INTRODUCTION

Most agronomists believe that agricultural production will be affected by the severity and pace of climate change. If change is gradual, there may be enough time for adjustment. Rapid climate change, however, could harm agriculture in many countries, especially those that are already suffering from poor soil and climate conditions, because there is less time for optimum natural selection and adoption. People in India, especially the poorest, are vulnerable to the impact of climate change, because the nations economy is so closely tied to nature resources .For example, more than 57% of works are engaged in agriculture and allied sectors, areas through earn their living in coastal areas though tourism or fishing. Most of Indians poorest people live in rural areas, almost totally reliant on natural resources for their food, shelter and incomes. The yare already experiencing the impact of climate change, with few resources to cope. INDIA AND AGRICULTURE CONTEXT Population GDP from Agriculture : 1 billion + : 34 % (1994), 42 % (1980)

Area under Agriculture : 50 % (160 mha) Population dependent on Agriculture: 70% Average farm size: : 1 to5 ha Indian Agriculture- Some Facts Total Geographical Area - 328 million hectares Net Area sown - 142 million hectares
1

 Gross Cropped Area 190.8 million hectares Major Crop Production (1999-2000) Rice Wheat 89.5 million tonnes 75.6 million tonnes 30.5 million tonnes

Coarse Cereals Pulses Oilseeds Sugarcane Indian Agriculture- Some Facts Contributes to 24% of GDP Provides food to 1Billion people

13.4 million tonnes 20.9 million tonnes 29.9 million tonnes

Sustains 65% of the population : helps alleviate poverty Produces 51 major Crops Provides Raw Material to Industries Contributes to 1/6th of the export earnings One of the 12 Bio-diversity centers in the world with over 46,000 species of plants and 86,000 species of animals recorded During the last decade, the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh has been witness to many climatic changes. Eastern Uttar Pradesh has faced severe floods, while Bundelkhand region has faced one of the warmest famines of the last decade. Thus, the impact of climate change has adversely affected agricultural production resulting in huge loss of paddy and corn crops in eastern districts and regional crops in Bundelkhand.

Climate change impeding agricultural production in India during the last decade, the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh has been witness to many climatic changes. Eastern Uttar Pradesh has faced severe floods, while Bundelkhand region has faced one of the worst famines of the last decade. Thus, the impact of climate change has adversely affected agricultural production resulting in huge loss of paddy and corn crops in eastern districts and regional crops in Bundelkhand. Climate-related disasters have brought widespread misery and huge economic losses to Uttar Pradesh, adversely affecting public health, food security, agriculture, water resources and biodiversity in the state. Floods are the most common annual occurrence in the state, affecting one or the other part of the state; the most affected being the districts of the eastern U.P. and terai region. Agriculture in India is very much weather-dependent. It is ironic, then, that a significant percentage of greenhouse-gas emissions come from agriculture. Fossil-fuel intensive agriculture is contributing to the creation of the unpredictable weather conditions which all farmers will need to battle in the not so distant future. Scientists believe that the fluctuating weather conditions in the state suggest that the state is reeling under climatic chaos. For more than a decade now, the state has been experiencing contrasting extreme weather conditions and agriculture has been worst affected by these climatic changes. A little decrease in temperatures can reduce the production of wheat crops, but help in the growth of paddy. Such changes may often tilt the farmers towards growing one crop at the expense of the other. This would lead to imbalances in crop production. According to the 2001 census, 62.12 percent of the state’s total workers are engaged in agriculture. UP contributes, on an average, 21 percent to the national production of food grain. With an average annual food grain production of about 42.7 million
3

tons and per capita production of 234 kg, U.P. ranks third highest among major states, and is considered to be a food grain surplus state. The growing water scarcity poses further problems of survival to people and animals alike. Already there have been reports of cattle deaths due to water scarcity in the district. In recent years, the water level has gone down significantly. The ill effects of climate change can also be seen on women farmers, especially poor women farmers because of their low social and economic status. They also have lesser accessibility to livelihood resources and land holdings. There is a serious danger of climatic changes. (In the form of severe droughts, floods, intense rainfall, and storms) undermining development programmes and millennium development goals aimed at reducing poverty. Currently India is spending 2.5% of its total GDP on measures to control the adverse impact of climatic change, which is a big amount for any developing nations. The zeal of rapid industrialization, deforestation and willful consumption of natural resources is likely to make the situation worse. Policy makers at the state, regional and national level should take a serious view of the economic, agricultural, health-related and environmental impacts of climate changes. Land Use, Land Cover Change, & Agriculture Land use and land cover are linked to climate and other environmental changes in complex ways, such as the exchange of greenhouse gases between plants and soils and the atmosphere, the effects of changes in land use and land cover on Earth's heat balance, and the impacts of changing environmental conditions on terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity. Past land-cover changes are important to understanding
4

past climate variability and change, and projections of future land cover change are needed as input to models of future climate changes. Changes in land use and land cover affect ecosystems, biodiversity, agricultural productivity, and other goods and services of value to society. The National Research Council carries out a variety of studies, workshops, and meetings and publishes numerous reports on science-policy issues related to environmental change, land use, land cover change, and agriculture .Land Use, Land Cover Change, & Agriculture activities at the National Academies. Agriculture effects climate change & climate change effects agriculture The greenhouse effect. The earth is surrounded by an atmosphere through which solar radiation is received. The atmosphere is not static but contains air, in constant motion, being heated, cooled and moved, water being added and removed along with smoke and dust. Only a tiny proportion of the sun's energy reaches earth and some of this is reflected back into space (from clouds etc.). When the radiant energy reaches the land surface, most of it is absorbed, being used to heat the earth, evaporate water and to power photosynthetic processes. The earth also radiates energy but, because it is less hot than the sun, this is of a longer wavelength and is absorbed by the atmosphere. The Earths atmosphere, thus acts like the glass of a green house, hence the 'greenhouse effect'. The greenhouse gases (dealt with in subject 3) are those that absorb the Earths radiation and thus contribute to the greenhouse effect, but water is also a major absorber of energy. Where there is an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases (as with CO 2 due to the burning of fossil fuels) this result in an enhanced greenhouse effect - which is of concern as it could lead to climate change (i.e. global warming).
5

Global Warming Global temperatures have risen by over 0.7oC in the last 100 years and eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) are the warmest on record. In the UK in 1990s were very warm about 0.6 oC warmer than the mean 1961 - 1990 temperature. Warm winters have reduced the number of frosts, and the warmer summers have included record hot spells and high sunshine totals. How will climate change effect agriculture Soil processes The potential for soils to support agriculture and distribution of land use will be influenced by changes in soil water balance: Increase in soil water deficits i.e. dry soils become drier, therefore increased need for irrigation but: Could improve soil workability in wetter regions and diminish poaching and erosion risk Crops The range of current crops will move northward New crop varieties may need to be selected Horticultural crops are more susceptible to changing conditions than arable crops Field vegetables will be particularly affected by temperature changes Phaselous bean, onion and sweetcorn are most likely to benefit commercially from higher temperatures Water deficits will directly affect fruit and vegetable production The effect of increased temperature and CO2 levels on arable crops will be broadly neutral: How will climate change effect cropping in tropical and arid Countries?

Grasslands and livestock There is unlikely to be a significant change in suitability of livestock for UK systems Pigs and poultry could be exposed to higher incidences of heat stress, thus influencing productivity Increase in disease transmission by faster growth rates of pathogens in the environment and more efficient and abundant vectors (such as insects) Consequences for food quality and storage Weeds, pests and diseases: Weeds evolve rapidly to overcome control measures, short lived weeds and those that spread vegetatively (creeping buttercup, couch etc) evolve at the greatest rate: Grassland and arable weeds could become more tolerant to control measures Rate of evolution will increase in hotter, drier conditions and in 'extreme years', could lead to some types of herbicide tolerance becoming more common Possible increase in the range of many native pests, and species that at present are not economically important may become so Surveillance and eradication processes for other significant pests, such as the Colarado beetle will become increasingly important Predicted effects of climate change on agriculture over the next 50 years Climatic element Expected by 2050's changes Confidence Effects on agriculture in
7

prediction Increase from 360 CO2 ppm to 450 - 600 ppm (2005 levels now at 379 ppm) Rise by 10 -15 cm Increased in south by natural Good for crops: increased Very high photosynthesis; water use reduced

Loss

of

land,

coastal flooding,

Sea level rise and offset in north Very high erosion, subsistence/rebound Rise Winters Temperature by 1-2oC. warming Faster, growing shorter,

salinisation of groundwater earlier range

seasons,

more than summers. High Increased frequency of heat waves

moving north and to higher altitudes, heat stress risk, increased evapotranspiration Impacts on drought risk'

Precipitation

Seasonal changes by 10% Increased wind

Low

soil

workability,

water

logging irrigation supply, transpiration

Storminess

speeds, especially in north. More intense

Lodging, Very low reduced rainfall

soil

erosion, of

infiltration

Variability

rainfall events. Increases across Very low most variables. Predictions uncertain
8

Changing risk of damaging events (heat waves, frost, droughts floods) which effect crops and timing of

climatic

farm operations Source: Climate change and Agriculture, MAFF (2000) Current projections, from the 4th Assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published in 2007, suggest that global temperatures will rise between 1.8 oC and 4.0oC (best estimate) by 2100 depending on emissions of greenhouse gases and that global sea levels are likely to rise from anywhere between 180mm and 590mm. For further details go to the IPCC website.Pause for thought......Should farmers take into account predicted climate changes when 'planning for the long term future' of their businesses? he Implications of Climate Change for Crop Yields, Global Food Supply and Risk of Hunger The potential effects of climate change on crop yield, food production and risk of hunger. There are two global studies of crop yield responses and several additional estimates of production that are based on the first of these. The studies cover three broad type of analysis: 1) Effects under climate change but with underlying socio-economic characteristics largely unspecified, 2) Effects under both changes in climate and with varying development pathways assumed to affect underlying socio-economics, and 3) Effects under different policies of stablisation of greenhouse gases. There are some conclusions common to all studies: that climate change will generally reduce production potential and increase risk of hunger, and that Africa is the most adversely affected region. An additionally important initial conclusion is that pathways of sustainable economic development have a marked effect in reducing the adverse effects on climate change.
9

The early 1990s that have considered the effects of climate change on crop yield potential, cereal production, food prices and the implications for changes in the number of hungry people. The IPCC has recently concluded that, while there is extensive potential to adapt to small amounts of warming, and that the next few decades might even bring benefits to higher latitudes through longer growing seasons, at lower latitudes even small amounts of warming would tend to decrease yields and, beyond about two degrees of warming would decrease yields in almost all parts of the world 1. This regional unevenness of effect climate change on agriculture around the world has very great implications for food security, especially when (even without the challenge of climate change) almost 800 million people in the developing world are estimated to be to experiencing some form of shortage in food supply 2. Where crops are grown near their maximum temperature tolerance and where dryland, non-irrigated agriculture predominates, the challenge of climate change could be overwhelming, especially on the livelihoods of subsistence farmers and pastoral people, who are weakly coupled to markets. The paper is divided into four parts, reflecting the four main sets of studies that have been published: 1) Studies in the early 1990s using point-based crop growth models with what are now termed low resolution models of climate, 2) later studies which used higher resolution models, 3) Ricardian and other economic approaches that used the yield estimates from the foregoing to develop estimates of production, and 4) studies which have incorporated more spatially resolute analyses of altered yield potential based on GIS systems rather than point-based modelling.
10

Effects on yields and production The results show that climate change scenarios which exclude the direct physiological effects of CO2 predict decreases in simulated yields in many cases, while the direct effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 mitigate the negative effects primarily in mid and high latitudes. The differences between countries in yield responses to climate change are related to differences in current growing conditions. At low latitudes crops are grown nearer the limits of temperature tolerance and global warming may subject them to higher stress. In many mid and high latitude areas, increasing temperatures may benefit crops otherwise limited by cold temperatures and short growing seasons in the present climate. Under the estimated effects of climate change and atmospheric CO2 on crop yields, world cereal production is estimated to decrease between 1 and 7% depending on the GCM climate scenario. The largest negative changes occur in developing countries, averaging 9% to 4, 11%. By contrast, in developed countries production is estimated to increase under all but the UKMO scenario (+11% to 3%). Thus existing disparities in crop production between the developed and developing countries are estimated to grow. Decreases in production are estimated by the BLS to lead to increase in prices (by 25 to 150%) and increases in hunger (by 10 to 60 %) The study tested the efficacy of two levels of adaptation: Level 1 adaptation included: shifts in planting date that do not imply major changes in the crop calendar; additional application of irrigation water to crops already under irrigation; changes in crop variety to currently available varieties better adapted to the projected climate. Level 2 adaptation included: large shifts in planting date; increased fertiliser
11

application; development of new varieties; installation of irrigation systems. Effect under different levels of adaptation Level 1 adaptation largely offset the negative climate change induced effects in developed countries, improving their comparative advantage in world markets. In these regions cereal production increases by 4% to 14% over the reference case. However, developing countries are estimated to benefit little from adaptation (-9% to 12%). Averaged global production is altered by between 0% and 5% from the reference case. As a consequence, world cereal prices are estimated to increase by 10-100% and the number of people at risk from hunger by c 5-50% . This indicates that Level 1 adaptations would have relatively little influence on reducing the global effects of climate change. More extensive adaptation (Level 2) reduces impacts by a third and in some cases virtually eliminates them. However, the decrease in the comparative advantage of developing countries under these scenarios leads to decreased areas planted to cereals in these areas. Cereal production in developing countries still decreases by around 5%. Globally, however, cereal prices increase by only 5 to 35%, and the number of people at risk from hunger is altered by between 2% and +20% from the reference case (Figure 3). This suggests that Level 2 adaptations are required to mitigate 5 the negative effects of climate change but that these still do not eliminate them in developing countries. Net imports of cereals into developing countries will increase under all scenarios. The change in cereal imports is largely determined by the size of the assumed yield changes, the change in relative productivity in developed and developing regions, the change in world market prices and changes in incomes of developing countries. Under the GISS climate
12

scenario productivity is depressed largely in favour of developed countries, resulting in pronounced increases of net cereal imports into developing countries. Under the UKMO scenario large cereal price increases limit the increase of exports to developing countries. Consequently, despite its beneficial impact for developed countries, the Adaptation Level 1 scenarios show only small improvements for developing countries as compared to the corresponding impacts without such adaptation. Effects of climate change Changes in cereal production, cereal prices, and people at risk of hunger estimated for the HadCM2 climate change scenarios (with the direct CO2 effects taken into account) show that world is generally able to feed itself in the next millennium. Only a small detrimental effect is observed on cereal production, manifested as a shortfall on the reference production level of around 100mmt (-2.1%) by the 2080s (+/-10mmt depending on which HadCM2 climate simulation is selected). In comparison, HadCM3 produces a greater disparity between the reference and climate change scenario - a reduction of more than 160mmt (about -4%) by the 2080s . Reduced production leads to increases in prices. Under the HadCM2 scenarios cereal prices increase by as much as 17% (+/- 4.5%) by the 2080s (Figure 4). The greater negative impacts on yields projected under HadCM3 are carried through the economic system with prices estimated to increase by about 45% by the 2080s. In turn these production and price changes are likely to affect the number of people with insufficient resources to purchase adequate amounts of food. Estimations based upon dynamic simulations by the BLS show that the number of people at risk of hunger increases, resulting in an estimated
13

additional 90 million people in this condition due to climate change (above the reference case of ~250 million) by the 2080s (Figure 4). The HadCM3 results are again more extreme, falling outside the HadCM2 range with an estimated 125+ million additional people at risk of hunger by the 2080s. All BLS experiments allow the world food system to respond to climate-induced supply shortfalls of cereals and higher commodity prices through increases in production factors (cultivated land, labour, and capital) and inputs such as fertiliser. Initial analyses using low resolution climate models The first model-based studies of effects on global food supply were published in the early 1990s. The general conclusions of that work still hold today: that climate change is likely to reduce global food potential and that risk of hunger will increase in the most marginalised economies 3. In these studies there were two main tasks: Firstly, the estimation of potential changes in crop yield using crop models and a decision support system developed by the US Agency for International Developments International Benchmark Sites Network for Agrotechnology Transfer (IBSNAT) 4,5. The crops modelled were wheat, rice, maize and soybean, accounting for more than 85% of the worlds traded grains and legumes. Secondly, the estimation of food production, prices and the number of people at risk of hunger by using estimated yield changes in a world food trade model, The Basic Linked System (BLS) developed at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) 6. The scenarios for these early studies were created by changing the observed data on current climate (1951-80) according to doubled CO2 simulations of three general circulation models (GCMs). The 2 as to understand the nature of these complex interactions, and how they affect people at risk of hunger in the GCMs used were those from the Goddard Institute for Space
14

