The study has analysed changes in climate variables, viz. temperature and rainfall during the period 1969-2005 and has assessed their impact on yields of important food crops. A significant rise was observed in mean monthly temperature, but more so during the post-rainy season. The changes in rainfall, however, were not as significant. While an increase in maximum temperature was found to have an adverse effect on the crop yields, a similar increase in minimum temperature had a favourable effect on yields of most crops, but it was not sufficient to fully compensate the damages caused by the rise in maximum temperature. Pigeonpea, rice, chickpea and wheat were more vulnerable to rise in temperature. Rainfall had a positive effect on most crops, but it could not counterbalance the negative effect of temperature. The projections of climate impacts towards 2100 have suggested that with significant changes in temperature and rainfall, the rice yield will be lower by 15 per cent and wheat yield by 22 per cent. Coarse cereals will be affected less, while pulses will be affected more than cereals. If the changes in climate are not significant, damages to crops will be smaller. In the short-run too climate impacts will not be so severe.

Diversification by small farmers toward high‐value crops (fruits and vegetables [F & V]) that can raise farm incomes significantly has always been in question because of several reasons such as diseconomies of scale and lack of access to inputs such as capital and information. We present evidence that in India diversification toward high‐value crops exhibits a pro‐smallholder (rather than anti‐smallholder) bias. The smallholders however play a proportionally larger role in vegetables than in fruits cultivation. These patterns are consistent with simple comparative advantage‐based production choices. Even with small landholdings if labor endowments are high, such farmers diversify toward F & V. Though fruits cultivation is also labor intensive relative to cereals, it is less so relative to vegetables. Greater capital intensity implies a comparatively important role of credit in fruits. The results are robust to several tests on specification including those related to self‐selection. Chez les petits exploitants agricoles, la diversification en faveur de cultures à valeur élevée (fruits et légumes) permettant d’accroître considérablement le revenu agricole a toujours été remise en question pour diverses raisons, notamment les déséconomies d’échelle et le manque d’accès aux intrants comme le capital et l’information. Dans le présent article, nous montrons qu’en Inde, la diversification en faveur de cultures à valeur élevée semble plutôt favorable que défavorable aux petits exploitants agricoles. Toutefois, les petits exploitants sont proportionnellement plus présents dans la culture maraîchère que dans la culture fruitière. Ces observations concordent avec les choix d’une production fondée sur les avantages comparatifs. Même dans le cas des petites exploitations, lorsque les besoins de main‐d’œuvre sont élevés, elles se tournent vers les cultures fruitière et maraîchère. Bien que la culture fruitière soit une activitéà forte intensité de main‐d’œuvre comparativement à la culture céréalière, elle l’est moins que la culture maraîchère. L’intensité de capital élevée de la culture fruitière signifie que le crédit joue aussi un rôle important. Les résultats de plusieurs tests de spécification sont robustes, y compris ceux liés à l’auto‐sélection.

Journal IssueIFPRI3; CRP2; ISIPIM; SAOPRCGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This paper has examined farm households' access to different income-generating activities, and their impact on income distribution using data from a nationally representative large-scale survey. The analysis has shown that, as against the common perception of agriculture being the dominant source of income for farm households, these households earn close to half of their income from non-farm activities. The nonfarm income is more important for the households at lower end of land distribution. The poor households diversify more towards low-paid, low-return non-farm activities. Small landholdings, low agricultural productivity and surplus labour force the farm households to diversify their income portfolio towards non-farm activities. The non-farm income sources are accessible to a small proportion of farm households and have un-equalizing effect on income distribution. Nevertheless, non-farm sources are positively correlated with the total income. This contrast in income sources between income level and farm size suggests that non-farm sector can serve as potential entry points for land-constrained farm households to enhance their income level.