Upload
seni-nabou
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
1/30
Fertiliser,fuel and food:
win-win optionsfor Bihar
Greenpeace India Society
Head Office - Bengaluru
# 60, Wellington Street,
Richmond Town,
Bengaluru 560 025, India
T +91 80 42821010
F +91 80 41154862
Regional Office - New Delhi
A-23, Second floor,
Green Park (near Aurobindo Market)
New Delhi 110 016, India
T +91 11 66665000
F +91 11 66665010
Toll Free No.: 1800 425 0374
www.greenpeace.org/india
Greenpeace is a global organisation that uses non-violent direct action to tackle the most
crucial threats to our planet’s biodiversity and environment. Greenpeace is a non-profit
organisation, present in 40 countries across Europe, The Americas, Asia and the Pacific.
It speaks for 2.8 million supporters worldwide, and inspires many millions more to take
action every day. To maintain its independence, Greenpeace does not accept donations
from governments or corporations but relies on contributions from individual supporters and
foundation grants.
Greenpeace has been campaigning against environmental degradation since 1971 when a
small boat of volunteers and journalists sailed into Amchitka, an area north of Alaska, where
the US Government was conducting underground nuclear tests.This tradition of ‘bearing
witness’ in a non-violent manner continues today, and ships are an important part of all its
campaign work.
greenpeace.org/india
A report by Greenpeace
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
2/30
Executive Summary
Introduction
Farming livelihoods in Bihar and theinfluence of chemical fertilisers
Chemical fertilisers risk economic andenvironmental losses
Water polluted with nitrates and healthrisks associated with synthetic nitrogenfertiliser use
Options for ecological farmingsolutions
The way forward
References
Endnotes
Appendix A C O N T E N
T S
55
54
51
45
33
29
17
07
01
05
Report produced by: Greenpeace India Society, October 2012
Authors:
Reyes Tirado1, Paul Johnston1, Gopikrishna SR2, Vaaruni Eashwar 2 1Greenpeace Research Laboratories, University of Exeter, UK 2Greenpeace India, Bangalore, India
Greenpeace Research Laboratory Technical Report 05-2012 (GRL TR 05-2012)
Acknowledgements:
Pankaj Bhushan, Satyendra Srivastav, Bablu K umar, Anand of Tara Foundation, Bihar
Debaraj Behera, Neha, Kaushal Kishore Prasad, Ravi Shankar, Shyam Kumar, Kundan Kumar, Samir,
Kshovan of Jeevika (Bihar Rural Livelihood Promotion Scheme - BRLPS)
Prem Kumar Verma and team of Samata, Khagaria
All the farmers in Khagaria, Madhepura, Muzaffarpur, Nalanda and Patna districts who shared with us their
valuable time, views and experiences, hospitality, and ran their pumps especially for our sampling
All the farmers in Khagaria and Muzaffarpur districts who participated in the survey conducted by Jeevika
on behalf of Greenpeace
Beatriz Montes for supporting us during eldwork
Image: A farmer in Khagaria, working in his wheat eld
© Karan Vaid / Greenpeace
Image on the cover: A progressive farmer standing among her crops in Khagaria district. She has adopted
certain ecological fertilisation practices and is reaping the benets
© Karan Vaid / Greenpeace
Photography:
Swapan Nayak, Karan Vaid
Design and Layout:
Shagun Mitra
Printed on 100% recycled paper
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
3/30
Executive Summary
Bihar: economically poor while richin natural resources and potential fordevelopment
Among the different Indian states, Bihar ranks as thesecond most impoverished. About 56% of Bihar’s ruralpopulation lives below the poverty line, compared to37% for the all-India average. Despite cultivation offood crops as the main economic activity in the state,food insecurity is widespread, particularly in ruralareas of Bihar. However, according to t he Governmentof Bihar (2012), agriculture “is sure to play the most
important role for the development of the state.” Biharhas abundant fertile soils and freshwater sources,although natural resources had not been managedtowards sustainable social development.
The data presented in this report are derived fromdetailed interviews with farmers and eld-data
collection in 5 districts of the state of Bihar: Khagaria,Madhepura, Muzaffarpur, Nalanda and Patna.
Underlying low agricultural incomesare the large and increasing costs ofcultivation coupled with falling returnsfrom farming
Costs of cultivating crops i nclude costs of labour, ofseeds and of irrigation, and, for the great majority offarmers in Bihar, also the costs of a large amount ofchemical inputs. Chemical fertilisers are generally oneof the highest proportional costs of cultivation, with20-25% of the total costs being spent by Bihar farmerson buying these inputs.
Chemical fertilisers are generally an expensive input
with prices very vulnerable to uctuations in oil and
energy prices. From 2010/11 to 2011/12, the pricethat Bihar farmers had to pay for chemical fertilisersincreased by between 20% and 45%.
As India is dependent on imports for a signicantproportion of chemical fertilisers, volatility of supply andof cost makes India and its farmers more nancially
vulnerable and insecure.
Chemical fertilisers are a costly input,inefficiently used. Around 70% of thenitrogen chemical fertiliser appliedto Bihar farms can be lost, with bothmonetary and environmental impacts
Surveyed farmers in Bihar were found to apply aconsiderable amount of chemical fertilisers to theircrops, often resulting in excessive amounts of plantnutrients in the soil. For example for nitrogen, averageapplication rates reported by farmers were some 35%over the recommended rate. For the combination ofnitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potash (K) fertilisers,the NPK application rate averaged across surveyedfarms was about 30% over the recommended rates interms of nutrients for good yields.
Globally, it has been estimated that about 41% ofthe N applied to croplands is not recovered in theharvested crops. It is lost to the soil or, in largerquantities, to aquatic systems and to the atmosphere.We have approximately estimated the recoveryefciency for N applied to farm soils in Bihar based
on a simplied model and available parameters/data,
acknowledging a number of caveats.
Twenty years after supposedly prioritising the global ght to eliminate hunger and poverty, the world has failed
to achieve food security. Yet at the same t ime there is now more evidence than ever on available and affordablesolutions to realise this goal.
Hunger and poverty are mostly rural phenomena. The biggest group of the hungry and the poor in the world arefarmers, mostly small-scale farmers in developing countries. Still, agriculture is the biggest business in the world.
About 2.6 billion people, 40% of the world’s population, are small-scale farmers. Strikingly, considered globally, theyproduce most of the food we consume.
This report looks at the problems that farmers face in one of the poorest regions in India, Bihar, focusing particularlyon the economic and environmental burden arising from the current dependency on chemical fertilisers. The doubleaim of this report is to understand the impacts on farmers of the current dependency on chemical fertili sers, andidentify potential solutions based on an ecological farming system that works towards healthy food and healthyfarming for today and tomorrow.
Greenpeace India, Fertiliser, fuel and food: Win-win options for Bihar
01
Greenpeace IndiaFertiliser, fuel and food: win-win options for Bihar
Farmer Shivnandan Prasad and villagers in Dawoodpurvillage, Ben block, Nalanda district with water source used
for irrigation and for household needs, including drinking.© Swapan Nayak / Greenpeace
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
4/30
looking at closing nutrient cycles and building resilientand healthy soils.
2. Clean water, improved public health and cheap
local fertilisers: Eco-sanitation. Low public coveragewith sanitation systems offers an opportunity toreinvent sewage treatment and sanitation paradigms.Sanitation systems can be designed based on new
ways of dealing with excreta and working in synergywith the needs of agriculture and renewable energyrequirements.
3. Energy access, food production and rural
livelihoods: Potential for holistic win-win-win
solutions. Non-availability of reliable power suppliesis a key constraint on economic development in ruralIndia, as in other developing countries. Energy needsin the rural communities of Bihar could be met usinga decentralised system based on locally-availablerenewable sources of energy (solar, wind, rice huskbiomass, etc.). The livestock manure currently usedas cow dung cakes for cooking could be fully utilisedas fertiliser and soil conditioner, and hence potentiallycontribute to increasing crop productivity. This wouldreduce farmers’ expenses in purchasing chemicalfertilisers. In addition, a decentralised renewableenergy system could also provide a more efcient
and reliable energy source for irrigation, hence likelyimproving agricultural productivity.
The way forward: more research andfunding on ecological agriculture
The Agriculture Road map for the next 10 years (2012-2022) announced by the Government of Bihar is a stepin the right direction. The Government’s stated intentionsto promote organic farming and eco-fertilisation are to bebroadly welcomed. However, the reality on the ground willlikely prove challenging to the effective implementation ofthese policies. In order to bring about a real effective shifttowards sustainable ecological agriculture in Bihar, thereis a need for convergence and integration of initiativesdesigned to address issues in agriculture, livelihood,energy and sanitation.
In particular, more funding for research inagroecological systems and holistic solutions isneeded. During the last 4 years, only 6 out of thetotal 241 projects i mplemented under the CentralGovernment agship programme for agriculture
development, Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY),supported ecological farming or fertilisation and only7.7% of the total amount spent under RKVY wasutilised for the promotion of organic farming. It is alsorevealing that the total amount spent on promotionof ecological or organic farming over 4 years (141Rs. crore) is less than 10% of the subsidy amount forurea N fertiliser that is lost in non-recovered N in Bihar(1,529 Rs. crore).