Studies (GISS) 7,8, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL)9 and the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) 10. The IBSNAT crop models were used to estimate how climate change and increasing levels of carbon dioxide may alter yields of work crops at 112 sites in 18 countries representing both major production areas and vulnerable regions at low, mid and high latitudes 11. The IBSNAT models employ simplified functions to predict the growth of crops as influenced by the major factors that affect yields, e.g. genetics, climate (daily solar radiation, maximum and minimum temperatures and precipitation), soils and management practices. Models used were for wheat 12, 13, maize 14, 15, paddy and upland rice 16 and soybean 17. The analyses included the effects of enhanced ambient C02 levels on crop growth both through altered water-use efficiency and rates of photosynthesis 19,20 21,22,23,24,25, . but the crop models did not simulate effects of altered climate on weeds and insect pests. Regional yield estimates were derived from the modelled site information, assuming the current mix of rainfed and irrigated production, the current crop varieties, nitrogen management and soils. Although the number of sites was limited (112 in all) it was argued that these related to regions that account for about 70% of the worlds grain production 26, and thus could enable credible conclusions concerning world production to be drawn. The altered yield data was input to a dynamic model of the world food system (the Basic Linked System) in order to assess the possible impacts on the future levels of food production, food prices and the number of people at risk from hunger27. It consists of 20 national and/or regional models that cover around 80% of the world food trade system. The remaining 20% is covered by 14 regional models for the countries that have broadly similar attributes (e.g. African oil exporting countries, Latin American high income exporting
15

countries, Asian low income countries). The grouping is based on country characteristics such as geographical location, income per capita and the countrys position with regard to net food trade 3,27. The BLS does not incorporate any climate relationships per se. Effects of changes in climate were introduced to the model as changes in average national or regional yield per commodity as estimated above. Ten commodities are 3 included in the model: Wheat, rice, coarse grains (e.g. maize, millet, sorghum, and barley), bovine and ovine meat, dairy products, other animal products, protein feeds, other food, non-food agriculture and non-agriculture. In this context, however, consideration is limited to the major grain food crops. As in most studies of impacts of climate change, the modelled yields were first estimated for a baseline scenario (a trended future case assuming no climate change). This involved projection of the agricultural system to the year 2060 with projected yields and a projected political and economic context of the world food trade. These projections assumed: a world population of 10.2 billion by 2060 (the UN median estimate); 50% trade liberalisation in agriculture introduced gradually by 2020; moderate economic growth (ranging from 3.0% per year in 1980-2000 to 1.1% per year in 2040-2060); crop yield for world total, developing and developed countries increasing annually by 0.7%, 0.9% and 0.6%, respectively. Three further scenarios were introduced: those which assumed differing levels of adaptation, which assumed varying amounts of future economic and population growth , and assumed full rather than partial trade liberalisation, Analyses for different socio-economic scenarios More recently, the projected effects of climate change on global food supply have been considered under different pathways of future
16

socio-economic development, expressed in terms of population and income level, which have been characterised by the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Differing trajectories of population growth and economic development will affect the level of future climate change and, simultaneously, the responses of agriculture to changing climate conditions at regional and global scales. The goal of the study wcoming decades Consistent climate change scenarios have been taken from SRESdriven experiments conducted using the UK Hadley Centres third generation coupled atmosphere-ocean global climate model (HadCM3)32. The use of a transient AOGCM (HadCM3) allows not only the effect of the magnitude of climate change on food production to be assessed but also the effects of rate of change. The structure and research methods remain the same as in previous work 3,31,33. Population levels for each SRES scenario for given timelines were taken from the CIESIN database33. These levels, together with income level, drive estimated future demand for cereals in the BLS. The BLS was first run for a reference case (i.e. assuming no climate change) for each SRES pathway (A1, A2, B1 and B2) where fluctuations in productivity and prices are solely the outcome of the socio-economic development pathway. The model was then re-run with estimated changes in regional cereal yields due to climate change entered into the model altering regional agricultural productivity, global food prices and the level of exposure of the global population to the risk of hunger. Effects on yields Each HadCM3 climate change scenario produced by the four different SRES emissions scenarios instigates a different development
17

path for global crop yields. These paths do not diverge, however, until mid-century. By the 2020s, small changes in cereal yield are evident in all scenarios, but these fluctuations are within historical variations. Although there are differences in the mean impacts of the SRES scenarios, the range of the spatial variability projected is similar. Generally, the SRES scenarios result in crop yield decreases in developing countries and yield increases in developed countries (Table 1)33. The A1FI scenario, as expected with its large increase in global temperatures, exhibits the greatest decreases both regionally and globally in yields, especially by the 2080s. Decreases are especially significant in Africa and parts of Asia with expected losses up to 30 percent. In these locations, effects of temperature and precipitation changes on crop yields are beyond the inflection point of the beneficial direct effects of CO2. In North America, South East South America, and Australia, the effects of CO2 on the crops partially compensate for the stress that the A1FI climate conditions impose on the crops and result in small yield increases. In contrast to the A1FI scenario, the coolest climate change scenario (B1) results in smaller cereal yield decreases. The contrast between the yield change in developed and developing countries is largest under the A2 scenarios. Under the A2 scenarios, crop yields in developed countries increase as a result of moderate temperature increases, and the direct effects of the high concentration of CO2. In contrast, crop yields decrease in developing countries as a result of regional decreases in precipitation and temperature increases. The results highlight the complex regional patterns of projected climate variables, CO2 effects, and agricultural systems that affect crop production under the different SRES futures.
18

Effects on cereal production, cereal prices, and risk of hunger The reference case - the future without climate change. The BLS projects year-on-year increases in production, assuming no change in climate, as indicated. The differences between the SRES scenarios reflects different assumptions about population (and resulting demand) and income levels (and resulting consumption). While more cereals are being produced, the increase in demand ensures that global cereal prices also rise, most notably under the A2 world where increases of more than 160% (compared to current day market prices) are to be expected by the 2080s. In contrast, in the A1 and B1 worlds, after a moderate increase of between 30 and 70% by the 2050s, a decline in cereal prices towards the end of this century is projected in accordance with the expected decline in global populations. The difference between the A1 and B1 worlds which share identical population growth projections is primarily due to the higher level of economic development in the A1 world which allows higher market prices. The result is that A1, B1 and B2 see a decline in the global number of people at risk of hunger throughout this century as the pressure caused by increases in cereal prices is offset by an increase in global purchasing power. In contrast in the A2 world, where inequality of income remains great, the number is largely unaltered, at around 800 million people. The future with climate change. The impact of climate change on global cereal production under the seven SRES scenarios. The changes are shown as reductions in millions of metric tonnes from the reference case (the future without climate change). Substantial reductions in production are estimated assuming no beneficial effects of CO2: About 5 per cent reductions for B1 and B2 by the 2080s, and 10 per cent for A1 and A2. The difference can be explained by greater temperature increases in the
19

latter. However, when CO2 effects are assumed to be fully operative, the levels of reduction diminish by about two-thirds, and the differences between the scenarios are much less clear. It appears that smaller fertilization effects under B1 and B2 lead to greater reductions than A1 and A2. Much thus depends on how these CO2 effects play out in reality. At present we do not know, suffice to say that the effects will fall somewhere between the with CO2 levels and the without CO2 levels. As would be expected, an inverse pattern in the estimated change in global cereal prices tends to occur with large price increases (under no CO2) for the A1 and A2 scenarios, more than a three-fold increase over the reference case by the 2080s, and less than half this increase under B1 and B2. Under both scenarios there is little sign of any effect until after c. 2020. The measure risk of hunger is based on the number of people whose incomes allow them to purchase sufficient quantities of cereals31, and therefore depends on the price of cereals and the number of people at given levels of income. The number of additional millions at risk of hunger due to climate change (that is, compared with the reference case) is shown in Figure 10. Assuming no CO2 effects, the number at risk is very high under A2 (approaching double the reference case) partly because of higher temperatures and reduced yields but primarily because there are many more poor people in the A2 world which has a global population of 15 billion (c.f. 7 billion in A1FI). And the number of people at risk is much lower in the B1 and B2 worlds which are characterised generally by fewer poor people. Analyses of production potential using Ricardian methods Based on broadly the same set of the crop yield estimates 34 a recent study has used a series of Ricardian country and regional models to
20

estimate altered food production due to climate change 35. The assumed climate scenarios are the same as previously discussed, but the economic models allow for land-use changes that would accompany shifts in land values due to alterations in comparative advantage between crops, giving a more realistic indication of the potential response. The results differ only in degree from those of the previous studies. Global agricultural output is estimated to decrease by 16 per cent assuming no carbon fertilisation, and by 3 per cent with full carbon fertilisation . The regional pattern shows quite strong adverse effects on yield in tropical areas, especially Africa, the Middle East and the south Asia. Analyses based on changes in agro-ecological zones. A very different approach from point-based crop-growth modelling is the study of how zones of crop suitability may shift location in response to changes of climate. When combined with modelling of the length of crop growing season, either due to changes in moisture or heat availability, this method enables evaluation of both changes in yield at any given place in combination with changes in extent of suitability 36. These broadly mirror the estimates on the point-based modelling of a decade arlier, showing decreases in cereal output in developing countries and increases in developed countries. Increases in potential occur in northern parts of North America and Europe, in contrast to decreases in Africa and South America. These geographical differences are reflected in the additional numbers estimated to be at risk of undernourishment due to climate, which for 2080 range from 40 (for the smallest amount of warming, B2) to 170 million (for the highest, A1FI) (Figure 14). The two different analyses ( crop model and crop zone suitability) give broadly similar estimates of global numbers additional at risk from
21

hunger or under-nourishment. While both use the BLS the two approaches adopt quite different methods in modelling altered crop yields; and this gives greater confidence to estimates of ultimate effects on hunger. Comparing the range of analyses Other studies have either used a macro-economic approach, or yield estimates from previous crop modelling as inputs to different economic models. One 37 uses six broad land classes around the world and analyses the change in extent of these due to altered moisture and temperature, the yield results from which are very similar to the analyses from crop models. But the economic assumptions in the approach, especially the land-use changes, eliminate three-quarters of the climate-induced reductions in production, at least until high levels of warming (above 3 deg C) start to reduce land suitability markedly. A summary of the different approaches by the IPCC 38 indicates that all conclude a decrease in output and consequent increase in prices, but vary in their conclusion regarding when (along a pathway of increasing global temperature) this decrease will occur. The crop modelling and agro-ecological analyses conclude that prices will rise with even small amounts of warming ( 1 to 2 deg C), while the other analyses suggest that they will first decrease (due to increased potential with extended growing seasons at higher latitudes) before decreasing when temperature increases exceed 2 or 3 deg C . This point of inflection from a positive to a negative effect on global food output, and whether it occurs at 1 or 2 or 3 degrees C increase in global temperature, is central to the current debate as to whether global warming may, for the first few decades, have a beneficial effect. However, as we have seen, such a point of inflection is dependent on the very uncertain

22

mix of the positive effects from higher CO2 and the negative effective from higher temperature. Reducing impacts by stabilising CO2 concentrations at lower levels The final section of this paper explores the implications of the stabilisation of CO2 concentrations at defined levels39. These stabilisation scenarios are among the set defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 40. Scenarios Two stabilisation scenarios (stabilising at CO2 concentrations of 550 ppmv and 750 ppmv) are considered, and compared with the IS92a unmitigated emissions scenario41. There is little difference in concentrations between the two scenariosup to the 2020s, but thereafter they begin to diverge. The S750 scenario stabilises CO2 concentrations by 2250, whilst the S550 scenario assumes stabilisation occurs by 2150. Achieving stabilisation at 750 ppmv and 550 ppmv, under the pathways assumed here, requires cuts in annual CO2 emissions of around 13% and 30% respectively by 2025, relative to the 2025 emissions assumed under IS92a. We interpret these stabilisation scenarios as representing actual CO2 concentrations for the purposes of crop and vegetation modelling (e.g. actual CO2 concentration reaches 750 ppmv by 2250), because there are no accepted stabilisation scenarios for the other radiatively-significant trace gases. We therefore assume that all other greenhouse gas concentrations remain constant at 1990 values.

Effects on yield potential

23

The estimated changes in national potential grain yield by the 2080s, assuming no changes in crop cultivars, under the three emissions scenarios39. Under unmitigated emissions, positive changes in mid and high latitudes are overshadowed by reductions in yield in the lower latitudes. These reductions are particularly substantial in Africa and the Indian subcontinent. However, many of the mapped changes in yield are small and indistinguishable from the effects of natural climate variability. Stabilisation at 550 ppmv produces far fewer reductions in yield, although there would still be reductions in the Indian subcontinent, most of the Pacific Islands, central America and the majority of African nations. Stabilisation at 750 ppmv to a large extent produces intermediate changes. However, there are some interesting anomalies. Significant increases in yields are seen in the mid-latitudes of both hemispheres under S750 which are not replicated under S550. The Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture Climate change would strongly affect agriculture, but scientists still dont know exactly how. Most agricultural impacts studies are based on the results of general circulation models (GCMs). These climate models indicate that rising levels of greenhouse gases are likely to increase the global average surface temperature by 1.5-4.5 C over the next 100 years, raise sea-levels (thus inundating farmland and making coastal groundwater saltier), amplify extreme weather events such as storms and hot spells, shift climate zones poleward, and reduce soil moisture. Impacts studies consider how these general trends would affect agricultural production in specific regions. To date, most studies have assumed that agricultural technology and management will not improve and adapt. New studies are
24

becoming

increasingly

sophisticated,

however,

and

"adjustments

experiments" now incorporate assumptions about the human response to climate change. Increased concentrations of CO2 may boost crop productivity. In principle, higher levels of CO2 should stimulate photosynthesis in certain plants; a doubling of CO2 may increase photosynthesis rates by as much as 30-100%. Laboratory experiments confirm that when plants absorb more carbon they grow bigger and more quickly. This is particularly true for C3 plants (so called because the product of their first biochemical reactions during photosynthesis has three carbon atoms). Increased carbon dioxide tends to suppress photo-respiration in these plants, making them more water-efficient. C3 plants include such major mid-latitude food staples as wheat, rice, and soya bean. The response of C4 plants, on the other hand, would not be as dramatic (although at current CO 2 levels these plants photosynthesize more efficiently than do C3 plants). C4 plants include such low-latitude crops as maize, sorghum, sugar-cane, and millet, plus many pastures and forage grasses. Climate and agricultural zones would tend to shift towards the poles. Because average temperatures are expected to increase more near the poles than near the equator, the shift in climate zones will be more pronounced in the higher latitudes. In the mid-latitude regions (45 to 60 latitude), the shift is expected to be about 200-300 kilometers for every degree Celsius of warming. Since todays latitudinal climate belts are each optimal for particular crops, such shifts could have a powerful impact on agricultural and livestock production. Crops for which temperature is the limiting factor may experience longer growing seasons.
25

While some species would benefit from higher temperatures, others might not. A warmer climate might, for example, interfere with germination or with other key stages in their life cycle. It might also reduce soil moisture; evaporation rates increase in mid-latitudes by about 5% for each 10C rise in average annual temperature. Another potentially limiting factor is that soil types in a new climate zone may be unable to support intensive agriculture as practiced today in the main producer countries. For example, even if sub-Arctic Canada experiences climatic conditions similar to those now existing in the countrys southern grainproducing regions, its poor soil may be unable to sustain crop growth. Mid-latitude yields may be reduced by 10-30% due to increased summer dryness. Climate models suggest that todays leading grainproducing areas - in Asia and Africa may experience more frequent droughts and heat waves by the year 2030. Extended periods of extreme weather conditions would destroy certain crops, negating completely the potential for greater productivity through "CO 2 fertilization". The poleward edges of the mid-latitude agricultural zones - northern Canada, Scandinavia, Russia, and Japan in the northern hemisphere, and southern Chile and Argentina in the southern one - may benefit from the combined effects of higher temperatures and CO2 fertilization. But the problems of rugged terrain and poor soil suggest that this would not be enough to compensate for reduced yields in the more productive areas. The impact on yields of low-latitude crops is more difficult to predict. While scientists are relatively confident that climate change will lead to higher temperatures, they are less sure of how it will affect
26

precipitation - the key constraint on low-latitude and tropical agriculture. Climate models do suggest, however, that the inter-tropical convergence zones may migrate poleward, bringing the monsoon rains with them. The greatest risks for low-latitude countries, then, are that reduced rainfall and soil moisture will damage crops in semi-arid regions, and that additional heat stress will damage crops and especially livestock in humid tropical regions. The impact on net global agricultural productivity is also difficult to assess. Higher yields in some areas may compensate for decreases in others - but again they may not, particularly if todays major food exporters suffer serious losses. In addition, it is difficult to forecast to what extent farmers and governments will be able to adopt new techniques and management approaches to compensate for the negative impacts of climate change. It is also hard to predict how relationships between crops and pests will evolve. Adaptation A wide variety of adaptive actions may be taken to lessen or overcome adverse effects of climate change on agriculture. At the level of farms, adjustments may include the introduction of later- maturing crop varieties or species, switching cropping sequences, sowing earlier, adjusting timing of field operations, conserving soil moisture through appropriate tillage methods, and improving irrigation efficiency. Some options such as switching crop varieties may be inexpensive while others, such as introducing irrigation (especially high-efficiency, waterconserving technologies), involve major investments. Economic adjustments include shifts in regional production centers and adjustments
27

of capital, labor, and land allocations. For example, trade adjustments should help to shift commodity production to regions where comparative advantage improves; in areas where comparative advantage declines, labor and capital may move out of agriculture into more productive sectors. Studies combining biophysical and economic impacts show that, in general, market adjustments can indeed moderate the impacts of reduced yields. A major adaptive response will be the breeding of heatand drought-resistant crop varieties by utilizing genetic resources that may be better adapted to new climatic and atmospheric conditions. Collections of such genetic resources are maintained in germ-plasm banks; these may be screened to find sources of resistance to changing diseases and insects, as well as tolerances to heat and water stress and better compatibility to new agricultural technologies. Crop varieties with a higher harvest index (the fraction of total plant matter that is marketable) will help to keep irrigated production efficient under conditions of reduced water supplies or enhanced demands. Genetic manipulation may also help to exploit the beneficial effects of CO2 enhancement on crop growth and water use. Agriculture may decline due to climate change The note has listed several ways by which these harmful emissions from the agriculture sector can be reduced. These include better management of water and fertilizers in the paddy fields and changes in the diet of livestock herds. Such measures will cut down generation of both nitrous oxide and methane. Besides, changes in land use patterns by expanding the area under agro-forestry and bio-fuel plantations could also mitigate GHG emissions. But these measures may, however, lower land availability for food crops. EFFECT OF CLIMAT CHANGE ON RURAL INDIA
28

