans to holisti-
cally understand droughts; the framework allows one to visualise
droughts as more than the mere defi ciency of rainfall. Droughts
are complex interfaces of various dimensions and their effects.
When studied in their entirety, these dimensions explain the
interconnectedness of farming and the impact of droughts.
This paper analyses and contrasts developmenta l paradigms
and agricultural practices across fi ve ecosystem dimensions to
provide a holistic understanding of drought impact and the
ens uing vulnerabilities. Considering the limitations of this paper,
we deal with a few aspects and examples in each dimension. By
no means must the examples, references, and anecdotes pres-
e n ted be treated as a comprehensive unpacking of elements in
each dimension. The comparisons of the development para-
digms are made primarily to discuss potentially better systems
for drought preparedness, adaptation, and mitigation, and are
not aimed at derogating present practices. Present develop-
ment pa radi gms have mult idi men siona l elements—decentral-
ised local governance, access to IT-enabled services, scope of
insurance, and a growing preference for cultural and natural
food—which enhance the ability to live with droughts. How-
ever, these developmental elements have limited accessibility,
affordability, and scope.
From Living with Drought to Dying of Drought
Droughts have accompanied agriculture since the latter’s
inception and farmers have been ingenuously adapting to
climatic variability through the manipulation of biodiversity,
natural resource management, and agronomical practices.
Traditional systems of cropping and crop management have
evolved around local agro-ecological strengths and limitations.
These agroecosystems are of global importance to food and ag-
riculture and are based on cultivating diverse crops in varying
time and space; these cultivation systems have allowed tradi-
tional farmers to mitigate risks and maximise harvest security
in uncertain and marginal environments, with minimal techno-
logy and limited environmental impact. Campbell (1999) notes
that despite increased diversifi cation of livelihood sources in
Southeast Kajiado after the 1972–76 drought, the region saw an
expansion of rain-fed agriculture, horticulture, and tourism.
During the 1994–95 droughts, traditional strategies of herd
movement and use of wild fruits were applied. Without roman-
ticising the past and ancient traditions, we attempt to see
whether logical practices were adopted in the past to cope with
drought and whether the changes brought in at a faster pace
over the last few years have made us more vulnerable.
Market-led and growth-led agricultural research tend to
aim to aggressively defeat nature by imposing and manipulat-
ing agriculture systems through specifi c crop choices, input,
and technology. This has often negatively impacted small
farmers, by either marginalising or weakening them or mak-
ing them vulnerable in both ways.
In the past, communities in developing countries have
shown the greatest resilience to droughts, fl oods, and other
catastrophes. For example, pastoralists in the West African
Sahel were able to cope with decreased rainfall by 25%–33%
in the 20th century, while contrasting resilience in the face of
changing climates has been documented in smallholder farm-
ers in Bangladesh and Vietnam, and indigenous hunting com-
munities in the Canadian Arctic (Cross and Barker 1992;
Mortimore 1998; Huq et al 1999; Huq 2001; Berkes and Jolly
2001; Adger et al 2001; Roncoli et al 2001). Although these sys-
tems evolved in very different times and geographical areas, they
share structural and functional commonalities (Beets 1990;
Marten 1986)—a combination of species and structural diver-
sity in time and space, high biodiversity, maintaining cycles of
materials and waste through effective recycling, a reliance on
local resources, and cultivating a variety of crops.
Increased External Dependence
The ecosystems that provide resilience to marginal farmers
have lost their capacity as a result of many decades of unsus-
tainable development practices. Changes have been observed
in the way food used to be sourced and grown. Biodiversity
was nurtured and relied upon; land, soil, and water were
managed effectively; and most importantly, communities accept-
ed, respected, and adapted to nature, its limitations, and geo-
cli matic variations. Changes in the management of natural
ele ments have affected the resilience of ecosystems and have im-
plications for the adaptability and vulnerability of small farmers.
Sourcing food from non-agricultural lands (uncultivated sys-
tems such as forests, wetlands, past ures, etc) in addition to agri-
cultural land enables a systemic approach to food consumption.
It allows rural and tribal communities to sustain themselves
for the whole year and steer clear of natural disasters and
season-induced shortfalls of agricultural food. Since the
SPECIAL ARTICLE
AUGUST 12, 2017 vol liI no 32 EPW Econom ic & Political Weekly
44
productivity of trees is often more resilient to adverse weather
conditions than that of annual crops, forest foods often pro-
vide a safety net during periods of food shortages caused by
crop failure; forest foods also make important contributions
during seasonal crop production gaps (Blackie et al 2014;
Keller et al 2006; Shackleton and Shackleton 2004).
Farmers in rain-fed areas and in tougher agroecosystems
(mountains, uplands, arid conditions, etc) have evolved unique
spatial and temporal mixes of crops according to monsoon rain
patterns and other physical limitations. Sensitivity to droughts
is minimised by reducing dependence on vulnerable systems
by diversif ying food production and moving away from drought-
prone crops (Adger et al 2003). In response to climatic and
physical r isk s, they also reor ient their d ietary in take to inc lude
mor e d iversit y to ensure food and nut rition al sec urit y.
Adaptive elements to climate change, including diversifi cation,
low external input/energy use, weather forecasting/adjusting,
traditional natural resource management (moisture, nutrition,
and pest management), cropping practices (mixed/inter/relay
cropping, crop rotation, etc), and collective food and seed stor-
age and distribution are inherent to small farmer agriculture.
Research confi rms that such adaptations are more pronounced
in marginal and remote ecosystems, which demonstrates their
potential in augmenting local food and nutritional security.
Food production in these farms has undergone tremendous
change over the last two decades with respect to crops, varieties,
cropping patterns, and crop management. This change is in re-
sponse to the external market, research, and stimuli of ex tension
programmes. Most of these changes have occurred without tak-
ing into account the potential of traditional farming systems,
which have emerged over years by using limited local resources
and which have evolved through cultural linkages. The new
technologies that have crept into these rain-fed small farms
have not always been designed for such situations and are often
ill-equipped to withstand disasters of increasing intensity. As a
result, the vulnerability of small and marginal farmers is in-
creasing with increased external dependence on markets and
technologies and reduced internal control and adaptation.
The agriculture developmental approach that focuses on
breeding, the use of agrochemicals, and irrigation-based high
input technologies for select food crops has been quite success-
ful in ensuring national food security and in augmenting the
income of many farmers. However, it has also resulted in the
narrowing of crop diversity, which had earlier been evolved in
response to local geo-climatic variations, in the deterioration
of soil health and water holding capacity, negative changes in
water regimes (groundwater depletion and salt accumula-
tion), and has made farms more vulnerable to droughts.
Reducing t he Scope for Local Col lective Acti on
and Control
There have been many changes in the way water, seed, food,
and feed is stocked, conserved, harvested, and shared within
communities. Transformations in agricultural gender roles
and in the scope for collective action in farming have impacts
on the safety nets of small and marginal farmers.
Shared and adaptive water management and governance
systems, particularly in water-scarce and defi cit ecosystems,
have evolved over the years through discipline, restraint, and
community-led control. These evolutionary governance systems
have recently been eroded and replaced by external depend-
ence, exploitative free-rider use, and a lack of local initiatives
to conserve and harvest water. Efforts around participatory
watershed development and water-harvesting initiatives have
shown results but have remained largely driven by external
factors and funds. Instances of elite capture and the incurring
of negative externalities that marginalise the poor, landless,
and tribal people are frequent.
There are informal seed supply and distribution systems
comprised of seed production and management systems con-
trolled by farmers. These are based on indigenous knowledge
and local diffusion mechanisms. These systems include retaining
seeds on the farm from previous harvests to plant the follow-
ing season and farmer-to-farmer seed exchange networks. There
has been little or no emphasis on the informal seed supply sector.1
Despite evidence that gender-informed approaches are
required to bolster the role of women, productivity, and farm
resilience, such approaches are not yet common in agriculture.
Women’s involvement in agro-biodiversity preservation, live-
stock care, genetic improvement, food and seed storage, and
processing are no longer promoted or practised, except in
some areas where the feminisation of agriculture is taking
place due to increased male migration. Women play a critical
role in helping families adapt to drought by foraging for food,
sharing saved resources, and taking care of the family while
also cont ributing to t he fam ily income.