1) Launch a State Ecological Farming andFertilisation Mission, converging relevantCentral and State Government policyinstruments, and by enabling a dedicatedinstitutional mechanism with grassroots
presence. The Mission should nd synergywith livelihoods, bio-energy, regenerationof common pool resources and eco-sanitation initiatives in the state.
2) Create School of Agro-ecologicalSystems Analysis in the two AgriculturalUniversities in the State with regional,block level holistic research and extensionprogrammes.
3) Enable effective district level planningto ensure that 25% of RKVY funds areearmarked to promote ecological farmingand fertilisation to start with and with anobjective to progressively raise the amountto 50% of the funds by the end of the ve
year plan period.
4) Set targets for systematically replacingchemical fertilisers with ecologicalfertilisation during the ve year plan period.
Greenpeace India recommendations:Our tentative estimates show considerable lossesof 67% of the total applied N chemical fertilisers.Specically, about 71% and 64% of the N applied
to rice and wheat, respectively, is not recovered inthe harvested crop, and is thus lost to water or toatmosphere, with only a small proportion remaining inthe soil.
Considered in nancial terms, the above inefcienciesrepresent an effective nancial loss of between
841and 1462 Rs/ha. This can be viewed as an annualinvestment in the farming operation that shows noreturn. This, in turn, is roughly 10% of the average percapita income in the state.
The cost in terms of public money spent on Nfertiliser subsidies that is not recovered in food grain,and thus lost, would amount to 1530 crore Rs oftotal subsidy money lost in Bihar. This represents acrucial opportunity cost of not investing this money inmore effective policies (like policies that benet rural
livelihoods and sustainable economic growth).
In all, these losses of chemical fertilisers representa signicant loss for farmers who pay for this
expensive input, for Government (and public money)used in subsidies, and for people and for the wider
environment affected by the resulting pollution of waterresources and/or potential climate change impacts.
Excess chemical fertiliser can pollutewater sources, including drinking water
Overuse of nitrogen fertilisers can also degrade thedrinking water resources available to farmers andfarm labourers on their farms. The most signicant
potential health risks associated with drinking watercontaminated with nitrate is blue-baby syndrome(methemoglobinemia) and cancer, particularly cancerof the colon.
In this current survey, nitrate concentrations weremeasured in wells supplying drinking water on 65farms located in 5 districts in Bihar – Khagaria,Madhepura, Nalanda, Muzzaffarpur and Patna –
covering 33 villages and 17 blocks.
Drinking water in farm wells was largely found to besafe for drinking in the majority of the locations relativeto the safety levels established by the World HealthOrganisation. However, in two districts, Nalanda andPatna, nitrate levels in the groundwater wells on farmsclearly showed pollution from nitrogen fertilisers.In Nalanda, 65% of wells (18 out of 28) had nitratelevels above 10 mg/l nitrate (as NO
3), thus showing
some degree of pollution although not above levelscurrently considered unsafe for human consumption.
Also in Patna, where nitrogen chemical fertiliserconsumption is one of the highest, some wells were
found with degraded water quality due to high nitrateconcentrations.
Pollution with chemical fertilisers represents a callfor action to the Bihar Government to work towardsprotecting drinking water and human health. Cuttingdown on excess chemical fertiliser use will have manybenets: in addition to economic benets for farmers,
it will protect water resources and protect the health offarmers, farm labourers and their families.
Ecological farming can bring more foodand higher incomes, better energysources and cleaner water for all thepeople of Bihar
Bihar still has the opportunity of choosing a differentpath to that taken by the ‘Green Revolution’ statesin India, where degradation of soil and water throughintensive agriculture have “now exemplied the
post-Green Revolution stagnation and challenges”(Erenstein and Thorpe, 2011).
In addition to relatively low crop productivity, in ruralBihar there is also limited access to energy, to clean
water and to sanitation facilities. Solving the huge jointchallenges embedded in each of these areas of food,energy and water is unlikely to come from adopting thepath of the ‘Green Revolution’ as followed by stateslike Punjab and Haryana. These states focused mostlyon external inputs for increasing staple yields. Scienceand the current reality of farmers’ lives show the resultsof this intensive approach is not one to follow.
A new model of agriculture centred on people, not onchemicals or on other expensive inputs, can increasefood production where it is most needed, and at thesame time help in rural development. Greenpeacetakes the view that these people-centred approachesshould be based on ecological farming principles thataim towards increasing food security for t oday andtomorrow while working with nature, not against it.
Working with a vision of ecological farming coupled
with renewable energy principles, Bihar farms couldincrease agriculture productivity, increase energyavailability and access, and secure future clean watersystems. In this report we explore potential solutionsunder three major axes:
1. High yields without chemicals: ecological
farming optimises livestock and ecological
fertilisation practices that are locally available,
knowledge intensive and nancially secure. Ecological fertilisation practices can increase foodproduction without costly chemical inputs and thepollution they bring. Ecological farming practices canalso optimise livestock production and uses of land, by
03 04
Greenpeace IndiaFertiliser, fuel and food: win-win options for Bihar
Greenpeace IndiaFertiliser, fuel and food: win-win options for Bihar
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
5/30
Introduction Twenty years after supposedly prioritising the globalght to eliminate hunger and poverty, the world has
failed to achieve food security. Yet at the same timethere is now more evidence than ever on available andaffordable solutions to realise this goal (Schutter, 2010,IAASTD, 2009).
Agriculture is the biggest business in the world. About2.6 billion people, 40% of the world’s population, aresmall-scale farmers. These farmers produce most ofthe food we consume. Strikingly, considered globally,they also comprise the biggest group of the hungryand the poor.
“Business as usual is not an option for agriculture”was one of the headlines which emerged from theInternational Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD).
The IAASTD is a comprehensive rst global
assessment of the role that agricultural knowledge,science and technology could play, both in ghting
poverty and hunger and in promoting sustainabledevelopment. More than 400 lead authors fromacross the world worked together for several years toproduce this global assessment in 2009, which wassubsequently endorsed by 58 national governments.
A central message of the IAASTD report is that hungeris primarily a rural problem, which, in the long term,can only be overcome locally. In much of the world,addressing hunger and poverty means facing up to theproblems that small farmers and their families face intheir daily life as working farmers.
It is true that humanity has nearly tripled globalagricultural output over the past 50 years, but thishas come at considerable cost to the environment, topublic health and to social welfare. Industrial farming,with its dependency on fossil fuels, toxic inputs (e.g.pesticides and chemical fertilisers), and neglect ofsocial assets, has proven to be a dead-end road.Indeed, as concluded by the IAASTD, continuing withbusiness as usual threatens to undermine the basisof our food supply and the intricate web of life uponwhich we all depend (Greenpeace International, 2009).
Accordingly, this report looks at the problemsthat farmers face in one of the poorest regions inIndia, focusing particularly on the economic andenvironmental burden arising from the currentdependency on chemical fertilisers.
05
A farmer in Khagaria crosses the river byboat, carrying a bundle of fodder
© Karan Vaid / Greenpeace
Greenpeace IndiaFertiliser, fuel and food: win-win options for Bihar
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
6/30
1.1. Socio-economic situation of the
Bihar rural population
Poverty and hunger continue to be widespread inIndia in spite of rapid national economic growth. Thecountry accounts for nearly 50% of the world’s hungry(UN WFP, 2010). Around 35% of India’s population,some 380 million in number, are considered food-insecure (UNWFP, 2010). The majority of these hungryand poor people live in rural areas and produce cropsfor a livelihood. Although some progress in alleviatingpoverty has been made, the World Bank, nonetheless,considers that the rate of poverty reduction in India hasslowed during the last 15 years.
Among the different Indian states, Bihar ranks asthe second highest in terms of poverty. According toGovernment estimates, about 56% of Bihar’s ruralpopulation lives below the poverty line1, compared to37% for the all -India average (Government of Bihar,
2012). This poverty is also reected in the annual percapita income. In Bihar this is less than one third of theaverage for India as a whole (Table 1).
Bihar state lies in the eastern part of the Indo-Gangeticplain. It occupies the fertile alluvial land stretching fromthe foothills of the Himalayas in the north to a few milessouth of the river Ganges which crosses the statefrom west to east. The Indo-Gangetic plain is one ofthe world’s major food-grain producing regions. About90% of the Bihar population lives in rural vill ages, andabout 75% of Bihar’s economically active populationis employed directly in agriculture, forestry or shing
and according to the Government of Bihar (2012),
Farminglivelihoods
in Bihar andthe influenceof chemicalfertilisers
07
Village women carrying fodder (picked weeds)back home through the wheat elds in
Barchhibigha village, Nalanda district© Swapan Nayak / Greenpeace
Greenpeace IndiaFertiliser, fuel and food: win-win options for Bihar
SECTION 1
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
7/30
agriculture “is sure to play the most important role forthe development of the state.”