The study indicates that there will be substantial reduction in water availability in large parts of north India as roughly 80 percent of water resource needs are met primarily by Himalayas snow-pack melt during the dry summer months. With retreating glaciers in the Himalayas and subsequent loss of fossil water supply to the region is likely to be affected seriously. Global warming is one of the important consequences of climate change and this will adversely affect agriculture and rural life, A study c0ndycted at the India Institute of Technology, Madras, indicates that a major aspect of climate change is sea-level rise and India is vulnerable to rising sea levels due to a variety of reasons. India has the longest coastline; India has the low-elevation coastal zones in India will be affected. The report also suggests that global warming will affect the monsoon patterns in India, causing a significant damage to the health of Indias agricultural sector, which plays a dominant role in the countrys economy. This report is prepared independently and the study is based on the existing data provided by Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a global body that evaluates the risk of climate change caused by human activity. The study further indicates that there will be substantial reduction in water availability in large parts of north India as roughly 80 per cent of whose water resource needs are met primarily by Himalayan snow-pack melt during the dry summer months. With retreating glaciers in the Himalayas and subsequent loss of fossil water, the water supply to the region is likely to be affected seriously. Himalayan glaciers and other global ice sheets have contributed more to the global sea level over the past 80 years than was previously estimated. Similarly, a study commissioned by Greenpeace India, on climate change notes that rising sea levels could force about 50 million from Indias densely populated coastal regions to migrate to interior towns and cities. His may generate severe tensions urban resources. Climate change is likely to hit India hard in the coming decades. The
29

Impact could increased water Scarcity, decreased crop yields, increased risk of disease, and flooding of coastal areas. Climate change as a result of global a warming will significantly impact on conditions of food supply and food security. Since the 1960s,90 per cent of the excess heat due to higher greenhouse gas levels has gone into the Oceans,7 per cent into warming the atmosphere does not warm in the ext few year ,that is no reason for comfort so long as the strong warming trend on the Oceans continues. The Oceans are crucial because they store so much heat .It takes more than 1000 times more energy to heat a cubic meter of water by 1 degree0 C as it does the same volume of air .Globally, this means that if the oceans transfer just a tiny fraction of their heat energy to the lower temperature from year to year is due to heat sloshing back and forth between the oceans and atmosphere, rather tan any overall loss or gain of heat by the entire plant. The state of the sea surface determines both air temperatures and rainfall. Solar radiation, temperature, and precipitation are the main drivers of crop growth; therefore agriculture has always been highly dependent on climate patterns and variations. Overall, climate change could result in a variety of impacts on agriculture .Changes in production patterns will occur due to higher temperatures and changing precipitation patterns. Meaning of climate change Climate change refers to statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcing or to persistent anthropogenic change in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. The amount and speed of future climate change will ultimately depend on: *Whether greenhouse gases and aerosol concentrations increase, stay the same or decrease.
30

* How strongly features of the climate (e.g. temperature, precipitation and sea level) respond to changes in greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations. * How much the climate varies as a result of natural influences (e.g. form volcanic activity and changes in the suns intensity) and its internal variability (referring to random changes in the circulation of the atmosphere and oceans). Climate changes Impact on Agriculture Climate change and agriculture are interrelated processes, both of which take place on a global scale. Global warming is projected to have significant impacts on conditions affecting agriculture, including temperature, precipitation and glacial run-of. These conditions determine the carrying capacity of the biosphere to produce enough food for the human population and domesticated animals. Rising carbon dioxide levels would also have effects, both detrimental and beneficial, on crop yields. The overall effect of climate change on agriculture will depend on the of global climate changes on agriculture might help to properly anticipate and adapt farming to maximize agricultural production. Despite technological advances, such as improved varieties, genetically modified organisms, and irrigation systems, weather is still a key factor in agricultural productivity, as well as a soil properties and natural communities. The effect of climate on agriculture is related to variability in local climate patterns. The earths average surface temperature has increased by 1degree F in just over the last century. On the other hand, Agricultural trade has grown in recent years, and know provides significant amounts of food, on a national level to major importing countries, as well as comfortable income to exporting ones. The international aspect of trade and security in terms of food implies the need to also consider the effects of climate change on a global scale. More favorable
31

effects on yield tend to depend to a large extent on realization of

the

potentially beneficial effects of carbon dioxide on crop growth and potential yields is likely to be caused by shortening of the growing period, decreases in water availability and poor vernalization. In the long run, the climate change could affect agriculture in the following ways: 1. Productivity, in terms of quantity and quality of crops. 2. Agricultural practices, through changes of water use (irrigation) and agricultural inputs such as herbicides, insecticides and fertilization. 3. Environmental effects, in particular in relation of frequency and intensity of soil drainage(leading to nitrogen leaching), soil erosion, reduction of crop diversity 4. Rural space, through the loss and gain of cultivated lands, land speculation, land renunciation, and hydraulic amenities. 5. Adaptation, organisms may become more or less competitive, as well as humans may develop urgency to develop more competitive organisms, such as flood resistant or salt resistant varieties of rice. Agriculture and Food Supply Agriculture is highly sensitive to climate variability and weather extremes, such as droughts, floods and severe storms. The forces that shape our climate are also critical to farm productivity; Human activity has already changed atmospheric characteristics such as temperature, rainfall, levels of carbon dioxide and ground level ozone. The scientific community expects such trends to continue. While food production may benefit from a warmer climate, the increased potential for drought, floods. Additionally, the enduring changes in climate, water supply and soil moisture could make it less feasible to continue crop production in certain regions.
32

International Policy Issues The development of climate change policy in India is occurring largely as response to international developments, particularly the development of international policies to manage greenhouse gas loadings in the atmosphere being promoted by the Nations. In order to understand how India policy is likely to develop an the background to Ministry for the Environment initiatives, it will be helpful to review the current status of international policies. This is done most easily by considering the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). India along with 176 other countries has endorsed the FCCC which was finalise at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeir in June 1992. This convention will go for-ward for approval by the United Nations General Assembly and become legally binding on its signatories once there is 50 c more of these. The primary objective of the FCCC (INC, 1992) is to "achieve . . . stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." The timing for achieving this objective is specified only as within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner". The FCCC reaffirms a principle of international law that, while states have authority within their own boundaries they have a responsibility to avoid damaging the interests of other states. This pre-empts a -winners and losers" approach to global climate change For example several studies indicate that highly
33

developed countries, such as the USA might be able to adapt to anticipated climate change under "business as usual" scenario: However, their endorsement of the FCCC recognizes a responsibility to potential ''Losers under climate change, and accepts at least an implicit commitment to reduce an ultimately prevent further climate change. The general form of commitment accepted by all signatories to the FCCC is spelled out in article 4 of the convention through which they undertake, among other things, to make available national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not covered by the Montreal Protocol; and to cooperate in the development and transfer of technology for control of greenhouse gases in all sectors including energy, transport, industry, agriculture, forestry and waste management sectors; and to cooperate in adaptation to climate change and develop integrated plans for coastal zone management, water resources and agriculture; Under article 4 of the FCCC developed countries (including India) undertake rather more specific commitments to adopt national policies for "modifying longer term trends in anthropogenic emissions .... recognizing that the return by the end of the present decade to earlier levels of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases ... would contribute to such modification". And "each of these parties shall communicate . . . detailed information on its policies .... as well as on its resulting projected anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases . . . . with the aim Of returning individually or jointly to their 1990 levels of these anthropogenic emissions". This last commitment is the one that will cause the most pressure in the near term for nations to limit greenhouse gas emissions. In particular compilation and publication of national greenhouse gas emission inventories, in an
34

international environment that is placing higher values on conservation and sustainability ethics, will provide the strongest political pressure to act on climate change issues in the next 5 years. Article 12 of the MCC gives more details of procedures for submission of emission inventories and plans for reducing emissions. A methodology for preparing national emission inventories has already been well developed by study Groups operating under the auspices of the OECD and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), e.g. see OECD 1991, and it seems clear that this will be used by the United Nations as a basis for obligations under the FCCC. The present methodology for preparing and submitting greenhouse gas emission inventories treats each greenhouse gas, e.g. CO, methane, or nitrous oxide, separately. Emissions for each of the major Greenhouse gases are categorized by the type of activity that produces the emission. This includes a category for agriculture. A significant amount of work has been carried out to develop a measure of the total Greenhouse gas climate forcing from a single nation or technology. This means that emissions from different greenhouse gases have to be combined. The IPCC 1990 report endorsed the concept of a "Global Warming Potential" (GWP) for this purpose. The GWP is different for each greenhouse gas and measures the greenhouse effect forcing of that gas relative to the same mass Of CO 2 -i.e., it enables emissions of each gas to be expressed in C02 equivalents. The GWP concept is discussed in more detail in the following subsection, 2.1.4., but for the moment it is important to recognise that the GWPs for different greenhouse gases are subject to considerable uncertainty, both conceptual and numerical. Despite these difficulties there is clearly a desire within the international science and environmental communities to use GWPs or some similar weighting factor to
35

combine emissions and thus establish protocols for monitoring a the total greenhouse gas forcing from each nation. Even before there is agreement on this use, we expect GWPs to be used in assessing the environmental value of trading emissions in one greenhouse gas for emissions in another. Thus it is widely recognized that burning methane at an emission source such as a landfill reduces greenhouse effect forcing (and thence emissions of CO2 equivalents) and is therefore a desirable goal. The short-term obligations under the FCCC are for each developed nation separately to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly governments have the authority to choose different ways of achieving this, ranging from "command control" philosophies to targeted "market intervention" with intermediate policies available. The implications of government policies on agriculture in this regard are the main subject of this report.

In addition to controlling greenhouse gas emissions country by country, consideration is also being given to controlling emissions internationally through partnership arrangements. In particular proponents of "tradeable emission permits" see this as a way of allowing some countries, for which the cost of greenhouse gas reduction might be relatively high, to in effect purchase greenhouse gas reductions made in countries where the costs were relatively low. This would be done in such a way that the combined emissions of all countries involved was kept to an agreed level. This system could obviously be developed into an international market in greenhouse gas emission quotas To summarize the international policy issues from a India perspective:
36

The main political pressure to act on climate change in the short term will come through compilation and publication of greenhouse gas emission inventories, broken down by economic sectors; India is free to choose its own approach to limiting greenhouse gas emissions, the only external pressure being that these should be seen to be effective. There is still a debate over the relative merits of a "carbon tax" or "tradeable emission permits" both nationally and internationally; We should anticipate international agreement on a methodology for combining emissions of different greenhouse gases to arrive at a total greenhouse forcing figure for each economic sector, including agriculture. This will weight methane emissions about 15 to 20 times more heavily than emissions of the same mass of CO2; There may become an international market in greenhouse gas emission quotas which will provide export potential for greenhouse gas "sinks" particularly to heavily industrialised countries.

Combining Greenhouse Gases - The Global Warming Potential Issue It is known that incremental additions to the atmosphere of many of the nonCO2 greenhouse gases, such as methane or nitrous oxide, are much more potent greenhouse effect forcers than an increment of CO 2 itself. This is principally because each is much more effective, molecule for molecule, at trapping longwave radiation that would otherwise escape to space. This is partially offset in some cases, notably methane, by the much shorter lifetime (e.g. methane about 10 years) than CO2 (about 120 years). A measure of the relative potency is the 'Global Warming Potential' (GWP) for each gas. The GWP for a greenhouse gas is a measure of the impact of that gas on the greenhouse effect relative to the same amount of CO2. IPCC (1990) defines the
37

GWP as: "the time integrated commitment to climate forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kg of a trace gas expressed relative to that from 1 kg of carbon dioxide". The 1992 Supplement Report of the IPCC (IPCC 1992) essentially continues with this definition. In fact this definition is incomplete (Manning, 1991) and practical calculations implicitly use slightly different definitions. The simplest calculations of GWP (e.g. Rodhe, 1990) are based on the direct radiative forcing, that is the additional infra-red radiation absorbed, due to 1 kg of the greenhouse gas and integrated over time, expressed relative to the corresponding value for 1 kg of CO 2. If this is taken over a very long time then in effect the GWP is the product of two terms, one being the additional infra-red radiation absorbed and the other the average residence time of an increment of the gas in the atmosphere, divided by the same two terms evaluated for CO2. One complication in the definition of GWPs is that it is not possible to calculate the "time integrated commitment" unless some fixed horizon is set limiting the period being considered. A GWP will depend upon the 'time horizon' over which the commitment is accumulated. The 'time horizon' refers to future time after emission during which the greenhouse effect forcing of the gas is considered and beyond which it is ignored. A GWP will depend quite strongly upon the time horizon if the atmospheric lifetime of the gas in question is comparatively short. An increment of CO2 to the atmosphere has an extremely long residence time there, and in most mathematical models this is strictly infinite. But for methane in particular, the residence time is much shorter, at about 10 vents. The effect of this is that when GWPs are calculated over time horizons of a few decades only part of the long-term effect of CO2 is taken into account and the GWP is correspondingly larger than for a several-century horizon. The IPCC (1990) definition of GWP and most recent calculations
38

include additional "indirect effects" due to chemical interactions of the gas in the atmosphere. While CO2 does not have such indirect effects methane in particular does: methane emissions lead to additional water vapour in the lower stratosphere, increases in tropospheric ozone, and reduction of the oxidising power of the atmosphere (Manning, 1991; Lelieveld and Crutzen, 1992). The IPCC (1990) report had included an estimate of indirect effects in its methane GWP. IPCC (1992) adjudged that the calculation of these indirect effects was not yet sufficiently understood to be incorporated in GWPs. The value of 11 is quoted for the "direct" component of the methane GWP over a time period of 100 years, and the statement made that the indirect effect is positive "possibly as large as the direct effect". Thus there is no agreed number for the GWP of methane at this stage. Lelieveld and Crutzen (1992) using different atmospheric chemistry scenarios calculate full GWPs of 15 and 20. Manning (1991) has estimated similar values of 16 and 21 considering additional unpublished work. Table 1. Reports the GWPs for the important agriculturally sourced greenhouse gases methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20), for time horizons of 20, 100 and 500 Years, taken from IPCC (1992). Table 1 Direct GWPs for agriculturally important greenhouse gases (from IPCC, 1992) Gas Residence Time Direct GWP for Time Horizons of: 20 year CO2 CH4 approx 120 yr 10.5 yr
39

100 year 1 11

500 year 1 4

1 35

N2O

132 yr

260

270

170

Despite these potential ambiguities in how GWPs are defined, one should anticipate general agreement to use GWPs for about 100 year horizons. In this report we have weighted emissions of methane simply by the direct GWP 11, to produce CO2 equivalent emission. This is done on the basis that there are many other uncertainties in the calculations involved, and in the face of the lack of any internationally accepted GWP for methane. However, we expect that if final GWPs for methane are agreed internationally, and the 100 time horizon is used, then these will be around 15 to 20 and the greenhouse impact of methane will be taken to be proportionally larger. On the other hand, there may be a trade off between the increase due to indirect effects and a decrease due to adapting a longer time horizon eg. 150 to 200 years. Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation Regardless of the projected or actual impacts of climate change, agriculture is also likely to be directly or indirectly involved in climate change mitigation efforts. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) constitute a global production externality which is likely to adversely affect climate. The UNFCCC is trying to negotiate net GHGE emission reductions. Actions under that convention yielded the Kyoto Protocol which represents the first significant international agreement towards GHGE reduction. Agriculture (using a definition including forestry) is mentioned as both an emitter and a sink in the protocol. Annex lists agriculture as an emission sources from enteric fermentation, manure management, rice cultivation, soil management, field burning, and deforestation. The protocol also lists agriculturally related sinks of afforestation and reforestation. Additional sources and sinks are under consideration including agricultural soil carbon.
40

Ways Agriculture would be Affected by Climate Change Mitigation Following the arguments in McCarl and Schneider (1999,2000a), there are at least four ways agriculture may participate in or be influenced by greenhouse gas mitigation efforts. ! Agriculture may need to reduce emissions because it releases substantial amounts of methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide. ! Agriculture may enhance its absorption of GHGE by creating or expanding sinks. ! Agriculture may provide products which substitute for GHGE intensive products displacing emissions. ! Agriculture may find itself operating in a world where commodity and input prices have been altered by GHGE related policies. Each of these are discussed briefly in the following section Agriculture - A source of greenhouse gases The IPCC (1996) estimates that globally agriculture emits about 50% of total methane, 70% of nitrous oxide, and 20% of carbon dioxide. Sources of methane emissions include rice, ruminants and manure. Nitrous oxide emissions come from manure, legumes, and fertilizer use. Carbon dioxide emissions arise from fossil fuel usage, soil tillage, deforestation, biomass burning, and land degradation. Contributions across countries vary substantially, with the greatest differences between developing and developed countries. Deforestation and land degradation mainly occurs in developing countries. Agriculture in developed countries uses more energy, more intensive tillage systems, and more fertilizer, resulting in fossil-fuel based emissions, reductions in soil carbon, and emissions of nitrous oxides. In addition, animal herds emit high methane from ruminants and manure (IPCC (1996) and McCarl and Schneider (1999,2000a) elaborate).
41

Agriculture - A sink for greenhouse gases The Kyoto Protocol allows credits for emission sinks through afforestation and reforestation. Provisions allow for consideration of additional sources and sinks. Agriculture can serve as an emission sink in mainly offsetting CO2 emissions. Management practices can increase soil carbon retention (commonly called carbon sequestration). Such practices include land retirement (conversion to native vegetation), residue management, less-intensive tillage, land use conversion to pasture or forest, and restoration of degraded soils. While each of these can increase the carbon-holding potential of the soil, some issues are worth noting. Soils can only increase carbon sequestration up to a point. Retained carbon increases until it reaches a new equilibrium state that reflects the new management environment. As the soil carbon level increases, soil absorption of carbon decreases and soil potential to become a future emission source since subsequent alteration of the management regime can lead to carbon releases. Third, enhanced carbon management can reduce agricultural productivity. (IPCC 1996, 2000, Marland, McCarl and Schneider (1998) and McCarl and Schneider (1999,2000a) elaborate). Agriculture - A way of offsetting net greenhouse gas emissions Agriculture may provide substitute products which replace fossil fuel intensive products. One such product is biomass for fuel usage or production. Biomass can directly be used in fueling electrical power plants or maybe processed into liquid fuels. Burning biomass reduces net CO2 emissions because the photosynthetic process of biomass growth removes about 95 percent of CO2 emitted when burning the biomass. Fossil fuel use, on the other hand, releases 100 percentof the contained CO2. Substitute building products can be drawn from forestry reducing fossil fuel intensive use of steel and concrete. (Marland and Schmalinger(1997) elaborate). Cotton and other fibers also substitute for
42

petroleum based synthetics. Agriculture - Operating under fuel taxes The need to reduce emissions and the implementation of emissions trading will likely affect fossil fuel prices. For example, diesel fuel distributors might need to purchase an emissions permit, effectively raising fuel prices. Similarly, the US might implement some sort of fuel tax. The tax and corresponding transportation cost increases might influence the cost of petrolbased agricultural chemicals and fertilizers as well as on-farm fuel prices and offfarm commodity prices.( McCarl, Gowen and Yeats(1999), USDA(1999), Antle et al (1999), and Konyar and Howitt(2000) elaborate) Economic Appraisal of Agricultural Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Actions A number of climate change mitigation impact studies have been done although this is very much an emerging literature. McCarl and Schneider (1999,2000a) provide a review. Across that literature a number of general findings have emerged. Agricultural emission reductions and offsets can be cost effective strategies for GHGE offsets at relatively lower carbon prices. McCarl and Schneider(2000a) amass substantial evidence for the aforementioned emission reductions and sequestration options. Recent studies by Pautsch et al (2000), Antle et al (2000) and McCarl and Schneider (2000b) show low cost potential for agricultural soil carbon sequestration. The literature cited by D.M. Adams et al(1999) as well as their numerical results show low cost potential in forest soils and standing timber. Agriculture can operate in the face of carbon induced fuel price increases
43

without great dislocation as shown in the studies by McCarl et al (1999), USDA(1999) and Antle et al (1999). Konyar and Howitt (2000) show greater sensitivity but use a $348 per ton carbon price. Francl (1997) shows large net income losses but used an analytic framework which embodied assumptions precluding adjustments in either market consumption behavior or production patterns. Agricultural emission offsets are competitive with food production. For example McCarl and Schneider (2000b) find substantial decreases in food production and increases in food prices at higher carbon prices. Similarly, Konyar and Howitt(2000) show consumers effects at high carbon price induced fuel taxes. Agricultural soil and forestry based carbon sequestration can be competitive at low carbon prices. Thus, there is real potential that management and the allocation of land between forestry and agriculture may be affected by climate change mitigation efforts. However, while Lal et al (1998) and others provide large estimates for the potential of carbon sequestration based on land potential in both of these arenas, studies have shown that at lower carbon prices the realized sequestration acreage is substantially lower than the total estimated potential. (See D.M. Adams et al (1999), McCarl and Schneider(2000b), Babcock and Pautsch(1999) and Antle et al (2000) in contrast with Lal et al 1998 for evidence). Across the array of potential agricultural emission reduction, substitution and offset alternatives, there are alternatives with substantially different economic potential. In particular in the study by McCarl and Schneider(2000b) the replacement of power plant coal fired electricity generation with biofuels plays a substantial role but only at carbon prices above $60 per ton while at low prices agriculturally based soil carbon sequestration, afforestation and fertilization modifications dominate the set of best strategies. In that study methane and ethanol strategies exhibited low potential.
44

Mitigation activity stimulated by carbon price increases generally improves producers welfare and decreases consumers welfare (See the results in McCarl and Schneider(2000b), McCarl, Gowen and Yeats(1999), USDA(1999) and Konyar and Howitt(2000) for evidence). The inclusiveness of the international scope of emissions trading regime influences the magnitude of the welfare effects in implementing countries. In particular Lee et al(2000) find producers welfare in the US is greater with a broader trading regime than occurs under restricted trading in the US alone or the US and Kyoto Protocol annex I countries. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS IMPACT ON AGRICULTURE Climate is a primary determinant of agricultural productivity. In turn, food and fiber production is essential for sustaining and enhancing human welfare. Hence, agriculture has been a major concern in the discussions on climate change. In fact, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) cites maintenance of our societal ability for food production in the face of climate change as one of the key motivations its existence and for its efforts in stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE). Food supply vulnerability to climate change is an issue in two different ways. First, future food supply may be directly threatened by climate change. Second, food supply capacity may be altered by efforts to reduce GHGE as society tries to mitigate future implications of climate change. This chapter reviews both sides of the issue summarizing economic considerations, concerns and research findings, building on the recent literature. In doing this the paper is broken into sections in with section 2 highlighting the longer run agricultural climate change issue. Section 3 treats the shorter run role of agriculture in mitigating GHGE. Section 4 presents concluding comments.
45

Climate Factors Several factors directly connect climate change and agricultural productivity: 1. Average temperature increase 2. Change in rainfall amount and patterns 3. Rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2 4. Pollution levels such as tropospheric ozone 5. Change in climatic variability and extreme events Most agricultural impact studies have considered the effects of one or two aspects of climate change on a particular farming activity. Few, however, have considered the full set of anticipated shifts and their impact on agricultural production across the country. Average temperature increases: An increases in average temperature can1) lengthen the growing season in regions with a relatively cool spring and fall;2) adversely affect crops in regions where summer heat already limits production;3) increases soil evaporation rates, and;4) increases the chances of severe droughts. Change in rainfall amount and patterns: Change in rainfall can after soil erosion rates and soil moisture, both of which are important for crop yields. the pick predicts that precipitation will increase in high latitudes ,and decrease in most subtropical land region some by as much as about 20per cent .while regional precipitation will vary the number of extreme precipitation events is predicted to increase (ipcc,20070). Rising atmospheric concentration of CO2: Increasing atmospheric co2 level driven by emissions from human activities ,can act as a fertilizer and enhance the growth of some crops such as wheat ,rice and soybeans.co2 can be one of a number of limiting factors that ,when increased, can enhance crop growth. Other limiting factors include water
46

and nutrient availability. While it is expected that co2 fertilization will have a positive impact on some crops, other aspects of climate change (e.g., temperature and precipitation changes) may temper any beneficial co2 fertilization effect (IPCC, 2007). Present Agricultural Scenario in India India has been self sufficient in food grain production but planners, agricultural scientists and agricultural economist are worried about the slow growth rate of agricultural production in the recent yeare.The population has been increasing at 1.2 per-cent annually while the average growth rate of total food grain production is about 0.8 per-cent. So, there is no option except to produce more. Wheat India is the second largest producer of wheat in the world. Wheat occupies the prime position among the cereal crops in the world. It is the second important staple food crop next to rice. Currently Indias total wheat production is 72.03 million tones from an area of more than 25 million hectare. About 20 per cent of total wheat production is contributed by five states U.P., Punjab, Haryana, M.P. and Rajasthan respectively. Rice: Rice is not only the prime staple cereal crop but also a major export commodity of the country since last 10 years. Rice occupies an area of around 38 million hectares in India with production of 87.80 million tons. India now occupies second rank in rice export next to Thailand among the rice about 20-25 per cent of rice in the world. It is estimated that rice demand in 2010 will be 100 million tones and in 2025, the demand will be 140 million tones.
47

Pulses Presently more than a dozen of pulse crops are grown in India. At present, Indias total pulses production is 13.67 million tones. India share 36.6 per cent area and 26 per cent of the global production. India occupies first rank in area and production of pulse crops in the world. Our country, where a majority of population is totally vegetarian, pulses are cheap and best source of protein. Pulses are an important part of India diet. It contains 20-25 per cent protein which is more than 2.5-3.0 times of cereals. The decreasing per capita availability pulses from 60.70 gm. In 1951 to 35.9 gm. In 2000 is a big worry in the Indian context where majority of the population are vegetarian. The future demand of pulses by 2010 and 2015 will be 23.3 million tones and 27 million tons respectively. Fruits and vegetable India is the second largest fruit producer in the world after Brazil. Besides, India ranks second in vegetables in the world. Fruits and vegetables are grown in an area about 3.73 million hectare and vegetables around 6.09 million hectare in India. At present the total fruits and vegetables production of India has gone up from 32.96 to 45.2 million tones and vegetables from 63.8 84.8 million tones about a period of a decade recording increases of 37 per cent and 33 per cent, respectively. Potato ranks first 27.3 per cent in total production of vegetables followed brinjal 9.4 per cent and tomato 9.0 per cent respectively. India contributes about 10-13 per cent of the total world fruits and vegetable. It is estimated that fruits and vegetable demand in 2010 will be 43.81 million tones and 109.2 million tones and in 2020, the demand will be 51.85 million tones and 129.6 million tons respectively. Spices India is a major producer and exporter of spices in the world. India is
48

grown a several type of spices. Last few years growing, there has been a steady increase in area and production in India. India is also known as land of spices because of largest producer, consumer and exporter of spices in the world. The annual growth rate was 3.7 per cent and 9.1 per cent for area and production respectively. The present area is 1.65 lakh hectares with a production of 5.6 lakh tonnes. Around 90 per-cent of total spices production are domestic use. According to world spices production statistic 2002-04 by FAO, Indias was 86 per-cent by volume followed by China 4 per-cent, Bangladesh 3 per-cent, Pakistan and Turkey 2 per-cent and Nepal 1 per-cent. Sugarcane India is the largest consumer of sugar in the world. At present, India is also largest producer of sugarcane in the world next to Brazil. India contributes about 13.25 per-cent of the worlds production. Presently, the total production of Sugarcane in the country is around 234.5 million tones .Sugarcane is cultivated more than 4 million hectares in the country. Productions trends in Indian Agriculture (unit in million tons). Commodity group Food grains Cereals Pulses Oilseeds Sugarcane Cotton Potato Milk Egg (billion TE 1962/63 TE 81.6 69.6 12.0 7.2 101.9 5.3 2.9 20.2 3.2 1972/83 103.5 92.6 10.9 8.6 121.6 5.8 4.7 23.0 6.6
49

TE 1982/83 130.8 119.5 11.3 10.5 176.7 7.5 9.9 34.0 10.8.200

TE 1992/93 174.8 161.7 13.0 19.1 241.0 10.3 15.6 55.8 21.2

TE 2003/04 199.7 186.5 13.2 20.3 293.5 10.8.2006 42.2 87.7 40.8

nos.) Fish tones)

(lakh 12.2

18.3

6 24.1

41.2

61.8

Source: Survey of Indian Agriculture 2006

Production requirements by 2020 to meet the balanced diet norms prescribed by ICMR Requirement in million tonnes 2010 237.4 22.61 260.01 42.39 109.52 43.41 84.78 12.44 16.96 25.44 14.13 14.13 1200.17 2020 280.99 26.76 307.75 50.18 129.62 51.85 100.35 14.72 20.07 30.11 16.73 16.73 142.54

Crops Cereal and Millets Pulses and Legumes Foods grains Roots and tubers Vegetables Fruits Milk Fats and oils Sugar Egg Meat Fish Population

Requirement Per day in gms 2000 420 198.7 40 460 75 125 50 150 22 30 45 25 25 0
50

18.92 212.62 35.48 91.66 36.66 70.96 10.41 14.19 21.29 11.83 11.83 1004.5

Source: UN Long term population * ICMR Dietary requirement for a balanced diet. Cotton Cotton is an important commercial and industrial crop of the country. India occupies the largest area under cotton around 8.5 million hectare in the world. India ranks third in production is about 24.3 million bales. India is the largest exporter of yarn but our share in global textile trade is only 3 per-cent.

Oil seeds Oil seeds are source of oil, protein, sugar, fatty acids and and vitamins. There has been more than five times increased oil seeds production during the period of 1950 to 2005. At present, the total oil seeds production is around 248.4 million tones in India. Indias major oil seeds crop is groundnut. It occupies 35.2 per-cent areas with 28.6 per-cent worlds production in India. India ranks first in production of groundnut in the world. India is the fourth largest vegetable oil economy in the world next to U.S., China and Brazil. Besides, India is the second largest producer of rice and cotton which yield valuable rice bran oil and cotton seed oil. Milk Production India is also largest milk producing country of the world with a share of about 14 per-cent in the milk production. Presently, the total production of milk in the country is around 91 million tonnes. Our country possesses the largest cattle and buffalo population in the world. The goat population is second after the China and sheep population is third next to China and Australia. The per capita
51

availability of milk has been increasing from 112 gm. per- day in 1970 to 226 gm. Per day in 2001-02. Fish production Fish is an important best and cheap source of animal protein. The current total fish production is around 6.4 million tonnes, with the marine and the inland production contributing 3.0 and 3.4 million tonnes respectively. The per capita availability of fish in India is around 9 kg. per annum. Globally, India ranks fourth in fish production. Including aquaculture, we are the second largest producer of fish in the world next to China. Poultry Indias total egg production is around 48 billion, rank second and one of the top ten boiler producer in the world. The annual per capita availability of eggs which was only 5 in 1950-51 is now 41 eggs per head. India has one of the time worlds largest fastest growing poultry sectors. Futures strategy According to Dr. Mangala Rai Director General, ICAR, New Delhi (2006) the current national agriculture strategy aims to attain a growth rate of 4 per cent plus annum in the agriculture sector; growth that is based on efficient use of resources and conservation of our soil. Water and bio-diversity; growth with equity, that is, growth which is widespread across regions and different classes of farmers; growth that is, growth that is demand driven and stabilizes domestic markets and maximizes benefit from export of agricultural products in the face of global challenges; and growth that is sustainable technically, environmentally and economically. The emerging expectations of food nutrition, employment and environmental protection calls for higher productivity per unit of land, labour, water and other inputs in an equitable and sustainable manner.
52

AGRIFLATION- THE NEW THREAT Given the importance of food price for consumers and the speed o this years food price rise, it is understandable why governments around the world are trying to soften the blow for the most vulnerable part of the population. However, if one looks more closely along the value chain at the different policy option (export restriction, price controls and import facilitation).It is clear that there are winners and losers from state in the market. A sudden rapid increase in the price of key agricultural commodities has put food price inflation on the top of the agenda for policymakers worldwide. The most affected are usually the poor that spend a high proportion of their income on food. The evidence of growth inflation trade off in the Indian context is more prominent in recent times. Till the early 1990s high inflation was induced by either monsoon failure or oil price shock. The early 1990 saw high inflation and then acceleration in growth, the late 1990s witnessed deceleration in growth as well as lower inflation. Now in the present times, with the growth acceleration to 8-9 percent, we have rising inflation. A careful look will show that higher inflation rate today is largely driven by fuel prices and food prices both of which are facing supply side pressures. This article will try to discuss its causes, consequence and suggestions. The reason why there is pressure on food prices is due to near stagnation in the production of wheat, rice, pulses and also edible oil seeds. Rice output is forecast to drop to 12.6 million tones from 13.2 million tones the previous year, and pulses from 9.4 million tones to 8.6 million tones to 8.6 million tones. The land under cultivation has dropped by more than a million hectare from 142.99 million ha a 1990-91 to 141.89 million hectare in 2005-06. It leads to a 14 percent dip in per capital availability of food grains in India over the last 15 years. Declining public investment, poor pricing and marketing policies, and a short-sighted approach towards food security, have pulled down agricultural growth in India from 5-7
53

percent in the 1980s to less around 3 percent. No country as large as India can depend on imported food grains. Even demand and supply mismatch leads to an increase in the price of food grains (especially wheat and rice), prices of these commodities increased by two to three folds in four years. There is growing apprehension the world over about food inflation. The price of wheat has been steadily rising from last year. This is because of the prevailing unusual drought conditions in the main wheat producing. This by it self is sustaining global wheat supplies. Adverse weather conditions in Europe and North Africa have further aggravated the shortage of major food crops, especially wheat and depleted their stocks. The food and agricultural organization (FAO) has warned that wheat production can drop by 10percent to 142.6 million tons in 2008, as compared to 2007.Similarly rice stock are expected to tumble to 107 million tones. The World Bank Says the shortage has caused global food prices to rise 75 percent since 2000. In the past 12 months alone, global wheat prices have jumped more than 50 percent. The food price index of the food and Agricultural organization (FAO) based on the export prices of 60 internationally traded food commodities rise 41 percent in 2007 as compared with the previous year. Internationally, the price of crude oil is heading towards US$150 a barrel. This is boosting the demand for bio-fuel. Many countries like China are using food grain to produce ethanol. Even more than 20 percent of the USs corn crop is now used to produce the bio-fuel and ethanol. European countries are also using edible vegetable oil to create bio-diesel Brazil and India also make ethanol from sugarcane. By indulging in these true types of activities we are heading towards a global agricultural crisis. At a time when growth is projected at 9 percent, the rate of inflation is inching towards double digit. This is entirely based on whole sale price of food grains and manufactured goods. Here hoarding and speculation is playing a leading role in jack up the price of agricultural commodities. The
54

NATIONAL Multi-commodity Exchange (NMCE) was established in Dec 2003. It was aimed at de-risking Indian agriculture in terms of irrational and erratic fluctuations in farm prices. Four years later the speculative play of futures and derivatives and options is posing a strong negative influence on the prices of traded agricultural commodities ironically , future trading in food grain, pulses, edible oils and sugar has introduced an additional element of price instability and marginalization of the farming community, exactly the opposite of what is was supposed to check. The parliamentary standing committee on food, consumer Affairs and public distribution has therefore recommended a ban on forward trading in agriculture commodities. Consequences and suggestions Given the importance of food prices for consumers and the speed of this years food price rise, it is understandable why governments around the world are trying to soften the blow for the most vulnerable part of the population. However, if one looks more closely along the value chain at the different policy options (export restrictions, price controls, import facilitation).It is clear that there are winners and losers from state intervention in the market. There is no doubt that to check rising food prices Govt.can increase export restrictions can totally ban the export of essential commodities, while increased export tariffs many soften food price increase, these are difficult to implement and would have to be prohibitive to ensure significant differences between local and international food prices in order to discourage exports and insure cheap domestic supply. The most prominent policy option, a lowering of import tariffs on agricultural commodities, has proven to be the least distortionery and most effective one, although it is only applicable to net importers. In most cases the lowering of import tariffs has resulted both the lower prices for end consumer as well as lower cost structures for the processing industry. In the short run as increase in competitive pressure can
55

negatively impact agriculture producers so government have been reluctant to use this option. This would, however mean that liberalization is likely to result in significant structural changes, with small, inefficient agriculture producers being replaced by even larger, efficient ones. The fact remains that Govt has lost control over the retailers and hoarders with the dilution of the Essential commodities act. It does not even know as to low much of food and vegetables are actively hoarded for the sake of speculation. If the price of agricultural commodities continue to increase 4 percent in a week everybody tries to hoard now and sell later, to get profit. So in the end it can be concluded that rise in food prices are linked with global food prices. Globally there is shortage of food production because of several reasons. Thats why united nations food and agricultural organization (FAO) warned that the global food stock outlook had reached a critical stage. So Indian Govt. should take serious steps to increase agricultural production .Govt. can import food grains upto an extent. But it will not help much because global food prices are too high. So Govt should boost agricultural production to bridge the supply gap. EFFET ON GLOBALWARMING ON CROP PRODUCTIY Climate change will have several implications, as numerous adverse impacts are expected for some populations in terms of access to clean water, access to sufficient food, stable health conditions, ecosystem resources, security of settlements. By2020, in some African and Asian countries, yields from rainfed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% .Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African and Asian countries is projected to be severely compromised. Climate change is likely to lead to some irreversible impacts on biodiversity. Approximately20% -30% of species assessed so for are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5
0C

, relative to 1980-99.The implications of these changes, if they were to occur

56

would be grave and disastrous. However, it is within the reach of human society to meet these threats. We have to adapt to the climate change. Societies have a long record of adapting to the impacts of weather and climate. But climate change poses novel risks often outside the range of experience, such as impacts related to drought, heat waves, accelerated glacier retreat and hurricane intensity. These impacts will require adoptive responses such as investments in storm protection and water supply infrastructure, as well as community health services. Adoption to address is essential to address the impacts resulting from the warming which is already unavoidable due to past emissions. But Adaptations alone is not expected to cope with all the projected effects of climate change, and especially not in the long run as most impacts increase in magnitude. There is substantial potential for the mitigation of global greenhouse gas emission over the coming decades that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels.

Evidence of global warming There is no doubt that climate is changing. The main reason of climate change is the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to several natural and anthropogenic activities. The level of GHG in the atmosphere has already increased considerably over the time particularly after the industrial era (1850) .There are both physical and biological evidence of climate change, which are discussed as below: A. Physical evidence Rising in atmospheric temperature and CO2 level: There is clear cut evidence that the atmospheric temperature, which is perhaps the main physical parameter or indicator of greenhouse gases effect (global warming) is gradually
57

increasing since the period of industrial era (1850). The average global atmospheric temperature has increased by 0.74selcious beteen1906 -2005. The global atmospheric concentration of co2 a greenhouse- largely responsible for global warming has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005. Similarly, the global atmospheric concentration of methane and nitrous oxide, other important GHG has also increased substantially. Eleven of the last twelve years have remained warmest last decade has been the warmer since 1850 (IPCC, 2007).The present rate of greenhouse gas emission is around 3.3%, which is very high compared to the past rate to emission of these gases (0.5-1.0%). Last 50 years have been recorded to be warmer in last 1300 years and during this period, number of cold days, night and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, night and heat waves have become more frequent. In particular, recent findings by the scientific community suggest that global warming is causing shifts in species apatial distribution that average 6.1 km per decade towards the pole or 1 meter per decade upward in the direction predicted by climate change model and that spring is on an average arriving 2-3 days earlier per decade in temperate latitudes. Entire regions are also suffering from the effect if global warming in particular boreal and polar forest ecosystem. Depletion in rainfall Definitely the intensity and duration of rainy period have reduced drastically over the time, although the frequency of food in some dry areas of low rainfall has increased. The increase in the frequency of food in the river is possibly due to the silting of river basin mainly due to soil erosion led by deforestation in upper zones thereby the carrying capacity of river has reduced markedly and thus lead to flooding even with normal rainfall. There is clear evidence of depleting ground water in many areas of the country, even the annual rainfall at the global highest rainfall at the global highest rainfall-receiving site
58

(Cherapungi in Meghalays) has decreased substantially compared to the past. Definitely the magnitude of annual rainfall has declined significantly and the ground water level is continuously depleting, which is clearly evident from extending the length of pipe in hand pumps almost all over the country. The level of water in perennial rivers like Ganga and Yamuna etc. has definitely depleted over the time. Although its reason might be something else such as excess exploitation of ground and surface water through tube wells and lift canal, respectively for irrigation, drinking and various industrial purposes to meet the exploding human population.

Shifting and shrinking of cooling period Apart from rise in temperature over the past century, there is also clear evidence that the cooling period has shortened drastically over the same period. Earlier the cooling or winter used to commence in the middle of October and last until February. That is why the optimum sowing time of wheat used to fall between 15th of October to 15th November. However, presently the winter generally start in the middle of November and end earlier, hence the optimum sowing time of wheat has been shifted from 15October-15 November to 15 November-15 December mainly because of delay in commencement of optimum temperature for sowing(20selsious) by one month. Generally the modern wheat varieties introduced/developed in the late sixties and early seventies used to flower in the middle of January (Near Makar Sankranti), whereas, presently the flowering in same variety generally take place in the middle of February. Thus, it is clearly evident from the historical observation that cooling period has shortened one month mainly due to delay in commence of winter by one month and early commence of spring.
59

Changing pattern of monsoon Since last several years, the pattern of monsoon onset has become very unpredictable, uncertain and erratic. In the past different region of the country received southwest monsoon at a specific and particular time, but now a days commencement of monsoon has become unprecedented and uncertain. Some time it has hastened and some time it delayed by a month are fortnight thus affect the rainfed crops severely in many parts of the country. Despite the use of supper computers and satellite data on meteorological observations, it is still very difficult to predict the exact time of mason arrival in different parts of the country and very often the forecast of monsoon by the meteorological department have been found irrelevant and wrong. This is perhaps due to changes in the climatic variables mainly affected by the anthropogenic activities. In the year 2004 the pre of early monsoon in the middle of June in north India followed by a long gap in monsoon rain has led to damage of crops seedling and finally the crop failure as most of the farmers sown their Kharif crops and later majority of the farmers had no seeds to sow second time. Similarly preparation of rice nursery and their transplanting in early monsoon rain had lead to spoilage of rice crop in rainfed areas. Occurrence of natural disaster: As compared to the past, the frequency and intensity of natural disaster such as flood, drought, earthquake, super cyclone etc. have increased, which led to the loss of property and lives. This may perhaps be an indication of climatic extreme and variability mainly caused by global warming. In the last decade, the occurrence of super cyclone in Orissa, severe flood in North Bihar, Rajasthan, Gujarat and earthquake in Uttarakhand and Gujarat and recently the Tsunami in Southeast Asia have indicated the dynamics of climatic change and aberration.

60

B. Biological evidence. Early blossoming of trees Trees are generally a very good bio-indicated of climate change as the flowering in perennial trees takes place as a result of completing the crop-specific required thermal unit/thermal period or degree-days. The very good examples could be the mango trees, which flower according to the thermal regime/period in different parts of the country. The mango tree generally flower according to the thermal regime/period in different parts of the country. The mango tree generally flower in October- November in south India, in December- January in eastern and central India and middle of February- march in north India. But there has been some evidence of flowering of mango trees in December in north India in the year 2004, which was probably due to prevailing higher thermal regime in December. Thus, the flowering behaviour of mango, cherry, apple etc. could be used as a very good bio-indicator for climate change. Appearance of grasses in Antarctica: Apart from melting the rise caps and glaciers in the Antarctic region, there has been some evidence of growing grasses in these areas, especially during the year 20042005, which clearly indicate the possibility of rising atmospheric temperature in these areas. Changing cropping pattern:Therehas been some indication of spatial changes in cropping pattern particularly in the hilly mountain areas of Himachal pradesh .The traditional regions of apple and other temperate crops which were earlier found suitable for the cultivation of such crops because of prevalence of optimum temperature required for flowering and fruiting of these temperate crops at such places, but these regions are gradually becoming warmer due to global warming and may likely to become unsuitable for the cultivation of these temperate crops which require chilling for flowering. Successful cultivation of maize in Bihar during winter season and substituting wheat crop clearly indicates the possibility of global warming and climate change as maize is a c4 plant and generally performs better under higher temperature. High latitudinal shifting of
61

temperate crops: Climate change due to global warming may severely affect the spatial distribution of temperate crops, especially chilling requiring crops viz., apple, apricot, cherry plum, saffron, cauliflower, cabbage, pea etc. at their traditional growing places during on as well as off seasons. The areas of temperate crops cultivation in India are mainly confined to higher latitude provinces such as Kashmir, Arunachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Himach Pradesh (Kullu Manali, Katrayan). The crops grown in these regions may be severely affected in near future due to rice in thermal regime of these regions, as these temperate crops require very narrow range of optimum thermal regime for flowering. These has been some report on geographical shifting of apple cultivation as the traditional belts of apple cultivation have become non- conducive for good quality apple production. Causally in Europe, vulnerability of frog to devastating fungus, killing of large Dumb tree population in Senegal, spatial shifting of marine fish population.

MATERIAL AND METHOD The details of sampling station and their sites, materials used, techniques adopted and experimental procedure followed during the course of investigation are presented in this chapter. The city Faizabad is located at the bank of river Ghaghra (commonly known as Saryu) in a 6 km
62

downstream at 26.47 0 N latitude and 82.12 0E longitude and on latitude of 113 meter from sea level .Area of township is approximately 12 sq. km .According to the census of 1991, total population of Faizabad city was approximately 2,36,530.[Statistical Magazine.2003, published by District Statistical Officer and NIC , Officer , Faizabad] The environment is a complex whole of so many interacting factors that influence very organism. Temperature, wind velocity (wind speed), rain fall, sunshine duration and relative humidity and evaporation are great ecological importance and its influence the universe. It affect the growth and distribution of plants which directly or in directly affect the crop production. Temperature Temperature variability is of great ecological importance and its influence is universal. It affects the growth and distribution of plants and results in zonation and stratification that occurs both in water and also on land. Other ecological factors are also affected indirectly by temperature. The temperature of any place is expressed in degree centigrade. In the present study the temperature analysis of agricultural region of Faizabad were studied by Maximum and minimum thermometer. Mean and average temperature are calculated by the following methods 1. Mean temperature of a day Reading at 7 am +2 pm +9am + 9pm =
63

4 2. Average temperature of a day temperature = 2 3. Mean monthly temperature = Days of month 4. Mean annual temperature = 12 Wind Air in horizontal motion is known as wind. Wind affects the plant growth in exposed areas, along sectors and at high altitudes in mountains. Its movements results from a number of environmental factors such as temperature, atmospheric pressure and geographical factors. Many microorganisms, pollen grains, seeds and fruits are dispersed to long distances even in moderate wind. In weather analysis the knowledge of the wind direction and the wind velocity is of great importance. Wind speed Digital anemometer This is an instrument used to measure the instantaneous speeds of the wind. This is a multifunction measurement I;em/s, km/h, f/m, and
64

Maximum temperature +Minimum

Sum of daily means of the month for all days

Sum of 12 monthly means

knots. low friction ball bearings allow free vane movement. Very accurate at both high and low wind velocities. The sensitive balanced vane wheel rotates freely in response to air flow data hold function helps storing the desired value on display .for easy readability ,a large display of low power consumption is provided .small and light weight allow one hand operation . Wind speed at the hour of observation To determine the wind speed at the a particular time, two successive reading are taken at an of 3 minutes .the difference of the reading is multiplied by 20 for exemple; First anemometer reading=2090.o Second anemometer =2092.0 Wind speed at that particular hours is 2092.0-2090.0=2x20=40.00kmph. To determined the average wind speed during the past 24 hours ,the is subtracted from today ;s reading .the difference is divided by 24,which gives the average wind velocity for the past 24 hours .for example : Todays anemometer reading at 0800=9563.5 Yesterdays anemometer reading at 0800=9371.6 The difference=191.9 Average wind spped =191.9/24=8 kpmh Units of Measurement of wind velocity 1. Knot 2. Meter per second (m/s) 4.Miles per hour(mph)
65

3.Kilometre per hour (kmph)

5.Feet per second (f/s) 1knot=1Nautical mile=1.15Statusmiles/h=0.5148m/s=1.853kmph 1mph=0.8684knot=0.447m/s=1.609kmph=1.467f/s 1m/s=1.94knots=2.24mph=3.6kmph Evaporation Evaporation is a physical process in which liquid water is converted into its vapour. The evaporation from a surface is influence not only by environmental factors but also by the depth, size, state of the evaporating surface , surroundings ,etc. In the present investigation the Sunken Screen Evaporimeter method was used for the analysis of evaporation in faizabad region (Sharma and Dastane 1966, IARI, New Delhi). Rain fall It is defined as Precipitation of drops of liquid water. Rainfall or precipitation of atmospheric moisture is of tremendous importance to plants as a source of soil moisture. The rain can be measured with several instruments. 1. Symons Rain Gauge 2. Natural Syphoning Self Recording Rain Gauge The rain fall here measured by natural Syphoning Self Recording Rain Gauge. This is designed to give a continuous recording of the rainfall. This instrument not only records the total amount of rainfall that has fallen since the record was started but also the rate of rainfall. This is also known as pluviograph. This is also made up of galvanised iron sheet of 12 guage thickness. Now a-days fiber glass reinforced polyester material is extensively used. This instrument also has a funnel with a glass rim of 203millimeters. This acts as a lid and is provided with a slit or window.
66

The rim of the funnel should be horizontal to the ground and exactly at a height of 75centimetres above the ground. The rain water received by the funnel is poured into a chamber through a connecting tube. The chamber has a float and it is connected to a pen arm through a lever mechanism. The tip of the pen arm is self-inked and touches a calibrated chart which is wrapped around a rotating drum. The drum works with a clock mechanism and completes one rotation in 24 hours. The X-axis of the chart represents rainfall with a precision of 0.1.m.m. and Y axis represents time. The chart has to be replaced only at the end of a rainy day. This instrument has a syphoning mechanism and when the water reaches the maximum level it gets emptied automatically. The pen arm comes down to zero and rises again if there is further rainfall. The chart has to be changed every day between 0830 and 0900 IST and should be sufficient ink in the pen. The instrument should always be kept clean and no leaves should enter the funnel. A spirit level may be used to keep the instrument exactly as detailed above. The slope of the trace of the pen at any point gives approximately the intensity of rain. The rate of rainfall is obtained by dividing the total amount of rainfall with the total hours of the rainfall during a day. Illumination or Brightness The brightness is measured with luxmeter or photometric sensors in foot candles or lux.To measure light the instruments used are light meters (photometer). Sunshine Duration or Cloudiness Hours In most of the meteorological observatories, the duration of sunshine is recorded. These are measured with sunshine recorder (The
67

units are hours).However, solar radiation is also recorded simultaneously in few of these observatories. There is relationship between the solar radiation and the duration of sunshine. Q/Qa = (a+b) n /N Where Q = the radition actually received. Qa = angots value N = actual duration of sunshine received. N = maximum possible duration of sunshine. a and b = constants i.e. 0.23 and 0.48 respectively. Note: Argots value denotes the theoretical of radiation that would reach the surface of the earth in the absence of atmosphere. The values of a and b vary according to longitude and latitude. The number of hours if bright sunshine is recorded by a number of instruments of all the Campbell- Stokes sunshine Recorder is the best one. Campbell stokes sunshine recorder This is an instrument for recording the duration of bright sunshine. It consists of a glass sphere fixed centrally to s frame. The bow I has three slots so grooves thought which the chemically treated card are inserted .The farm is mounted on a base provided with three leveling screws. The glass sphere acts as a converging lens .The different points on chemically treated card represent the principal foci for the different positions of the sun, during the apparent movement of earth from east west. The bright sun rays leave a charred of burnt line on the chemically treated card .The card are graduated in hours for accurate measurement of bright sunshine. The sunshine recorder is kept on a platform at a height of 10
68

feet from the ground surface. It is kept in a perfectly horizontal plane. To achiever this, the leveling screws are adjusted and if needed a spirit level can also be used to bring the instrument in a perfectly horizontal position. Relative humidity The (invisible) vapour content of the air is known as the humidity. Relative humidity defined as The ratio between the amount of water vapour present in a given volume of the air and the amount of water vapour required for saturation under fixed temperature and pressure. Humidity is an ecological important factor, since it influences activities of organisms and limits their distribution by its daily as well as vertical and horizontal variation. Relative humidity is measured by Psychrometer.It is consist of two ordinary thermometers fixed to a board. One is wet bulbs &second is dry bulbs thermometer.

Result And Discation In the crop season of Rice in 2005-06 the Rice were cultivated in 88399 hec. & the total production was 220379 k.The productivity of the Rice in the Faizabad region was 24.93 k/hec. The meteorological observation of crop season in the 2005-06 shows. The average Maximum temperature36.56, Minimum average temperature 26.44 , RH64.88,Wind speed5.89 ,Sunshine hour 6.75,Rainfall 6.31 & Evaporation 6.78 was recorded. In the crop season of Rice in 2006-07 the Rice were cultivated in72337 hec.& the total production was 125866 k.The productivity of the Rice in the Faizabad region was 17.4 k/hec. The
69

meteorological observation of crop season

in the 2006-

07shows.The average Maximum temperature 38.97, Minimum average temperature26.96.RH 71.81 ,Wind speed4.37 ,Sunshine hour 5.32,Rainfall 8.18 & Evaporation 17.46 was recorded. In the crop season of Rice in 2007-08 the Rice were cultivated in70484 hec. & the total production was 149144 k. The productivity of the Rice in the Faizabad region was 21.16 k/hec. The meteorological observation of crop season in the 2007-08 shows.The average Maximum temperature35.01, Minimum Average temperature 26.2,RH 63.13,Wind speed3.59,Sunshine hour5.6 ,Rainfall 54.54 & Evaporation 4.56 was recorded. In the crop season of Wheat in 2005-06 the Wheat were cultivated in 76155 hec. & the total production was 198841 k.The productivity of the Wheat in the Faizabad region was 26.11 k/hec. The meteorological observation of crop season in the 200506shows.The average Maximum temperature 26.57, Minimum average temperature 8.48, RH 53.47, Wind speed1.51, Sunshine hour7.29, Rainfall 0 &Evaporation 2.73 was recorded. In the crop season of Wheat in 2006-07 the Wheat were cultivated in78887 hec. & the total production was 211812 k.The productivity of the Wheat in the Faizabad region was 26.85 k/hec. The meteorological observation of crop season in the 2006-07 shows.The average Maximum temperature 27.32, Minimum average temperature 11.18, RH 66.41, Wind speed2.42, Sunshine hour6.64, Rainfall 0 & Evaporation 2.64 was recorded.
70

In the crop season of Wheat in 2007-08 the Wheat were cultivated in79242 hec. & the total production was 218549 k.The productivity of the Wheat in the Faizabad region was 27.58 k/hec. The meteorological observation of crop season in the 2007-08 shows.The average Maximum temperature 26.49, Minimum average temperature9.73, RH 70.27, Wind speed 2.28,Sunshine hour6.55 ,Rainfall 0 & Evaporation1.23 was recorded. In the crop season of Potato in 2005-06 the Potato were cultivated in 2866 hec. & the total production was 56128 k.The productivity of the Potato in the Faizabad region was 195.84 k/hec. The meteorological observation of crop season in the 2005-06 shows.The average Maximum temperature 30.07, Minimum average temperature15.56, RH 70, Wind speed 1.31, Sunshine hour 7.94,Rainfall 0 & Evaporation 3.23 was recorded. In the crop season of Potato in 2006-07 the Potato were cultivated in 3696 hec. & the total production was 42800 k.The productivity of the Potato in the Faizabad region was 115.8 k/hec. The meteorological observation of crop season in the 2006-07 shows.The average Maximum temperature 31.38, Minimum average temperature 16.39 RH 68.56 ,Wind speed 1.63 ,Sunshine hour 7.41 ,Rainfall 0.25 & Evaporation 3.14 was recorded. In the crop season of Potato in 2007-08 the Potato were cultivated in 75279 hec. & the total production was 65736 k.The productivity of the Potato in the Faizabad region was 131.24 k/hec.
71

The meteorological observation of crop season in the 2007-08 shows.The average Maximum temperature 28.92, Minimum average temperature 16.29 RH 70.2 ,Wind speed 2.49 ,Sunshine hour 7.37 ,Rainfall 4.22 & Evaporation 1.62 was recorded. In the crop season of Mustard in 2005-06 the Mustard were cultivated in 1919 hec.& the total production was 2253 k.The productivity of the Mustard in the Faizabad region was 11.56 k/hec. The meteorological observation of crop season in the 200506 shows.The average Maximum temperature 26.57, Minimum average temperature8.48 RH 53.47 ,Wind speed 1.51 ,Sunshine hour 7.29 , Rainfall 0 & Evaporation 2.23 was recorded. In the crop season of in Mustard 2006-07 the Mustard were cultivated in 2570 hec.& the total production was 3248 k.The productivity of the Mustard in the Faizabad region was 12.64 k/hec. The meteorological observation of crop season in the 2006-07 shows.The average Maximum temperature 27.32, Minimum average temperature 11.18 , RH 66.41 ,Wind speed 2.42 ,Sunshine hour 6.64 ,Rainfall 0 & Evaporation 2.64 was recorded. In the crop season of Mustard in 2007-08 the Mustard were cultivated in 3408 hec.& the total production was 3946 k.The productivity of the Mustard in the Faizabad region was 11.58 k/hec. The meteorological observation of crop season in the 2007-08 shows.The average Maximum temperature 26.49 , Minimum average temperature 9.73, RH 70.27 ,Wind speed 2.28 ,Sunshine hour 6.55 ,Rainfall 0 & Evaporation 1.23 was recorded.

72

In the crop season of Maize in 2005-06 the Maize were cultivated in 840 hec.& the total production was 890 k.The in the 2005productivity of the Maize in the Faizabad region was 10.89 k/hec. The meteorological observation of crop season 06shows.The average Maximum temperature 35.94 , Minimum average temperature 17.08 , RH 60.74 ,Wind speed 3.69 ,Sunshine hour 8.58 ,Rainfall 0.02 & Evaporation 4.63 was recorded. In the crop season of Maize in 2006-07 the Maize were cultivated in 1270 hec.& the total production was 1189 k.The productivity of the Maize in the Faizabad region was 9.36 k/hec. The meteorological observation of crop season in the 200607shows.The average Maximum temperature 34.52 , Minimum average temperature 16.14 ,RH 49.86 ,Wind speed 3.8 ,Sunshine hour 8.56 ,Rainfall 0.34 & Evaporation 5.72 was recorded.

In the crop season of Maize in 2007-08 the Maize were cultivated in 825 hec.& the total production was 837 k.The productivity of the Maize in the Faizabad region was 10.14 k/hec. The meteorological observation of crop season in the 2007-08 shows.The average Maximum temperature 34.1 , Minimum average temperature 16.38, RH 52.24 ,Wind speed 4.03 ,Sunshine hour 5.83 ,Rainfall 3.04 & Evaporation 4.64 was recorded.

73

Meteorological Observation from year 2005 -2008

Meteorological Observation from January to December 2005

Meteorological Parameter Temperature (OC) R H (%) Wind Sun shine hours Rain fall (mm) Total evaporation(mm) Max Min Speed (Km/hr) Direction(deg) Jan. 22 7.6 72 2.6 210 5.6 0.7 1.1 Feb. 25.4 9.45 70.2 3.35 228 7.56 0.31 1.5 Mar. 33 16 64 3.51 242 8.45 0.04 3.38 Apr. 38.9 18.1 57.5 3.87 230 8.72 0 5.88 May 40 23 57 4.3 179 9.2 0.6 7.8 June 40.8 27 48.9 5.91 246 8.93 2.46 10.5 July 32 26 81 5.9 124 4.6 10 3.1 August 33.26 26.16 79.79 3.44 177.51 5.78 7.53 3.68 Sep. 32.2 25.5 82.1 4.31 136 6.2 5.22 3.39

O 3 2 7 1 1 7

Meteorological Observation from January to December 2006 Sep Meteorological Parameter Temperature Max (OC) R H (%) Wind Sun shine hours Rain fall (mm) Total evaporation(mm) Min Speed (Km/hr) Direction(deg) Jan. 22 10 59 11 227 6.4 1.7 21

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July August . O 29.6 31.7 37.3 36 35.7 42 33.02 33.7 3 17.5 50 3.28 258 7.94 0 4.1 12.6 53.5 3.71 253 8.16 0.31 19.7 25 46.3 60 3.9 4.8 237 172 8.97 8.2 0.39 3.5 6.3 26.3 66.3 4.38 207 6.55 4.17 12.9

28 26.11 24.9 1 77 80 76.9 7 4.4 4.71 2.36 1 173 129.19 168 21 4.1 6.77 6.7 8 12 5.63 1.3 0 22 9.11 18.4

5.07 6.37

74

Agricultural Production in Faizabad District from 20052008 Agricultural Production in Year 2005-2006 Production( Productivity(k/h Crop Rice Wheat Potato Miaze Mustard k) 220379 198841 56128 1358 2253
75

Area(he c.) 88399 76155 2866 1028 1949

ec.) 24.93 26.11 195.84 13.21 11.56

Agricultural Production in Year 2006-2007 Productio Productivity(k/ Area(he Crop Rice Wheat Potato Miaze Mustard K=Kuntal n(k) 125866 211812 42800 1189 3248 hec.) 17.4 26.85 115.8 9.36 12.64 c.) 72337 78887 3696 1270 2570

76

Agricultural Production in Year 2007-2008

Production( Crop Rice Wheat Potato Miaze Mustard k) 149144 218549 65736 837 3946 Productivity(k/hec.) 21.16 27.58 131.24 10.14 11.58 Area(hec.) 70484 79242 75279 825 3408

Temperature Most of the highest plant grow between 0 0C and 600C.The crop plants are further restricted from 10 to 400C.Maximum dry matter is produced between 20 to 300C.At highest temperature and high humidity, most of the crop plants are efficient by pest and dieses. High night
77

temperature increases respiration and metabolism.The injury to crop plants by air temperature is by both low and high air temperatures.On exposure of crop plants to low temperature of following effects are observed .The primary effect of low air temperature below their optimum temperature is the reduction of rates of growth and metabolic processes.Small plants may suffer from deficient oxygen when covered with densely packed snow.Sertain toxic substances accumulate in roots and crowns because of low diffusion of carbon dioxide. The injury to a plant is caused by lifting upward from the normal position causing the roots to stretch or break at a time when the plant is growing. It is difficult for the roots to become firmly established again and the plants may die because of this mechanical damage and dessication. High air temperature results in the dissication of the crop plants also. The injury caused because of sort period fluctuation (within a dry highest in noon and lowest at early morning) in the air temperature is known as sunclad. Exposure of crop plants to temperatures over 450C for just 30 minutes can cause severe damage to the leaves of plants. The other effects of high temperature are the disruption of cell metabolism (possibly by protein denaturation), production of toxic substances, and damage to cellular membranes.

Wind Wind performs several functions which are of paramount importance in agricultural activities. Transports heat in either sensible or latent form, from lower to higher latitudes. Wind provides to moisture (to the lad masses) which is necessary to precipitation. Moderate turbulence promotes the consumption of carbon dioxide in photosynthesis. Wind also
78

cause soil erosion .Wind dispersal of pollen and seeds in natural and necessary for certain agricultural crops, natural vegetation, etc. Moderate turbulence promotes the consumption of carbon-dioxide by photosynthesis. Prevent frost by disrupting a temperature inversion. The wind dispersal of pollen and seeds is nature and necessary for certain agricultural crops and natural vegetation also. At sustained high speed (12-15metres per second) at plant height, plants assume a low, dwarf like from whilst the intermittent high wind speeds experienced in gales. Hurricanes etc, result in gross physical damage to bushes and trees. At higher wind speeds the shape of the orchard tree alters giving rise to the characteristic wind shaping of tree in exposed position. Leaves become smaller and thicker. Breakage occurs bushes and tree is subject to natural (seasonal) pruning. Direct mechanical effects are breaking of plant structures, lodging of cereal crops or shattering of seed from paicles. Rice: A general wind during growing period improves grain yield as it increase turbulence in the canopy. The air blown around the plants replenishes the carbon dioxide supply of the plants .Gentle winds from 0.75 to2.25 centimeter per second helps in increasing the photosynthesis. However, strong winds (cyclonic) at heading stage may cause lodging. They often dessicate the panicles, increase the floret sterility and increase the number of abortive endosperms. Strong wind enhances spread of bacterial diseases. Dry wind also causes dessication of leaves and mechanical damage to the plants. Cotton: Apart from appreciably drying-up the soil, moderate winds do little harm, but strong winds and gales seriously affect the delicate young plants. In capsules which open widely on ripening the tips curl outwards
79

and the exposed fibre may be blown away by the wind. Bolls with cuplike form with twisted edges or whose fibre content is compressed are comparatively storm-proof. Rainfall Nearly 54 per cent of population of the world depends on monsoon for their income .Monsoon rains are considered as life giving rains .Rice or paddy which is a major food crop depends on only rainfall for its yields .If rainfall is not uniformly distributed ,it results in huge loss of rice crop in particular and all other crops in general. Heavy rain during harvesting causes lodging of crop and seed germination .If rainfall does not occur immediately after sowing, it results in germination failure. As in the case of other weather elements the amount and distribution of rainfall influence the crop yield considerably. Example: Paddy and sugarcane required high amount of water as compared to groundnut and caster. Timely and evenly distributed rainfall during the crop growth is more beneficial than heavy rainfall occurring at once. Rainfall of 20 m.m .is necessary to wet the soil upto a depth of 15 cm which helps in decomposition of organic matter and also influences the fertility status of the soil. Many farm operations such as seed bed preparation ,sowing, intercultivation ,etc.,depends on rainfall. Sowing during heavy rainfall is very difficult. Weeding when heavy rainfall occurs is very difficult. Rain received immediately after harvesting causes germination of seeds and growth of fungal population. Rain received at the time of harvesting cause low quantity seed production and some times even spoil the whole harvesting operations. If low rainfall occurs, it results in non supply of sufficient water to the plant which finally result in drying up.High intensity of rainfall has an adverse affect like non-availability of air to the roots, which results in death of the crop.
80

One centimeter of rain over an area of one hectare or 100m 3(100,000 litres) contains 4,339 grams. Of oxygen at 200C. This is equivalent to 3,00 litres of pour oxygen at atmospheric pressurf.Consequently ,a rain usually has a much more invigorating effect on a crop than does an irrigation. Rain water has extraordinary qualities. Water has high solvent power and this plays an important role in crop plants as the plants get their nourishment from soil only in solution form. Water play an important role in life processes of crop plants (in the exchange of gases).The heat capacity of water is high and its high thermal stability helps in regulation of the temperature of crop plants. Water has high heat conduction capacity and due to this the heat produced by the activity of a cell is conducted immediately by water and distributed evenly to all plants parts. The viscosity of water is higher than that of many solvents and this property helps in protecting the crop plants and trees against mechanical disturbances. Rainfall influences the distribution of crop plants in particular and vegetation in general ,as the nature of vegetation of a particular place depends on the amounts of rainfall (the vegetation of a desert where rainfall is less differs a lot from the vegetation of a rainforest). Even though, water in all its forms play a fundamental role in the growth and production of all crops, excessive amount of water in the soil alert various chemical and biophysical process. Free movement of oxygen is blocked and compounds toxic to the roots are formed due to drainage problem. Soils with high rate of percolation are unsuitable for cultivation as plant nutrients can be removed rapidly. Heavy rains directly damage plants on impact or interfere with flowering and pollination. Top soil layers are packed or hardened which delays or prevents emergence of tender seedlings. Snow and freezing rain are threats to winter plant. The sheer weight of and may be sufficient to break limbs on tree and shrubs.
81

A thick ice cover on the ground tends to produce suffocation of crop plants as winter wheat. Under excess rainfall conditions floods occur in areas drainer drained by large river systems. Floods submerge crops slip up thank bunds and river embankments are washed off. Result o f research on effect of rainfall on crops Rice: Under rainfed rice cultivation ,where temperatures are within the critical ranges ,rainfall is the most critical factor limiting rice cultivation .Rainfed rice cultivation is limited to areas where annual rainfall is more than 1000 millimetres. The variation in amount and distribution of rainfall is the most important factor limiting yields of rainfed rice which constitute about 80 per cent of rice grown in south and south-east Asia. The amount and distribution pattern of rainfall varies widely from location to location and year to year. The effect of water shortage and excess water are similar to any other crop depending upon the stage of the crop like leaf rolling ,leaf scorching tillering, stunting, delayed flowering, spikelet sterility and incomplete grain filling. Rice crop is most sensitive to water deficient from reduction division to heading stages. Presence of drought for 3 days before heading reduced the yields significantly causing 59 to 62 per cent spikelet sterility. Sugarcane: This crop is grown from 750 m.m to 2500 m.m rainfall areas. In low rainfall areas the crop is grown as dry and depends for moisture on irrigation ,and under high rainfall conditions it is cultivated as rainfed crop. During the formative phase high amounts of rainfall are desirable. As the crop advances the water requirements are reduced .Under more rainfall the pests and diseases effect the crop.

82

Humidity The humidity is not an independent factor. It is closely related to rainfall, wind and temperature. It plays a significant role in crop production. Humidity determines the crops grown in a given region. It a affects the internal water potential of plants. It influences certain physiological phenomena in crop plants including transpiration. The humidity is a major determinant of potential evapotranspiration .So, it determines the water requirement of crops. High humidity reduces irrigation water requirement of crops as the evapotranspiration losses from crops depends on atmospheric humidity. High humidity can prolong the survival of crops under moisture stress. However ,very high or very low relative humidity is not condusive to higher yields of crops. There are harmful effects of high humidity. It enhances the growth of some saprophytic and parasitic fungi, bacteria and pests ,the growth of which causes extensive damage to crop plants. Examples (a) The blight disease on potato.(b) The damage caused by thrips and jassids on several crops. High humidity at grain filling reduces the crop yields. Result o f research on effect of Humidity on crops Yield of Soybean as obtained from adequate supplies of soil moisture are affected by the atmospheric humidity .Reduction in yield by 21% recorded for Soybean grown at day/night relative humidites of 47/46 % as compared to 81/84 % due to flower abortion at decreed humidities during reproductive stage. At low atmospheric humidity reduced plants growth rate was recorded in tropics as a consequence resulted in low rates of photosynthesis ,even under irrigated conditions. Foliar application of

83

any chemicals is effective under high humid conditions(more than 60 per cent) in controlling leaf eating larvae on Soybean.

84

References:
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability- Contribution of Working Group II to the IPCC Fourth Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. FAO. 1999. The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Rosenzweig, C. and Parry, M.L. 1994. Potential impacts of climate change on world food supply. Nature Vol. 367, pp. 133138. Parry M.L., C. Rosenzweig, A. Iglesias, G. Fischer, and M.T.J. Livermore 1999a. Climate change and world food security: a new assessment In: Parry and Livermore (Eds.) A new assessment of the global effects of climate change Global Environmental Change, Vol. 9 (Supplemental Issue) pp.s52-s67. International Benchmark Sites Network for Agrotechnology Transfer (IBSNAT). 1989. Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer Version 2.1 (DSSAT V2.1). Dept. Agron. & Soil Sci. College Trop. Agric. And Hum. Resources. Univ. Hawaii, Honolulu. Fischer, G., Frohberg, K., Keyzer, M.A. and Parikh, K.S. 1988. Linked National Models: A Tool for International Food Policy Analysis. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Hansen, J., Russell, G., Rind, D., Stone, P., Lacis, A., Lebedeff, S., Ruedy, R. and Travis, L. 1983. Efficient three-dimensional global models for climate studies: Models I and II. Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 111, No. 4, pp 609-662.
85

 Hansen, J., Fung, I., Lacis, A., Rind, D., Russell, G. Lebedeff, S., Ruedy, R. and Stone, P. 1988. Global climate changes as forecast by the GISS 3-D model. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.93, No.D8, pp.9341-9364. Manabe, S. and Wetherald, R.T. 1987. Large-scale changes in soil wetness induced by an increase in CO2. Journal of Atmospheric Science, Vol.44, pp. 1211-1235. Wilson, C.A. and Mitchell, J.F.B. 1987. A doubled CO2 climate sensitivity experiment with a global climate model including a simple ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 92, No. 13, pp. 315-343. Rosenzweig, C. and Iglesias, A. 1994. Implications of Climate Change for International Agriculture: Crop Modeling Study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. Ritchie, J.T. and Otter, S. 1985. Description and performance of CERES-Wheat: A user-oriented wheat yield model. In: Willis, W.O., ed. ARS Wheat Yield Project. Washington, DC. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. ARS38. Godwin, D., Ritchie, J.T., Singh, I.J. and Hunt, L. 1989. A Users Guide to CERES-Wheat - V2.10. Muscle Shoals: International Fertilizer Development Center. Jones, C.A. and Kiniry, J.R. 1986. CERES-Maize: A Simulation Model of Maize Growth and Development. College Station. Texas A&M Press.

86

 Ritchie, J.T., Singh, U., Godwin, D. and Hunt, L. 1989. A Users Guide to CERES-Maize V2.10. Muscle Shoals: International Fertilizer Development Center. Godwin, D., Singh, U., Ritchie, J.T. and Alocilja, E.C. 1993. A Users Guide to CERES-Rice. Muscle Shoals: International Fertilizer Development Center. Jones, J.W., Boote, K.J., Hoogenboom, G., Jagtap, S.S. and Wilkerson, G.G. 1989. SOYGRO V5.42: Soybean Crop Growth Simulation Model Users Guide. Gainesville: Department of Agricultural Engineering and Department of Agronomy, University of Florida. Otter-Nacke, S., Godwin, D.C. and Ritchie, J.T. 1986. Testing and validating the CERES-Wheat model in diverse environments. AGGRISTARS YM-15-00407. Houston: Johnson Space Center No. 20244. Acock, B. and Allen, L.H. 1985. Crop responses to elevated carbon dioxide concentrations. In: Strain, B.R and Cure, J.D. (Eds.) Direct Effects of Increasing Carbon Dioxide on Vegetation. Washington, Dc. US Department of Energy. DOE/ER-0238, pp. 33-97. Cure, J.D. 1985. Carbon dioxide doubling responses: A crop survey. In: Strain, B.R and Cure, J.D. (Eds.) Direct Effects of Increasing Carbon Dioxide on Vegetation. Washington, Dc. US Department of Energy. DOE/ER-0238, pp. 33-97. Kimball, B.A. 1983. Carbon dioxide and agricultural yield. An assemblage and analysis of 430 prior observations. Agronomy Journal Vol. 75, pp. 779-788.
87

 Rogers, H.H., Bingham, G.E., Cure, J.D., Smith, J.M. and Surano, K.A. 1983. Responses of selected plant species to elevated carbon dioxide in the field. Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 12, pp. 569-574. Cure, J.D. and Acock, B. 1986. Crop responses to carbon dioxide doubling: A literature survey. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Vol. 38, pp. 127-145. Allen, L.H., Jr., Boote, K.J., Jones, J.W., Jones, P.H., Valle, R.R., Acock, B., Rogers, H.H. and Dahlman, R.C. 1987. Response of vegetation to rising carbon dioxide: Photosynthesis, biomass and seed yield of soybean. Global Biogeochemical Cycles Vol. 1, pp. 1-14. Peart, R.M., Jones, J.W., Curry, R.B., Boote, K. and Allen, L.H., Jr. 1989. Impact of climate Change on Crop Yield in the Southeastern USA. In: Smith, J.B. and Tirpak, D.A. (Eds.) The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency. FAO. 1996. Sixth World Food Survey. Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Rosenzweig, C., Parry, M.L, Fischer, G. and Frohberg, K. 1993. Climate Change and World Food Supply, Research Report No. 3, Environmental Change Unit, Univ. of Oxford, Oxford. United Nations. 1989. World population prospects 1988. United Nations, New York.

88

 Mitchell J.F.B., Johns T.C., Gregory J.M. and Tett S. 1995. Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. Nature Vol. 376, pp. 501-504. Hulme, M., J. Mitchell, W. Ingram, T. Johns, M. New & D. Viner 1999. Climate Change Scenarios for Global Impacts Studies. Global Environmental Change Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. s3-s19. Parry, M.L., C. Fischer, M. Livermore, C. Rosenzweig, and A. Iglesias. 1999. Climate change and world food security: a new assessment. Global Environmental Change, 9, S51-S67. Johns, T.C., Gregory, J.M., Ingram, W.J., Johnson, C.E., Jones, A., Lowe, J.A., Mitchell, J.F.B., Roberts, D.L., Sexton, D.M.H., Stevenson, D.S., Tett, S.F.B. & Woodage, M.J. 2003, Anthropogenic climate change for 1860 to 2100 simulated with the HadCM3 model under up-dated emissions scenarios. Climate Dynamics 20, 583-612. Parry, M.L., Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A., Livermore, M. and Fischer, G. 2004. Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environmental Change. 14(1), 53-67. Rosenzweig, C. and Iglesias, A., 2006 Potential impacts of Climate Change on World Food Supply: Data sets from a major crop modelling study. New York: Goddard institute for Space Studies, Columbia University. Cline, W.R. 2007. Global Warming and Agriculture: Impact estimates by country. Washington DC: Center for Global Development.

89

 Fischer, G, Shah, M., and Velthuizen, H. 2002. Climate Change and Agricultural Vulnerability. Vienna: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Darwin, R. 2004. Effects of greenhouse gas emissions on world agriculture, food consumption and aconomic welfare. Climatic Change. 66, 191-238 Easterling, W. and Aggarwal, P., 2007 Food, fibre and forest products, in: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M.L.Parry, O.F.Canzianai, J.P.Palutikof, P.J.van der Linden and C.E.Hanson, Cambridge: Cam,brisge University Press, U.K., 273-313. Arnell, N.W., Cannell, M.G.R., Hulme, M., Kovats, R.S., Mitchell, J.F.B., Nicholls, R.J., Parry, M.L., Livermore, M.T.J. and White, A. 2001. The consequences of CO2 stabilisation for the impacts of climate change. Climatic Change. 12, 201-223. IPCC. 1997. Stabilisation of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases: Physical, Biological and Socio-economic Implications. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Technical Paper III. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Mitchell, J. F. B., Johns, T. C., Ingram, W. J. & Lowe, J. A. 2000. The effect of on stabilising global atmospheric and regional carbon climate dioxide change. concentrations

Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 27, pp. 2997-3100.kishor

90

Cline, William R., \The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture: Comment," American Economic Review, December 1996, 86 (5), 1309{1311.

Conley, Timothy G., \GMM Estimation with Cross Sectional Dependence," Journal of Econometrics, September 1999, 92 (1), 1{45. Deschenes, Olivier and Michael Greenstone, The Economic Impacts of Climate Change: Evidence from Agricultural Output and Random Fluctuations in Weather," American Economic Review, March 2007, 97 (1), 354{385. Friedman, Milton, A Theory of the Consumption Function, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1957. Jarvis, Lovell S., Cattle as Capital Goods and Ranchers as Portfolio Managers: An Application to the Argentine Cattle Sector," Journal of Political Economy, May-June 1974, 82 (3), 489{520. Kaldor, Nicholas, \Speculation and Economic Stability," Review of Economic Studies, October 1939, 7 (1), 1{27. Keane, Michael P., \Structural vs. Atheoretic Approaches to Econometrics," Journal of Econometrics (forthcoming), 2006. Mendelsohn, Robert, William D. Nordhaus, and Daigee Shaw, \The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis," American Economic Review, September 1994, 84 (4), 753{771.

91

 Rosen, Sherwin, Kevin M. Murphy, and Jos A. Scheinkman, \Cattle Cycles," Jour- nal of Political Economy, June 1994, 102 (3), 468{492. Rosenzweig, Cynthia and Daniel Hillel, Climate Change and the Global Harvest, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Schlenker, Wolfram and Michael Roberts, Estimating the Impact of Climate Change on Crop Yields: The Importance of Nonlinear Temperature Eects," Social Science Research Network Working Paper, 2006. Non-linear Eects of Weather on Corn Yields," Review of Agricultural Economics, 2006, 28 (3), 391{398. W. Michael Hanemann, and Anthony C. Fisher, \Will U.S. Agriculture Really Benet From Global Warming? Accounting for Irrigation in the Hedonic Approach.," American Economic Review, March 2005, 95 (1), 395{406. The Impact of Global Warming on U.S. Agriculture: An Econometric Analysis of Optimal Growing Conditions," Review of Economics and Statistics, February 2006, 88 (1), 113{125. Water Availability, Degree Days, and the Potential Impact of Climate Change on Irrigated Agriculture in California," Climatic Change, March 2007, 81 (1), 19{38. Schmitz, Andrew, Hartley Furtan, and Katherine Baylis, Agricultural Policy,

92

Agribusiness, and Rent-Seeking Behaviour, University of Toronto Press, 2002. Smith, Joel B. and Robert Mendelsohn, eds, The Impact of Climate Change onRegional Systems: A Comprehensive Analysis of California, Cheltenham UK and Northampton MA, USA: Edward Elgar, 2006. Smith, V. Kerry, \Refelction on the Literature," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Summer 2007, 1 (2), 300{318. Thom, H. C. S., Normal Degree Days Above Any Base by the Universal Truncation Coecient," Monthly Weather Review, July 1966, 94 (7), 461{465. Timmins, Christopher, Endogenous Land Use and the Ricardian Valuation of Climate Change," Environmental and Resource Economics, January 2006, 33 (1), 119{142. Waugh, Frederick V, Demand and price analysis : some examples from agriculture, Wash- ington D.C.: Economic and Statitsical Analysis Division, U.S. Deptartment of Agricul- ture, 1964. Wolpin, Kenneth I., A New Test of the Permanent Income Hypothesis: The Impact of Weather on the Income and Consumption of Farm Households in India," International Economic Review, October 1982, 23 (3), 583{594. Working, Holbrook, The Theory of Price of Storage," American Economic Review, De- cember 1949, 39 (6), 1254{1262. Adams, Richard M., Ronald A. Flemming, Ching-Chang Chang, Bruce A. Mc-

93

Carl, and Cynthia Rosenzweig, \A Reassessment of the Economic Eects of Global Climate Change on U.S. Agriculture," Climatic Change, June 1995, 30 (2), 147{167. Ashenfelter, Orley and Karl Storchmann, \Using a Hedonic Model of Solar Radiation to Assess the Economic Eect of Climate Change: The Case of Mosel Valley Vineyards, NBER Working Paper 12380, July 2006. Black, J. Roy and Stanley R. Thompson, Some Evidence on Weather-Crop-Yield Interaction," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, August 1978, 60 (3), 540{543. Brown, Robert. A. and Norman J. Rosenberg, \Climate Change Impacts on the Potential Productivity of Corn and Winter Wheat in Their Primary United States Growing Regions.," Climatic Change, January 1999, 41 (1), 73{107. Conley, Timothy G., \GMM Estimation with Cross Sectional Dependence," Journal of Econometrics, September 1999, 92 (1), 1{45. Darwin, Roy, \A Farmers view of the ricardian approach to measuring agricultural eects of climate change," Climatic Change, March-April 1999, 41, 371{411. Deschenes, Olivier and Michael Greenstone, \The Economic Impacts of Climate Change: Evidence from Agricultural Prots and Random Fluctuations in Weather," Center for the Study of Energy Markets Working Paper 158, August 2006.

94

 Diebold, Francis X. and Roberto S. Mariano, \Comparing Predictive Accuracy," Jour- nal of Business and Economic Statistics, July 1995, 13 (3), 253{263. Kaylen, Michael S., John W. Wade, and Deon B. Frank, Stochastic trend, weather and US corn yield variability," Applied Economics, May 1992, 24 (5), 513{518. Kelly, David L., Charles D. Kolstad, and Glenn T. Mitchell, \Adjustment costs from environmental change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, November 2005, 50 (3), 468{495. Long, Stephen P., Elizabeth A. Ainsworth, Andrew D.B. Leakey, and Patrick B. Morgan, Global food insecurity. Treatment of major food crops with elevated carbon dioxide or ozone under large-scale fully open-airconditins suggests recent models may have overestimated future yields.," Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society B, 2005, 360, 2011{2020. Josef Nosberger, and Donald R. Ort, Food for Thought: LowerThan-Expected Crop Yield Simulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations," Science, 30 June 2006, 312, 1918{1921. Mearns, L. O., W. Easterling, C. Hays, and D. Marx, Comparison of Agricultural Impacts of Climate Change Calculated from High and Low Resolution Climate Change Scenarios: Part I. The Uncertainty Due to Spatial Scale," Climatic Change, November 2001, 51 (2), 131{172.

95

 Mendelsohn, Robert, William D. Nordhaus, and Daigee Shaw, \The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis," American Economic Review, September 1994, 84 (4), 753{771. Nakicenovic, Nebojsa, ed., Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Newey, Whitney K. and Kenneth D. West, \A Simple, Positive Semi-Denite, 703{708. Ritchie, J. T. and D. S. NeSmith, Temperature and Crop Development," in John Hanks and J. T. Richie, eds., Modeling Plant and Soil Systems. Agronomy 31, American Society of Agronomy Madison, WI 1991, pp. 5{29. Rosenzweig, Cynthia and Daniel Hillel, Climate Change and the Global Harvest, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Schlenker, Wolfram and Michael Roberts, \Non-linear Eects of Weather on Corn Yields," Review of Agricultural Economics (Proceedings of the American Agricultural Economics Association Sessions at the 2006 Allied Social Science Associations Meeting, Boston, MA), 2006, 28 (3), 391{398. W. Michael Hanemann, and Anthony C. Fisher, Will U.S. Agriculture Really Benet From Global Warming? Accounting for Irrigation in the Hedonic Approach.," American Economic Review, March 2005, 95 (1), 395{406.
96

Het-

eroskedasticity

and

Autocorrelation

Consistent Covariance Matrix," Econometrica, May 1987, 3 (3),

 The Impact of Global Warming on U.S. Agriculture: An Econometric Analysis of Optimal Growing Conditions," Review of Economics and Statistics, February 2006, 88 (1), 113{125. Sinclair, Thomas R. and Noam G. Seligman, \Crop modeling: from infancy to matu- rity," Agronomy Journal, SeptemberOctober 1996, 88 (5), 698{704. Stockle, Claudio O., Marcello Donatelli, and Roger Nelson, \CropSyst, a cropping systems simulation model," European Journal of Agronomy, January 2003, 18 (3-4), 289{307. Thom, H. C. S., \Normal Degree Days Above Any Base by the Universal Truncation Coecient," Monthly Weather Review, July 1966, 94 (7), 461{465. Timmins, Christopher, \Endogenous Land Use and the Ricardian Valuation of Climate Change," Environmental and Resource Economics, January 2006, 33 (1), 119{142. Wallach, Daniel, Bruno Gonet, Jacques-Eric Bergeza, Philippe Debaekea, Del- phine Leenhardta, and Jean-Nol Aubertotc, \Parameter Estimation for CropModels: A New Approach and Application to a Corn Model," Agronomy Journal, July-August 2001, 93 (4), 757{766.

Ainsworth E.A, Long S.P. What have we learned from fifteen years of Free Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytol. Bai L.-P, Tong C.-F, Lin E.-D, Yang L, Rao M.-J, Lu Z.-G. Proc. World Engineers' Convention. vol. E, agricultural engineering and food security.
97

China Science and Technology Press; Beijing: 2004. Effects of elevated CO2 on processing quality characteristics of two winter wheat genotypes under CGC experiment system; pp. 252256.