Traditional instances of collective action in adapting to
drought by small and marginal farmers and rural communities
in vulnerable ecosystems exist but have not been emphasised in
mainstream drought management. At present, relief from ex-
ternal institutions dominates drought management. This is still
happening to a great extent; different forms of collective action
by microcredit groups, self-help groups (SHGs), farmers’ fi eld
schools (FFSs), area/user groups (in watershed projects), farm-
ers’ interest groups (FIGs), farmers’ clubs, farmers’ coopera-
tives, producer companies, etc, are able to achieve the desired
development objective with mainstream and alternative devel-
opment support.
Apart from involving farmers, these collective action initia-
tives have the potential to include other stakeholders like
researchers, development specialists, extension workers, and
corporate and social entrepreneurs in a collaborative platform
with a common objective. While most existing initiatives2 are
meant to connect small farmers with the market by promoting
commercial/enterprising agriculture, collective action in the
direction of adaptive food security is limited to institutions
around production (FFSs, area/user groups, etc) and distribu-
tion (seed/grain banks).
Therefore, the role of collective action in facilitating adap-
tation is where lessons can be applied from political ecology
and other theoretical insights for present-day adaptation
processes.
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Economic & Political Weekly EPW AUGUST 12, 2017 vol liI no 32 45
With green revolution technology, the costs of cultivation
and risks of crop failure are so high that, often, small farmers
do not recover the money spent. Between 1990–91 and 1995–96
in India, chemical fertiliser costs increased by 113% and pesti-
cides by 90%, while the wholesale price of wheat went up only b y
58%.3 In 2015, the sum of fertiliser, pesticide, and seed costs
was 48% of crop revenue, which was much higher than the
36% average from 1990 to 2006.4 A sharp rise in international
cereal prices between 2007–08 also had a profound impact
on food security and vulnerabilities of the poor in South
Asian countries.5
A focus on economic effi ciency and productivity enhancement,
of both food and cash crops at the cost of feed reduction,6 di-
versity loss, and soil and water degradation, has led to food
surplus and a commercialised agriculture economy that com-
promises substantially on resilience. The market-led para digm
of industrial agriculture converts diversity to monocultures by
focusing on the external input of chemicals and on generating
uniform monoculture commodities. Taking into account all
output, chemical-intensive monocultures produce less food per
acre than ecological far ms h ig h in biodiversit y (Shiva 2016).
Most of these economic gains of the present agricultural para-
digm are calculated while discounting environmental and social
costs and inherently linked future vulnerabilities. While this
appro ach achiev es overall national foo d sec urity and app reciable
agricultural growth, the issues of equity and sustainability of
farm production, local food, and nutritional security often get
compromised. In spite of this growth and development, the
Indian economy still succumbs during poor monsoons, which
reveals the weaknesses in the present agricultural paradigm and
the vulnerability of millions of poor farmers.
Searchi ng for Local Ident ity in a Globali sed Market
Traditional cultural practices and food systems have evolved and
adapted to regional ecosystems; they are positively related and
mutually supportive. Biodiversity, food diversity, and cultural
diversity go hand in hand. Tribes in the heartland of India have
evolved 2,00,000 rice varieties from one wild grass, the Oryza
sativa (Shiva 2016). Our culture is linked to and has evolved
with agriculture; therefore, agriculture that is culturally rele-
vant—and vice versa—is fundamental for food security, sustaina-
ble livelihoods, and well-being. Many traditional societies adapt
to food and water scarcity during droughts by relying on alternate
systems, including forest food and cultural water endowments.
However, development interventions and global trends of
increased industrialised agriculture, monoculture, and the
market economy have a negative, and in some cases, a devas-
tating impact on traditional food systems, subsistence-based
economies, and agro-ecological systems that indigenous
people depend on for survival.7 Crop divers ity, landsc ape man-
agement, and season-specifi c crops lead to greater resilience.
Losing Local Control
An increased and intensive support of green revolution areas
and farmers also leads to less focus on rain-fed areas and small
farmers. With shifts in agricultural research funding from the
public to private sector, there is more interest in biotechnology.
This change is reportedly disadvantageous to small farmers
because private research companies lack the incentive to
address the concerns of small farmers (Pingali and Traxler
2002). An analysis of the establishment and outcome of agri-
cultural research in India reveals a lack of public-oriented
research and support of rain-fed small farms and their crops
(millets, tubers, vegetables, etc), agricultural biodiversity
(indigenous varieties and landraces of paddy), and cropping
practices. The brown revolution, which aimed at increasing
the productivity of arid areas in India, was always treated as
subordinate to the green revolution and the promotion of
irrigation. This bias is evident in how the green revolution was
extended to Eastern India—Bringing Green Revolution to
Eastern India (BGREI)—even after documented limitations of
the same movement in Punjab.
Out of 138.35 million operational holdings in India with an
average size of 1.15 hectares, 85% are marginal and small
farms of less than 2 hectares. According to the agriculture
minister, “These small farms, though operating only on 44% of
land under cultivation, are the main providers of food and
nutritional security to the nation, but have limited access to
technology, inputs, credit, capital[,] and markets.”8 Most small
and marginal farmers are concealed sharecroppers and
tenants with unrecorded rights. Their access to formal credit,
insurance, and compensation continues to be denied, which
increases their vulnerabilities. A lack of formal contracts also
discourages tenants from investing, while also restricting their
access to the support price market. The land record manage-
ment system is archaic and records are not updated, which
also prevents farmers from accessing support. Small and
marginal farmers also bear the brunt of land acquisition, land-
use change, and loss of commons.
In the wake of increased privatisation, access to the forest
and common food systems has decreased, which has reduced
the availability of natural and wider food baskets on which
communities are dependent. This compels them to depend
more on purchased food to meet their minimum survival
needs. These communities are most affected during droughts
because they lose their fi eld crops and their ability to purchase
food is limited.
Conclusions
The gradual marginalisation and limited voice of small farmers
have held decision-makers, researchers, and extension agents
from appreciating small farm ecosystems in their entirety.
Instead of appreciating their eco-friendly, biodiverse food pro-
duction and sourcing systems which have low footprints/net
handprints and high energy effi ciency, present policy paradigms
dub them as ineffi cient farmers who must leave agriculture to
contribute to urban and industrial development. While the
lack of appreciation and promotion of their ecosystems hits
them hard, the impact of droughts makes them sink further in
the vicious downward spiral of poverty, forcing them to work
as cheap labour to serve mainstream development; they lose
the battle either way.
SPECIAL ARTICLE
AUGUST 12, 2017 vol liI no 32 EPW Econom ic & Political Weekly
46
Farmers living in harsh environments in Africa, Asia, and
Latin America have developed and/or inherited complex farm-
ing systems that have the potential to solve many uncertainties
facing humanity in the era of climate change. These systems
have been managed in ingenious ways, allowing small farming
families to meet their subsistence needs in light of environmen-
tal variability without depending much on modern agricultural
technologies (Denevan 1995). Wilken (1987) is of the opinion that
the persistence of millions of hectares of traditional farming is
proof of a successful indigenous agriculture strategy and a trib-
ute to small farmers throughout the developing world.
There is a compelling need to re-examine the present para-
digm of agricultural development and its implications for
small farmers. The proposed “ecosystem of drought frame-
work” has a systemic, multidimensional human approach
to improve the resilience of small and marginal farmers by
minimising their vulnerability to drought. Since droughts
cannot be predicted, there must be a constant effor t t hrough
all the dimensions discussed. Further delay may be costly;
we may lose the opportunity to save small farmers and
small-farm agriculture, and the ecological, social, cultural,
economic, and political advantages that accompany them.
For better fi nancial stability, farming strategies need to take
note of the constraints imposed by the climate and aim to
establish systems that are economically and environmentally
sustainable.
notes
1 “Seed Policy and Progra mmes for Asia and the
Pacifi c,” Proceedings of the Regional Technical
Meeti ng on Seed Polic y and Program mes for Asia
and the Pac ifi c, Bangkok, T hailand, 2– 6 May
1999, Issue 160, http://books.google.co.in/boo
ks?q=+bibliogroup:%22Seed+Policy+and+Pr
og ra m me s+fo r+A si a+an d+t he+P ac i fi c:+Proc
eedi ng s+o f+the+R eg io nal+Tec hni ca l+Meeti
ng+o n+Se ed+Pol icy+an d+Pr og r amm es+f or
+As ia+a nd+th e+P aci fi c+%3 B+Ban gko k,+Th
ailand,+2-6+May+1999%22&source=gbs_
metadata_r&cad=5.
2 The Himalay an Action Research Center (HARC)
in Uttarakhand has organised contrac ts for
small farmers for vegetable farmi ng with net-
works like SAFAL. The JR D Tech n ol ogy C ent re
has sta rted eco-ente rprises, Bioma rts, that pro-
duce the biological inputs required for the im-
plementation environment-friendly agronomic
practic es, and which ar e run by self-help g roups
(SHGs). Tata Chemicals in Noida has success-
fully incorporated fi ve producer companies of
vegetable growers as part of the new institu-
tional arrangements bet ween corporates and
farmers. In the North Eastern Community Re-
source Management Project (NERCOMP) in the
West Garo Hills, more than 500 tea farmers
joined to establish a tea factory. In R i-B hoi a nd
the East Garo Hills distric ts of Mizoram, Zopar
Expor ts Limited has been successfu l in estab-
lishing contact farmi ng with crops li ke anthur-
ium, strawberry, and gerbera. Ginger Farmers
Cooperative Market ing Federation Limited
(Gin-Fed Ltd) in Karbi Anglong is making an
effort to market ginger in the Korean market
through tie-ups w ith private fi rms (http://
www.solutionexchange-un.net.i n/en/index.
php?option=com_docman&task=doc_
download&gid=1224&Itemid=78).
3 DPH (2009): “Agricultu re, Food and Small
Farmers i n India,” DPH, ht tp://base.d-p-h.info
/en /fi ches/dph/fi che-dph-8104.html.
4 Gar y Schnitkey a nd Sara h Sella rs (2016):
“Growt h Rates of Fer tilizer, Pesticides, and
Seed Costs Increase Over Time,” Corn + Soy-
bean Digest, 13 July, http://cornandsoybea ndi-
gest.com/marketing/growth-rates-fertilizer-
pesticide-and-seed-costs-increase-over-time.
5 I nternat ional Society for Plant Pathology
(2009): “One Billion Hungry People: Mult iple
Causes of Food I nse curit y Considered,” Science
Daily, 14 July, http://www.scienceda ily.com/
releases/2009/06/090625113857.htm.
6 A result of changed straw-to-grai n ratios a nd
increased replacement of coarse cerea ls in arid
ecosystems.
7 http://www.fao.org/sard/en/init/964/ 26 87
/
2453/index.html.
8 http://timesofi ndia.indiatimes.com/india/91-
land-holding-would-belong-to-small-farmers-
by-2030-Agriculture-minister/articleshow/ 50-
977867.cms.
References
Adger, W N, S Huq, K Brown, D Conway and
M Hulme (2003): “Adaptation to Climate
Change in the Developing World,” Progress in
Development Studies, Vol 3, No 3, pp 179– 95.
Adger, W N, P M Kelly and N H Ninh (eds) (2001):
Living with Environmental Change: Social Vulne-
r ability, Adaptation and Resilience in Vietnam,
London: Routledge.
Beets, W C (1990): Raising and Sustaining Productivity
of Smallhol der Far min g Sy ste ms in th e Tropi cs,
Holland: AgBe Publishing.
Berkes, F and D Jolly (2001): “Adapting to Climate
Change: Social-Ecological Resilience in a Cana-
dian Western Arctic Community,” Conservation
Ecology, Vol 5, No 2.
Blaikie, P, T Cannon, I Dav is and B Wisner (199 4):
At Risk: Natura l Hazards, People’s Vulnerabilit y
and Disasters, London: Routle dge.
Blackie, L E R, E Jayawickreme, M J C Forgeard,
N Jayawick reme (2014): “The Protective Func-
tion of Personal Grow th Initiative among a
Genocide Af fected Population in Rwanda,”
Psycholog ical Trauma: Theor y, Researc h, Prac-
tice and Pol icy, Vol 7, pp 333–39.
Campbel l, D J (1999): “Response to Droug ht among
Farmers a nd Herders in Southern Kajiado
District, Kenya: A Comparison of 1972–1976
and 1994–1995,” Human Ecology, Vol 27, No 3,
pp 377–416.
Cross, N and R Barker (eds) (1992): At the Desert’s
Edge: Oral Histor ies f rom the Sahel, London:
SOS Sahel.
Denevan, W M (1995): “Prehistoric Agricult ural
Methods as Models for Sustainability,” Adv
Plant Patholog y, Vol 11, pp 21–43.
Eshelman, Rober t (2012): “India’s Drought High-
lights Challenges of Climate Change Adap-
tion,” Scientifi c American, http://www.scienti-
fi camerican.com/article/indias-drought-high-
lights-challenges-climate-change-adaptation/.
Gillette, H P (1950): “A Creeping Drought Under
Way,” Water and Sewage Works, pp 104– 05.
Huq, S (2001): “Climate Change and Bangladesh,”
Science, Vol 294, p 1617.
Huq, S, Z K arim, M Asadu zzaman and F Mahtab (eds)
(1999): Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate
Change in Bangladesh, Dordrecht: K luwer.
Keller, M, J Smith and B R Bondada (2006): “Ripening
Grape Be rries Remai n Hydraulical ly Connected
to the Shoot,” J Exp Bot, Vol 57, pp 2577 –87.
Marten, G G (1986): Traditiona l Agr iculture in
South east A sia: A Human Ecology Perspective,
Boulder: Westview Press.
Mortimore, M J (1998): Roots in the Af rican Dust,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NRSC (2008): “Agricultural Drought,” New Del hi:
National Remote Sensing Centre, Indian Space
Research Organization, Department of Space,
Government of India, http://ww w.dsc.nrsc.
gov.in/DSC/Drought/index.jsp? include1= ho -
m elink2_b 1.j sp&& incl ude2= homelink2_b2.jsp.
O’Farrell, P J and P M L Anderson (2010): “Sustain-
able Multif unctional La ndscapes: A Review to
Implementation,” Current Opinions in Envi-
ronmental Susta inability, Vol 2, pp 59–65.
Pingali, P and G Traxler (2002): “Changing Locus
of Agricultural Research: Will the Poor Benefi t
from Biotechnology a nd Privatization Trends,”
Food Policy, Vol 27, pp 223–38.
Reserve Bank of India (2013): “Reserve Bank of
India Annual Report 2012–13,” New Delhi:
Government of India.
Ronc oli, C, K Ingram and P Kirshen (2001): “The Costs
and Risks of Co pin g with Droug ht: L iveli hoo d
Impacts and Farmers’ Responses i n Burki na
Faso,” Climate Research, Vol 19, pp 119–32.
Shackleton, C and S Shackleton (2004): “The
Importance of Non-Timber Forest Products in
Rural L ivelihood Sec urity and as Sa fety Nets: A
Review of Evidence from South Africa,” South
African Journal of Sc ience, Vol 100, Nos 11–12,
pp 658–64.
Shiva, V (2016): Who Really Feeds the World?: The
Failures of Agribusines s and the P romise of
Agroecology, North At lantic Books, p 208.
Van Loon, A F, T Gleeson, J Clark, A I J M Van Dijk,
K Stahl, J Hannaford, G Di Baldassarre,
A J Teuling, L M Tallaksen, R Uijlenhoet,
D M Hannah, J Sheffi eld, M Svoboda, B Verbeiren,
T Wagener, S Rangecrof t, N Wanders and H A J
Van Lanen (2016): “Drought in the A nthropo-
cene,” Nature Geoscience, Vol 9, pp 89–91.
Vlachos, E C (1982): Drought Ma nagement I nter-
faces, in Annual ASCE Conference, Las Vegas,
Nevada, p 15 .
Wilhite, D A and M H Glant z (1985): “Understand-
ing the Drought Phenomenon: The Role of
Defi nitions,” WaterInt 10, pp 111–20.
Wilhite, D A, M V K Siva kuma r and Pulwarty
(2014): “M anaging Drought Ri sk in a Changing
Climate: The Role of National Drought Policy,”
Weather and Climate Ext remes, Vol 3, pp 4–13.
Wilken, G C (1987): Good Farmers: Traditional Agri-
cultural Resource Management in Mexico and
Guatemala, Berkeley: University of Cal iforn ia
Press.
Yevje vich , V, W A Hall and J D Sala s (1978): “Drought
Research Needs,” Proceedings of the Conference
on Drought Research Needs, 12–15 December
1977, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado: Water Resources Publication, Fort
Colli ns, Colorado, US, p 1978.