Agricultural land accounts for around 60% of thegeographical area of Bihar state with rich fertile soilsand abundant water sources. Farmers producelarge amounts of cereals (rice in the kharif season –monsoon – and wheat and maize in the rabi season– winter), vegetables, pulses, oilseeds and fruits(mango, banana, litchi). Bihar is at the top of vegetableproduction in the country (Government of Bihar,2012). The benets of generally good water resources,
however, are offset to some extent by lack of irrigationfacilities, which means that agricultural productivityuctuates with annual variation in monsoon rainfall.
Despite cultivation of food crops as the main economicactivity in the state, food insecurity is widespread,
particularly in rural areas of Bihar. Compared nationally,people living in these areas have the lowest monthlydisposable income. Of the average income of Rs 780,about 65% is used to buy food (compared to 53% inurban areas) (Government of India, 2012). Moreover,indicators of food insecurity, like child and infantmortality, are signicantly elevated in Bihar, at about
10 points higher than the average for India as a whole(Table 1). As of 2011, Bihar was home to 104 millionpeople: it is the third most populous state in India withthe highest population density in the country, at 1102persons per km2.
Other economic indicators attest to the impoverishedstatus of the area. For example, Bihar has the lowestannual per capita consumption of electricity in the countrybut even so, frequently suffers acute shortage of power.
Statistics, 2012). Taking into account that these are netincomes per hectare and that, usually, farms in Biharare small and shared among various family members,the per capita income resulting from farming is likely,indeed, to be very low.
Underlying low agricultural incomes are the large andincreasing costs of cultivation. These include costs oflabour, of seeds and of irrigation. For the great majorityof farmers, the costs of a large amount of chemicalinputs also need to be factored in. Chemical inputs,mostly in the form of chemical fertilisers, are generallyone of the highest proportional costs of cultivation. Forexample, ofcial data from Bihar estimate the sh are of
chemical fertilisers to be between 10 and 14% of thetotal cost of rice and wheat farming, respectively. Thisestimate assumes a relatively low fertiliser applicationrate (Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2012).However, other estimates, based on direct datarecorded from farmers in Bihar, give a higher value –about 20% of total costs of cultivation of rice or wheatare spent on chemical fertilisers (Singh et al., 2011).
Based on data from the Jeevika survey reported inthis document (see box 1), in the 2011/2012 growingseason farmers in the districts of Khagaria andMuzaffarpur spent 25% and 20%, respectively, of theirtotal cultivation budget for rabi season on chemicalfertilisers (Table 2).
1.2. Economics of farming:Cost of cultivation
A number of factors appear to be contributing topoverty and low per capita income among Indianfarmers and these include increasing costs ofcultivation coupled with falling returns from farming.Income from farms in Bihar seems to be very variable,although accurate data are not always available.For example, estimates of net income from paddycultivation range from about 8,600 to 10,000 Rs/ ha, and for wheat from about 6,600 to 13,000 Rs/ ha (Singh et al., 2011, Directorate of Economics and
Table 1. Socio-economic indicators in India, Bihar and some districts in Bihar. Bihar holds the lowest per capita
income in India and it is one of the most food insecure states in the country.
Per CapitaIncome (Rs.)*
Child under 5mortality rate(per 1000)#
Infant mortalityrate (per 1000)$
% Employedin agriculture,forestry and
shing~
HumanDevelopment
Index^
India 30,354 74.3 57 58.5 0.467
Bihar 9,617 84.8 62 73.4 0.367(21/23 rank)
Districts:
Khagaria 9,307 101.7
Muzaffarpur 7,776 122.5
Madhepura 6,949 98.2
Nalanda 8,503 108.3
*2007-08 at 2004-05 prices (Rs.) [last available complete data] (Economic Survey of India 2011-12 & Governmentof NCT Delhi Estimates of State Domestic Product 2010-11)#(2005-06) (UN World Food Programme Food Security Atlas of Rural Bihar, 2009)$(2010) (Economic Survey of India 2011-12)~(2004-05) (UN World Food Programme Food Security Atlas of Rural Bihar, 2009)^
2007-08 (Summary of India’s Human Development Report 2011 by Institute of Applied Manpower Research andPlanning Commission)
09 10
Children playing in the elds at sunset
in Barchhibigha village, Giriak Block,Nalanda District. Many farmers cannotafford to send their children to school,because of their low income and thehigh cost of cultivation. They spend mostof their money on inputs for cultivation,hoping that it will result in better yieldsand, therefore, better incomes© Swapan Nayak / Greenpeace
Around 60% of geographical area in Bihar is agricultural land© Karan Vaid / Greenpeace
Greenpeace IndiaFertiliser, fuel and food: win-win options for Bihar
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
8/30
Jeevika survey, 2012
Jeevika, the Bihar Rural Livelihoods Project,conducted a farmer survey for GreenpeaceIndia in early 2012. The Bihar RuralLivelihood Promotion Scheme, a societyregistered with the Government of Bihar,aims to improve rural livelihood optionsand works towards social and economicempowerment of the rural poor and ofwomen, through the Bihar Rural LivelihoodsProject (BRLP). The BRLP works with the
community on four theme areas: institutionand capacity building, social development,micronance and livelihood.
The survey covered two blocks (districtunits) each in the two districts of Muzaffarpurand Khagaria. Fifty farmers from each ofthe two districts were interviewed in detailby members of Jeevika’s eld teams. These
farmers were interviewed about the cropscultivated, yields, fertiliser consumption andoverall costs of cultivation, including specic
details about costs of fertilisers.
A farmer in Khagaria district duringthe survey interview
© Karan Vaid / Greenpeace
Box 1
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
9/30
Table 2. Cost of cultivation and cost of chemical fertilisers in rabi season 2011/12 in the districts of Khagaria
and Muzaffarpur in Bihar, as recorded in the Jeevika survey (2012) from interviews with 50 farmers in eachdistrict. Cost of chemical fertilisers given here includes only the three most used fertilisers by quantity: urea,
phosphate (as DAP) and potash (as MOP). Other minor chemical fertilisers and additives are not included, and
thus their cost will add to the total costs and the percentages estimated here.
Khagaria Muzaffarpur
Cost of cultivation (Rs/ha)* 21,258 27,312
Cost of chemical fertilisers (Rs/ha) 5,291 5,548
% Spent on chemical fertilisers 25% 20%
*The total costs of cultivation estimated by the Jeevika survey data for rabi season 2011/12 give a higher costthan other published estimates. This may be due to actual increasing costs in recent years or to methodological/ data discrepancies. For the year 2008/09, costs were estimated for rabi wheat at 13,780 Rs/ha, and for year2006/07 at 14,230 Rs/ha. Values from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (2012), and Singh et al. (2011)respectively.
1.3. Chemical fertilisers price trends
As a globally traded commodity whose prices aredependent on fossil fuel and associated costs,
chemical fertilisers are generally an expensive inputwith prices very vulnerable to uctuations in oil and
energy prices. Data from the Jeevika survey showshow in one cropping year, from 2010/11 to 2011/12,the price that farmers had to pay for chemical fertilisersincreased by between 20% and 45% (Table 3). Ureaand potash (MOP) prices increased by about 20-29%and 33-38% in Khagaria and Muzaffarpur respectively.
The greatest increase was for diammonium phosphate(DAP), which almost doubled in price in that period inboth districts.
The price rise recorded for phosphatic and potassicchemical fertilisers in the last two years can be mostlyattributed to the new Nutrient Based Subsidy (NBS)policy introduced in 2010. This new system of xed
subsidies for specic chemical fertilisers also allowed
suppliers to decide the retail prices of these fertilisers
at the farm gate level. Urea was kept out of the NBSpolicy, and the Government continued to x its retailprice (PIB, 2010). As a result, for fertilisers other thanurea the farm gate prices uctuated with international
market prices. This resulted in the markedly increasedcosts of these chemical fertilisers. When farmers startedreplacing costlier fertilisers with cheaper urea, soilhealth was critically impacted as a result (Modi, 2012).Increased demand for urea may have led, in part, to anincrease in its price at the farm gate level as well.
Table 3. Price that farmers paid for chemical fertilisers urea, diammonium phosphate (DAP) and muriate of
potash (MOP) in the Bihar districts of Khagaria and Muzaffarpur in 2010/11 and 2011/12. Data source is the
Jeevika survey (see box 1), values are averages of 50 interviewed farmers in each district.
Price paid in 2010/11
(Rs/100 kg)
Price paid in 2011/12
(Rs/100 kg)
% Increase from 2010/11
to 2011/12
In Khagaria:
Urea 531 744 29%
DAP 1,261 1,889 33%
MOP 598 1,083 45%
In Muzaffarpur:
Urea 666 835 20%
DAP 1,165 1,865 38%
MOP 606 1,096 45%
Greenpeace India, Fertiliser, fuel and food: Win-win options for Bihar
13
A resident of Khagaria town ridespast sacks of chemical fertilisers
piled up along the railway platform. Train loads of urea and other
chemical fertilisers arrive regularlyat the station for distribution –
Khagaria district has the highestkg/ha fertiliser consumption in Bihar
(Fertiliser Statistics 2009-10)© Karan Vaid / Greenpeace
Greenpeace IndiaFertiliser, fuel and food: win-win options for Bihar
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
10/30
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
200920072003200220012000 2011 2012
Year
2004 2005 2006 2008 2010
M a x i m u m R
e t a i l P r i c e ( R s / 1 0 0 k g )
Urea
Urea - farmers
DAP
DAP - farmers
MOP
MOP - farmers
Figure 1. Ofcial maximum retail prices for the three most common fertilisers (urea, DAP (Diammonium
Phosphate), and MOP (Muriate of Potash)) from 2000 to 2012 in India. Ofcial price of DAP almost doubledfrom 2011 to 2012. Ofcial data source: Fertilizer Statistics yearbook (2000 to 2011) and IFFCO (2012). For
comparison, in dashed lines we also show the price paid by farmers according to the Jeevika survey (Table 3).
Official fertiliser prices from 2000 to 2012 in India
Other market forces are also in play. For example,the price that farmers pay for chemical fertilisers intheir village is often higher than the Maximum RetailPrice (MRP) set ofcially, as dealers usually apply
some additional costs. Figure 1 shows the trajectoryof ofcial chemical fertiliser prices from 2000 to 2012:
price paid by farmers and ofcial price are si milar for
DAP 2010-2012 (approx. 1,800 Rs/100 kg DAP),
however for urea and potash, farmers had to bear aprice increase that is not reected in the ofcially setprices (i.e. in 2011 farmers paid between 744 and 835Rs/100 kg urea, while ofcial MRP was 536 Rs/100 kg
urea) (Fig. 1 and Table 3).
International market prices for chemical fertiliseructuate widely, as they depend to some extent on
the prices of fossil fuels used in their manufacture aswell as other volatile market forces. India currentlyimports more than 20% of the nitrogen consumednationally in synthetic fertilisers, mostly as urea andother nished products. Phosphorus and potash
fertilisers are manufactured from mined chemicals. Inthe case of phosphorus, mines are exclusively located
in a handful of countries that control production,and hence the international supply and price of thiscommodity (Elser and Bennett, 2011). For example, in2008, international phosphate rock prices increasedby 800%. While prices went down quite quickly, theydid not fall to the pre-peak values. Prices now standat about 4 times higher than they were before pricesstarted to escalate around 2006. Ultimately, such
volatility of supply and of cost makes phosphateimport-dependent countries, like India and its farmers,more nancially vulnerable and insecure. A similar
situation of vulnerability and i nternational dependenceexists for urea and other nitrogen fertilisers (whichare also dependent on direct imports and/or fossilfuel imports), and for potash, 100% of which Indiaimports.2
15
Farmer Binay Yadav of Bigha village,Nalanda district, during his interview
© Swapan Nayak / Greenpeace
Greenpeace IndiaFertiliser, fuel and food: win-win options for Bihar
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
11/30
Chemicalfertilisers
riskeconomic andenvironmentallossesDependence on costly inputs, like chemical fertilisers,that are prone to supply/price uctuations and rely
on non-renewable resources for their manufacture,translates to a nancial risk for farmers, especially for
smallholders in low-income regions.
In addition, chemical fertilisers tend to cause damageto the resource base needed for sustainable foodproduction: they pollute water and can harm soilfertility. This has proven to be the case in the “GreenRevolution” regions located in nearby states such asPunjab and Haryana. A long-term dependence onchemical fertilisers is already contaminating water anddamaging soils (see further discussion below).
Bihar’s current trajectory of chemical fertiliser usagesuggests that the state could repeat the mistakes ofexcessive and inefcient use of chemical fertilisers.
Accordingly it could fall victim to the economicand environmental problems associated with suchexcessive and inefcient use. Below, current trends in
chemical fertiliser usage are discussed in relation tove districts within the state, and a preliminary estimate
of possible economic and environmental losses arisingfrom chemical fertiliser usage at currently recordedlevels is presented.
17
A farmer in Khagaria applyingfertiliser to his crop – he uses onlychemical fertilisers for all his crops
© Karan Vaid / Greenpeace
Greenpeace IndiaFertiliser, fuel and food: win-win options for Bihar
SECTION 2
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
12/30
Data Collection
The data presented in sections 2 and 3 were recorded during a eldtrip in February and March 2012 by the authors
of this report. Working with local organisations, agricultural regions in 5 districts were visited: Khagaria, Madhepura,Muzaffarpur, Nalanda and Patna. We randomly selected farmers in villages within these districts and interviewedthem in detail about crop patterns and production, agricultural practice, and usage of chemical inputs. We recordedinformation from a total of 65 farmers, distributed in 33 vill ages and 17 blocks across the 5 districts. For each farm,
we recorded data through a lengthy interview with the farmer. We collected specic data for each crop grown in thefarm during the 2011/12 growing season, including the different types and amounts of chemical fertiliser applied toeach crop.
In addition, water samples from irrigation groundwater wells within each surveyed farm were taken in order totest nitrate concentration in the water. We sampled groundwater wells located within farms and surrounded bychemically fertilised crops (mostly rice and wheat rotations). Sampled farm wells were located away from otherpotential sources of nitrate contamination (concentration of animals, human sewage), in order to try and isolateand focus on the impact of synthetic fertiliser application. All the water tested was used for drinking by farmers andfamilies and farm workers.
1. Collection of water s amples from a wheat eld by Dr. Reyes Tirado (Senior Scientist at Greenpeace ResearchLaboratories, based in the University of Exeter) in Bichchacol village, Nalanda district
2. Dr. Reyes Tirado collecting water samples from a farm in Bigha village, Nalanda district
3. Collection of water samples by Dr. Reyes Tirado, from a farm in Bigha village, Nalanda district
4. Dr. Reyes Tirado collecting water samples from an electric water-pump in Barchhibigha village, Nalanda district
5. Dr. Reyes Tirado testing water samples for Nitrate contamination
6. Tested samples showing varying levels of Nitrate contamination – the stronger the yellow colour, the higher thecontamination
All images on this spread © Swapan Nayak / Greenpeace
When sampling groundwater, the water outlet (usually driven by a diesel-operated pump) was allowed to run forapproximately three minutes before collecting a duplicate sample i n sterile bottles. Measurements of pH and electricconductivity (EC) were taken on site at the time of sampling using a pH/conductivity/TDS tester HI 98130 (HannaInstruments, UK).
Nitrate concentration (mg/l NO3) in water samples was tested colorimetrically with the chromotropic acid method
(Method 10020, Test ‘N Tube™ Vials, Hach Lange, UK), using a portable DR 2400 spectrophotometer (HachLange, UK). The value given for each sample is the average of testing two or three sub-samples for improvedaccuracy. Samples were kept in a cool box after collection and were tested within a maximum of ten hours aftercollection.
19 20
1. 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Box 2
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
13/30
2.1. Chemical fertiliserusage in Bihar, 2012
From the results it was found that the surveyedfarmers in Bihar applied a considerable amount ofchemical fertilisers to their crops often at levels higherthan those recommended.
In Table 4, the recorded data for application rates ofnitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potash (K) are shownfor the main crops. The main chemical fertilisers usedwere urea, DAP (Diammonium Phosphate) and MOP(Muriate of Potash). The amount of N, P and K appliedwas calculated from the combination of differentchemical fertiliser types reported as used by eachfarmer, and this generated an averaged NPK rate foreach district surveyed. Almost all farms grew at leasttwo crops per year, so rates per gross3 cropped areareect this double cropping pattern (Table 4).
Recommended nitrogen application rate for production
of rice-wheat/maize in rotation is 230 kg N/ha whereasthe average reported by farmers was 311 kg N/ha[annual rate in net cropped area]. This represents anoveruse of some 35% over the optimal applicationrate for nitrogen. This does not include other inputs ofnitrogen in addition to those from chemical fertilisers(green manure, animal livestock manure, etc., that arealso commonly applied to soils in the region).
For the combination of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P)and potash (K) fertilisers, the NPK application rateaveraged across the 65 surveyed farms is 263 kg NPKper hectare of gross cropped area. This surveyed rateis somewhat higher than the ofcial estimate for Bihar
of 174 kg NPK per hectare of gross cropped area, andalso higher than the recommended dose for rice/wheatin rotation of 200/220 kg NPK per hectare of grosscropped area.
Ofcial estimates suggest that only 38% of the farms
produce two crops per year, giving a cropping i ntensityof 1.38. The current survey suggests that in fact 90%of farms produced two or more crops per year giving
Table 4. Fertiliser application rates in the ve Bihar districts sampled in March 2012. The main chemicalfertilisers used were urea, DAP (Diammonium phosphate) and MOP (Muriate of Potash). We calculated the
amount of N, P and K from the combination of different chemical fertiliser types used by each farmer, andaveraged NPK rates for each district. Almost all farms had at least two crops per year, so rates per gross
cropped area reect this double cropping pattern. The recommended fertiliser application rates for Bihar [ net
cropped area based on a rice-wheat rotation system] are N: 230 kg/ha, P: 120 kg/ha, K: 70 kg/ha (Source: Mr.
Ashok Prasad, DDA (HQ), Department of Agriculture Bihar, May 2012).
Sampledfarms
Main crops in Kharif - Rabi
Fertiliser rate (kg of nutrient/haper year
[ net cropped area])
Total fertiliser rate NPK (kg /haper crop [ gross cropped area])
N P K NPK NPK
Bihar 65 rice – wheat/maize 311 151 63 525 263
Khagaria 14 rice - wheat/maize 276 127 84 487 243
Madhepura 8 rice - wheat 260 148 102 510 255
Muzaffarpur 8 rice - wheat 328 178 98 604 302
Nalanda 30 rice - wheat/maize 312 133 33 478 239
Patna 7 rice - onion 416 253 67 736 368
Ofcial estimate for Bihar*
Ofcial estimate for India*
174 144
*Fertiliser Statistics year book, 2011
a much higher cropping intensity of 1.90. Accordingly,the lower NPK application rates from ofcial estimates
may relate simply to the use of a l ower croppingintensity gure in calculations. It may also be that in
less productive areas (those which are ood prone,
etc.) cropping intensity is lowered. In the areascovered in this survey, however, cropping intensityand chemical fertiliser application rates are both very
high. The survey data considered in this study can betaken moreover, as reecting the current situation forthe majority of farmers in Bihar. The data, supplied bythe farmers themselves reect prevalent agricultural
practices in the region. However, in regions whereconditions less favourable to agriculture prevail, lowerfertiliser application rates may be the norm.
The documented NPK application rates in the currentsurvey are comparable with the high rates recordedin the ofcial data for previous years for Indian states
such as Andhra Pradesh, Punjab or Haryana (seeFigure 2). As with other data, ofcial estimates seem,
however, to be much lower than other farm-levelsurveys (Singh et al., 2007). The eld data suggest
that farmers in Bihar have already adopted, orwill soon adopt, the unsustainable path of GreenRevolution states like Punjab or Haryana, where highagrochemical use is already compromising future soil
fertility and water quality (Erenstein and Thorpe, 2011,Bhattacharyya et al., 2007, Roy et al., 2009, Sarkar,2012).
As noted above, the NPK application rates presentedhere are those from chemical fertilisers only. Otherinputs of NPK that occur by application of farmyardmanure, or by growing green manures are excluded.
A large percentage of the farmers interviewedhave adopted these benecial practices, although
applications are not quantitatively high i n comparativeterms. Organic fertilisation practices not only add
nutrients but also enhance soil fertility by building uporganic matter, by promoting soil biodiversity andalso protecting it against erosion. They are, therefore,preferable to the use of chemical fertilisers. If theinputs of NPK from these organic fertiliser usagesare included in the estimated fertilisation rates, theoveruse (as related to recommended application rates)of chemical fertilisers effectively becomes even greaterthan is initially evident from the data.
Progress towards truly sustainable agriculture in Biharcould be made if the Government of Bihar could stepup its positive work in promoting organic farming. Aspart of this promotion they could do much more toencourage minimising chemical fertiliser dependencyand overuse, with a view to an eventual phase out inthe future. Sections 4 & 5 of this report describe theGreenpeace vision for an ecological farming systemwithout the use of chemical fertilisers that maximises
food security, underpins secure farming economicsand improves environmental health.
Figure 3. Fertiliser application rates in major Indian states, according to the latest ofcial data from the Fertiliser
Statistics year book (2011). The estimate in Table 1 reects an apparent trend for increasing consumption ofchemical nutrients. Bihar, with 263 kg NPK/ha ( gross cropped area), is closely following the course of nearby
states which already have a high overuse of chemicals and associated environmental damage (i.e. Punjab or
Haryana). [Figure taken from Fertiliser Statistics year book (2011).]
21 22
253
242
211
209
173
171
169
168
160
156
144
221
236
206
209
168
166
167
156
158
139
136
A.P
PUNJAB
TAMIL NADU
HARYANA
BIHAR
KARNATAKA
UTTAR PRADESH
GUJARAT
WEST BENGAL
MAHARASHTRA
ALL INDIA
2010-11 2009-10
Greenpeace IndiaFertiliser, fuel and food: win-win options for Bihar
Greenpeace IndiaFertiliser, fuel and food: win-win options for Bihar
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
14/30
A progressive farmer in Khagariadistrict, poses in front of her
wheat eld with a freshly plucked
cauliower. She has beneted
from ecological fertilisation overthe last couple of years
© Karan Vaid / Greenpeace
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
15/30
2.2. Inefficiencies in the recoveryof Nitrogen applied to crops and itsestimated economic cost
Globally, it is estimated that about 41% of the N
applied to croplands is not recovered in the harvestedcrops, and it is lost to the soil or, in larger quantities,lost to water systems and to the atmosphere (Liu etal., 2010).
Many studies have tried to estimate efciency of
N use applied to Indian agricultural soils. Most ofthese studies have taken place on experimentalresearch farms, rather than in real-life eld situations.
Nonetheless, estimates of N losses from Indiancroplands range from 20 to 90% of the N applied, witha common average of about 50% N applied not beingrecovered in crops (Bouwman et al., 2005, Chhabraet al., 2010, Ladha et al., 2005). Low efciencies of N
use in croplands represent a major source of potentialdamage to the environment as well as a majoreconomic loss for farmers. The costs extend to thegeneral public when prices are subsidised directly orindirectly by Governments or their agencies.
Rough estimates can be made of the recoveryefciency of N applied to farm soils in Bihar based on
ofcial statistics and also based on data documented
in the survey in March 2012, reported in Table 5.Precise estimates of losses of N would requiredetailed modelling and data on N inputs (fromchemical fertilisers and other sources), N outputs (in Ncontents in harvested crops and erosion) and detailedinformation about N cycling and behaviour in the farmsoils specic to the area (Ladha et al. 2005). How ever,
a tentative estimation of N losses based on a simplied
model and available parameters/data is attemptedhere with the above caveats in mind.
The estimate assumes an average double croppingsystem with rice-wheat rotations (the case in the largemajority of farms in Bihar). Average contents of N inharvested rice and in wheat are derived from previouslypublished values (Bouwman et al. 2005).
N inputs are assumed to come exclusively fromchemical N fertilisers. In doing so, N losses estimatedare on the conservative side, since this probablyassumes lower than actual N inputs due to othersources as noted earlier.
The estimate looks at broad values of how much Nis not recovered in the harvested crop. This wouldultimately be mostly lost to agricultural systems byleaching to the ground and surface water systems asnitrate, to the atmosphere as the potent greenhousegas nitrous oxide and in the form of ammonia.
Although some of the applied N would remain in
soils to be used, potentially, by subsequent crops, ithas been estimated by other studies that this wouldcomprise less than 5% of the non-recovered N. Therest, therefore, is effectively lost to the agriculturalsystem (Ladha et al. 2005).
The N unrecovered in harvested crops (kg N/ha) wascalculated in the current estimate as the difference
between the N input from applied chemical fertilisers(kg N/ha) and the output in harvested crops (kg N/ ha). The calculation was based on yields and known Ncontent in rice, wheat, or maize harvested parts (Table5). N removal is calculated considering only N in theharvested part (grain). It is assumed that N in othervegetative parts will not be removed from the systembut that crop residues will be retained on the farmtogether with manure from animals feeding on theseresidues. Thus, the estimation of losses is actuallyconservative, since it is assumed that all N losses incrop residues and animal manure are minimised.
The cost of this lost N (not-recovered) was calculatedbased on the ofcial price of N (Rs/kg N) and on the
price paid by farmers ( Table 3). Broadly speaking,this unrecovered N represents an effective nancial
loss to farmers per hectare of farmland in the form ofmonetary investment in N fertiliser that is not recovered
in the harvest, or retained within the system.
The tentative estimates based on ofcial data from the
Bihar Government show considerable losses (67%)of the total applied as N chemical fertilisers. About71% and 64% of the N applied t o rice and wheatrespectively is not recovered in the harvested crop,and is thus lost to water or to atmosphere (Table 5)with only a small proportion remaining in the soil.
These values are at the higher end of the range ofvalues estimated in other published studies. However,they are close to the average given in the l iterature forfarming areas in developing countries (Bouwman et al.,2005, Chhabra et al., 2010, Ladha et al., 2005). In all,they represent a signicant loss for farmers who pay
for this expensive input, for Government (and publicmoney) used in subsidies, and for people and for thewider environment affected by the resulting pollutionof water resources and/or potential climate change
impacts.
The estimate based on the survey data from 5 districtsin Bihar gives a similar picture: about 62% of N isnot recovered in the crops (Table 5). This value isslightly lower than the one based on ofcial estimates.
Farmers reported very high yields for both rice andwheat, thus giving proportionally higher recovery ofapplied N in harvested grains. The apparent highproductivity could be due either to an overestimationby reporting farmers or to the data reecting a sample
of only the more productive farms in the region. As compared to Bouwman et al. (2005), the rates of Nlosses estimated in this study are among the highest ofthe averages given as predictions for various world
Table 5. Analysis of the efciency of the application of N fertiliser in rice, wheat and maize crops in Bihar. A.
is based on data from ofcial statistics (Fertiliser Year Book, 2011 and Government of Bihar) and B. is based
on data recorded during our eld survey in February and March 2012 in 5 districts in the state and detailedinterviews with 65 farmers. N removal in the harvested crop is calculated by multiplying yields by N content in
harvested crop.
NITROGEN BALANCES: INPUTS AND OUTPUTS
Kharif Rabi Kharif +Rabi
Rice Wheat Maize Total per year(rice - wheat)
A. Estimate based on ofcial statistics
N input in chemical fertiliser
2010/11( (kg N/ha)*
116 116 116 233
Yield (ofcial data 20011/12) (kg/
ha)†2,625 2,206 2,646
N content in harvested crop (kg N/
kg)^0.013 0.019 0.014
N removal in harvested crop (kg N/
ha)⌑34.1 41.9 37.0 76
N not recovered in the crop (kg N/ ha)$ [N input – harvests removal]
82.3 74.5 79.4 157
N recovered in crop (%) 29 36 32 33%
N not recovered (%) 71 64 68 67%
Estimated cost of non-recovered N:
Price of N (ofcial MRP 2011) Rs/kg
N in urea (536 Rs/100 kg)5.4
Cost of non-recovered N (Rs/ha)[N amount not recovered x price]
441 399 426 841
B. Estimate based on recorded data from farmers in 5 districts, Feb-March 2012
N input in chemical fertilisers2011/12 (kg N/ha)
131 189 320
Yield of harvested crop 2011/12
(kg/ha) ‡4,467 3,388
25 26
N removal in harvested crop (kg N/ ha)⌑
58.1 64.4 122
N not recovered in the crop (kg N/ ha)$ [N input – harvests removal]
72.9 124.6 198
N recovered in crop (%) 44 34 38%
N not recovered (%) 56 66 62%
Estimated cost of non-recovered N:
Price of N (average paid by farmers)
Rs/kg N in urea (744 Rs/100 k g)~7.4
Cost of non-recovered N (Rs/ha)
[N amount not recovered x price]
540 922 1,462
*Fertiliser Year Book 2011, page I-111†Government of Bihar Statistics: Third advance estimate 2011/12: http://krishi.bih.nic.in/Third%20Adv.%20Estm.%20(2011-12).pdf ^Bouwman et al. (2005).⌑N removal is calculated considering only N in the harvested part (grain); we assume N in other vegetative parts will not beremoved from the land (crop residues will remained in the farm and manure from animals eating these residues will also bebrought back to the farm).$N lost or remaining in the soil (only 3-5% of N remaining in soil could be recovered by following year crop according to Ladha etal. 2005).‡ Average yields as reported by farmers in our surveyed districts. It might well be that farmers are overestimating their yields,when compared to ofcial estimates above, or that we in inadvertently selected very productive farms.~ Average price for farmers in Khagaria (less expensive than in Muzzafarpur).
Greenpeace IndiaFertiliser, fuel and food: win-win options for Bihar
Greenpeace IndiaFertiliser, fuel and food: win-win options for Bihar
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
16/30
regions in 2030. Accordingly, there is an opportunity,through emplacing appropriate policies, to increasefertiliser use efciency and n utrient recovery. Signicant
and large downstream benecial effects could be
achieved.
Considered in nancial terms, the above inefciencies
represent an effective nancial loss of between 841
and 1,462 Rs/ha. This can be viewed as an annualinvestment in the farming operation that shows noreturn. This, in turn, is roughly 10% of the average percapita income in the state (Table 1). Reducing use ofchemical fertilisers, while maintaining good soil fertilityand health by building up organic matter, or improvingirrigation facilities, represent substantial opportunitiesto reduce waste and increase efciency in farming
businesses. Improving farm management withoutincreasing expenditure on chemical fertiliser willincrease nitrogen use efciency and i mprove economic
returns for farmers.
It is hoped that the preliminary assessment reportedhere will encourage a more complete and accurateanalysis of fertiliser use efciency in the state. The
Farmer Pramod Singh uses onlychemical fertilisers in his crops of
wheat and maize. A signicant amount
of the nutrients applied are notrecovered in the harvested crop but
lost to the soil, water and atmosphere© Karan Vaid / Greenpeace
Table 6. Estimated cost of low nitrogen use efciency in terms of subsidy money that is not recovered in cropsand thus nancially lost.
Total Nitrogen consumed in Bihar 0.91 million tonnes
Estimated Nitrogen not recovered in Bihar crops ( 62% loss) 0.56 million tonnes
Public money subsidy per kg of Nitrogen 27.15 Rs/kg of N
Total subsidy money lost in Bihar as Nitrogen not recovered in crops 1 529 crore Rs.
results presented here are believed to be conservativeestimates, so that actual values may well be higherboth in terms of percentage amounts of N being lostand in terms of monetary inefciencies.
In conclusion, the cost in terms of public moneyspent on fertiliser subsidies can be calculated byextrapolation (Table 6). Bihar state consumed 0.91Mt of N in the 2010-2011 growing season, close toa million tonnes of N per year (Fertiliser Statistics,2011). Assuming 62% of this amount was lost,
i.e. not recovered in food grain or other crops, thisamounted to a total loss of 0.56 Mt of N. Given thatthe central subsidy for N is set at 27.15 Rs/kg of N,the total public subsidy money lost in Bihar amountedto 1530 crore Rs. This is a very signicant loss by
any standards, and this is particularly the case in astate needing substantial investment in sustainabledevelopment. It represents a crucial opportunitycost of not investing this money in more effectivepolicies (like policies that benet rural livelihoods and
sustainable economic growth, as outlined in section 4and 5 below).
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
17/30
Waterpolluted with
nitrates andhealth risksassociatedwith syntheticnitrogenfertiliser useExcessive chemical fertiliser application not onlydamages farmers’ nances, but also results in losses
of nutrients into the wider environment, degradingboth air and water quality. Excess nitrogen can enterthe atmosphere as nitrogen oxides. These can helpcause the development of photochemical smog whichis harmful to health. Rising global concentrations of thepowerful greenhouse gas nitrous oxide are also mostlyattributable to synthetic nitrogen fertiliser use.
Excess nitrogen can also be damaging to aquaticsystems. Excess nitrogen is linked to degradationof streams, rivers and lakes and the eutrophicationof coastal marine ecosystems. Overuse of nitrogenfertilisers can also degrade the drinking waterresources available to farmers and farm labourerson their farms. Excessive nitrogen entering soilcan be changed to highly soluble nitrate and movethrough the soil layer ultimately reaching groundwater.Groundwater near farms that apply nitrogen aschemical fertilisers or as livestock manure is oftenfound to be contaminated with high levels of nitrates(NO
3-). Nitrate is now considered to be one of the most
common chemical contaminants found in the world’sgroundwater. Some nitrate occurs naturally at very lowconcentrations, but higher nitrate levels in groundwaterare generally related to human activities. Inorganic
29
Children bathing and playing in thewater from a diesel-run water-pump
beside a maize eld in Khagaria.
Drinking this water may expose themto potential health risks in case ofnitrate contamination in the water
© Karan Vaid / Greenpeace
Greenpeace IndiaFertiliser, fuel and food: win-win options for Bihar
SECTION 3
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
18/30
fertiliser and animal waste are the dominant sourcesof nitrate in groundwater around agricultural areas(Galloway et al., 2003, Galloway et al., 2008, Mooreand Matalon, 2011).
Nitrate pollution of drinking water resources canhave serious health impact on humans, particularlyin babies and young children but also in adults. The
most signicant potential health risks associated withdrinking water contaminated with nitrate is blue-baby syndrome (methemoglobinemia) and cancer,particularly cancer of the colon (Ward, 2005, vanGrinsven et al., 2010).
In this current survey, nitrate concentrations weremeasured in wells supplying drinking water on65 farms located in 5 districts in Bihar, Khagaria,Madhepura, Nalanda, Muzzaffarpur and Patna,covering 33 villages and 17 blocks (see methodologyin Box 2).
Drinking water in farm wells was largely found to besafe for drinking in the majority of the locations relativeto the safety levels established by the World HealthOrganisation (Figure 4). However, in two districts,Nalanda and Patna, nitrate levels i n the groundwaterwells on farms clearly showed pollution from nitrogen
fertilisers. In Nalanda, 65% of wells (18 out of 28) hadnitrate levels above 10 mg/l nitrate (as NO3-), thus
showing some degree of pollution although not abovelevels considered unsafe for human consumption(Figure 4). Also in Patna, where nitrogen chemicalfertiliser consumption is one of the highest, some wellswere found with degraded water due to high nitrogenconcentrations.
Although the levels found were still within limitsconsidered safe for human health, they shouldnonetheless represent a call for action to the BiharGovernment to work towards protecting drinking waterand human health. Cutting down on excess chemicalfertiliser use will have many benets: in addition to
economic benets for farmers, they will protect clean
water and protect the health of farmers, farm labourersand their families. Moving to cut chemical fertiliser usewill also further protect the quality of streams, of the
river Ganga itself and of the coastal communities livingdownstream. Some evidence exists that that chemicalfertilisers are already causing signicant nitrogen and
phosphorus loading in the Ganga, contributing to itsoverall degradation in quality (Jain, 2002).
In addition, it must be taken into account that theWHO standards may not be fully protective of humanhealth even if they are met. A recent assessment inthe EU estimated that a 3% increase in the incidenceof colon cancer could result from nitrate in drinkingwater exceeding 25 mg/L. This level is only half of theWHO safety limit of 50 mg/L. Quite apart from thecosts of this in human terms, the authors concludedthat “this health impact corresponds to an economic
loss of 2.9 euro/capita/yr and of 0.7 euro per kg ofNO
3--N leaching” (van Grinsven et al., 2010). With the
caveat that health costs and treatments in India mightbe different to those in Europe, it can be calculatedthat in Indian Rupees, the health impact will be about50 Rs per kg of NO
3--N leaching. This cost will add
to the already high nancial burden for farmers and
Governments from the dependency on chemical
nitrogen fertilisers. As shown in previous sections,the commercial price of a kilo of N in urea rangesbetween 5.4 and 7.4 Rs, and this is about ten timesless than the estimated cost of its potential healtheffects in causing colon cancer when it leaches to thegroundwater (based on a tentative estimation for theEU 11, and assuming Indian health cost would besimilar (van Grinsven et al., 2010)
Groundwater depletion and high nitrate levels indrinking water are now common in other states of theIndo-Gangetic Plain, such as Punjab and Haryana.
This is the result of years of intense agrochemical useand lack of adequate protection of the natural resourcebase (Tirado, 2009, Rodell et al., 2009, Kundu andMandal, 2009, Singh et al., 2007).
One of the major problems that humans will face inthe future is the availability of clean and safe drinking
water. The problem of nitrate pollution is appearing inmany different regions of the world, and is one whichis often associated with i ndustrial agricultural areas.
These include industrial livestock production. Forexample, recent analysis carried out in t he CalifornianSan Joaquin Valley, which accounts for over half ofCalifornian agricultural production, indicated that thenumber of wells polluted with nitrate will double by2020. The prevalence of nitrate pollution in the region’sdrinking water is already increasing the cost of living forrural communities by having to procure safe drinkingwater, but most usually affects families in the lower-income brackets who can least afford it (Moore andMatalon, 2011).
Signicantly, however, Bihar still has the opportunity of
choosing a different path to that taken by the ‘GreenRevolution’ states in India, where degradation of soiland water through intensive agriculture have “nowexemplied the post-Green Revolution stagnation and
challenges” (Erenstein and Thorpe, 2011). There is aneed for a “paradigm shift” in agricultural developmenttowards approaches that “link people, innovations andpolicy” (Erenstein and Thorpe, 2011). Greenpeacetakes the view that these people-centred approachesshould be based on ecological farming principles thataim towards increasing food security for t oday andtomorrow while working with nature, not against it. Inthe following section some options for an ecologicalfarming system centred on improving the livelihood ofpeople in Bihar are explored in more detail.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
P A T 7 5
P A T 7 4
P A T 7 2
P A T 6 9
P A T 6 8
P A T 6 7
P A T 6 6
M U Z 6 4
M U Z 5 9
M U Z 5 7
M U Z 5 6
M U Z 5 5
M U Z 5 4
M U Z 5 3
M U Z 5 2
N A L 5 1
N A L 5 0
N A L 4 9
N A L 4 8
N A L 4 7
N A L 4 6
N A L 4 5
N A L 4 4
N A L 4 3
N A L 4 2
N A L 4 0
N A L 3 9
N A L 3 8
N A L 3 7
N A L 3 6
N A L 3 5
N A L 3 4
N A L 3 3
N A L 3 2
N A L 3 1
N A L 3 0
N A L 2 9
N A L 2 8
N A L 2 7
N A L 2 6
N A L 2 5
N A L 2 4
N A L 2 3
M A D 2 2
M A D 2 1
M A D 2 0
M A D 1 9
M A D 1 8
M A D 1 7
M A D 1 6
M A D 1 5
K H A 1 4
K H A 1 3
K H A 1 2
K H A 1 1
K H A 1 0
K H A 9
K H A 8
K H A 7
K H A 6
K H A 5
K H A 4
K H A 3
K H A 2
K H A 1
Relatively polluted water
WHO level for safe drinking water
Khagaria Madhepura Nalanda Muzaffarpur Patna
Sampled districts
N i t r a
t e ( N O
3 - ) m g
/ l
Figure 4. Nitrate concentration in 65 groundwater wells located in farms in 5 districts of Bihar.
Nitrate levels in groundwater wells in Bihar farmsDistricts Patna and Nalanda are first and third highest in chemical N fertiliser application rates
31 32
Greenpeace IndiaFertiliser, fuel and food: win-win options for Bihar
Greenpeace IndiaFertiliser, fuel and food: win-win options for Bihar
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
19/30
Options forecological
farmingsolutionsLivelihoods in rural communities across the developingworld centre mostly on the nexus between food,energy and water. Most rural people in India, andindeed, in other developing economies worldwide:
• grow crops for food and livestock in order tomake a living,
• rely on various forms of biomass as their mainsource of energy and fuel, and
• depend on clean and reliable water resources for
crops, for farm animals and for their drinking.
As described above, rural people in Bihar are facedwith widespread relatively low agricultural productivityand low associated incomes. In addition they aresubject to the nancial burden associated with
dependence on costly agrochemical inputs andthe concomitant potential health and environmentaleffects. Agriculture experts agree that high productioncosts and high risks are among the general constraintsunderlying stagnant crop productivity in Bihar (Thorpeet al., 2007).
Climate change is likely to make these problemsworse. For example, hotter temperatures seem alreadyto be causing wheat yields to decline in some areas ofthe Indo-Gangetic Plain (Lobell et al., 2012, Lobell etal., 2011).
In addition to relatively low crop productivity, in ruralBihar there is also limited access to energy, to cleanwater and to sanitation facilities. Solving the huge jointchallenges embedded in each of these areas of food,energy and water is unlikely to come from adopting thepath of the ‘Green Revolution’ as followed by stateslike Punjab and Haryana. These states focused mostlyon external inputs for i ncreasing staple yields. Scienceand the current reality of farmers’ lives show the resultsof this intensive approach. Green Revolution states arenow facing problems which are acting on the resourcebase that sustains crop production: water and soilare fast degrading, while yield levels are static. Anew approach is needed, an approach that works by
33
Ecological fertilisation would helpboost the fertility of this soil© Karan Vaid / Greenpeace
Greenpeace IndiaFertiliser, fuel and food: win-win options for Bihar
SECTION 4
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
20/30
focusing on people’s livelihoods and which works withnature, not against it.
Evidence from across the world shows that theapplication of a different model is entirely feasible andcan be very successful (e.g. Farming Matters, 2012).
A new model of agriculture centred on people, not onchemicals or on other expensive inputs, can increasefood production where it is most needed, and at thesame time help in rural development (IAASTD, 2009,Schutter, 2010, Scialabba, 2007). Further, workingwith biodiversity can help provide a natural insuranceagainst the uncertainties and vagaries of projectedclimate change.
Working with a vision of ecological farming coupledwith renewable energy principles, Bihar farms couldincrease agriculture productivity, increase energyavailability and access, and secure future clean watersystems. Some options for working towards that triplegoal: more food and higher incomes, more sustainableenergy and cleaner water for all the people of Bihar areexplored below.
4.1. High yields without chemicals:ecological farming optimises livestockand ecological fertilisation practicesthat are locally available, knowledgeintensive and financially secure.
Ecological farming practices aim at replacing externalinputs with natural processes and locally availabletechnologies, in order to empower farmers andcreate nancial security. Such practices take different
technological forms depending on the biophysicaland socioeconomic circumstances considered at theregional, or even individual farm level.
To ensure economically optimal yields, farmers needfertile soils and ways of signicantly diminishing the
risk of nutrient losses. To help achieve this, researchand development on ecological fertilisation practicesneeds to be carried out. This is needed, togetherwith supportive policies and capacity building, to
provide farmers with the means to decide on the bestsoil nutrition management methods for their specic
circumstances. Supporting farmers in efforts toincrease soil fertility and yields on their farms is a rst
necessary step, best achieved through participatoryinterventions that take into account local conditionsand community needs.
Practices like growing green manures such as legumes(or in paddy elds other N-xing organisms like Azolla),vermi-composting, and adding livestock manure toelds represent just some of ways in which to increase
organic matter and fertility of the soil. Natural nutrientcycling and nitrogen xation can potentially provide
fertility without the use of synthetic fertilisers anddevelop a healthier soil rich in organic matter, betterable to hold water and less prone to erosion. At thesame time, farmers’ expenses on articial inputs are
reduced.
Shifting from dependency on chemical fertilisersto reliance on organic fertilisers (in various formsadapted to local conditions) would make farmers onsmall holdings more secure and less vulnerable toaccessibility of external inputs and price uctuation.
Accordingly, research and development in nding the
best ways to shift towards organic and away fromsynthetic fertilisers is needed in Bihar. The potential forsuccess in improving yields and livelihoods could bevery high.
Some examples from elsewhere as well from India ofthis high potential for increasing yields with ecologicalfertilisation practices include:
• A meta-analysis of data from 77 published studies
which suggests that nitrogen-xing legumes used as
green manures can provide enough biologically xed
nitrogen to replace the entire amount of syntheticnitrogen fertiliser currently in use, without losses infood production (Badgley et al., 2007).• A 21-year-long study on European farms, in which
soils that were fertilised organically showed better soilstability, enhanced soil fertility and higher biodiversity,including activity of microbes and earthworms, thansoils fertilised synthetically (Mäder et al., 2002).• In apple orchards in the US, fertilisation with manure
(compared to fertilisation with chemical fertilisers)increased the amount of carbon stored in the soil,increased the diversity and activity of soil microbes,
and decreased the losses of nitrates to water bodieswhile keeping nitrous oxide losses to atmosphere atsimilar levels (Kramer et al., 2006).• Ecological farming practices can help reverse the
trend of declining soil fertility that many farmers indeveloping countries are facing. Problems like soilerosion, acidication and organic matter depletion can
be solved through ecological farming practices thatnurture soil fertility and biodiversity (Eyhorn, 2007).• The UN Special Representative for the Right to
Food, Olivier de Schutter has compiled evidencedemonstrating that ecological farming approachescould potentially provide enough food for all. Forexample, programmes in Malawi aimed at betteraccess to organic fertilisers, improving soil fertilityand moving towards fertilising with N-xing trees (in
addition to better access to fertilisers) have increasedmaize yields from 1 t/ha to 2–3 t/ha, even whenfarmers cannot afford commercial nitrogen fertilisers(Schutter, 2010).• In India, a eld experiment with rice-wheat cropping
in western Uttar Pradesh in t he Indo-Gangetic Plaindemonstrated how growing cowpea legumes after thewheat harvest and before rice transplanting improvedsoil condition, reduced losses of nitrates in the soiland improved nutrient use efciency (Dwivedi et al.,
2003). Importantly, cowpea can provide green foragefor animals in the forage-scarce summer season andincrease the overall productivity of t he farm. Someof the farmers we i nterviewed already practice greenmanuring with Dhaincha (the leguminous shrubSesbania bispinosa) before rice/wheat and haveexperienced similar positive results.
Ecological farming practices could, therefore, helpreverse the trend towards depletion of soil organicmatter, a problem already apparent in Bihar (Thorpe2007). Higher application of animal FYM (farm yardmanure) onto croplands, for example, can build upsoil organic matter and further contribute to soilhealth and balanced fertilisation of soils. The apparentconict with other uses of FYM, for domestic fuel
for example, would be minimised once energyneeds can be satised with other renewable energy
sources which are much more efcient than dung
cakes (see section below). Other practices t hat buildup soil organic matter and contribute to ecologicalfertilisation without chemicals are the growing ofgreen manures, application of composted residues(other crop residues, weeds like water hyacinth, etc.).
These practices are often labour intensive and canhelp in increasing employment opportunities for ruralcommunities.
A large study comparing examples of organic andconventional agriculture in Asia found that foodsecurity is signicantly higher for farmers using organic
practices. Organic farmers have a more diverse,nutritious and secure diet. Organic farmers have onaverage, higher net incomes that have increased since2000 in contrast to stagnant or declining incomesfor conventional farmers. Net incomes per hectarefor farmers applying organic practices are one and ahalf times higher than those of conventional farmers;
as a result organic farmers are less indebted thanfarmers relying on agrochemicals. In summary, farmersachieve higher productivity and have a much morestable nancial base on organic farms as compared to
conventional farms (Bachmann et al., 2009).
Some of the farmers interviewed in India in thisstudy practice organic agriculture or at least minimalchemical fertiliser application on food grown for theirown consumption. They grow crops on a separatepatch of land for themselves and apply little or nochemical fertilisers or pesticides, using indigenousor desi seeds. They are aware of the ill-effects ofthe chemical inputs and do not wish to consumefood grown with them. They also feel that in terms ofnutrition and taste, traditional desi crop varieties arebetter. In addition, using low-external inputs they cangrow their own food cheaply.
Many scientists together with institutions like FAO,UNEP and local or regional farmers’ associationsare documenting remarkable success from organicagriculture both in achieving high yields and ghting
poverty (Scialabba, 2007, Nellemann et al, 2009,UNEP and UNCTAD, 2008, IAASTD, 2009). Moreresearch and development and further funding todevelop modern organic farming technologies areundoubtedly needed but nevertheless, there is muchevidence already that farming without chemicalfertilisers can still produce enough food for all. Thisis especially true if we consider a vision aimed atfarming with biodiversity, at closing nutrient cycles andat recycling nutrients from non-conventional sources(sewage, residues, etc.).
35 36
Earth worms enhance and maintain soil fertility© Karan Vaid / Greenpeace
Cabbage in a eld in Khagaria district – Bihar is a top
producer of vegetables in India© Karan Vaid / Greenpeace
Mix cropping of pulses and mustard crop© Karan Vaid / Greenpeace
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
21/30
Farmers applying organic fertiliser to Vinay Yadav’s wheat crop
© Karan Vaid / Greenpeace
8/17/2019 Greenpeace India - Fertiliser Fuel and Food - Win Win Options for Bihar - Oct 2012
22/30
Livestock and the needto increase yields
Crop and livestock production are deeply interlinkedat the household level in Bihar farming systems.Livestock rearing combined with cropping providesa more secure outlook for farmers where they facea variety of risks. Examples of such risks include a
high incidence of ood events and soil waterlogging. At the other end of the risk spectrum, farmers mayface droughts coupled with a lack of secure irrigationservices. In such cases, maintaining some animalson the farm reduces risks as well as helping stabiliseincomes through converting low value crop residues(the main animal feed) to higher value milk, liveweight and dung. Even so it has been noted that the“contributions of these crop-livestock interactionsto livelihoods were not allowing families to escapethe apparent poverty web in which the majority aretrapped” (Thorpe et al., 2007).
It may be the case that inherent low productivityand lack of resources are acting together to preventfarmers taking full advantage of the added benets
conferred by a mixed crop-livestock system. In Bihar,high demand for biomass resources cannot be metfully from the low productivity agricultural systems,
effectively minimising the benets of livestock as riskinsurance. Crop residues are the main feed for animalsand are in high demand. Most farming householdsneed to buy crop residues to supplement the livestockdiet. Consequently, low livestock productivity is oftenassociated with inadequate feeding (Thorpe et al.,2007). A holistic ecological farming system wouldprovide opportunities for better optimising li vestockresources.
As a rst step, increasing biomass production
using ecological farming practices is necessary. Asoutlined above, many low-income regions have seenincreases in yields with the adoption of such methods.Increasing biomass production need not be simplyin the form of achieving increased yields of rice andwheat grains. Alternative options to improve grazingand increase forage production in parallel needfurther promotion and development. For example,
agroforestry using N-xing trees or growing greenmanure as forage can provide green fodder for animalsover a time-window during which land is otherwiseunproductive. A collateral benet of such approaches
is an increase in nitrogen and organic matter in thesoil. Many ecological farming practices work towardsenhancing productivity and resilience in times ofdrought and water limitation. These are among themajor constraints to increasing biomass productionin the Bihar region. To achieve these broad goals ofincreased yields much more research is needed intoecological farming solutions, together with funding forscaling up and adapting local solutions.
In conclusion, livelihood options that integrate crop-livestock systems provide a means of improving rurallivelihoods in the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Overall, mixedsystems based on robust principles of ecologicalfarming practice offer the highest potential in securinglivelihoods that are economically and environmentallysustainable.
4.2. Clean water, improved public healthand cheap local fertilisers: Eco-sanitation
“The loop of nutrients – from land to land – needs tobe restored once again.” (Narain, 2012)
Sanitation and sewage systems in rural areas in Indiasuch as Bihar have improved in recent years. A levelof 2.3% of the public covered by sanitation systemsin 1990 rose to 16.2% in 2004, but this is still verylow and ranks among the lowest coverage rates inSouth Asia (Jha, 2010). Sewage pollution of groundand surface water is common and a high incidenceof waterborne diseases is often associated with poorsanitation in villages. Open defecation continues to bewidespread, seemingly deeply rooted in the socio-cultural realities of rural communities. It continues topersist after almost six decades of efforts to eradicate
the practice. The problem of sanitation is two-fold: alack of proper sanitary infrastructure coupled with awidespread societal resistance to indoor sanitation.
Paradoxically, the poor overall situation actuallyprovides a perfect opportunity to reinvent sewagetreatment and sanitation paradigms, simply becausethe infrastructure is not already there. Accordingly,there is no requirement to design new systems whichmust take account of any existing infrastructure.Sanitation systems can be designed which are basedon new ways of dealing with excreta and which workin synergy with the needs of agriculture and renewableenergy requirements.
Currently, even though it is a highly nutrient richresource, it is estimated that globally only 10% ofglobal human excreta is recycled, either intentionally orunintentionally, to agricultural or aquacultural systems
(Cordell et al., 2011). Current sanitation systems (‘ushand forget’ systems) in industrialised coun