Blanche, Benzian, et al. Protein concentration of grain in relation to some weather and soil factors during 17 years of English winter wheat experiments. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1986;37:435444. Blumenthal C, et al. Changes in wheat grain quality due to doubling the level of atmospheric CO2. Cereal Chem. 1996;73:762766. Campbell C.A, et al. Effect of nitrogen, temperature, growth stage all duration of moisture stress on yield components and protein content of Manifou spring wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 1981;61:435 444. Hakala K. Growth and yield potential of spring wheat in a simulated changed climate with increased CO2 and higher temperature. Eur. J. Agron. 1998;9:4152. doi:10.1016/S11610301(98)00025-2 Hendrey G.R, Kimball B.A. The FACE program. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 1994;70:314. doi:10.1016/0168-1923(94)90044-2 Jones P.G, Thornton P.K. The potential impacts of climate change on maize production in Africa and Latin American in 2055. Global Environ. Change. 2003;13:5159. doi:10.1016/S09593780(02)00090-0

Ju H, Xiong W, Xu Y, Lin Erda. The impacts of climate change on wheat yield in China. Acta Agronomic Sinica. 2005;31:2429. Kimball B.A, et al. Wheat grain quality as affected by elevated CO2, drought, and soil nitrogen. Plant Pathol. 2001;150:295303. Matthews R.B, Wassmann R, Buendia L.A, Knox J.W. Using a crop/soil simulation model and GIS techniques to assess methane
98

emissions from rice fields in Asia. II. Model validation and sensitivity analysis. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys. 2000;58:161177. doi:10.1023/A:1009846703516

Monje O, Bugbee B. Adaptation to high CO 2 concentration in an optimal environment: radiation capture, canopy quantum yield and carbon use efficiency. Plant Cell Environ. 1998;21:315324. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3040.1998.00284.x [PubMed] Randall P.J, Moss H.J. Some effects of temperature regimes during grain filling on wheat quality. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1990;41:603 617. Ritchie J.T, Singh U, Godwin D.C, Bowen W.T. Cereal growth, development and yield. In: Tsuji G.Y, Hoogenboom G, Thornton P.K, editors. Understanding options for agricultural production. Kluwer Academic Publishers; Dordrecht: 1998. pp. 7999. ISBN: 0-7923-4833-8. Rogers G.S, Milham P.J, Gillings M, Conroy J.P. Sink strength may be the key to growth and nitrogen responses in N-deficient wheat at elevated CO2. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 1996;23:253264. Rosenzweig C, Lglesias A, Fischer G, Liu Y.H, Baethgen W, Jones W. Wheat yield functions for analysis of land-use change in China. Environ. Model. Assess. 1999;4:115132. doi:10.1023/A:1019008116251

Shaobing Peng, Khush Gurdew. Four decades of breeding for varietal improvement of irrigated lowland rice in the International Rice Research Institute. Plant Prod. Sci. 2003;6:157164. doi:10.1626/pps.6.157 Southworth J, Randolph J.C, Habeck M, Doering O.C, Pfeifer R.A, Rao D.G, Johnston J.J. Consequences of future climate change and
99

changing climate variability on maize yields in the Midwestern United States. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000;82:139158. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00223-1

Tang R, Liren Li. The research development of Rubisco active enzyme. Life Sci. 1998;10:159166. Tester R.F, Morrison W.R, Ellis R.H, Pigott J.R, Batts G.R, Wheeler T.R, Morison J.I.L, Hadley P, Ledward D.A. Effects of elevated growth temperature and CO2 levels on some physicochemical properties of wheat starch. J. Cereal Sci. 1995;22:6371. doi:10.1016/S0733-5210(05)80008-6 Williams M, Shewry P.R, Lawlor D.W, Harwood J.L. The effects of elevated temperature and atmospheric CO 2 concentration on the quality of grain lipids in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown at two levels of nitrogen application. Plant Cell Environ. 1995;18:999 1009. Wrigley, et al. Temperature variation during grain filling and changes in wheat-grain quality. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 1994;21:875885.

Wu Y, Sakamoto C.M, Botner B.M. On the application of the CERES-maize model to the North China Plain. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 1989;49:922. doi:10.1016/0168-1923(89)90058-0

Xiong W, Xu Y.L, Lin E.D, Lu Z.G. Regional simulation of maize yield under IPCC SRES A2 and B2 scenarios. Chin. J. Agrometeorol. 2005;26:1116. Yinlong Xu, Richard Jones. Validating PRECIS with ECMWF reanalysis data over China. Chin. J. Agrometeorol. 2004;25:59.

100

 Adams,

D.M.,

R.J.Alig.,

B.A.McCarl,

J.M.Callaway

and

S.M.Winnett. (1999). Minimum CostStrategies for Sequestering Carbon in Forests. Land Economics 75, 360-374. Adams, R. M., B. Hurd, S. Lenhart, and N. Leary. (1998). The Effects of Global Warming on Agriculture: An Interpretative Review. Journal of Climate Research 11, 19-30. Adams, R.M., R.A. Fleming, C.C. Chang, B.A. McCarl, and C. Rosenzweig. (1995). Reassessment of the Economic Effects of Global Climate Change on US Agriculture. Climatic Change 30, 147-167. Adams, R.M., J.D. Glyer, B.A. McCarl and D.J. Dudek. (1988). The Implications of Global Change for Western Agriculture. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 13, 348-356. Adams, R.M., C. Rosenzweig, R.M. Peart, J.T. Richie, B.A. McCarl, J.D. Glyer, R.B. Curry, J.W. Jones, K.J. Boote, and L.H. Allen. (1990). Global Climate Change and US Agriculture. Nature 345, 219-224. Adams, R.M., B.A. McCarl, K. Segerson, C. Rosenzweig, K.J. Bryant, B.L. Dixon, R. Conner, R.E. Evenson, and D. Ojima. (1999). Economic Effects of Climate Change on US Agriculture. In R. Mendelsohn and J. Neumann (eds.), The Impact of Climate Changeon the United States Economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 18-54. Antle, J.M, S.M. Capalbo, J.B. Johnson, and D. Miljkovic. (1999). The Kyoto Protocol:

101

 Economic Effects of Energy Prices on Northern Plains Dryland Grain Production. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 28, 96-105. Antle, J.M., S.M. Capalbo, and S. Mooney. (2000). Economics of Agricultural Soil C Sequestration: An Integrated Assessment Approach. Seminar paper presented at the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon State University, October 20, 2000. Babcock, B.A. and G.R. Pautsch. (1999). Relative Efficiency of Sequestering Carbon in Agricultural Soils Through Second Best Instruments. Paper presented at the Third Toulouse Conference on Environment and Resource Economics - Environment, Energy Uses and Climate Change, Toulouse, France, 14-16 June 1999. CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). (1992). Preparing US Agriculture for Global Climate Change. Task Force Report No. 119. Ames, Iowa: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). (2001). Forthcoming report on Climate Change and Climate Change Mitigation, Ames, Iowa, USA, CAST. Chen, C.C., and B.A. McCarl. (2001). Pesticide Usage as Influenced by Climate: A Statistical Investigation. Climatic Change, forthcoming. Chen, C.C., B.A. McCarl, and R.M. Adams. ( 2001). Economic Implications of Potential Climate Change Induced ENSO Frequency and Strength Shifts. Climatic Change, forthcoming. Chen, C.C., B.A. McCarl, and D. Schimmelpfennig. (2000). "Yield

102

Variability as Influenced by Climate: A Statistical Investigation", report under USGCRP Assessment http://ageco.tamu.edu/faculty/mccarl/climchg.html . Darwin, R., M. Tsigas, J. Lewandrowski, and A. Raneses. (1995). World Agriculture and Climate Change: Economic Adaptations. Natural Resources and Environmental. Division, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report No. 703. Easterling, W.E. III, P.R. Crosson, N.J. Rosenberg, M.S. McKenny, L.A. Katz, and K.M. Lemon. (1993). Agricultural Impacts of and Responses to Climate Change in the Missouri-Iowa-NebraskaKansas (MINK) Region. Climatic Change 24, 23-61. Francl, T. (1997). Potential Economic Impact of the Global Climate Change Treaty on the Agricultural Sector, Public Policy Division, American Farm Bureau Federation, Parkridge Illinois, 29 September. Hahn, G.L. (1995). Global Warming and Potential Impacts on Cattle and Swine in Tropical and Temperate Areas. Proceeding of first Brazilian Conference on Biometeorology 136- 173. Hahn, G.L. (2000). Potential Consequences of Climate Change on Ruminant Livestock Production, Draft USDA /ARS report, US Meat Animal Research Center Clay Center Nebraska.. IPCC. (1996). Climate Change 1995: The IPCC Second Assessment Report, Volume 2:

103

 Scientific-Technical Analyses of Impacts, Adaptations, and Mitigation of Climate Change, Watson, R.T., M.C. Zinyowera, and R.H. Moss (eds.). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York. IPCC. (2000). Land Use, Land-use Change, and Forestry; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press , Geneva, Switzerland, 2000. Jacobs, K., D.B. Adams and P. Gleick. (2000). Chapter 14 Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change for the Water Resources of the United States in US Global Climate Change Program National Assessment Report The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change available at http://www.gcrio.org/nationalassessment/14WA.pdf. Kaiser, H.M. S.J. Riha, D.S. Wilks, D.G. Rossier, and R. Sampath. (1993). A Farm-Level Analysis of Economic and Agronomic Impacts of Gradual Warming. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75, 387-398. Konyar, K. and R.E. Howitt. (2000). The Cost of the Kyoto Protocol to US Crop Production: Measuring Crop Price, a Regional Acreage and Input Substitution Effects. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 25, 347-3367 Lal, R., J. M. Kimble, R. F. Follett, and C. V. Cole. (1998). The Potential of U.S. Cropland to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect, 128 pp., Sleeping Bear Press Inc., Chelsea MI,1998.

104

 Lee, H.C., B.A. McCarl,, U. Schneider, and C. C. Chen. (2000). Economic Implications of International Participation Alternatives for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation, paper presented at Taiwan Conference on Carbon Sequestration, November 2000. Lewandrowski, J., and D. Schimmelpfennig. (1999). Economic Implications of Climate Change for US Agriculture: Assessing Recent Evidence. Land Economics 75, 39-57. Marland, G., B.A. McCarl, and U. Schneider. (1999). Soil and Carbon Policy and Economics, in Carbon Sequestration in Soils: Science Monitoring and Beyond, Edited By N.J. Rosenberg, R.C. Isaurralde, and E.L. Malone, Battelle Press, Columbus OH, 153-169. Marland, G. and B. Schlamadinger. (1997). Forests for Carbon Sequestration or Fossil Fuel Substitution A Sensitivity Analysis. Biomass and Bioenergy 13, 389-397. McCarl, B. A. (1999). Results from the National and NCAR Agricultural Climate Change Effects Assessments, report on USGCRP National Assessment, http://ageco.tamu.edu/faculty/mccarl/papers/778.pdf. McCarl, B. A., M. Gowen, and T. Yeats. (1999). The Impact of Carbon Permit Prices on the US Agricultural Sector, final report for EPA Climate Change Policies and Programs Division.
105

 McCarl, B. A. and J. M. Reilly. (1999). Water and the Agricultural Climate Change Assessment: Economists, Issues From the of Standpoint American of Water Agricultural Resources Proceedings

Association Special Conference on Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change to Water Resources, Atlanta, GA. McCarl, B.A. and U.Schneider. (1999). Curbing Greenhouse Gases: Agriculture's Role. Choices, First Quarter, 9-12. McCarl, B.A. and U.Schneider. (2000a). Agriculture's Role in a Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation World: An Economic Perspective. Agricultural Economics, 22(1), 134-159. McCarl, B.A., and U. Schneider. (2000b). Economic Potential of Biomass Based Fuels from Agricultural Sources. Proceeding of Conference Sustainable Energy: New Challenges for Agriculture and Implications for Land Use, Wagenengin, the Netherlands. Edited by E. van Ierland, A. Oude Lansink and E. Schmieman,. Mendelsohn, R., W.D. Nordhaus, and D. Shaw. (1994). The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis. The American Economic Review 84, 753-771. Pautsch, G. , L. Kurkalova, B. Babcock and C. Kling. (2000). The Efficiency of Sequestering Carbon in Agricultural Soils, Working Paper 00-wp 246 Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University Ames. Reilly, J., N. Hohmann, and S. Kane. (1994). Climate Change and Agricultural Trade. Global Environmental Change. 4(1), 24-36.
106

Review of

 Reilly, J., F. Tubiello, B.A. McCarl and J. Melillo. (2000a). Climate Change and Agriculture in the United States: Sectoral Vulnerability, Chapter 13 of US Global Change Research Program National Assessment Report Climate Change Impacts on our Nation, http://www.gcrio.org/NationalAssessment/. Reilly,J.M., J. Graham, D.G. Abler, R.Darwin, S. Hollinger, C. Izaurralde, S. Jagtap, J.Jones, J. Kimble, B.A.McCarl, L.Mearns, D.Ojima, E.A. Paul, K. Paustian, S. Riha, N. Rosenberg, C. Rosenzweig, and F. Tubiello. (2000b). Report of the Agricultural Sector Assessment Team, US Global Change Research Program National Assessment Report on Changing Climate and Changing Agriculture, http://www.nacc.usgcrp.gov/sectors/agriculture/. Rosenzweig, C., M.L. Parry, and G. Fischer. (1995). World Food Supply. In Strzepek, K.M., and J.B. Smith (eds). As Climate Changes: International Impacts and Implications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York, pp. 27-56. Rosenzweig, C. and A. Iglesias (eds). (1994). Implications of Climate Change for International Agriculture: Crop Modeling Study. EPA 230-B-94-003. Timmermann, A., J. Oberhuber, A. Bacher, M. Each, M. Latif, and E. Roeckner. (1999). ENSO Response to Greenhouse Warming. Nature 694-97.

107

 United Nations, Framework Convention on Climate Change. (1998) Kyoto Protocol. Climate Change Secretariat (UNFCCC). http://www.unfccc.de/resource/convkp.html (March 1998). US Department of Agriculture. (1999). Office of The Chief Economist, Global Change Program Office, Economic Analysis of US Agriculture and the Kyoto Protocol http://www.usda.gov/oce/gcpo/Kyoto.pdf, May. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland, 2001. Bolin, B. and Sukumar, R., Global perspective. In Land use, Landuse Change and Forestry (eds Watson, R. T., Noble, I. R. and Bolin, B.), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, Intergovernmental Switzerland,2001. Loske, R., Scope of the Report: Setting the Stage: Climate Changeand Sustainable Development, Third Assessment Report of Working Group III to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,1996. World Resources 20002001, People and Ecosystems: The FrayingWeb of Life, World Resources Institute, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001. Panel on Climate Change, Geneva,

108

 Jepma, C. J. and Munasinghe, M., Climate Change Policy; Facts,Issues and Analyses, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998. Jacob James, The science, politics and economics of global climatechange: Implications for the carbon sink projects, Curr. Sci., 2005, 89(3), 464474. Pielke, R. A. J., Rethinking the role of adaptation in climate policy.Global Environ. Change, 1998, 8.2, 159170. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992(UNFCCC), Geneva, Switzerland, United Nations Environment Program Information Unit on Climate Change, 1992. Ravindranath, N. H. and Sathaye, J., Climate Change and Developing Countries, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2002. Indias Initial National Communications to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, 2004. Rupa Kumar, K. et al., High-resolution climate change scenariosfor India for the 21st century. Curr. Sci., 2005, 90, 334345. Ravindranath, N. H., Joshi, N. V., Sukumar, R. and Saxena, AImpact of climate change on forests in India. Curr. Sci., 2005, 90, 354361. Tenth Plan Document, Planning Commission, New Delhi, 2002. Indian Vision 2020, SP Gupta Committee Report. Planning Commission, New Delhi, 2002.

109

 Human Development Report: 2003, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Oxford University Press, New York. Bruce, J. P., Lee, H. and Hates, E. F., Climate Change 1995: Economicand Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996. Shukla, P. R., Sharma, S. K., Ravindranath, N. H., Bhattacharya, S. and Garg, A. (eds), Climate Change and India: Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation, Universities Press, Hyderabad, 2003. Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Oxford University Press, New York, 1987. Goldemberg, J., Squitieri, R., Stiglitz, J., Amano, A., Shaoxiong, X. and Saha, R., Introduction: scope of the assessment. In Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, 1996. Global Environmental Outlook, United Nations Environment Program(UNEP), Oxford University Press, 1999. Worrell, E. and Price, L., An integrated benchmarking and energy savings tool for the iron and steel industry. Int. J. Green Energy, 2005, in press. Galitsky, C., Worrell, E., Radspieler, A., Healy, P., Zechiel, S. and Fetzer Vineyards. BEST Winery Guidebook: Benchmarking and

110

Energy and Water Savings Tool for the Wine Industry, LBNL 3184, 2005. Mills, Insurance in a climate of change. Science, 2005, 309, 1040 1044. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary of the Working Group II Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(2001), Geneva, Switzerland, IPCC. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary of the Working Group III Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland,2001. International Energy Outlook 2005, US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration of Government of United States of America, 2005. Chandler, W., Schaffer, R., Dadi, Z., Shukla, P. R., Tudela, F., Davidson, O. and Alpan-Atamar S., Climate change mitigation in developing countries, Report, The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington DC, October, 2002. Nakicenovic, N. et al., Special report on emissions scenarios. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000. Shukla, P. R., Rana, A., Garg, A., Kapshe, M. and Nair R., Climate Change Assessment for India: Applications of Asia Pacific Integrated Model (AIM), Universities Press, Hyderabad, 2004

111

 Garg, A., Ghosh, D. and Shukla, P. R., Energy sector policies and mitigation of GHG emissions from India. In Climate Change Economics and Policy: Indian Perspectives (ed. Toman M.), Resources for the Future Publication, Washington DC, 2003. Nair, R., Shukla, P. R., Kapshe, M., Garg, A. and Rana, A., Analysis of long-term energy and carbon emission scenarios for India. In Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2003, vol. 8, pp. 5369. Lal D.S.1989.Climatology.Chaitaniya publishing company, Allahabad, India, 429pp.

112