India Need Climate-resilient Agriculture (CRA)

51% Rainfed Land and Falling Yields: The Risk India Cannot Ignore

Over half—51%—of India’s net sown area is rainfed, contributing nearly 40% of the country’s food production. Yet, the impact of climate change threatens this agricultural backbone. By 2050, IPCC models predict Indian rice yields may decline between 3% and 22%, depending on the severity of global warming scenarios. This projection is not just statistical conjecture; it illuminates the urgent need for a structural shift towards Climate-resilient Agriculture (CRA). The stakes are not confined to food security alone—they encompass rural incomes, soil health, and India's strategic autonomy in the food sector.

Despite this pressing reality, India's adoption of CRA technologies, ranging from genome-edited crops to biofertilizers, remains sporadic and uneven. While the government’s initiatives, such as the National Innovations in Climate Resilient Agriculture (NICRA), have laid groundwork since 2011, the transition is far from stable or comprehensive. The real question is not whether India needs CRA—rather, it's whether current institutional tools can deliver resilience at scale amidst simultaneous crises like soil degradation, erratic monsoons, and water shortages.

Institutional Architecture: Frameworks, Policies, Gaps

The framework governing CRA in India is spread across multiple governmental bodies and programmes. The flagship NICRA, developed under the aegis of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), funds research into climate-tolerant crop varieties and integrates weather advisories into farming systems. Another cornerstone policy, the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA), emphasizes adaptation in rainfed areas through efforts like water-use efficiency and soil health management.

More recently, the BioE3 framework has positioned CRA within India's biotechnology agenda, supporting private companies like IFFCO and Biostadt that focus on biological inputs. Complementing these efforts, over 1,600 agritech startups now deliver AI-driven decision tools to farmers, from micro-irrigation advisories to pest monitoring apps. However, these initiatives face funding bottlenecks—NMSA’s ₹1,472 crore annual allocation pales next to the transformative scale needed. To compare, the U.S. Department of Agriculture spends over $19 billion annually on related climate-smart agriculture initiatives via CSAF.

Moreover, fragmented coordination between ministries—particularly Agriculture, Science and Technology, and Environment—risk duplicative or inefficient policy efforts. India's CRA roadmap under BioE3 exists largely in theory, lacking sufficient regulatory teeth to enforce technology standards for biofertilizers or a robust mechanism to scale genome-edited crops beyond trials.

Ground Realities Undermine Ambitious Targets

On paper, CRA appears transformative: genome breeding promises crops capable of withstanding droughts and salinity, while AI analytics aim to optimize farm inputs down to individual plots. Yet ground-level adoption rates remain remarkably low. Smallholdings dominate Indian agriculture—83% of farmers hold less than 2 hectares of land—and these marginalized farmers often face barriers of cost, access, and trust.

Take biofertilizers as an example. Despite their ability to restore soil microbiomes depleted by excessive chemical inputs, their quality inconsistency undermines farmer confidence. In Andhra Pradesh, studies show only 32% of farmers use certified biological inputs regularly. Similarly, precision farming tools driven by AI are inaccessible to most, especially in states with a digital divide. Bihar, West Bengal, and Madhya Pradesh lag far behind Karnataka and Maharashtra in deploying these tools effectively.

The irony here lies in the deeply inequitable rollout. The states most reliant on rainfed agriculture—Jharkhand, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh—are also least served by CRA technologies. Their rainfed systems, crucial for crops like millet and pulses, face heightened climate variability while CRA solutions remain constrained by underdeveloped policy pipelines and weak extension networks.

Learning from Brazil: A Targeted Model

An international comparison illustrates India's structural weaknesses. Brazil, under its agricultural research powerhouse EMBRAPA, has made significant strides in climate resilience, especially in developing crops suited to its tropical environment. EMBRAPA’s biofortified cassava and drought-tolerant soybeans have achieved widespread adoption through state-backed financial assistance and farmer outreach, ensuring penetration even in economically vulnerable regions.

India lacks a similar unified institutional driver to streamline CRA efforts. While ICAR plays a pivotal role, it operates amidst overlapping mandates from NMSA, BioE3 policy, and state agricultural departments. If India is to accelerate CRA adoption, bringing coherence across these disparate agencies must become a policy priority.

Structural Tensions and the Road Ahead

The unresolved tension between central policies and state-level implementation underscores the risks to scaling CRA. Agriculture falls under the State List in the Constitution, yet climate resilience demands national coordination. The Centre’s push for genome-edited crops risks blowback from states like Kerala, which historically oppose genetically modified organisms. Similarly, climate advisories and precision farming technologies depend on localized implementation—but their success varies dramatically based on state governments’ willingness to innovate or invest resources.

Budgetary constraints further weaken ambitious targets. While NMSA’s ₹1,472 crore focus on water efficiency and soil health is strategically important, it cannot fund the holistic transition needed—especially new infrastructure investments for AI-driven agriculture, robust seed distribution, or broad farmer education drives. Without significantly enhanced allocations or private-sector incentives, CRA risks slipping into rhetorical support rather than systemic change.

The Metrics of Success

What would genuine CRA success look like? At the very least, it would involve the widespread availability of climate-tolerant seed varieties, measurable reductions in chemical fertilizer use, and penetration of digital tools to at least 50% of rainfed farmers by 2035. Additionally, success hinges on quality certifications for biofertilizers and national AI-based advisory platforms that target district-level climates.

Yet, the most unresolved element lies in scaling adoption by small landholders. Financial measures—targeted subsidies, crop insurance covering CRA failures, and low-interest loans for digital tools—will be critical not only in incentivizing climate resilience but also in ensuring equitable implementation across India's agrarian geography.

Sample UPSC Questions

• Prelims MCQ 1: Which of the following is a component of Climate-Resilient Agriculture (CRA)?
  • A. Genetically modified crops
  • B. Genome-edited crops
  • C. Synthetic fertilizer-intensive farming
  • D. Monocultural plantation techniques

  Correct Answer: B. Genome-edited crops

• Prelims MCQ 2: Which major policy initiative focuses specifically on rainfed agriculture and soil health management in India?
  • A. National Innovations in Climate Resilient Agriculture (NICRA)
  • B. BioE3 policy
  • C. National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA)
  • D. MGNREGA Agricultural Extension Scheme

  Correct Answer: C. National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA)

Mains Question: "Assess the structural limitations of India's policy framework for Climate-resilient Agriculture (CRA). To what extent can these shortcomings be addressed through better Centre-State coordination and enhanced budget allocations?"

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions