Eva Unit I-Iv

OA1551 Environment and Agriculture Department of Biotechnology 2020 - 21
OAI551 ENVIRONMENT AND AGRICULTURE
UNIT I ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
Environmental basis for agriculture and food – Land use and landscape changes – Water
quality issues – Changing social structure and economic focus – Globalization and its impacts
– Agro ecosystems.
UNIT II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Irrigation development and watersheds – mechanized agriculture and soil cover impacts –
Erosion and problems of deposition in irrigation systems – Agricultural drainage and
downstream impacts – Agriculture versus urban impacts.
UNIT III CLIMATE CHANGE
Global warming and changing environment – Ecosystem changes – Changing blue-green-

grey water cycles – Water scarcity and water shortages – Desertification.
UNIT IV ECOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURE
Ecological diversity, wild life and agriculture – GM crops and their impacts on the
environment – Insects and agriculture – Pollination crisis – Ecological farming principles –
Forest fragmentation and agriculture – Agricultural biotechnology concerns.
UNIT V EMERGING ISSUES
Global environmental governance – alternate culture systems – Mega farms and vertical
farms – Virtual water trade and its impacts on local environment – Agricultural environment
policies and its impacts – Sustainable agriculture.
TEXTBOOKS:
1. M.LakshmiNarasaiah, Environment and Agriculture, Discovery Pub. House, 2006.
2. Arvind Kumar, Environment and Agriculture, ABH Publications, New Delhi, 2005.
REFERENCES:
1. T.C. Byerly, Environment and Agriculture, United States. Dept. of Agriculture. Economic
Research Service, 2006.
2. Robert D. Havener, Steven A. Breth, Environment and agriculture: rethinking development

issues for the 21st century : proceedings of a symposium, Winrock International Institute for
Agricultural Development, 1994
3. Environment and agriculture: environmental problems affecting agriculture in the Asia and
Pacific region; World Food Day Symposium, Bangkok, Thailand. 1989
St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 1

UNIT I ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
Environmental basis for agriculture and food – Land use and landscape changes – Water
quality issues – Changing social structure and economic focus – Globalization and its impacts
– Agro ecosystems.
Agriculture & Environment: Introduction

Food is a basic human need, and producing enough to feed the growing population of
developing nations is one of the biggest challenges facing the modern world. The first of the
eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is a pledge by the international community to
halve the number of people in the world suffering from extreme hunger by the year 2015, a
promise that puts agriculture at the heart of the development agenda.
Three out of four people in the developing world depend directly or indirectly on
agriculture for their livelihood. Indeed, for most low-income countries, agriculture — which
includes livestock, fisheries and forestry — is the most important sector of the economy,
generating up to one half of gross domestic product, and often the main source of foreign
currency.One of the main ways in which agriculture can be made more productive is by
harnessing science to increase productivity.
A range of agricultural research programmes are currently underway in Sub-Saharan
Africa, the one part of the developing world where wide-scale food shortages are still found.
Agriculture must also be sustainable. In the past, many parts of the developing world have
suffered from overgrazing and the loss of soil fertility through intensive food production.
This has often led to the spread of deserts and to a growing interest in developing farming
practices for use in arid environments.
More recently, an overzealous application of scientific techniques, such as chemical
pesticides and herbicides, has brought its own set of problems, ranging
from pollution of water resources to destruction of wildlife. As these problems have grown,
so has a realisation that a basic understanding of the mechanisms that create and sustain
biodiversity is essential if biodiversity — and the support that it provides to the world's food
production — is to be preserved.
Introducing new agricultural techniques can be difficult. Controversy
surrounds agricultural biotechnology, a broad term used to cover techniques that have
emerged since the 1970s, making it possible to alter the characteristics of plants by modifying
their genetic material.
Proponents of agricultural biotechnology point to the many benefits that agricultural
technology, and in particular the development of genetically modified (GM) crops, could

offer to the developing world. But efforts to promote the use of GM crops, both in developed
and developing countries, remain mired in controversy.
The growth of agricultural technology has spawned another field of controversy —
the concept of bioprospecting. Some foreign companies and governments are accused of
'biopiracy' — illegally obtaining samples of a developing country's indigenous plant material
to improve its own products.But the biggest challenge to agriculture in developing countries
comes from the impact of climate change. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization says
global warming is shrinking food supply and pushing up prices in many countries, with the
result that people are already starting to go hungry.
If the international community wants to make a significant impact on hunger in the
developing world, the challenges ahead are enormous. This topic gateway seeks to bring
together news and features articles, combined with background analysis and opinion, that
highlight the most important aspects of these challenges, presenting both the concrete
scientific and technological achievements that will help feed to world's poor — and the
complex policy choices that need to be made if this goal is to be achieved.
Environmental basis for agriculture and food
Interactions between agriculture and the environment

Soil quality (sustainability concerns):
Issues here are contamination, erosion, desertification, nutrient supply and moisture
balance. Soils can be damaged by changes in land use practices such as deforestation, the
removal of hedgerows, overgrazing, neglect of soil conservation methods or the farming of
uncultivated land. Soil erosion is a particularly acute problem in Mediterranean countries.
Water quality and quantity (pollution concerns):

Issues here include leaching of nutrients and pesticides, water extraction and drainage
and flooding. Contamination of both ground and surface waters caused by high levels of
production and use of manure and chemical fertilisers is a serious problem, particularly in
areas of intensive livestock or specialised crop production. Water quantity problems arise in
regions where water consumption exceeds critical levels in relation to available water
resources. A growing area of farmland in Europe is irrigated, and agriculture is the most
significant user of water in the Mediterranean parts of Europe. How best to allocate limited
supplies of water among competing uses is an urgent issue of concern.
Air quality (pollution concerns):

The issues here are emissions of greenhouse gases and ammonia. At EU level,
agriculture is responsible for about 8% of total greenhouse gas emissions but is the principal
source of methane (from cattle production) and nitrogen oxide (from grazing livestock)
contributing around 40% of these two gases.
Biodiversity (conservation concerns):

Issues include genetic, species and ecosystem diversity. The intensification of
agriculture has led to widespread reduction of species and habitats. However, about two-fifths
of the European Union's agricultural area remains under low intensity systems - mainly either
grazing land under various systems of livestock management or permanent crops under
traditional management. They support semi-natural habitats and wildlife species of
conservation importance, but may face the threat of abandonment or of intensification. These
threats may be intensified in a future environment of high food prices in response to growing
food and biofuels deamnd.
Landscape (amenity concerns):

More an aesthetic and cultural issue. The marginalisation of agricultural land can lead
to its abandonment if farming ceases to be viable. Alternatively, intensification of agriculture
can lead to the loss of important landscape features such as hedges and ponds, the
enlargement of fields and the replacement of traditional farm buildings with industrial
structures. Rights of access may be restricted in interests of more efficient farming.
Food safety and animal welfare concerns:

Issue here is the effect of agricultural practices on human health rather than the
physical environment. There is also concern about the consequences for the quality and safety
of the food supply of the increasing use of pesticides and drugs, leading to encouragement to
organic farming.
Land use and landscape changes

Land use patterns and land form are important sources of information that contribute
to the formation of landscape perceptions and values. Variations in human experiences,
needs and desires, personal utility functions for the use of the landscape, and socio-cultural
contexts are suggested as mediating variables on perceived values and human responses.
The importance of landscape values information to planning and management activities is
discussed. Agricultural land-use is dynamic and is related to changes in the structure of
habitat patches, e.g. their spatial pattern, size or connectivity. Agricultural intensification
implies changes such as an increase in plot size of arable fields and the removal of linear
elements. The resulting habitat isolation affects plant population dynamics and its basic

processes at the landscape level, e.g. migration or colonisation. This is likely to play an
increasingly important role for biodiversity patterns at the landscape level because many
plant populations become isolated in otherwise unsuitable landscapes. This is why
biodiversity studies need to be conducted also at the landscape level.
In addition to emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases from energy, industrial,
agricultural, and other activities, humans also affect climate through changes in
land use (activities taking place on land, like growing food, cutting trees, or building cities)
and land cover (the physical characteristics of the land surface, including grain crops, trees,
or concrete). For example, cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside because the
greater extent of paved areas in cities affects how water and energy are exchanged between
the land and the atmosphere. This increases the exposure of urban populations to the effects
of extreme heat events. Decisions about land use and land cover can therefore affect,
positively or negatively, how much our climate will change and what kind of vulnerabilities
humans and natural systems will face as a result.
The impacts of changes in land use and land cover cut across all regions and sectors
of the National Climate Assessment. Chapters addressing each region discuss land-use and
land-cover topics of particular concern to specific regions. Similarly, chapters addressing
sectors examine specific land-use matters. In particular, land cover and land use are a major
focus for sectors such as agriculture, forests, rural and urban communities, and Native
American lands. By contrast, the key messages of this chapter are national in scope and
synthesize the findings of other chapters regarding land cover and land use.
Land uses and land covers change over time in response to evolving economic, social,
and biophysical conditions. Many of these changes are set in motion by individual
landowners and land managers and can be quantified from satellite measurements, aerial
photographs, on-the-ground observations, and reports from landowners and users., Over the
past few decades, the most prominent land changes within the U.S. have been changes in the
amount and kind of forest cover due to logging practices and development in the Southeast
and Northwest and to urban expansion in the Northeast and Southwest.
Because humans control land use and, to a large extent, land cover, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and governments can make land decisions to adapt to
and/or reduce the effects of climate change. Often the same land-use decision can serve both
aims. Adaptation options (those aimed at coping with the effects of climate change) include
varying the local mix of vegetation and concrete to reduce heat in cities or elevating homes to
reduce exposure to sea level rise or flooding. Land-use and land-cover-related options for
mitigating climate change (reducing the speed and amount of climate change) include
expanding forests to accelerate removal of carbon from the atmosphere, modifying the way

cities are built and organized to reduce energy and motorized transportation demands, and
altering agricultural management practices to increase carbon storage in soil.
Despite this range of climate change response options, there are three main reasons
why private and public landowners may choose not to modify land uses and land covers for
climate adaptation or mitigation purposes. First, land decisions are influenced not only by
climate but also by economic, cultural, legal, or other considerations. In many cases, climate-
based land-change efforts to adapt to or reduce climate change meet with resistance because
current practices are too costly to modify and/or too deeply entrenched in local societies and
cultures. Second, certain land uses and land covers are simply difficult to modify, regardless
of desire or intent. For instance, the number of homes constructed in floodplains or the
amount of irrigated agriculture can be so deeply rooted that they are difficult to change, no
matter how much those practices might impede our ability to respond to climate change.
Finally, the benefits of land-use decisions made by individual landowners with specific
adaptation or mitigation goals do not always accrue to those landowners or even to their
communities. Therefore, without some institutional intervention (such as incentives or
penalties), the motivations for such decisions can be weak.
Classification of Land:
In India the classification of land has had its roots in agricultural statistics.
For a few years after the country‟s independence, the land in India was broadly
classified into five categories:
(i) Area under forests,
(ii) Area not available for cultivation,
(iii) Uncultivated lands excluding current fallow,
(iv) Area under current fallow, and
(v) net area sown.
However, it was soon realised that such a classification did not give a dear picture of the
actual area under different categories of land use, required by agricultural planning. Hence, a
reclassification was adopted from March 1950. Under it, land in India is now classified under
nine different categories, viz., (i) forests, (ii) barren and unculturable land, (iii) land put to
non- agricultural uses, (iv) culturable wastes, (v) permanent pasture and other grazing land;
(vi) miscellaneous tree crops and groves not included in the net area own, (vii) current
fallows; (viii) other fallows; and (ix) net area sown. The study of land utilisation is done on
the basis of above classification.
Changes in Land Use Patterns:
Significant spatial and temporal changes have been noted in the land use pattern in
India. Though radical changes have occurred in all parts of India, the changes in agricultural

land use are substantial in areas where the green revolution has been successful. In 1951-52,
the net area sown was 119.4 million hectares; in 2006-07, it was more than 141 million
hectares.
However, there is a slight decline from the 1990s. Forest cover had increased from
about 14 per cent of land cover in 1951-52 to more than 23.5 per cent in 2006-07. This
increase in forest cover just means an increase within the demarcated area for forests. There
has been a rise in the area that is double- cropped and multiple-cropped. Agricultural land use
has recorded substantial changes; the area under wheat and rice has increased while that
under pulses, millets and fodder has reduced.
Wastelands are degraded land—under-utilised and suffering from lack of proper soil
and water management—brought under vegetative cover with reasonable effort. As the
economy grows, land use patterns also change. As a result, land is being put to use in areas
other than agricultural. Agricultural land is increasingly being used for building purposes,
especially around urban areas. So too, pastureland is declining as a result of pressure from
agriculture.
Water pollution and management

The nitrates from agricultural sources has placed increased emphasis on the
environmental effects of excess nitrogen, in particular eutrophication. It requires the
designation of vulnerable zones, adoption of a mandatory code of good practice and
implementation of action plans to prevent eutrophication and water pollution.
The Water Framework Directive prepare water management plans on the basis of
river basins rather than administrative units. It also introduces the idea of water pricing to
conserve adequate supplies of a resource for which demand is continuously increasing.
Member States are required to ensure that by 2010 the price charged to water consumers -
such as for the abstraction and distribution of fresh water and the collection and treatment of
waste water - reflects the true costs. Derogations will be possible, e.g. in less-favoured areas
or to provide basic services at an affordable price. Where information is available on water
pricing, agriculture tends to pay significantly less than other sectors. Member States must
remedy the inconsistencies of their water policies before 2010 when their first river basin
management plans are due for adoption.
Water pollution and management

The Nitrates Directive (Directive 91/676/EEC) on nitrates from agricultural sources
has placed increased emphasis on the environmental effects of excess nitrogen, in particular
eutrophication. It requires the designation of vulnerable zones, adoption of a mandatory code

of good practice and implementation of action plans to prevent eutrophication and water
pollution.
The Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) obliges MS to prepare water
management plans on the basis of river basins rather than administrative units. It also
introduces the idea of water pricing to conserve adequate supplies of a resource for which
demand is continuously increasing. Member States are required to ensure that by 2010 the
price charged to water consumers - such as for the abstraction and distribution of fresh water
and the collection and treatment of waste water - reflects the true costs. Derogations will be
possible, e.g. in less-favoured areas or to provide basic services at an affordable price. Where
information is available on water pricing, agriculture tends to pay significantly less than other
sectors. Member States must remedy the inconsistencies of their water policies before 2010
when their first river basin management plans are due for adoption.
Changing social structure and economic focus

Agricultural knowledge for economically, socially and environmentally sustainable
development is as follows:
At the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development held in South Africa, the
World Bank (Washington, DC, USA) and the United Nations' Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO, Rome, Italy) announced that they would organize a global consultation
process on agricultural science and technology (IAASTD, 2003). They showed remarkable
foresight: when the International Assessment of Agriculture, Science and Technology for
Development (IAASTD) final reports were approved in April 2008, they were released to
media and governments already disturbed about biofuels, increasing food prices, food
protests in developing countries, and a general concern about producing enough food to feed
the world (IAASTD, 2008).
In a relatively short time, agriculture has once again become the focus of politicians,
consumers, scientists and environmentalists. Indeed, the main question that the IAASTD set
out to answer, with some foresight, was: ―How can we reduce hunger and poverty, improve
rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable, environmentally, socially and economically
sustainable development through the generation, access to, and use of agricultural knowledge,
science and technology (AKST)?‖ Now, as the report is published, such topics are not only
matters of academic interest, but also issues of increasing economic, political and even
strategic importance.
With an intergovernmental governance structure, the IAASTD is agriculture's
equivalent to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with no less a difficult
task. The report sets the scene in which the IAASTD met: ―Today there is a world of

asymmetric development, unsustainable natural resource use, and continued rural and urban
poverty. Generally, the adverse consequences of global changes have the most significant
effects on the poorest and most vulnerable, who historically have had limited entitlements
and opportunities for growth.‖ There is an urgent need to diversify and strengthen AKST
recognizing differences in agroecologies and social and cultural conditions. The need to re-
tool AKST, to reduce poverty and provide improved livelihoods options for the rural poor,
especially landless and peasant communities, urban informal and migrant workers, is a major
challenge.‖ In a relatively short time, agriculture has once again become the focus of
politicians, consumers, scientists and environmentalists
The task of gathering information about the various types and methods of agriculture,
and assessing them for their ability to produce food in a sustainable manner was an arduous
and difficult one. Nevertheless, the long evaluation process has created the basis for making
recommendations about the future of agriculture with input from various disciplines,
including sociology, agronomy, biology, economy and chemistry. Differing views of its role
in society or its ecological and societal impacts have often coincided with alternative ideas
about the fair distribution of resources and sustainable development. The report therefore
emphasizes the multifunctionality of agriculture, which is not only about producing food or
generating economic income, but also about defining the lives of millions of people and
having an important role in mitigating environmental damage.
Since the start of the industrial revolution, agriculture has undergone a series of
important transformations. In Europe and North America, scientific progress, coupled with a
demand to feed the rapidly growing industrial and urban populations, has pushed up
productivity continuously and has industrialized agriculture to a large extent. By contrast,
poorer countries and many small, isolated communities have preserved more traditional
farming methods. Consequently, there are now two main models of producing food in the
world.

Industrial Agriculture:
Industrialized agriculture, as the name suggests, is an industry that aims to produce
food—in many cases, commodities—as efficiently and cheaply as possible. It not only caters
to local consumers, but also aims to contribute to a country's exports and gross national
product. To produce high yields and surpluses, export-oriented agriculture requires the heavy
use of sophisticated technology: large farming machinery, artificial fertilizers, pesticides and
herbicides, irrigation systems, high-yield hybrid crop varieties and genetically modified
crops. These technologies, in turn, depend on research carried out by universities or dedicated
research centres and companies, which rely on public and private investments, thus linking
AKST to the financial markets. Industrial agriculture uses a top-down methodology that can
be adopted anywhere on the planet wherever the necessary environmental conditions—
notably soil quality, water quantity and appropriate climate—are met. However, although
industrialized agriculture has markedly increased global food production during the past 100
years, it has also created many problems in terms of environmental degradation, the exclusion
of small farmers, consumer safety and public health.
During the last century, agricultural research, technological development, and public
and private investments have been focused on the industrialized approach to agriculture, as
the overall aim has been—and still is—to increase production and productivity. Scientists,
farmers, breeders and the chemical industry have continuously innovated and improved to
reduce farm gate prices—the price of the product available at the farm—while externalizing
environmental and societal impacts, which are not included in the final price of agricultural
products.
Research and development have paid much less attention to the—albeit often
unintended—social and environmental consequences of increased food production. Despite
an abundance of food in developed countries, more than 854 million people still suffer from

malnutrition and undernutrition (FAO, 2006), whereas the number of obese people has
increased, ironically, mainly among the poor (Young, 2004; Prentice, 2006). The Indian
economist and philosopher Amartya Sen, who received the Nobel Prize for economics in
1998, emphasized that food security is not only a matter of producing enough food to eat, but
also of making the food available to those who need it (Sen, 1981).
Furthermore, industrial agriculture has an enormous environmental impact. It directly
contributes 14% of the total man-made emissions of greenhouse gases—mainly methane and
nitrous oxide—while changes in land use contribute a further 18% usually owing to
deforestation in order to increase areas of arable land. Other environmental impacts include
land erosion and degradation, salinization of soils owing to over-irrigation, water pollution
and eutrophication—the pollution of land and water ecosystems with nitrogen and
phosphorous fertilizers. Furthermore, industrialized food production has also had a serious
impact on biodiversity; many marine ecosystems are on the verge of collapse as a result of
overfishing, while changes on land have destroyed or reduced land-based ecosystems such as
rainforests or grasslands.
Industrial agriculture has also had a direct impact on human health, not only in terms
of undernutrition, malnutrition and food safety, but also for the emergence of infectious
diseases. Perhaps more seriously, the use of antibiotics in livestock farming to increase
growth has been one of the main factors contributing to the increase in antibiotic resistance
among bacterial pathogens, including resistance to vancomycin, which is a last-line antibiotic
used only to treat serious infections of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Similarly, pesticides
constitute a major health problem, causing death, acute and chronic neurotoxicity, lung
damage, chemical burns, infant methemoglobinaemia, various cancers, immunological
abnormalities, and adverse reproductive and developmental effects.
Growing interest in biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels has also contributed to the
marked increase in agricultural interest during the past few years. The idea that converting
crops into ethanol or biodiesel could help to overcome the reliance of developed countries on
oil and gas, alleviate global climate change and further spur economic growth in the
agricultural sector, seemed to be a win–win situation.
These developments highlight three types of disconnection in the current situation:
between agriculture and the environment, as food and commodities production becomes more
important than biodiversity or ecological preservation; between producers and consumers, the
latter of whom no longer know where their food comes from or how it is produced; and
between policies and their consequences, such as the tax benefits for growing biofuels. To
overcome this situation, the IAASTD has stated that ‗business as usual' is not an option.
Instead, we need an inclusive strategy to improve on agriculture that adds different actors and

opinions, rather than reduces. Some of the crucial recommendations are to adopt
‗agroecological' strategies; to create better opportunities for farmers and rural workers in
developing countries; to strengthen the role of women; to integrate traditional knowledge;
and to involve social scientists in policy formulations.
Agroecology applies ecological concepts to the design and management of
agricultural systems in order to fulfil environmental, social and economic expectations:
sustainable production, healthy environments, and viable food and farming communities. It
uses a multidisciplinary, whole-systems approach—based on traditional knowledge,
alternative forms of agriculture and local experiences—which integrates the social and
cultural aspects of agriculture. Some examples proposed by the IAASTD include improving
low-impact practices and providing incentives for the sustainable management of water,
livestock, forests and fisheries.
Creating better opportunities for poor farmers and rural labourers involves including
their expectations and experience not only in research and development, but also in policy-
making and political decisions. As some of the main stakeholders in agriculture, they should
be allowed to influence decisions about the use and management of natural resources, access
to land, intellectual property rights, trade priorities and environmental protection measures.
Small-scale farmers would clearly benefit from more research dedicated to their cause, access
to knowledge, technology and credit, and, critically, from more political influence. Most
importantly, farmers need to be able to get fair prices for their products in both local and
global markets. They need legal security to guarantee access to land, water and natural
resources, and fair access to intellectual property. Moreover, creating more equity in
agriculture would mean introducing technology to, and improving education in, poor areas.
The current system used to value productive activities focuses largely on those that
create monetary assets; the labour and knowledge of women, which are essential to support
family households and rural communities, are not taken into account. However, the
participation of women is particularly important. Although women are involved in all
agricultural and post-harvest activities, they are predominantly among the poorest,
particularly in developing countries. Most of these women do not have access to natural
resources, education or training, while their labour and knowledge is largely ignored. In
addition to housekeeping and child rearing, women are usually responsible for carrying water
and gathering fuel wood, planting and transplanting, weeding, harvesting, picking fruits and
vegetables, small livestock rearing, and post-harvest operations such as threshing, seed
selection and storage. In many rural areas, they are also recognized as the guardians of
biodiversity. Integrating their knowledge and labour is essential to achieve the goals of
development and sustainability stated in the IAASTD's rationale. Indeed, if women's labour

were considered as productive work, economic statistics would change markedly. This
suggests that major changes to our consideration of what are productive activities are
required, and will involve greater collaboration with women to understand their traditional
knowledge, as well as facilitating their access to formal education. Moreover, it requires
changing political structures to allow their participation in decision-making processes,
including in science policy.
Furthermore, agricultural research, through increasing participation and democratic
governance, can help to overcome the political constraints faced by small-scale farmers. If
most research and development continues to create sophisticated tools and crops that only
farmers in rich countries are able to afford, it will further neglect the potential of poor and
small-scale farmers. Alternatively, if these farmers can contribute their extensive knowledge
about local conditions, ecosystems and practices, then agriculture as a whole could be refined
and tailored to specific locations.
During the IAASTD assessment process, it also became clear that the methodologies
used by other scientific fields—notably in the social sciences—provide helpful tools to
mitigate the negative effects of industrialized agriculture. Social scientists have been
analysing the social and environmental effects of agriculture since the 1970s. Perhaps, if we
had paid attention to their analyses and collaborated with them earlier, we would be in a
different situation today. The IAASTD has analysed most of these perspectives and suggests
that more interdisciplinary work should be undertaken to improve the tools used by social and
natural scientists to evaluate the impact of agriculture on society. Integrating the expertise
from various fields will help to develop solutions that increase productivity, protect natural
resources and livelihoods, and minimize the negative effects of agriculture on the
environment and humans.
In many cases, finding new solutions to existing problems is not only a matter of
generating or using scientific knowledge, but also requires policy changes. Clearly AKST
alone cannot solve the major problems, which are often caused by complex political and
social dynamics. However, it can make an important contribution to meeting the goals of
development and sustainability. The natural sciences can inform policy changes, whereas the
political, social and economic sciences have a lot to say about how these changes could be
organized; for example, how to prepare a legal framework that would strengthen local
markets and improve food safety and quality. They can also help to focus the natural sciences
on achieving these objectives while minimizing the social and environmental impacts of the
agriculture.
To ensure further development and meet sustainability goals, the IAASTD
distinguishes two areas of action: improving technology—such as the improvement of crops

or livestock, including local autochthonous breeds or sustainable practices for using water,
energy and other natural resources—and creating an organizational infrastructure to develop
policy tools. How these two areas interact can be exemplified in the case of human health,
which can be improved through diversifying diets and enhancing their nutritional value
through improved technologies and processes to preserve and distribute food, and also
through better health policies and health-care systems. Another example is sustainable
agriculture itself: it not only requires research to increase productivity and to improve
management, but also institutional arrangements to support it, for example, by internalizing
the environmental and social costs of industrial agriculture.
Putting into practice the new and innovative approaches suggested by the IAASTD is
not an easy task. Experimental scientists are not used to working with farmers or small
communities; they are not used to bottom-up approaches either, and tend to rely on empirical
results from laboratory experiments or field trials rather than on indigenous knowledge.
However, although the Cartesian principle of reductionism on which modern science relies
has contributed greatly to the advance of science, it is clearly not suitable to answer the
questions raised by the IAASTD, which will also require more holistic approaches. In this
sense, traditional knowledge is more pragmatic, dynamic and probably more suited to
addressing some relevant problems. Participatory collaboration in generating knowledge,
technology development and innovation has been shown to add value to science-based
technology development. It is therefore up to experimental scientists to acknowledge and
combine other types of knowledge and to promote participation.
As mentioned earlier, industrial agriculture has made considerable progress during the
past 100 years in increasing food production. Yet, despite all these advances and the
agricultural knowledge generated during this time, we still need to find answers to the
question raised by the IAASTD. This represents a major challenge for science; one that
becomes increasingly relevant in the light of current high prices for energy and food and a
growing world population. It is a challenge that cannot be met without the active participation
of scientists from many disciplines, as well as farmers and the guardians of traditional
knowledge. Let us hope, then, that neither the various political and economic interests, nor
reductionist scientific attitudes, cause the efforts made by the IAASTD to be ignored.
Globalization and its Impacts
The study of effects of globalization would be incomplete without considering it‘s

impact on the most important sector of the economy. The agricultural sector is known to be
the backbone of the Indian economy with an employment of 70 % of the population in

various agricultural, horticultural and allied activities. It‘s contribution to the Gross Domestic
Product however has been declining steadily over the past decades due to low productivity.
Currently it contributes 18 % to the GDP and 10 % to the export earnings of India. With a
view to move towards liberalizing the agricultural sector and promoting free and fair trade,
India, a member nation of the World Trade organization (WTO) signed the Uruguay Round
Agreements on 1st January 1995. The Agreement On Agriculture of the WTO, was the first
multilateral agreement, meant to curb unfair practices in agricultural trade and set off the
process of reforms in the agricultural sector. It contained the following broad areas :
1.Tariff Reduction : Previously trade in agriculture was restricted by quotas, import
and export licensing and other non-tariff barriers. The AoA required that all non-tariff
barriers be replaced by a single tariff rate called the bound tariff rate and that existing tariffs
be reduced in a phased manner over a stipulated period of time. Developing countries
including India were expected to reduce bound tariffs by 24 % , minimum of 10 % for each
commodity over a period of 10 years.
2.Market Access : To avoid the adverse effect of tariffs on certain special products,
importing countries have given a current access commitment by establishing a tariff quota, up
to which imports are allowed at a lower rate and above which higher tariffs are charged.
Under minimum access commitment countries had to import a minimum quantity of their
most restricted products. i.e. In case of products with marginally low or no imports, countries
had to impose tariff quota imports equal to 3 % of domestic consumption, which would
increase to 5 % by 2000.
3.Export Subsidies : They are special incentives given to the exporters to encourage
sales of exports abroad, allowing them to charge competitive or lower price in the world
market. Member nations were expected to reduce them. While developed countries were
supposed to cut the value of export subsidies by 36 % over 6 years, developing countries
were to reduce them by 24 % over 10 years. LDCs were exempted.
4.Domestic Support Subsidies : Domestic support through subsidies and other
measures were meant to push imports out of the market and also enable domestic exporters to
compete in the world market. WTO measured this support as ‗(AMS) Aggregate
Measurement of Support‘. Domestic support is categorized in the form of red box, amber
box, green box and blue box subsidies. Red box subsidies are banned whereas amber box
subsidies are not banned but actionable.
These subsidies were believed to be the most distortive in international trade having
adverse effects on trade interests of others. Green box subsidies in the form of assistance to
research activities, disadvantaged regions or non-discriminating subsidies and Blue box
subsidies in the form of direct payments to farmers required to limit their production were

permitted and non-actionable. The Blue box subsidies were not allowed to be not more than 5
% for developed countries and 10 % for developing countries.
Impact of Globalization on Agriculture and current trends:

• India is the second largest producer of food in the world. However Indian agriculture
has shown a slow average annual growth rate. It was 3.1 % during the decade 1980-1990
prior to liberalization of the economy. But since then the annual growth rates have declined
consistently relative to annual growth rate of the population. Several factors were responsible
for this fall in growth rate ; lack of credit, inadequate irrigation cover, and indebtedness,
continuing use of obsolete technology, improper use of inputs and decline in the public
investments.
The decline in overall growth of employment during 1993-94 to 2004-05 was largely
due to fall in creation of employment opportunities in agriculture. With increase in
knowledge and entry of many foreign firms in the non-agricultural sectors, the labour has
shifted to manufacturing and services sectors. The National Sample Survey Organization‘s
(NSSO)report on Employment and Unemployment Situationin India 2009-10, on the basis of
usually workingpersons in the principal status and subsidiary status,for every 1000 people
employed in rural and urbanIndia, 679 and 75 people are employed in theagriculture sector,
241 and 683 in servicessectorand 80 and 242 in theindustrial sector, respectively.
With globalization farmers were encouraged to shift from traditional crops to export-
oriented ‗cash crops‘ such as cotton and tobacco but such crops needed far more inputs in
terms of fertilizers, pesticides and water. The growth in yields of principal crops notably rice
and wheat have also decelerated.
Appropriate use of agricultural equipments, suited to the crops and the region of
cultivation, lead to efficient utilization of farm inputs, making farming financially viable and
profitable. Though there has been considerable progress in farm mechanization, its spread
across the country stillremains uneven.
• The most significant supply side constraint to agricultural production is irrigation
coverage that still extends to only about 40 per cent of net sown area. There has been a slow
down in the growth rate of direct demand for food grain consumption on account of several
factors and there is a need to address these challenges of the agriculture sector through
coordinated efforts directed at improving farm production and productivity through high
value crops, developing rural infrastructure, renewing thrust on the irrigation sector,
strengthening marketing infrastructure, and supporting investment in R&D with due
emphasis on environmental concerns.

Growth Of Corporate Farming

Contract farming and Corporate farming have been encouraged by the government as
possible solutions to problems of Indian Agriculture. The small sized, fragmented,
uneconomic landholdings and lack of competitiveness of agricultural produce are main
reasons for eroding profitability of the agricultural sector. State governments across different
states such as Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, West Bengal and many more are
amending laws to encourage the practice of corporate farming. Prime agricultural land and
wastelands are being purchased or leased in by corporate houses, to undertake agri-business
ranging from seed supply, agrichemicals to storage, transport and retail sales. The large
corporates, primarily motivated by profits, invest huge amounts of funds towards research
and modernization of agriculture and with complete control over land holdings are able to
maximize produce for both sale in the open markets as well as their own retail food
processing. Reliance Fresh, Tata agri-chemicals, Sterling Agro, Mcdonalds, Hindustan Lever
are only a few examples of entry of private sector into the primary sector. The problem of the
Indian farmer is that the farm land should be owned by the independent farmer and input
costs like farm machinery, crop insurance,fertilizers,irrigation,pesticides, fuel, and seeds
should be borne by the corporates. But corporate farming at present is bringing back
feudalism as corporate farmers are working as contractual labourers of the corporates that
have bought their lands and employed them. The small farmers, now landless, continue to be
plagued by problems of hunger and debt.
Corporate farming can be economically and socially beneficial if it gets the marginal
farmer a remunerative price. It adds to the export capacity of the country by discovering
international markets for the fresh produce, fruits, vegetables and processed primary goods of
consumptions thus contributing to the growth in agriculture. Credit requirement is not a
constraint for the big corporates as they have huge funds at their disposal as well as sample
support of the financial institutions and banks. They can undertake large-scale investments
necessary for marketing from packaging to warehousing to transportation of primary goods.
There is a huge demand for organic foods among consumers today and such
cultivation is being taken up by the businesses to cater to changing preferences However
corporate farming has it‘s fair share of pitfalls which can reverse trends of growth and
increase social injustice. Since the corporates continue to operate on the motive of profits,
they will not be too concerned with the welfare of the farmers. Production will become
completely market-oriented substituting subsistence cropping by commercial cultivation.
More and more of the farm output produced will be for the export basket rather than
satisfying domestic needs of consumption. It is already observed that there is an increasing
trend of casualization of labour causing a shift in employment from the agricultural sector to

the urban informal and service sectors. Concrete steps need to be taken by policymakers to
ensure the farmers‘ status in the country doesn‘t worsen.
Agro-ecosystem
Introduction:
Farmers, of necessity, adopt a multidisciplinary, holistic approach to their work and it
would seem logical that this should also apply to the design and implementation of
agricultural development programmes in the less developed countries (LDC's). Indeed many
programmes have approached their goals in this way, but for the most part they have tended
to focus on a limited number of factors - hiqh yielding varieties of key food grains, irrigation
water, fertilisers, pesticides, the provision of credit - which promise a quick and high return.
It is only in the last decade that there has been a significant demand for a more
multidisciplinary and holistic content to agricultural research and development and for the
formulation of methods and procedures by which this can be achieved.
The last decade has also been characterised by the return of large numbers of LDC
agricultural scientists from postgraduate studies in the induscrialised countries with, far too
often, a training which reflects the increasing degree of specialisation that characterises much
of modern agricultural education. As a consequence they are often overwhelmed by the
comple.ity of agricultural 6 velopment issues and find it easier to treat problers in purely
disciplinary terms. in practice there is often little or no interaction betweei. the agricultural
disciplines, notwithstanding physical proximity within a university faculty or agricultural
research station. It is true that many recent technological advances have been made by
multidisciplinary 6 teams, but for the most part these were small teams, with narrow goals
and composed of a limited range of traditional agricultural disciplines. Contemporary
problems require teams which have a broader perspective and draw on a wider range of
disciplines, in particular spanning the natural and social sciences.
Agroecosystems depend strongly on a suite of ecosystem services provided by
natural, unmanaged ecosystems. Supporting services include genetic biodiversity for use in
breeding crops and livestock, soil formation and structure, soil fertility, nutrient cycling and
the provision of water. Regulating services may be provided to agriculture by pollinators and
natural enemies that move into agroecosystems from natural vegetation. Natural ecosystems
may also purify water and regulate its flow into agricultural systems, providing sufficient
quantities at the appropriate time for plant growth.
Agro ecosystem Management Practices:
Traditionally, agroecosystems have been considered primarily as sources of

provisioning services, but more recently their contributions to other types of ecosystem

services have been recognized (MEA 2005). Influenced by human management, ecosystem
processes within agricultural systems can provide services that support the provisioning
services, including pollination, pest control, genetic diversity for future agricultural use, soil
retention, regulation of soil fertility and nutrient cycling. Whether any particular agricultural
system provides such services in support of provisioning depends on management, and
management is influenced by the balance between short-term and long-term benefits.
Agroecosystems can provide a range of other regulating and cultural services to

human communities, in addition to provisioning services and services in support of
provisioning. Regulating services from agriculture may include flood control, water quality
control, carbon storage and climate regulation through greenhouse gas emissions, disease
regulation, and waste treatment (e.g. nutrients, pesticides). Cultural services may include
scenic beauty, education, recreation and tourism, as well as traditional use. Agricultural
places or products are often used in traditional rituals and customs that bond human
communities. Conservation of biodiversity may also be considered a cultural ecosystem
service influenced by agriculture, since most cultures recognize appreciation of nature as an
explicit human value.
Around the world, agricultural ecosystems show tremendous variation in structure and
function, because they were designed by diverse cultures under diverse socioeconomic
conditions in diverse climatic regions. Functioning agroecosystems include, among others,
annual crop monocultures, temperate perennial orchards, grazing systems, arid-land pastoral
systems, tropical shifting cultivation systems, smallholder mixed cropping systems, paddy
rice systems, tropical plantations (e.g. oil palm, coffee, cacao), agroforestry systems and
species-rich home gardens. This variety of agricultural systems results in a highly variable
assortment and quantity of ecosystem services. Just as the provisioning services and products
that derive from these agroecosystems vary, the support services, regulating services and
cultural services also differ, resulting in extreme variation in the value these services provide,
inside and outside the agroecosystem.
Globally, most landscapes have been modified by agricultural activities and most
natural, unmanaged ecosystems sit in a matrix of agricultural land uses. The conversion of
undisturbed natural ecosystems to agriculture can have strong impacts on the system's ability
to produce important ecosystem services, but many agricultural systems can also be
important sources of services. Indeed, agricultural land use can be considered an intermediate
stage in a human-impact continuum between wilderness and urban ecosystems. Just as
conversion from natural ecosystems to agriculture can reduce the flow of certain ecosystem

services, the intensification of agriculture or the conversion of agroecosystems to urban or

suburban development can further degrade the provision of beneficial services.
UNIT II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Irrigation development and watersheds – mechanized agriculture and soil cover impacts –
Erosion and problems of deposition in irrigation systems – Agricultural drainage and
downstream impacts – Agriculture versus urban impacts.
2.1 Irrigation Development
Irrigated agriculture has developed most extensively in the arid and semi-arid regions
and areas having prolonged dry spells. The practice is essentially to supplement the available
rainfall in an area. The principle irrigation practice of ancient times was building of
temporary bunds across streams and then diverting their flow to the fields. The practice of
storing water in tanks was developed at a later stage. Modern well designed large scale
irrigation system with reservoirs and delivery systems developed mainly after 18th century.
Vedas, Ancient Indian writers and ancient Indian scriptures have made references to
wells, canals, tanks and dams. These irrigation technologies were in the form of small and
minor works, which could be operated by small households to irrigate small patches of land.
In the south, perennial irrigation may have begun with construction of the Grand Anicut by
the Cholas as early as second century to provide irrigation from the Cauvery River. The entire
landscape in the central and southern India is studded with numerous irrigation tanks which
have been traced back to many centuries before the beginning of the Christian era. In
northern India also there are a number of small canals in the upper valleys of rivers which are
very old.
2.1.1 Irrigation during Medieval India
Irrigation is said to be one of the major reasons for the growth and expansion of the
Vijayanagar Empire in southern India in the fifteenth century. Babur, in his memoirs called
‗Baburnamah‘ gave a vivid description of prevalent modes of irrigation practices in India at
that time. The Gabar Bunds captured and stored annual runoff from surrounding mountains to
be made available to tracts under cultivation.
2.1.2 Irrigation Development under British rule
According to sources of irrigation close to nineteenth century; canals irrigated 45 %,

wells 35 %, tanks 15 % and other sources 5 %. Famines of 1897-98 and 1899-1900

necessitated British to appoint first irrigation commission in 1901, especially to report on

irrigation as a means of protection against famine in India. As a result of recommendations of
the first irrigation commission total irrigated area by public and private works increased to 16
Mha in 1921. From the beginning of 19th century to 1921 there was no significant increase in
tube well irrigated area. During 1910 to 1950 growths rate of irrigation was estimated at 2.0
% per annum for government canal irrigation, 0.54 % per annum for well irrigation and 0.98
% per annum in respect of irrigation from all sources.
2.1.3 Irrigation Development at Time of Independence
At time of independence net irrigated area of India under British rule which include
Bangladesh and Pakistan was 28.2 M ha. After partition net irrigated area in India and
Pakistan being 19.4 Mha and 8.8 Mha respectively.
Irrigation development in Indiawas taken up in a big way after independence through

major, medium and minor irrigation schemes. The irrigation potential has gone up from 22.6
Mha (9.76 Mha through Major and Medium and 12.84 Mha through Minor) prior to Plan
period to 93.95 Mha by the end of IX Plan and further to 97.15 Mha (38.87 Mha through
Major & Medium and 58.28 Mha through Minor) up to March 2004 against the Ultimate
Irrigation Potential of 139.91 Mha (58.49 Mha through Major & Medium and 81.42 Mha
through Minor). This development of irrigation facilities has largely contributed to country‘s
self-sufficiency in food grains which has gone up from 51 Million tons in 1950 to 210 million
tons in 2000. Additional Irrigation Potential of 10.50 Mha (6.5 through Major and Medium
and 4.00 Mha. through Minor) is planned to be created during the X Plan totalling to 104.45
Mha by the end of the Xth Plan (MoWR, 2007).
2.2 Plan Development

a) Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Programme (AIBP)
b) Command Area Development and Water Management Programme (CADWM)
c) Bharat Nirman
a) Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Programme (AIBP)
The Accelerated Irrigation Benefits Programme (AIBP) was launched during 1996-97
to provide loan assistance to the states to complete some of the incomplete major/medium
irrigation projects, which were in an advanced stage of completion. The criteria for AIBP was
further relaxed from April 2005 to include minor irrigation schemes of non-special category
States with potential of more than 100 ha with preference to Tribal Areas and drought-prone
areas. After commencement of this programme 50 major/medium and 3480 Surface minor
irrigation schemes have been completed. An additional irrigation potential for 3.25 million

hectare has been created through major/medium irrigation projects up to March 2005 and an
irrigation potential of 123,000 hectare has been created through surface minor irrigation
schemes up to March 2006 (GoI, 2006).
b) Command Area Development and Water Management Programme (CADWM)
The Centrally sponsored Command Area Development (CAD) Programme was launched in
1974-75 with the objective of bridging the gap between irrigation potential created and that
utilized through efficient utilization of created irrigation potential.The other aim was
optimizing agricultural production from irrigated lands on a sustainable basis. The CAD
programmewas initiated with 60 major and medium irrigation projects. So far 310 irrigation
projects with a Culturable Command Area (CCA) of about 28.45 Mha have been included
under the programme, out of which 133 projects are currently under implementation (GOI,
2005). However, there have been certain constraints which are:
 Unreliability of water supply from the government sources mainly due to system
deficiency, Water logging, non-availability of drainage system and unscientific water
use,
 Gap between scientific technologies of efficient water use and the technologies
adopted at the farm level,
 Lack of participation of farmers in water management,
 Lack of conjunctive use of surface and groundwater, f) Non-inclusion of corrective
measuresfor system deficiencies
 Lack of matching budgetary support by State Governments to execute the programme.
The restructured Command Area Development and Water Management Program (CADWM)
from 2002, considered almost all aspects of the water resources management. The
programme covers a great deal of activities responsible for bringing in greater efficiencies in
land water and crop management. The success of the programme would, however, depend on
the CADAs/State agencies that are implementing the program through coordination of the
concerned organizations and other related inputs.
c) Bharat Nirman
Under the irrigation component of Bharat Nirman, the target of creation of additional
irrigation potential of 10 M ha in 4 years (2005-06 to 2008-09) is planned to be meet largely
through expeditious completion of identified ongoing major and medium irrigation projects.
Irrigation potential of 42 lakh hectare is planned to be created by expeditiously completing
such on-going major and medium projects (GOI, 2005).

2.3 Irrigation Potential Created and Utilized
Ultimate Irrigation Potential (UIP): This term refers to the gross area that could be
irrigated theoretically if all available land and water resources would be used for irrigation.
Irrigation Potential Created (IPC): This term refers to the total gross area proposed to be
irrigated under different crops during a year by a scheme. The area proposed to be irrigated
under more than one crop during the same year is counted as many times as the number of
crops grown and irrigated.
Irrigation Potential Utilized (IPU): This term is defined as the gross area actually irrigated
during the reference year out of the gross proposed area to be irrigated by the scheme.
Irrigation Potential Creation: Expansion of irrigation facilities, along with consolidation of

the existing systems, has been the main part of the strategy for increasing production of food
grains. With sustained and systematic development of irrigation, the irrigation potential
through major, medium and minor irrigation projects has increased from 22.6 Mha in 1951,
when the process of planning began in India, to about 98.84 Mha at the end of the year 2004-
05. Plan wise irrigation potential created and utilized through major, medium and minor
irrigation projects in the country is shown in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1.

2.4 Causes for gap in potential Created and Utilized

2.4.1 Measurement Problems
 The estimates made by the Irrigation Department do not take into accountthe
unauthorized irrigation and pilferages of water.The Revenue Department goes
by the revenue collected and not by actual area irrigated.
 The meaning of IPU is similar to the meaning of the GIA, but the statistics are
collected and published by the Ministry of Water Resources instead of the
Ministry of Agriculture.
 The differences between the most recent reported IPU (80.06 Mha) and GIA
(75.87 Mha for 2000/2001) can be explained by the difference in the data
collection and sampling strategies adopted to calculate the two quantities and
by considering minor irrigation schemes inside the command area of major or
medium irrigation schemes.

2.4.2 Design Problems

 There are certain assumptions made at the time of designing the project. Itis
necessary to verify andvalidate these assumptions after completingthe project
and redefine the quantum of potential created.
 The average rainfall in the area over a period of 30 years or so isconsidered
while designing the project and calculating the dependableyield. It does not
make any allowances for variations.
 The assumption made about the cropping pattern at the time of estimatingthe
irrigation potential created may not hold good after implementation of
theproject.
 Availability of water at the beginning of each agricultural season shouldbe the
criterion for defining the potential created. In other words, thepotential is
based on the availability of water in a particular season andvaries every year.
 The estimation of potential utilized should also take into account the
canalbreaches and unauthorized irrigation.
2.5 Definition of Drainage Basin/Watershed

A watershed is an entire river system—an area drained by a river and its tributaries. It
is sometimes called a drainage basin.
 It is defined as, ―any portion of the earth's surface within a physical boundary defined
by topographic slopes that divert all runoff to the same drainage outlet.‖ This
definition permits the selection of any drainage outlet desired. One can move the
drainage outlet up the drainage system or down the drainage system to any location of
interest (makes possible the sub-basin studies).
 By definition, any point on the main drainage system can be selected as the basin
outlet. Thus, a basin is defined with respect to the outlet. The physical boundary of the
drainage basin is called the drainage divide. The watershed area includes all the points
that lie above the elevation of the outlet and within the drainage divide that separates
adjacent watersheds. Watersheds can be classified based on size, mean slope, length,
land use, etc. Two hydrologically meaningful criteria are size and land use.
2.5.1 Classification of Watersheds by Size

Three types of watershed are distinguished according to size:
 Small size: < 250 km2
 Medium size: between 250 km2- 2500 km2

 Large: >250 km2

Large Watersheds
1) They have well-developed channel networks and channel phase, and, thus, channel
storage is dominant.
2) They are less sensitive to high-intensity rainfalls of short duration.
Small Watersheds
1) They have dominant land phase and overland flow, have relatively less conspicuous
channel phase.
2) They are highly sensitive to high-intensity, short-duration rainfalls.
 Small watersheds are, within a given drainage system, represented by upland areas
where rainfall and runoff depths are usually greater and an extensive, well-developed
channel system is lacking.
 Lee (1980) has reported that flow rates per unit area, Q (m3/s-ha, or depth/time),
generally follow the relationship
Q/A = KAx-1
Wherek is empirical constant, and x< 1 for peak flows (typically x = 0.8); x> 1 for low flows
(typically x = 1.2), and x = 1 for average discharge. This equation shows that as A increases,
Q/A decreases at high flows; but at low flows, Q/A increases with area due to delayed
subsurface flow.
 Watersheds are also classified into different categories based on area that the
watershed contains:
2.5.3 Classification of Watersheds by Land Use

Land use defines exploitation of watershed. Accordingly, watersheds can be classified
as agricultural, urban, mountainous, forest, desert, coastal or marsh, or mixed - a combination
of two or more of the previous classifications. These watersheds behave hydrologically so
differently that different branches of hydrology have arisen:-
1) Urban watersheds: urban hydrology

2) Agricultural watersheds: agricultural hydrology

3) Forest watersheds: forest hydrology
4) Mountainous watersheds: mountain hydrology
5) Desert watersheds: desert hydrology
6) Coastal watersheds: coastal hydrology
7) Wetland/marsh watersheds: wetland hydrology
Urban Watersheds
 An urban watershed is dominated by buildings, roads, streets, pavements, and parking
lots.
 These features reduce the infiltrating land area and increase imperviousness. Because
drainage systems are artificially built, the natural pattern of water flow is substantially
altered.
 For a given rainfall event, interception and depression storage can be significant but
infiltration is considerably reduced and so is the case with evaporation.
 As a result, there is pronounced increase in runoff and pronounced decrease in soil
erosion.
 Thus, an urban watershed is more vulnerable to flooding if the drainage system is
inadequate.
Depending upon the degree of urbanization, topography, and drainage facility, the production
of runoff varies for different parts of watershed.
 If lakes, ponds and parks are numerous in the watershed, evaporation will be
significant and may compensate for reduction in evaporation elsewhere due to
impervious land surfaces.
 Once a watershed is urbanized, its land use is almost fixed and its hydrologic
behaviour changes due to changes in precipitation.
 If small urbanizing watershed is considered by itself, then runoff peak increases and
its time of occurrence decreases with urbanization.
 This is because as development proceeds, there are more pavements, sidewalks,
houses, parking lots, storm sewers, channels, etc., which all decrease infiltration and
increase runoff.
 When an entire complex watershed considered, then all runoff peak may actually be
reduced because its roads, bridges, tunnels, etc., can cause impoundments that
dampen the runoff hydrograph.
Agricultural Watersheds

 An agricultural watershed experiences perhaps the most dynamically significant land-

use change.
 Changing land use and the treatment (cultivated land, fallow, row crop, small grain
crop, rotation meadow, rotation, straight row, contoured, grass land, meadows, woods
and forests, and gardens) usually lead to increased infiltration, increased erosion,
and/or decreased runoff.
 Depression storage also is increased by agricultural operations. When the fields are
barren, falling raindrops tend to compact the soil and infiltration is reduced.
 There is lesser development of streams in agricultural watersheds, for small channels
formed by erosion and runoffs are obliterated by tillage operations.
 The soil texture is altered by regular application of organic and/or inorganic manure.
This, in turn, leads to changed infiltration characteristics. Evapotranspiration
constitutes the principal loss of water from agricultural point of view.
Forest Watersheds
 The hydrological behaviour of forest watersheds is quite different from that of
agricultural or urban watersheds.
 Interception is significant, and evapotranspiration is a dominant component of the
hydrologic cycle.
 In forest watersheds, the ground is usually littered with leaves, stems, branches, wood,
etc.
 Consequently, when it rains, the water is held by the trees and the ground cover and
has greater opportunity to infiltrate.
 The subsurface flow becomes dominant and there are times when there is little to no
surface runoff.
 There is greater recharge of groundwater. Because forests resist flow of water, the
peak discharge is reduced, although inundation of the ground may be increased.
 This reduces flooding and flood damage downstream. Due to reduced surface-
potential, stream development is much less.
 Plants and trees provide good protective cover to soil from erosion.
Mountainous Watersheds
 The landscape of these watersheds is predominantly mountainous. Because of higher
altitudes, such watersheds receive considerable snowfall.
 By and large, such watersheds have substantial vegetation, such that in some cases,
these could be considered as forest watersheds also.

 Interception is significant. Due to steep gradient and relatively less porous soil,
infiltration is less and surface runoff is dominantly high for a given rainfall event.
 Flash floods are a common occurrence. The areas downstream of the mountains are
vulnerable to flooding whenever there is a heavy rainfall in the mountains.
 Flooding in valleys downstream may be even more severe when there is rain in
mountainous on the top of snow.
 There is little to virtually no change in land use. Erosion is minimal if the
mountainous are rocky.
 Sliding and collapsing of slopes are not uncommon occurrences during periods of
heavy precipitation.
 Due to snow melt, water yield is significant even during spring and summer, which
can be used for water supply.
 Recharge of groundwater is small and evapotranspiration is considerable.
Desert Watersheds
 There is little to virtually no vegetation in desert, watersheds. The soil is mostly sandy
and little annual rainfall occurs.
 Sand dunes and sand mounds are formed by blowing winds. Stream development is
minimal.
 Whenever there is little rainfall, most of it is absorbed by the porous soil, some of it
evaporates, and the remaining runs off only to be soaked in during its journey.
 There is limited opportunity for groundwater recharge due to limited rainfall.
Coastal Watersheds
 The watersheds in coastal areas may partly be urban and are in dynamic contact with
the sea.
 Their hydrology is considerably influenced by backwater from wave and tidal action.
Usually, these watersheds receive high rainfall, mostly of cyclonic type, do not have
channel control in flow, and are vulnerable to severe local flooding.
 Coastal erosion is a continuing problem due to tidal action, and land-use change is
common.
 The water table is high, and saltwater intrusion threatens the health of coastal
aquifers, which usually are a source of water supply.
 The land gradient is small, drainage is slow, and the soil along the coast has a
considerable sand component.
Marsh, Old Wetland, Watersheds

 Such lands are almost flat and are comprised of swamps, marshes, water courses, etc.
They have rich wildlife and plenty of vegetation.
 Evaporation is dominant, for water is no limiting factor to satisfy evaporative demand.
Rainfall is normally high and infiltration is minimal.
 Most of the rainfall becomes runoff, which discharges slowly for minimal land
declivity.
 Erosion is also minimal, except along the coast. The flood hydrograph peaks
gradually and lasts for a long time.
Watershed Characteristics: Physical and Geomorphologic Characteristics associated with
Watersheds
 Watershed geomorphology refers to the study of the characteristics, configuration and
evolution of land forms and properties; developing physical characteristics of the
watershed.
 It comprises of the characteristics of land surface as well as the characteristics of the
channels within the watershed/basin boundary.
 These properties of watersheds significantly affect the characteristics of runoff and
other hydrological processes. The principal watershed characteristics are:
(i) Basin Area (ii) Basin Slope (iii) Basin Shape (iv) Basin Length
 Basin shape is reflected by a number of watershed parameters as are given below.
Form Factor, Shape Factor, Circularity Ratio, Elongation Ratio and Compactness
Coefficient
 Along with the surface characteristics of a watershed, the channel characteristics are
important in transiting the runoff water from the overland region to channels (streams)
and also from the channel of one order (primary) to the other higher order (e.g. river
stream). The most common and important channel characteristics of the watersheds
are:
Channel Order, Channel Length, Channel Slope, Channel Profile and Drainage Density
The quantification of these physical and geomorphologic properties of watershed/basin are
important for estimating the watershed hydrologic processes.
Sources of Farm Power and Mechanization
Various types of agricultural operations performed on a farm can be broadly classified as:
 Tractive work such as seed bed preparation, cultivation, harvesting and transportation,
andStationary work like silage cutting, feed grinding, threshing, winnowing and
lifting of irrigation water.

 These operations are performed by different sources of power namely, human, animal,
stationary engine, tractor, power tiller, electricity, solar and wind.
 For doing these operations different types of power available is classified as:Human
power, Animal power, Mechanical power, Electrical power and Wind power.
Human Power:The indications are that the decline in number of labourers employed for
agriculture is likely to increase in future resulting a greater investment in labour saving
devices and mechanical power.
Labour (Human Energy) on Farms: Labour is one of the most important sources of farm
power in regions where traditional system of agriculture is practiced. On small farms, high
proportion of labour is supplied by the farmer and his family. Only to meet the peak and
permanent labour requirements, the hired labourers are employed.
On small farm having very little spare capital to buy appropriate type of hand tools
and animal drawn equipment, both labour use efficiency and productivity are very low.
Labour use efficiency can be improved by engaging labour in a group where sequence of
operations demands teamwork for effective output. In the absence of the team, single man
would waste other energies, which might result into higher cost of operation. For example, a
power thresher operation always demands a team effort for efficient utilization of expensive
resources i.e., thresher, cleaner, the prime mover, etc.
Animal Power:Animal power is the most important source of power on the farm all over the
world particularly in developing countries. It is estimated that nearly 80 per cent of the total
draft power used in agriculture throughout the world is still provided by animals. Different
animal sources are:
Bullocks- can pull of about 15% of its weight , Buffaloes, Camels, Horses,Donkeys-can pull
80 % of its weight for short period and 10-15% of its weight for sustainable period. The
average force a bullock can exert is nearly equal to one tenth of its body weight. But for a
very short period, it can exert many more times the average force. Generally a medium size
bullock can develop between 0.50 to 0.75 hp.
Mechanical Power
The third important source of farm power is mechanical power that is available
through tractors and stationary engines. The engine is a highly efficient device for converting
fuel into useful work. The efficiency of diesel engine varies between 32 and 38 per cent,
whereas that of the petrol engine in the range of 25 and 32 per cent. In recent years, diesel
engines and tractors have gained considerable popularity in agri-cultural operations. Small
pumping sets within 3 to 10 hp range are very much in demand. Likewise, engines of low to
medium speed developing about 14 to 20 hp are successfully used for flourmills, oil expellers

etc. Diesel engines of the larger size are used on tractors. Diesel engines are the main source
of power in agriculture. The basic reason for their preference is the economy in operation.
Electrical Power
Now-a-days electricity has become a very important source of power on farms in
various countries. It is steadily becoming more and more available with the increase of
various river valley projects and thermal stations. The largest use of electric power in the
rural areas is for irrigation and domestic water supply. Besides this, the use of electric power
in dairy industry, cold storage, fruit processing and cattle feed grinding has tremendously
increased.
Wind Power
The availability of wind power for farm work is quite limited. Where the wind
velocity is more than 32 km/h, wind mills can be used for lifting water. The most important
reason of its low use is its uncertainty. Thus the average capacity of a wind mill would be
about 0.50 hp. It is one of the cheapest sources of farm power available.
Mechanization
Agricultural Mechanization involves the design, manufacture, distribution, use and servicing
of all types of agricultural tools, equipment and machines. It includes three main power
sources: human, animal and mechanical with special emphasis on mechanical (tractive
power).
Farm Mechanization:is technically equivalent to agricultural mechanization but refers to only
those activities normally occurring inside the boundaries of the farm unit or at the farm unit
level (example: village, community, co-operatives etc).
Tractorization: refers to the application of any size tractor to activities associated with
agriculture.
Motorization: refers to the application of all types of mechanical motors or engines,
regardless of energy source, to activities related to agriculture.
Agricultural Implements: are devices attached to, pulled behind, pushed, or otherwise used
with human, animal or mechanical power source to carry out an agricultural operation.
Agricultural Machinery: is a general term used to describe tractors, combines, implements,
machines and any other device more sophisticated than hand tools which are animal or
mechanically powered.
Agricultural Equipment: generally refers to stationary mechanical devices such as irrigation
pump-set.
Scope of Mechanization
 It is quite true that the farmers of developing countries have the lowest earnings per
capita because of the low yield per hectare they get from their land holdings.

 One of the few important means of increasing farm production per hectare is to
mechanize it. Mechanization may have to be done at various levels. Broadly, it can be
done in three different ways:
I. By introducing the improved agricultural implements on small size holdings to be
operated by bullocks
II. By using the small tractors, tractor-drawn machines and power tillers on medium
holdings to supplement existing sources.
III.By using the large size tractors and machines on the remaining holdings to supplement
animal power source.
As a matter of fact, the progress of the country should be mainly judged on the basis of
degree of farm mechanization (production per worker and the horsepower under his
command per unit area).
Farm Mechanization:
 Farm mechanization is the application of engineering and technology in
agricultural operations, to do a job in a better way to improve productivity.
 This includes development application and management of all mechanical
aids for field production, water control, material handling, storing and
processing.
 Mechanical aids include hand tools, animal drawn equipment, power tillers,
tractors, engines, electric motors, processing and hauling equipment.
Scope of Farm Mechanization: There is a good scope of farm mechanization in India
due to the following factors:
1) Improved irrigation facility in the country.
2) Introduction of high yielding varieties of seeds.
3) Introduction of high dose of fertilizers and pesticides for different crops.
4) Introduction of new crops in different parts of the country.
5) Multiple cropping system and intensive cultivation followed in different parts of the
country.
Some Other Factors Which Are Responsible To Encourage Farm Mechanization Are:
i) Population of the country is increasing at the rate of about 2.2% per year. Steps
have to be taken to arrange food and fibre for such large population by adopting intensive
farming in the country. Intensive farming requires machines on the farm.
ii) In multiple cropping programme, where high yielding variety of seeds are used, all
farm operations are required to be completed in limited time with economy and efficiency.
This is possible with the help of mechanization.

iii) Farm mechanization removes drudgery of labour to a great extent. A farmer has to
walk about 66 km on foot while ploughing 1 ha land once by bullocks with a country plough
having 15 cm furrow width.
iv) A large number of females and children work on farm. So, with mechanization
females can work at home and children go to school.
v) The proper utilization of basic inputs like water, seeds and fertilizers will be
possible with proper equipment.
vi) There are certain operations which are rather difficult to be performed by animal
power or human labour such as:
a) Deep ploughing in case of deep rooted crops.
b) Killing the pernicious weeds by deep tillage operations.
c) Levelling of uneven land.
d) Land reclamation.
e) Application of insecticides during epidemic seasons. These operations need heavy
mechanical equipment.
Benefits of Farm Mechanization: There are various benefits of farm mechanization:
1) Timeliness of operation
2) Precision of operation
3) Improvement of work environment
4) Enhancement of safety
5) Reduction of drudgery of labour
6) Reduction of loss of crops and food products
7) Increased productivity of land
8) Increased economic return to farmers
9) Improved dignity of farmers
10) Progress and prosperity in rural areas
Present Status Of Farm Mechanization:Present status of farm mechanization is quite
appreciating. We have:
a) Improved manual tools.
b) Improved animal drawn implements.
c) Tractor operated implements.
d) Custom hiring units on the farm.
e) Other stationary equipments like threshers, irrigation pumps, sprayers, dusters etc.
Limiting Factors In Farm Mechanization: There are various limitations in adopting farm
mechanization:
1) Small and fragmented land holdings.

2) Less investing capacity of farmers.

3) Agricultural labour is easily available.
4) Adequate draught animals are available in the country.
5) Lack of availability of suitable farm machines for different operations.
6) Lack of repair and servicing facilities for machines.
7) Lack of trained man power.
8) Lack of co-ordination between research organization and manufacturers.
9) High cost of machines.
10) Inadequate quality control of machines.
Selection Criteria for the Machines

Trade mark: We cannot judge the machine by its appearance. Choose an equipment of
well-known and reputed trade mark e.g. HMT 2511, HMT 3511 etc. It is distinguished by the
mark of a trader to his goods to distinguish from other traders.
Trade Name: -do- (Dettol, crocin etc.)
Model: Buy the latest model with better features like Mahindra B-275, Mahindra DI-540,
and Farmtrac-50 etc.Whether or not the machine is an approved design: BIS or ISO mark
(International standard organization) (Bureau of Indian Standards).
Repair facilities: To see whether the machine is repairable or not, how far is the service
station or existence of repair shop, how easily the repair can be done?
Availability of spare parts: Whether components of machine are easily available?
Design features:
i) Points of wear i.e. type of bearing etc. provision for lubrication
ii) Ease of adjustments i.e. disc angle, tilt angle
iii) Safety provisions i.e. shielding of rotary members
iv) Appearance of the machine (eye appeal, aesthetics)
v) Vibrations and noise in the machine should be low
Ease of operation: It should not require unnecessary amount of power and labour to operate.
Ease of operation may depend upon correct adjustment. Modern machines are equipped with
power and hydraulic lifts and once adjusted properly they would require little effort to
operate expecting steering and turning.
Ease of adjustment: Methods and provisions for adjustments of various parts, and
adjustment should be easy to make and less time consuming. Discourage the ―I am in hurry
attitude‖ to make correct adjustments.

Adaptability of machine to work and working conditions (environment and versatility):

Select the machine or tool which can work under a wide range of conditions. It must be easy
to adopt the equipment to different soil, crop and environmental conditions.
Quick change of units: For machines which are one built in unit packages and design to
change them like from plough to cultivator or like multi crop planter, the time required for
the change over must be minimum.
Manoeuvrability: See if the equipment is a trailed or mounted type. Mounted equipments
are easy to lift and easy to turn. Trail equipments which are attached to the draw bar of a
tractor cannot make sharp turns. Extended and swinging drawbars are one aid for short
turning. (articulated frames are provided in some equipment). Choose a machine with a
proper size of wheels. A small wheel sinks into loose soil, drops into shallow ditches and
furrows and for the tractor turning is difficult.
Human comfort: Human comfort is an important factor in the selection and operation of
equipment. The seat must be comfortable, stable and adjustable to suit different sized
individuals. There should be proper operator safety provisions.
Some other factors are:
 Power requirement: Power required for operating the equipment. It determines the
size of the equipment.
 Cost of operation: Initial cost and operational cost of m/c i.e. economical viability of
the machine.
 Initial cost of the m/c
 Availability on custom hiring
 Years of services expected
 Economics of the equipment in relation to size of farm and work to be performed
 If possible purchase multipurpose machines with minimum adjustments for example
wheel hand hoe, till planter, ridgerseeder
 Capacity of the machine e.g. if you have 10 acre field old tractor can do for that.
Tillage: It is the mechanical manipulation of soil to provide favourable condition for crop
production. It breaks the compact surface of earth to certain depth and loosens the soil mass
so that roots of the crop penetrate and spread into the soil. These include ploughing,
harrowing, mechanical destruction of weeds and breaking of soil crust.
Soil Crust: After sowing, if it rains the top layer of soil becomes so hard that seed is unable
to germinate. This strong or hard top soil is called soil crust.
Objectives of Tillage:

1) To obtain deep seed bed, suitable for different type of crops. A granular structure is
desirable to allow rapid infiltration and good retention of rainfall, to provide adequate air
capacity and exchange within the soil
2) To control weeds or to remove unwanted crop plants (thinning)
3) To manage plant residues, thorough mixing of trash will add humus and fertility of
soil, while retention of trash on surface reduces erosion
4) To minimize soil erosion by following such practices as contour tillage, listing and
proper placement of trash
5) To establish specific surface configurations for planting, irrigating, drainage,
harvesting operation etc.
6) To incorporate and mix fertilizers, pesticides or soil amendments into the soil
7) To accomplish segregation. This may involve moving the soil from one layer to
another, removal of rocks and other foreign objects or root harvesting.
Classification of Tillage: Tillage can be classified into (a) primary tillage (b) secondary
tillage:
(a) Primary Tillage: The operation performed to open up any cultivable land with a view
to prepare a seedbed for growing crops, is termed as primary tillage. It is normally designed
to reduce soil strength, cover plant materials and rearrange aggregates. The various
equipments used for primary tillage are mould board plough, disc plough, heavy- duty disc
harrow, chisel plough, rotator etc.
(b) Secondary Tillage: Lighter and finer operations performed on the soil after primary
tillage, are termed as secondary tillage. These operations are generally performed on surface
soil. Very little inversion and shifting of soil takes place and consequently less power
requirement per unit area. Implements are disc/other harrows, cultivators, sweeps, tillers etc.
Types of Tillage:
Apart from these major primary and secondary tillage operations we often do tillage in some
other ways. These different types of tillage are discussed as follows:
(i) Minimum Tillage: Minimum soil manipulation necessary to meet tillage requirements for
crop production. The major objectives are:
(a) To reduce mechanical energy and labour requirement
(b) To conserve moisture and reduce soil erosion.
(c) To perform only the operations necessary to optimize the soil conditions
(d) To minimize the number of trips over field
(e) Disadvantages: When surface plants residues are involved insects are increased and
effective chemical weed control is essential

(ii) No- Tillage: In a single operation, sowing is done without tilling it at all. This is applied
where moisture conservation is required. These are suitable in the areas where heavy rainfall
is there.
(iii) Strip Tillage: Tillage system in which only isolated bands of soil are tilled.
(iv) Rotary Tillage: Tillage operations employing rotary action to cut, break and mix the soil,
rotary tillers are used. These tillers have low or negative draft requirements, but total power
requirements are high and pulverization may be excessive.
(v) Stubble-Mulch Tillage: It involves cutting the roots of weeds and other plants and leaving
the crop residue on the surface or mixed into the top few centimetres of soil. This is done to
reduce wind and water erosion and conserve water by reducing run-off. Mostly used in semi-
arid and arid zones. Special blade type sub-surface tillers, v-shaped sweeps having cutting
widths 0.6 to 2.4 m, straight blades, vertical disc plough, disc harrows, rotary hoes, chisel
ploughs, cultivators.
(vi) Combined Tillage: Operations simultaneously utilizing two or more different types of
tillage tools or implements to simplify, control or reduce the number of operations over a
field are called combined tillage.
Ploughing System
Normal Ploughing: It is the ploughing up to a depth of about 15 cm.
Contour Ploughing: It is the method of ploughing in which the soil broken and turned along
the contours.
Methods of ploughing
In order to provide furrows at all times on the right hand side of the plough two
method of working are used a) Gathering b) Casting.
a) Gathering - Whenever a plough works round a strip of ploughed land, it is said to be
gathering
b) Casting - Whenever a plough works round a strip of un-ploughed land, it is said to be
casting
Ploughing of a field by casting or gathering alone is normally uneconomical. The following
are a few important methods used in tractor ploughing.
i) Continuous ploughing method and
ii) Round and round ploughing
Continuous ploughing method
 In normal conditions, the continuous ploughing method is considered very
convenient and economical.

 This method is usually used when the tractor and plough never run idle for
more than three quarter land width along the headland and never turn in a
space narrower than a quarter land width.
 In this method, first the headland is marked and the first ridge is set up at three
quarter of a land width from the side .The other ridges are set at full width
over the field.
 The operator starts ploughing between the first ridge and the side land. The
operator continues to turn left and cast in the three quarter land until a quarter
land width of ploughing is complete on each side.
 After this, the driver turns right and gathers round the land already ploughed
on the first ridge.
 Gathering is continued till the un-ploughed strip in first three-quarter land has
been ploughed and completed.
 This gathering reduces the first full land by a quarter .The remaining three
quarter land can be treated in exactly the same manner as the original three
quarter land.
 This process is repeated for all other lands in the field.
Round and round ploughing
In this method, the plough moves round and round a field. This system is adopted under
conditions where ridges and furrows interfere with cultivation work. The field can be started
various ways as follows:
 Starting at the center: Small plot is marked in the middle of field and ploughed first.
After that plough works round this small plot and entire plot is completed. This is not
very economical method.
 Starting at outer ends: Tractor starts ploughing at one side of field and then moves on
all sides of plot and comes gradually from sides to the center of field. Wide diagonals
are left unploughed to avoid turning with the plough. There are no back furrows in
this method. Conventional ploughing is usually done by this method.
 2700 turns from boundaries or centers.
Mould board plough:
Function: 1) cutting the furrow slice 2) lifting the soil 3) turning the furrow slice and 4)
pulverising the soil.
Components
M.B. plough consists of Share, Mould board, Land side, Frog and Tail piece.

 Share - It penetrates into the soil and makes a horizontal cut below the soil surface. It
is a sharp, well polished and pointed component.
 The shares are made of chilled cast iron or steel. The steel mainly contains about 0.70
to 0.80% carbon and about 0.50 to 0.80% manganese besides other minor elements.
 Mouldboard - The mouldboard is that part of the plough which receives the furrow
slice from the share. If lifts, turns and breaks the furrow slice.
 To suit different soil conditions and crop requirements, mouldboard has been
designed in different shapes. The mouldboard is offollowing types: a) General
purpose b) Stubble c) Sod or Breaker and d) Slat.
i) General purpose - It is a mouldboard having medium curvature lying between stubble and
sod. The sloping of the surface is gradual. It turns the well-defined furrow slice and
pulverises the soil thoroughly. It has a fairly long mouldboard with a gradual twist, the
surface being slightly convex.
ii) Stubble type -It is short but broader mouldboard with a relatively abrupt curvature which
lifts breaks and turns the furrow slice used in stubble soils. Its curvature is not gradual but it
is abrupt along the top edge. This causes the furrow slice to be thrown off quickly,
pulverising it much better than other types of mouldboard. This is best suited to work in
stubble soil that is under cultivation for years together. Stubble soil is that soil in which
stubble of the plants from the previous crop is still left on the land at the time of ploughing.
iii) Sod or Breaker type - It is a long mouldboard with gentle curvature which lifts and
inverts the unbroken furrow slice. It is used in tough soil of grasses. It turns over thickly
covered soil. This is very useful where complete inversion of soil is required by the farmer.
iv) Slat type - It is a mouldboard whose surface is made of slats placed along the length of the
mouldboard, so that there are gaps between the slats. This type of mouldboard is often used,
where the soil is sticky, because the solid mouldboard does not scour well in sticky soils.
 Land side - It is the flat plate which bears against and transmits lateral thrust of the
plough bottom to thefurrow wall. It helps to resist the side pressure exerted by the

furrow slice on the mouldboard. It also helps instabilizing the plough while it is in
operations.
 Frog -Frog is that part of the plough bottom to which the other components of the
plough bottom areattached. It is an irregular piece of metal. It may be made of cast
iron for cast iron ploughs or it may be weldedsteel for steel ploughs.
 Tail piece - It is an important extension of mouldboard which helps in turning a
furrow slice.
Plough accessories
There are a few accessories necessary for plough such as (i) Jointer (ii) Coulter (iii)
Gauge wheel (iv) Land wheel and (v) Furrow wheel.
 Jointer - It is a small irregular piece of metal having a shape similar to an ordinary
plough bottom.
 It looks like a miniature plough. Its purpose is to turn over a small ribbon like
furrow slice directly in front of the main plough bottom.
 This small furrow slice is cut from the left and upper side of the main furrow slice
and is inverted so that all trashes on the top of the soil are completely turned down
and buried under the right hand corner of the furrow.
 Coulter- It is a device used to cut the furrow slice vertically from the land ahead
of the plough bottom.
 It cuts the furrow slice from the land and leaves a clear wall. It also cuts trashes
which are covered under the soil by the plough.
 The coulter may be (a) Rolling type disc coulter or (b) Sliding type knife coulter.
 Gauge wheel- It is an auxiliary wheel of an implement to maintain uniform depth
of working. Gauge wheel helps to maintain uniformity in respect of depth of
ploughing in different soil conditions. It is usually placed in hanging position.
 Land wheel - It is the wheel of the plough, which runs on the ploughed land.
 Front furrow wheel - It is the front wheel of the plough, which runs in the furrow.
 Rear furrow wheel -It is the rear wheel of the plough, which runs in the furrow.
Adjustment of mouldboard plough

 Vertical suction (Vertical clearance)
It is the maximum clearance under the land side and the horizontal surface when the
plough is resting on a horizontal surface in the working position. It is the vertical distance

from the ground, measured at the joining point of share and land side. It helps the plough
to penetrate into the soil to a proper depth. This clearance varies according to the size of
the plough.
 Horizontal suction (Horizontal clearance)

It is the maximum clearance between the land side and a horizontal plant touching point
of share at its gunnel side and heal of land side. This suction helps the plough to cut the
proper width of furrow slice. This clearance varies according to the size of the plough. It
is also known as side clearance.
Throat clearance
It is the perpendicular distance between point of share and lower position of the beam of
the plough.
Plough size
The size of the mouldboard plough is expressed by width of cut of the soil.
Disc Plough: It is a plough, which cuts, turns and in some cases breaks furrow slices by
means of separately mounted large steel discs. A disc plough is designed with a view of
reduce friction by making a rolling ploughbottom instead of sliding plough bottom. A disc
plough works well in the conditions where mould board plough does not work satisfactorily.
Advantages of disc plough
♦ A disc plough can be forced to penetrate into the soil which is too hard and dry for
working with a mould board plough.
♦ It works well in sticky soil in which a mould board plough does not scour.
♦ It is more useful for deep ploughing.
♦ It can be used safely in stony and stumpy soil without much danger of breakage.
♦ A disc plough works well even after a considerable part of the disc is worn off in
abrasive soil.
♦ It works in loose soil also (such as peat) without much clogging.
Disadvantages of disc plough
♦ It is not suitable for covering surface trash and weeds as effectively as mouldboard
plough does.

♦ Comparatively, the disc plough leaves the soil in rough and more cloddy condition than
that of mouldboard plough.
♦ Disc plough is much heavier than mouldboard plough for equal capacities because
penetration of this plough is affected largely by its weight rather than suction. There is
one significant difference between mouldboard plough and disc plough i.e. mouldboard
plough is forced into the ground by the suction of the plough, while the disc plough is
forced into the ground by its own weight.
Types of Disc Plough
Disc ploughs are of two types (i) Standard disc plough and (ii) Vertical disc plough.
(i) Standard disc plough
 It consists of steel disc of 60 to 90 cm diameter, set at a certain angle to the
direction of travel.
 Each disc revolves on a stub axle in a thrust bearing, carried at the lower end of a
strong stand which is bolted to the plough beam. The angle of the disc to the
vertical and to the furrow wall is adjustable.
 In action, the disc cuts the soil, breaks it and pushes it sideways. There is little
inversion of furrow slice as well as little burying of weeds and trashes. The disc
plough may be mounted type or trailed type.
 In mounted disc plough, the side thrust is taken by the wheels of the tractor. Disc
is made of heat treated steel of 5 mm to 10 mm thickness. The amount of
concavity varies with the diameter of the disc. The approximate values being 8 cm
for 60 cm diameter disc and 16 cm for 95 cm diameter. A few important terms
connected with disc plough is explained below

Disc - It is a circular, concave revolving steel plate used for cutting and inverting the soil.
Disc angle - It is the angle at which the plane of the cutting edge of the disc is inclined to
the direction of travel. Usually the disc angle of good plough varies between 42° to 45°.
Tilt angle - It is the angle at which the plane of the cutting edge of the disc is inclined to a
vertical line. The tilt angle varies from 15° to 25° for a good plough.
Scraper - It is a device to remove soil that tends to stick to the working surface of a disc.
Concavity - It is the depth measured at the centre of the disc by placing its concave side
on a flat surface.
(ii) Vertical Disc Plough
It is the plough which combines the principle of regular disc plough and disc harrow and
is used for shallow working in the soil.
Draft of disc plough
The disc plough is lighter in draft than the mouldboard plough, turning same volume of
soil in similar conditions. In very hard soil, some extra weight is added to the wheel
which increases the draft.
Rotary tiller
 The rotary cultivator is widely considered to be the most important tool as it
provides fine degree of pulverization enabling the necessary rapid and intimate
mixing of soil besides reduction in traction demanded by the tractor driving
wheels due to the ability of the soil working blades to provide some forward thrust
to the cultivating outfit.
 Rotary tiller is directly mounted to the tractor with the help of three point linkage.
The power is transmitted from the tractor PTO (Power Take Off) shaft to a bevel
gear box mounted on the top of the unit, through telescopic shaft and universal
joint.
 From the bevel gear box the drive is further transmitted to a power shaft, chain
and sprocket transmission system to the rotor.
 The tynes are fixed to the rotor and the rotor with tynes revolves in the same
direction as the tractor wheels.
 The number of tynes varies from 28 - 54. A levelling board is attached to the rear
side of the unit for levelling the tilled soil.
 A depth control lever with depth wheel provided on either side of the unit ensures
proper depth control. The following types of blades are used with the rotor.

 'L' type blade - Works well in trashy conditions, they are more effective in cutting
weeds and theydo not pulverize the soil much.
 Twisted blade - Suitable for deep tillage in relatively clean ground, but clogging
and wrapping of trashes on the tynes and shafts.
 Straight blade - Employed on mulchers designed mainly for secondary tillage.
Chisel plough
 Chisel ploughs are used to break through and shatter compacted or otherwise
impermeable soil layers.
 Deep tillage shatters compacted sub soil layers and aids in better infiltration and
storage of rainwater in the crop root zone.
 The improved soil structure also results in better development of root system and
the yield of crops and their drought tolerance is also improved.
 The functional component of the unit include reversible share, tyne (chisel),
beam, cross shaft and top link connection.
Sub-Soil plough
 The function of the sub-soiler is to penetrate deeper than the conventional
cultivation machinery and break up the layers of the soil, which have become
compacted due to the movement of heavy machinery or as a result of continuous
ploughing at a constant depth.
 These compacted areas prevent the natural drainage of the soil and also inhibit the
passage of air and nutrients through the soil structure.
 The sub-soiler consists of heaviertyne than the chisel plough to break through
impervious layer shattering the sub-soil to depth of 45 to 75 cm and requires 60 to
100 hp to operate it.
 The advantages are same as that of chisel plough.
Erosion and problems of deposition in irrigation systems
 Soil erosion is sometimes excessive during furrow irrigation and under center pivot
sprinkler systems. An understanding of erosion processes is required to predict and
develop management practices to reduce irrigation induced erosion.
 Little erosion process research has been carried out under irrigation, but much of the
extensive channel sediment transport and rainfall‐induced erosion process research
can be adapted to irrigated conditions.
 Soil erosion occurs when fluid in motion detaches and transports soil particles.
Sedimentation occurs when the fluid transport capacity decreases to less than the
sediment load.

 Hydraulic forces of moving water and soil factors such as aggregate stability and
particle size determine erosion and sedimentation.
 Under furrow irrigation, the shear of the overland flow against the soil provides the
detachment force and is a primary factor determining channel transport capacity.
 With sprinkler irrigation, water drop energy detaches particles, some of which may be
transported downslope by shallow interrill flow if the water application rate exceeds
the soil infiltration rate.
Irrigation is essential for global food production. However, irrigation erosion can limit the
ability of irrigation systems to reliably produce food and fiber in the future.
 The factors affecting soil erosion from irrigation are the same as rainfall—water
detaches and transports sediment. However, there are some unique differences in how
the factors occur during irrigation and in our ability to manage the application of
water that causes the erosion.
 All surface irrigation entails water flowing over soil. Soil type, field slope, and flow
rate all affect surface irrigation erosion, with flow rate being the main factor that can
be managed.
 Ideally, sprinkler irrigation will have no runoff, but application rates on moving
irrigation systems can exceed the soil infiltration rate, resulting in runoff and erosion.
 Using tillage practices to increase soil surface storage and selecting sprinklers with
lower application rates will reduce sprinkler-irrigation runoff. Irrigation can be
managed to minimize erosion and maintain productivity.
Importance of Irrigation
Irrigated agriculture contributes a disproportionate amount to global food production.

The most cited statistics indicate that irrigated cropland produces about one-third of the
world‘s crop production on only 16% of the cropland that is irrigated. In the United States,
farms with all cropland irrigated account for only 8% of the total cropland and about half of
the total irrigated land. These farms produce 33% of the market value of crops and 12% of
the market value of livestock. Over half of the crop value (55%) is produced on farms with
some irrigated land, and these farms account for only 26% of the total cropland in the United
States.
In some areas, irrigation provides essentially all of the water necessary for crop
growth. In other areas, irrigation provides only a small portion of the total crop water
requirement but reduces the potential for water stress during critical periods. While irrigation
is critical to global food production, applying water to soil can cause erosion. This is
especially true with surface irrigation, where the soil conveys and distributes water through a

field by gravity. Sprinkler irrigation and micro irrigation use pipes to distribute water through
the field. Surface irrigation is generally thought to cause more erosion than sprinkler
irrigation; however, erosion can occur any time water flows over soil. Water can be applied
with sprinkler irrigation so no runoff occurs, and therefore, no erosion will occur. However,
there are situations, especially with moving irrigation systems like center pivots, where water
is applied faster than it can infiltrate into the soil, resulting in ponding and, possibly, runoff.
Unique Aspects of Irrigation Erosion
The factors affecting soil erosion from irrigation are the same as rainfall. Water
detaches and transports sediment in both situations. However, there are some unique
differences in how the factors occur with irrigation. For example, rainfall occurs relatively
uniformly over an entire field, whereas irrigation is seldom applied to an entire field at the
same time. Irrigation is a controlled procedure where water is applied to a specific field, or
portion of a field, at a specific time. This can affect the hydrology of the erosion processes on
surface- and sprinkler-irrigated fields.
A center pivot, for example, is essentially a moving storm have greater soil erosion
than furrows that were prewet immediately before furrow irrigation. Irrigation water flowing
in furrows is not exposed to falling raindrops that can increase sediment detachment and
decrease deposition. The quality of irrigation water can vary dramatically among water
sources, or even within an irrigation tract if drainage water is reused. Conversely, electrolyte
concentration of rainfall is quite consistent.
Causes of Soil Erosion Over Irrigation:
As the human population has expanded, more and more land has been cleared for agriculture
and other pursuits that degrade the soil and make erosion more likely to occur.
Deforestation
Without plant cover, erosion can occur and sweep the land into rivers. The agricultural plants
that often replace the trees cannot hold onto the soil and many of these plants, such as coffee,
cotton, palm oil, soybean and wheat, can actually worsen soil erosion. And as land loses its
fertile soil, agricultural producers move on, clear more forest and continue the cycle of soil
loss.
Overgrazing

The conversion of natural ecosystems to pasture land doesn‘t damage the land initially as
much as crop production, but this change in usage can lead to high rates of erosion and loss
of topsoil and nutrients. Overgrazing can reduce ground cover, enabling erosion and
compaction of the land by wind and rain.. This reduces the ability for plants to grow and
water to penetrate, which harms soil microbes and results in serious erosion of the land.
Use of Agrochemicals
Pesticides and other chemicals used on crop plants have helped farmers to increase yields.
Scientists have found that overuse of some of these chemicals changes soil composition and
disrupts the balance of microorganisms in the soil. This stimulates the growth of harmful
bacteria at the expense of beneficial kinds.
Impacts of Soil Erosion over Irrigation:
The loss of fertile soil makes land less productive for agriculture, creates new deserts,
pollutes waterways and can alter how water flows through the landscape, potentially making
flooding more common.
Loss of Arable Land
Arable land is any land that can be used to grow crops. Many of the practices used in growing
those crops can lead to the loss of topsoil and destruction of soil characteristics that make
agriculture possible.
Logged and Polluted Waterways
Soil eroded from the land, along with pesticides and fertilizers applied to fields, washes into
streams and waterways. This sedimentation and pollution can damage freshwater and marine
habitats and the local communities that depend on them.
Increased Flooding
Land is often transformed from a forest or other natural landscape, such as floodplains and
wetlands, into a crop field or pasture. The converted land is less able to soak up water,
making flooding more common. There are methods to improve soil water holding capacity as
well as restoration and maintenance of wetlands.
Environmental impact of irrigation
The environmental impacts of irrigation relate to the changes in quantity and quality of soil
and water as a result of irrigation and the effects on natural and social conditions in river

basins and downstream of an irrigation scheme. The impacts stem from the altered
hydrological conditions caused by the installation and operation of the irrigation scheme.
Direct Effects: An irrigation scheme draws water from groundwater, rivers, lakes or overland
flow, and distributes it over an area. Hydrological, or direct, effects of doing this include
reduction in downstream river flow, increased evaporation in the irrigated area, increased
level in the water table as groundwater recharge in the area is increased and flow increased in
the irrigated area. Likewise, irrigation has immediate effects on the provision of moisture to
the atmosphere, inducing atmospheric instabilities and increasing downwind rainfall, or in
other cases modifies the atmospheric circulation, delivering rain to different downwind areas.
Increases or decreases in irrigation are a key area of concern in precipitation shed studies, that
examine how significant modifications to the delivery of evaporation to the atmosphere can
alter downwind rainfall.
Indirect Effects
Indirect effects are those that have consequences that take longer to develop and may also be
longer-lasting. The indirect effects of irrigation include the following:
 Waterlogging
 Soil Salination
 Ecological damage
 Socioeconomic impacts
The indirect effects of waterlogging and soil salination occur directly on the land being
irrigated. The ecological and socioeconomic consequences take longer to happen but can be
more far-reaching. Some irrigation schemes use water wells for irrigation. As a result, the
overall water level decreases. This may cause water mining, land/soil subsidence, and, along
the coast, saltwater intrusion.
Irrigated land area worldwide occupies about 16% of the total agricultural area and the crop
yield of irrigated land is roughly 40% of the total yield.[5] In other words, irrigated land
produces 2.5 times more product than non-irrigated land. This article will discuss some of the
environmental and socioeconomic impacts of irrigation.
Adverse impacts
Reduced river flow
The reduced downstream river flow may cause:

 Reduced downstream flooding

 Disappearance of ecologically and economically important wetlands or flood forests
 Reduced availability of industrial, municipal, household, and drinking water
 Reduced shipping routes. Water withdrawal poses a serious threat to the Ganges. In
India, barrages control all of the tributaries to the Ganges and divert roughly 60
percent of river flow to irrigation.
 Reduced fishing opportunities. The Indus River in Pakistan faces scarcity due to over-
extraction of water for agriculture. The Indus is inhabited by 25 amphibian species
and 147 fish species of which 22 are found nowhere else in the world. It harbors the
endangered Indus River dolphin, one of the world‘s rarest mammals. Fish
populations, the main source of protein and overall life support systems for many
communities, are also being threatened.
 Reduced discharge into the sea, which may have various consequences like coastal
erosion (e.g. in Ghana) and salt water intrusion in delta's and estuaries (e.g. in Egypt,
see Aswan dam). Current water withdrawal from the river Nile for irrigation is so
high that, despite its size, in dry periods the river does not reach the sea.The Aral Sea
has suffered an "environmental catastrophe" due to the interception of river water for
irrigation purposes.
Increased groundwater recharge, waterlogging, soil salinity
Increased groundwater recharge stems from the unavoidable deep percolation losses
occurring in the irrigation scheme. The lower the irrigation efficiency, the higher the losses.
Although fairly high irrigation efficiencies of 70% or more (i.e. losses of 30% or less) can
occur with sophisticated techniques like sprinkler irrigation and drip irrigation, or by well
managed surface irrigation, in practice the losses are commonly in the order of 40% to 60%.
This may cause the following issues:
 Rising water tables

 Increased storage of groundwater that may be used for irrigation, municipal,
household and drinking water by pumping from wells
 Waterlogging and drainage problems in villages, agricultural lands, and along roads -
with mostly negative consequences. The increased level of the water table can lead to
reduced agricultural production.
 Shallow water tables - a sign that the aquifer is unable to cope with the groundwater
recharge stemming from the deep percolation losses

 Where water tables are shallow, the irrigation applications are reduced. As a result,
the soil is no longer leached and soil salinity problems develop
 Stagnant water tables at the soil surface are known to increase the incidence of water-
borne diseases like malaria, filariasis, yellow fever, dengue, and schistosomiasis
(Bilharzia) in many areas. Health costs, appraisals of health impacts and mitigation
measures are rarely part of irrigation projects, if at all.
 To mitigate the adverse effects of shallow water tables and soil salinization, some
form of watertable control, soil salinity control, drainage and drainage system is
needed
 As drainage water moves through the soil profile it may dissolve nutrients (either
fertilizer-based or naturally occurring) such as nitrates, leading to a buildup of those
nutrients in the ground-water aquifer. High nitrate levels in drinking water can be
harmful to humans, particularly infants under 6 months, where it is linked to "blue-
baby syndrome" (see Methemoglobinemia).
Reduced downstream river water quality :Owing to drainage of surface and groundwater
in the project area, which waters may be salinized and polluted by agricultural chemicals like
biocides and fertilizers, the quality of the river water below the project area can deteriorate,
which makes it less fit for industrial, municipal and household use. It may lead to reduced
public health. Polluted river water entering the sea may adversely affect the ecology along the
sea shore.
 The natural buildup of sedimentation can reduce downstream river flows due to the
installation of irrigation systems.
 Sedimentation is an essential part of the ecosystem that requires the natural flux of the
river flow. This natural cycle of sediment dispersion replenishes the nutrients in the
soil that will in turn, determine the livelihood of the plants and animals that rely on
the sediments carried downstream.
 The benefits of heavy deposits of sedimentation can be seen in large rivers like the
Nile River. The sediment from the delta has built up to form a giant aquifer during
flood season, and retains water in the wetlands.
 The wetlands that are created and sustained due to built up sediment at the basin of
the river is a habitat for numerous species of birds. However, heavy sedimentation can
reduce downstream river water quality and can exacerbate floods up stream.
 This has been known to happen in the Sanmenxia reservoir in China. The Sanmenxia
reservoir is part of a larger man-made project of hydro-electric dams called the Three

Gorge Project. In 1998, uncertain calculations and heavy sediment greatly affected the
reservoir‘s ability to properly fulfill its flood-control function.
 This also reduces the down stream river water quality. Shifting more towards mass
irrigation installments in order to meet more socioeconomic demands is going against
the natural balance of nature, and use water pragmatically- use it where it is found.
Affected downstream water users
 Downstream water users often have no legal water rights and may fall victim of the
development of irrigation.
 Flood-recession cropping may be seriously affected by the upstream interception of
river water for irrigation purposes.
Lost land use opportunities
 Irrigation projects may reduce the fishing opportunities of the original population and
the grazing opportunities for cattle.
 The livestock pressure on the remaining lands may increase considerably, because
the ousted traditional pastoralist tribes will have to find their subsistence and
existence elsewhere, overgrazing may increase, followed by serious soil erosion and
the loss of natural resources.
Groundwater mining with wells, land subsidence
 When more groundwater is pumped from wells than replenished, storage of water in
the aquifer is being mined and the use of that water is no longer sustainable.
 As levels fail, it becomes more difficult to extract water and pumps will struggle to
maintain the design flowrate and consume more may energy per unit of water.
 Eventually it may become so difficult to extract groundwater that farmers may be
forced to abandon irrigated agriculture.
Mitigation of adverse effects
Irrigation can have a variety negative impacts on ecology and socio-economy, which
may be mitigated in a number of ways. These include siting the irrigation project in a location
which minimises negative impacts. The efficiency of existing projects can be improved and
existing degraded croplands can be improved rather than establishing a new irrigation project.
Developing small-scale, individually owned irrigation systems as an alternative to large-
scale, publicly owned and managed schemes. The use of sprinkler irrigation and micro-
irrigation systems decreases the risk of waterlogging and erosion. Where practicable, using
treated wastewater makes more water available to other users. Maintaining flood flows

downstream of the dams can ensure that an adequate area is flooded each year, supporting,
amongst other objectives, fishery activities.
AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE
An Overview
 If the soil retains too much water, manmade methods for draining excess water from
the root zone of plants are often used. Manmade drainage also may be necessary if the
farmer‘s soil or water supply contains elements harmful to the crop. Additional water
is then added to leach these elements from the root zone.
 The amount of water required for adequate leaching varies widely with the salinity of
the soil and irrigation water, the salt tolerance of the crop, the uniformity of the field
slope and other factors. However, if a soil drains freely, and the groundwater table is
not saturated, the excess salts and water percolate deep underground. This percolation
can increase contamination of groundwater aquifers.
 Additionally, in some basins, rivers are used to transport salts from agricultural lands.
Thus, drainage becomes part of the flow of the river and is carried to the ocean or an
inland sink such as the Salton Sea in the Imperial Valley.
 A prime concern in these basins is whether salinity in the river can be kept below
levels that may harm downstream uses of the water, or fish and wildlife.
In other areas where no outlet to rivers is available, such as the Tulare Lake Basin, drainage
water is carried to evaporation ponds. Drainage water is the only source of water in many of
these ponds, resulting in extremely high concentrations of salts. Concentrations of other trace
elements such as selenium are also elevated in evaporation basins, with a wide degree of
variability among basins. On the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in the Central Valley
Project service area one controversial proposal was to construct the San Luis Drain to funnel
drainage water to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
 Although selenium in trace amounts is essential to all human and animal life, it has
long been known to be harmful and even lethal at elevated concentrations. Fish and
wildlife may become exposed to harmful concentrations of the element through bio-
concentration and bio-magnification.
Coping With Drainage Water

 On-farm drainage management is the responsibility of the individual landowner. Most
farms have some kind of surface drainage system and some have subsurface drainage

systems. Once laid, subsurface drain lines are not problem-free. They can be blocked
or damaged by roots, soil, farming equipment, earthquakes, subsidence and buildup of
minerals such as iron.
Addressing Agricultural Drainage
 After years of identifying the causes of the drainage problem, practical solutions are
underway to handle drainage disposal.
 Significant new information also has been developed over the past decade regarding
the design and operation of evaporation basins as a major Central Valley method of
drainage water disposal.
 Also, on-farm efforts to reduce the amount of drainage water and even reuse it have
been successful.
Possible Agricultural Drainage Solutions
Agricultural drainage solutions can include:
Source control: on-farm improvements in irrigation to reduce the amount of applied water,
therefore reducing drainage water.
Drainage reuse: reusing drainage water to irrigate increasingly salt-tolerant plants such as
cotton, eucalyptus, forage crops, etc.
Evaporation systems: disposing of residual drainage water in evaporation ponds.
Land retirement: fallowing farmland that overlies difficult-to-drain, shallow groundwater
containing high levels of selenium— controversial and complex issue.
Protection, restoration and water supplies for fish and wildlife habitat: providing fresh
water to substitute for drainage-contaminated supplies, protecting and restoring contaminated
fisheries and wildlife habitat.
Hydrology
 Low flow regime
 Flood regime
 Operation of dams
 Fall of water table
 Rise of water table
The consumptive nature of irrigation means that some change to the local hydrological
regime will occur when new schemes are constructed and, to a lesser extent, when old
schemes are rehabilitated. The ecology and uses of a river will have developed as a
consequence of the existing regime and may not be able to adapt easily to major changes. It is
also important to recognize the interrelationship between river flows and the water table.
During high flow periods, recharge tends to occur through the river bed whereas groundwater

often contributes to low flows. Figure 3 is a conceptual diagram of flow through a river-
supplied irrigation scheme. Figure 4 illustrates the links between surface and groundwater
Low flow regime
 Changes to the low flow regime may have significant negative impacts on
downstream users, whether they abstract water (irrigation schemes, drinking supplies)
or use the river for transportation or hydropower.
 Minimum demands from both existing and potential future users need to be clearly
identified and assessed in relation to current and future low flows.
 The quality of low flows is also important. Return flows are likely to have significant
quantities of pollutants. Low flows need to be high enough to ensure sufficient
dilution of pollutants discharged from irrigation schemes and other sources such as
industry and urban areas.
 A reduction in the natural river flow together with a discharge of lower quality
drainage water can have severe negative impacts on downstream users, including
irrigation schemes.
Habitats both within and alongside rivers are particularly rich, often supporting a high
diversity of species. Large changes to low flows (±20%) will alter micro-habitats of which
wetlands are a special case. It is particularly important to identify any endangered species and
determine the impact of any changes on their survival.
 Such species are often endangered because of their restrictive ecological

requirements. (Example: In Senegal river downstream of the Manantali Dam where
the extent of wetlands has been considerably reduced, fisheries have declined and
recession irrigation has all but disappeared).
 The ecology of estuaries is sensitive to the salinity of the water which may be
determined by the low flows.
 Saline intrusion into the estuary will also affect drinking water supplies and fish
catches.
 It may also create breeding places for anopheline vectors of malaria that breed in
brackish water.
The operation of dams offers excellent opportunities to mitigate the potential negative
impacts of changes to low flows.

Conceptual diagram of the irrigation return flow system for a given reach of a river
system (Utah State University Foundation, 1969)
Fig. The interrelationship between surface water and groundwater
Flood regime
 Uncontrolled floods cause tremendous damage and flood control is therefore often an
added social and environmental benefit of reservoirs built to supply irrigation water.

 However, flood protection works, although achieving their purpose locally, increase
flooding downstream, which needs to be taken into account.
 Radically altered flood regimes may also have negative impacts. Any disruption to flood
recession agriculture needs to be studied as it is often highly productive but may have
low visibility due to the migratory nature of the farmers practicing it.
 Flood waters are important for fisheries both in rivers and particularly in estuaries.
Floods trigger spawning and migration and carry nutrients to coastal waters.
 Controlled floods may result in a reduction of groundwater recharge via flood plains
and a loss of seasonal or permanent wetlands.
 Finally, changes to the river morphology may result because of changes to the sediment
carrying capacity of the flood waters. This may be either a positive or negative impact.
As with low flows, the operation of dams offers excellent opportunities to mitigate the
potential negative impacts of changes to flood flows. The designation of flood plains may
also be a useful measure that allows groundwater recharge and reduces peak discharges
downstream. This is one of the positive functions of many areas of wetland. It is important
that new irrigation infrastructure does not adversely effect the natural drainage pattern, thus
causing localized flooding.
Operation of dams
 The manner in which dams are operated has a significant impact on the river
downstream.
 There is a range of measures that can be undertaken to reduce adverse environmental
impacts caused by changing the hydrological regime that need not necessarily reduce
the efficacy of the dam in terms of its main functions, namely irrigation, flood
protection and hydropower.
 Multi-purpose reservoirs offer enormous scope for minimizing adverse impacts.
 In the case of modifying low flows, identifying downstream demands to determine
minimum compensatory flows, both for the natural and human environment, is the
key requirement and such demands need to be allowed for at the design stage.
 The ability to mimic natural flooding may require modifications to traditional dam
offtake facilities.
 In particular, passing flood flows early in the season to enable timely recession
agriculture may have the added advantage of passing flows carrying high sediment
loads.

A number of disease hazards are associated with dams some of which can be minimized,
others eliminated by careful operation. They include malaria, schistosomiasis and river
blindness; this is discussed more fully in the section Human health.
Rooted aquatic weeds along the shore (or in shallow reservoirs) can be partially controlled by
alternate desiccation and drowning. In some parts of the world local communities are willing
to de-weed reservoirs and use the weeds as animal fodder.
Fall of water table
 A possible advantage of reducing the water table level prior to the rainy season is that
it may increase the potential for groundwater recharge.
 Lowering the water table by the provision of drainage to irrigation schemes with high
water tables brings benefits to agriculture.
 Lowering the groundwater table by only a few metres adversely affects existing users
of groundwater whether it is required for drinking water for humans and animals or to
sustain plant life (particularly wetlands), especially at dry times of the year.
 Springs are fed by groundwater and will finally dry up if the level falls.
 Similarly low flows in rivers will be reduced. Any changing availability of
groundwater for drinking water supply needs to be assessed in terms of the economics
of viable alternatives.
 Poor people may be disproportionately disadvantaged. They may also be forced to use
sources of water that carry health risks, particularly guinea worm infection and
schistosomiasis. In parts of Asia there are indications that lowering the ground level
may favour the sandfly which may be vectors for diseases such as visceral
leishmaniasis.
 Saline intrusion along the coast is a problem associated with a falling groundwater
level with severe environmental and economic consequences.
 A continued reduction in the water table level (groundwater mining), apart from
deleting an important resource, may lead to significant land subsidence with
consequent damage to structures and difficulties in operating hydraulic structures for
flood defence, drainage and irrigation.
 Todd (1980) gives an example of a drop in ground level of over 3 m associated with a
60 m drop in groundwater level over a period of 50 years in the Central Valley,
California.

 Vulnerable areas are those with compressible strata, such as clays and some fine-
grained sediments. Any structural change in the soil is often irreversible. The ground
level can fall with a lowering of the water table if the soils are organic.
 Peats shrink and compact significantly on draining, with consequent lowering of the
ground level by several metres.
 Particular care is needed in the drainage of tropical coastal swamp regions as the
FeSO4 soils can become severely acidic resulting in the formation of "cat-clays".
 A number of negative consequences of a falling water table are irreversible and
difficult to compensate for, eg salt water intrusion and land subsidence, and therefore
groundwater abstraction needs controlling either by licensing, other legal
interventions or economic disincentives.
 Over-exploitation of groundwater, or groundwater mining, will have severe
consequences, both environmental and economic, and should be given particular
importance in any EIA.
Rise of water table
 In the long-term, one of the most frequent problems of irrigation schemes is the rise in
the local water-table (waterlogging).
 Low irrigation efficiencies (as low as 20 to 30% in some areas) are one of the main
causes of rise of water table.
 Poor water distribution systems, poor main system management and archaic in-field
irrigation practices are the main reason.
 The ICID recommendation to increase field application efficiency to even 50% could
significantly reduce the rise in the groundwater. The groundwater level rise can be
spectacularly fast in flat areas where the water table has a low hydraulic gradient. The
critical water table depth is between 1.5 and 2 m depending on soil characteristics, the
potential evapotranspiration rate and the root depth of the vegetation/crops.
Groundwater rising under capillary action will evaporate, leaving salts in the soil. The
problem is of particular concern in arid and semi-arid areas with major salinity
problems. A high water table also makes the soil difficult to work.
 Good irrigation management, closely matching irrigation demands and supply, can
reduce seepage and increase irrigation efficiency, thereby reducing the groundwater
recharge. The provision of drainage will alleviate the problem locally but may create
problems if the disposal water is of a poor quality. Apart from measures to improve
water management, two options to reduce seepage are to line canals in highly

permeable areas and to design the irrigation infrastructure to reduce wastage.

Waterlogging also implies increased health risks in many parts of the world.
Causes and impacts of reduced water quality in a river system
Agriculture Versus Urban Impacts

 Many water channels like rivers are loaded with domestic sewage and industrial
pollutants are the main source of irritation for irrigation. Polluted water pollutes the
crops grown.
 Especially in the peri-urban areas and those close to urban areas high intensive
agriculture of leafy vegetables, vegetables, grass as fodder for milch animals, etc.
becomes a big problem. In recent years, small rivers or sewages have become
perennial and the total flow of pollutants has tremendously increased.
Leafy Vegetables
 Farmers in the peri-urban areas are cultivating throughout the year i.e., harvesting
three to four crops a year. The heavy metal contaminants from these polluted waters
are reaching the consumers through the food chain.
 Especially in the leafy vegetables the heavy metal contaminants and biological
pathogens are finding their way into them.

 As the domestic sewage systems have heavy loads of phosphates and nitrogen apart
from other nutrients the farmers need to invest very little on the fertilizer inputs. The
overall yield of some of the crops grown is very high.
 Some grasses are highly adapted to these polluted waters, but loaded with pollutants
affecting the quality of milk and other products.
 Also the demand for water in the urban areas is very high. The farmers dependent on
the groundwater are having great difficulty.
 The ground water, as they go deeper, is saline and when applied to the fields over a
period increases the alkalinity of the soil.
Leachate
 The leachates from the solid waste dump-yard sites pollute ground water. In recent
times people are producing compost from city waste.
 The city waste compost has highest number of the pollutants including plastics which
are carcinogenic.
UNIT III CLIMATE CHANGE
Global warming and changing environment – Ecosystem changes – Changing blue-green-

grey water cycles – Water scarcity and water shortages – Desertification.
Definition of the term “Global Warming”:-
 The Earth‘s climate continuously changes following a natural process. It is as a

consequence of such natural process that the ice-cold climate of the Earth became
favourable for the evolution of mankind.
 The solar energy that passes through the Earth‘s atmosphere is absorbed by the
surface of the Earth while a major portion of it is reflected into space.
 This process, if continued naturally, would not have disturbed the atmosphere of the
Earth and hence would not have become a cause of concern.
 However, with industrialization, overpopulation, land-use change, deforestation and
change in lifestyles, the concentration of the different gases present in the atmosphere
have undergone change.
 Some of such gases like carbon-dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, etc., create a partial
blanket over the Earth‘s atmosphere and do not allow the outgoing infra-red radiations
to travel back into space.
 They, in turn, trap the infra-red radiations and reflect them into the Earth‘s
atmosphere.

This mechanism of trapping gases is mostly adopted in greenhouses to take aid of the warmth
generated from such gases in the quicker growth of plants present therein. As the mechanism
involved is similar to what is deliberately done in a greenhouse, such effect in the Earth‘s
atmosphere is known as the „Greenhouse Effect‟.
As a consequence of the greenhouse effect, the global mean temperature of the Earth
increases. Such increase in temperature continues over a long period of time and is the main
cause of extensive warming of the planet and hence termed as „Global Warming‟.
Global Warming - Relationship with Climate Change:
The Synthesis Report of the Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change published by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 clearly establishes the fact that
globalwarming is occurring at an alarming rate which is observable from the increase in the
average air temperature and ocean temperature, the widespread melting of ice-sheets and the
rise in the sea-levels.
The Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published
in 2001, established the fact of climate change and stated that it is beyond the ‗normal‘.
Climate change refers to the changes brought about in the Earth‘s climate system over a wide
period of time taking place mainly by human intervention or more specifically, human
induced global warming.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) defines ‗Climate

Change‘ as “a change which is attributable directly or indirectly to human activity that alters
the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate
variability observed over comparable time periods”.
Major Greenhouse Gases:
The major greenhouse gases traced till date include Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous
Oxide, Per Fluorocarbons, Chlorofluorocarbons, Hydrofluorocarbons, etc..
Carbon dioxide (CO2): Of all the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is regarded as the most
significant contributor to global warming. It is the increase in the concentration of the said
gas that causes the maximum climate variability and climate change.
 Out of the six major identified greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide has the highest
lifespan of close to thousand years.

 Carbon dioxide is generated through multifarious activities ranging from plant and
animal exhalation to volcanic eruptions and oceans, from decaying of plants and
animal bodies to the burning of fossil-fuels.
 It is said that most of the world‘s economy runs on carbon and hence with the burning
of the fossil fuels, the concentration of carbon-dioxide is constantly being liberated.
 In industrialised nations, coal, petroleum and natural gasare responsible for carrying
out the major portion of the industrial functions and hence the emission of carbon-
dioxide is always on the rise.
 One of the other reasons for the increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the
atmosphere is the change in the land use patterns which are constantly happening
either to provide land for the burgeoning population or to make way for biofuels
production, little realising the fact that while trying to reduce greenhouse gases, there
is occurring an increase in the concentration of such gases.
Methane (CH4): Methane is the second most noteworthy contributor towards global
warming. Being a hydrocarbon gas and having over a hundred year‘s lifespan.
 It is considered to be 21 times more damaging than carbon-dioxide by weight but its
availability in the atmosphere is less as compared to carbon-dioxide.
 Methane is very readily available from manure of domestic livestock. Again, while
digesting the grass accumulated while grazing, the cattle exhale the poisonous gas,
methane.
 Methane is also a by-product of rice production and is found when organic matters
decompose in swamps.
 It is also obtained in the guts of termites and cud-chewing animals.
 It has been observed that with each passing year, the concentration of methane in the
atmosphere is growing by about one percent.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs): These are synthetic compounds having industrial origin and
had huge usage as refrigerant coolants.
 At present their production and release is highly regulated by international protocol
and national legislations as it has been scientifically proved that chlorofluorocarbons
make significant contributions in damaging the ozone layer of the atmosphere thereby
leading to skin cancer.
Nitrous oxide (N2O): It is also another powerful greenhouse gas that is liberated into the
atmosphere through practices adopted in soil cultivation especially when organic pesticides
and fertilizers are used in farming activities.

 Biomass burning and fossil fuel combustion also increase the concentration of nitrous
oxide in the atmosphere.
 The pre-industrial concentration of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere was found 0.27
parts per million by volume which has stealthily risen to 0.31 parts per million by
volume in 1998.
 Having the atmospheric lifespan of 114 years, nitrous oxide once generated has the
global warming potential of 298 for a 100 year time horizon.
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs): Aluminium and semiconductor chip manufacture has led to the
prominence of per fluorocarbons as a major greenhouse gas.
 Their atmospheric lifespan is quite high and in the context of climate change, the
major perfluorocarbons include per fluoromethane and perfluoroethane.
 Soluble perfluorocarbons include the oxygenated perfluorocarbons which are strongly
present in the ocean environment.
 Although the atmospheric concentration of perfluoromethane is around 100,000 times
lower than carbon dioxide, the radioactive forcing of perfluoroethane is as much as
one five-hundredth of the radioactive forcing due to carbon -dioxide.
 With the consensus being generated about perfluorocarbons, the concentration of
atmospheric perfluorocarbons has reduced but the oxygenated perfluorocarbons has
been found to be present in the living tissues of humans, rodents and dolphins, etc.
 The oxygenated perfluorocarbons have carcinogenic effects on human health and
hence their emission is necessary to be regulated.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs): While perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride have
atmospheric lifespan reaching to centuries, the atmospheric lifespan of hydrofluorocarbons
are several decades.
 However their ability to absorb infra-red radiations is quite higher and it is such
quality that makes it recognised as a major greenhouse gas.
 As the hydrofluorocarbons do not contain ozone-destroying chlorine or bromine
atoms which deplete the ozone layer, their use as refrigerants and in air conditioners
continue to rise.
 Having the positive quality of protecting the ozone layer, its use in recent times in the
developing world has increased tremendously.
 Projections reveal that by the year 2050, the use of hydrofluorocarbons will be 800
times more in the developing countries as that in the developed countries and the said

emissions are likely to warm the planet similar to 5-9 billion tonnes of carbon-
dioxide.
Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6): According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
sulphur hexafluoride is a potent greenhouse gas whose global warming potential is 23,900
times more than that of carbon-dioxide over a hundred year span of time.
 Having excellent dielectric properties, sulphur hexafluoride is used for insulation in
electric power transmission equipments and in the semiconductor manufacturing
industries. It is also used as a tracer for gas leak detection.
 The sinksavailable for sulphur hexafluoride are minimal and hence sources for its
accumulation include all man-made sources.
 Although sulphur hexafluoride is itself non-toxic, it decomposes under electric stress
and thereby produces toxic by-products.
Causes Responsible for Global Warming:
 Discussing on the major ways in which humans have aggravated the issue it can be
said that the major sources to be blamed for such high increase in the greenhouse gas
emissions include the power sector, industry and the transport sector respectively.
 The contribution of the agricultural sector towards the occurrence of global warming
cannot also be ignored considering the fact that agriculture contributes 14% to the
problem, a percentage share similar to that made by the transport sector.
 In most cases, the contribution of agriculture as a predominant source of global
warming stands very less highlighted on account of its prominent utility in feeding the
masses and tackling food insecurity and also generating livelihood options.
 Another important source responsible for the emission of large concentration of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is the land use pattern change.
 It would be pertinent to mention in this context that the change in the land usage has
a contribution of 18% towards the enhancement of greenhouse gases with peat
fires, peat decay, deforestation and the burning and decay of biomass occurring
worldwide.
 There are several natural factors responsible for causing global warming, the most
prominent ones being, solar variability, continental drifts, changes in the Earth’s
orbit, volcanic eruptions, increase in the temperature of the oceans, plant and animal
exhalation and natural decomposition processes.
 Solar activity, for instance, is attended by increased solar winds which shield the
Earth from cosmic rays.

 As a consequence, the cosmic rays are not able to play any meaningful role and help
in cloud formation.
 Thus, when the sun‘s activity is stronger, there is a decrease in the formation of low-
altitude clouds.
 Non-cloud formation allows more sun‘s rays to reach the Earth‘s surface and thereby
increase in the temperature occurs.
 It can be said that the unsustainable ecological resource management is one of the
major factors that induces global warming.
 The burning of fossil fuels to meet the demands of industrialization, the emissions
from the transport sector and the domestic sector continues unabated and hence
account for further global warming.
 The burning of coal and oil complemented with natural gas has assisted mankind in
the generation of wealth and prosperity but has also aided in their destruction by
enhancing climate change.
Impacts of Global Warming Enhances Global Warming:
 It is not only the greenhouse gases that contribute towards global warming. Apart
from the emissions discussed hereinabove, the warming of the earth itself is also
responsible for generating effects that lead to further warming.
 As the ice-sheets melt, the melt water gets formed. The melt water is darker than ice,
and hence absorbs more heat thus resulting in further warming.
 One of the foremost reasons for the speedy meltdown of the ice-sheets of Greenland
and Antarctica is due to such effect. Further, with the passage of time, the capacity of
oceans to absorb emissions reduces.
 The other impact of global warming which further enhances global warming is the
increase in global temperatures.
 With the rise in temperature, metabolic processes get enhanced and allow the carbon
dioxide in the soils to escape.
 This, in turn, increases the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which
accelerates the process of global warming.
 Human aspirations and development patterns are responsible for global warming but
when the manifestations of global warming occur, the same is beyond human
comprehension and control.
 Hence in any discussion on global warming scenarios, two important points that
should be kept in mind are – firstly, it is immaterial where the emissions have
occurred for global warming impacts do not get determined and limited to

geographical boundaries and limitations and secondly, half of the emissions are
supposed to be absorbed by oceans and forests which act as carbon sinks.
 With the acceleration in the rate of global warming and the rate at which deforestation
continues, the number of such carbon sinks is sharply reducing asalso the capacity of
the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide is also getting reduced.
Changing in Environment:
 Change will continue through this century and beyond
 Temperatures will continue to rise
 Frost-free season (and growing season) will lengthen:
 Changes in precipitation patterns
 More droughts and heat waves
 Hurricanes will become stronger and more intense
 Sea level will rise 1-4 feet by 2100.
Ecosystem Changes:
 An ecosystem is a community of living organisms in conjunction with the non-living

components of their environment, interacting as a system.
 These biotic and abiotic components are linked together through nutrient cycles and
energy flows.
 Energy enters the system through photosynthesis and is incorporated into plant tissue.
By feeding on plants and on one-another, animals play an important role in the
movement of matter and energy through the system.
 They also influence the quantity of plant and microbial biomass present.
 By breaking down dead organic matter, decomposers release carbon back to the
atmosphere and facilitate nutrient cycling by converting nutrients stored in dead
biomass back to a form that can be readily used by plants and other microbes.
Types of Ecosystem Changes

Marine Ecosystem:
 Within marine ecosystems, populations of fished species have been affected
by the world‘s growing demand for food and animal feed.
 Since industrial fishing began, the total mass of commercially exploited
marine species has been reduced by 90% in much of the world.
Freshwater Ecosystem:

 Freshwater ecosystems have been modified by the creation of dams and the
withdrawal of water for human use, which have changed the flow of many
large river systems.
 This in turn has had other effects such as reducing sediment flows, the main
source of nutrients for estuary ecosystems.
Terrestrial Ecosystem:
 Within terrestrial ecosystems, more than half of the original area of many
types of grasslands and forests has been converted into farmland.
 The only types of land ecosystems which have been changed relatively little
are tundra and boreal forests, but climate change has begun to affect them.
Environmental Changes:
The capacity of ecosystems to provide benefits to humans, that is to provide ecosystem
services, derives from environmental cycles of water, nitrogen, carbon, and phosphorus.
Water cycle:
 Water withdrawals from rivers and lakes for irrigation, urban uses, and industrial
applications doubled between 1960 and 2000.
 Globally, humans use slightly more than 10% of the available
renewable freshwater supply.
 However, in some regions such as North Africa, groundwateris withdrawn at a faster
pace than it is renewed.
Carbon cycle:
 In the last two and a half centuries, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere has increased by one third.
 Land ecosystems were a net source of carbon dioxide during the 19th and early 20th
century and became a net carbon sink sometime around the middle of the last century.
 This reversal is due to increases in plant growth brought about by, for example, new
forest management and agricultural practices.
Nitrogen cycle:
 The total amount of nitrogen made available to organisms by human activities
increased nine-fold between 1890 and 1990, especially since 1950 because of the use
of synthetic fertilizers.
 Human activities are now responsible for as much nitrogen made available as all
natural sources combined.
Phosphoruscycle:

 The use of phosphorus fertilizers and the rate of phosphorus accumulation in

agricultural soils increased nearly threefold between 1960 and 1990, although the rate
has declined somewhat since that time.
 The current flux of phosphorus to the oceans is now triple that of background rates
(approximately 22 teragrams of phosphorus per year versus the natural flux of 8
teragrams).
Biodiversity Changes:
 The distribution of species on Earth is becoming more homogenous. By homogenous,
we mean that the differences between the set of species at one location on the planet
and the set at another location are, on average, diminishing.
 The natural process of evolution, and particularly the combination of natural barriers
to migration and local adaptation of species, led to significant differences in the types
of species in ecosystems in different regions.
 But these regional differences in the planet‘s biota are now being diminished.
Changes in Genetic Diversity:
 Genetic diversity has declined globally, particularly among cultivated species. The
extinction of species and loss of unique populations has resulted in the loss of
unique genetic diversity contained by those species and populations.
 For wild species, there are few data on the actual changes in the magnitude and
distribution of genetic diversity, although studies have documented declining genetic
diversity in wild species that have been heavily exploited.
 In cultivated systems, since 1960 there has been a fundamental shift in the pattern of
intra-species diversity in farmers‘ fields and farming systems as the crop varieties
planted by farmers have shifted from locally adapted and developed populations
(landraces) to more widely adapted varieties produced through formal breeding
systems (modern varieties).
Most Critical Factors Causing Ecosystem Changes
Natural or human-induced factors that directly or indirectly cause a change in an
ecosystem are referred to as drivers.
 A direct driver, such as habitat change, explicitly influences ecosystem processes.
 An indirect driver, such as human population change, operates more diffusely, by
altering one or more direct drivers.
The most important direct drivers of change have been:
In terrestrial ecosystems: Land cover change, mainly by conversion to cropland, and the
application of new technologies contributing to the increased supply of food, timber, and

fiber. Only areas unsuited to crop plants, such as deserts, boreal forests, and tundra, remain
largely untransformed by human action.
In marine ecosystems: Fishing about half of the commercially exploited wild marine fish
stocks for which information is available are fully exploited and without scope for
increased catches. The impact of fishing has been particularly significant in coastal areas
but is now also affecting the open oceans.
In freshwater ecosystems: Water regime changes, such as those following the construction
of large dams; invasive species, which can lead to species extinction; and pollution, such as
high levels of nutrient loading.
Coastal ecosystems : It is affected by multiple direct drivers. Worldwide, nearly 40% of
people live on the thin fringe of land within 50 km of the ocean. Fishing pressures in those
systems are linked to a wide array of other drivers including land-, river-, and ocean-based
pollution, habitat loss, invasive species, and nutrient loading. The greatest threat to coastal
systems is the conversion of coastal habitats through coastal urban sprawl, resort and port
development, aquaculture, and industrialization.
Five Major Indirect Drivers That Influence Ecosystems And Ecosystem Services Are:
Population change: This includes population growth and migration. World population has
doubled in the past forty years, reaching 6 billion in 2000, with most of the growth taking
place in developing countries. However, at present some developing countries have very
low rates of population growth, whereas some high income countries have high rates
because of immigration.
Change in Economic activity: Global economic activity has increased nearly seven-fold in
the last 50 years. As per capita income grows, demand for many ecosystem
servicesincreases and the structure of consumption also changes. The share of income
devoted to food, for example, decreases in favour of industrial goods and services.
Socio-Political factors: These factors include decision-making processes and the extent of
public participation in them. The trend toward democratic institutions over the past 50
years has helped empower local communities. There has also been an increase in
multilateral environmental agreements.
Cultural and Religious factors: In this context, culture can be defined as the values,
beliefs, and norms that a group of people share. It conditions individuals‘ perceptions of
the world, and suggests courses of action which can have important impacts on
other driverssuch as consumption behaviour.
Science and Technology: The 20th century saw tremendous advances in the understanding
of how the world works and in the technical applications of that knowledge. Much of the

increase in agricultural output over the past 40 years has come from an increase in yields
per hectare rather than an expansion of area. At the same time, technological advances can
also lead to degradation of ecosystem services. Advances in fishing technologies, for
example, have contributed significantly to the depletion of marine fish stocks.
Changing Blue-Green-Grey Water Cycles:
 The water cycle, also known as the hydrologic cycle or the hydrological cycle,
describes the continuous movement of water on, above and below the surface of
the Earth.
 The mass of water on Earth remains fairly constant over time but the partitioning of
the water into the major reservoirs of ice, fresh water, saline water and atmospheric
water is variable depending on a wide range of climatic variables.
 The water moves from one reservoir to another, such as from river to ocean, or from
the ocean to the atmosphere, by the physical processes
of evaporation, condensation, precipitation, infiltration, surface runoff, and subsurface
flow. In doing so, the water goes through different forms: liquid, solid (ice)
and vapour.
 The water cycle involves the exchange of energy, which leads to temperature changes.
 When water evaporates, it takes up energy from its surroundings and cools the
environment.
 When it condenses, it releases energy and warms the environment. These heat
exchanges influence climate.
 The evaporative phase of the cycle purifies water which then replenishes the land with
freshwater.
 The flow of liquid water and ice transports minerals across the globe. It is also
involved in reshaping the geological features of the Earth, through processes
including erosion and sedimentation.

 The water cycle is also essential for the maintenance of most life and ecosystems on
the planet.
Processes
Precipitation
 Precipitation is any product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapour that falls
under gravity.
 The main forms of precipitation include drizzle, rain, sleet, snow, graupel and hail.

 Precipitation occurs when a portion of the atmosphere becomes saturated with water
vapour, so that the water condenses and "precipitates".
 Thus, fog and mist are not precipitation but suspensions, because the water vapour
does not condense sufficiently to precipitate.
 Two processes, possibly acting together, can lead to air becoming saturated: cooling
the air or adding water vapour to the air.
 Precipitation forms as smaller droplets coalesce via collision with other rain drops or
ice crystals within a cloud. Short, intense periods of rain in scattered locations are
called "showers."
 Condensed water vapour that falls to the Earth's surface.
 Approximately 505,000 km3 (121,000 cu mi) of water falls as precipitation each year,
398,000 km3 (95,000 cu mi) of it over the oceans.
 The rain on land contains 107,000 km3 (26,000 cu mi) of water per year and a
snowing only 1,000 km3(240 cu mi).
 78% of global precipitation occurs over the ocean.
Canopy interception
The precipitation that is intercepted by plant foliage eventually evaporates back to the
atmosphere rather than falling to the ground.
Snowmelt
The runoff produced by melting snow.
Runoff
The variety of ways by which water moves across the land. This includes both surface
runoff and channel runoff. As it flows, the water may seep into the ground, evaporate into the
air, become stored in lakes or reservoirs, or be extracted for agricultural or other human uses.
Infiltration
The flow of water from the ground surface into the ground. Once infiltrated, the water
becomes soil moisture or groundwater. A recent global study using water stable isotopes,
however, shows that not all soil moisture is equally available for groundwater recharge or for
plant transpiration.
Subsurface flow
The flow of water underground, in the unsaturated zone and aquifers. Subsurface water
may return to the surface (e.g. as a spring or by being pumped) or eventually seep into the
oceans. Water returns to the land surface at lower elevation than where it infiltrated, under
the force of gravity or gravity induced pressures. Groundwater tends to move slowly and is
replenished slowly, so it can remain in aquifers for thousands of years.

Evaporation
The transformation of water from liquid to gas phases as it moves from the ground or bodies
of water into the overlying atmosphere. The source of energy for evaporation is primarily
solar radiation. Evaporation often implicitly includes transpiration from plants, though
together they are specifically referred to as evapotranspiration. Total annual
evapotranspiration amounts to approximately 505,000 km3 (121,000 cu mi) of water, 434,000
km3 (104,000 cu mi) of which evaporates from the oceans 86% of global evaporation occurs
over the ocean.
Sublimation
The state change directly from solid water (snow or ice) to water vapour by passing the liquid
state
Deposition
This refers to changing of water vapour directly to ice.
Advection: The movement of water through the atmosphere and without advection, water that
evaporated over the oceans could not precipitate over land.
Condensation
The transformation of water vapour to liquid water droplets in the air, creating clouds and
fog.

Transpiration
The release of water vapour from plants and soil into the air.
Percolation
Water flows vertically through the soil and rocks under the influence of gravity.
Plate tectonics
Water enters the mantle via subduction of oceanic crust. Water returns to the surface via
volcanism.
Grey-Water
 All wastewater generated in households or office buildings from streams without
fecal contamination, i.e. all streams except for the wastewater from toilets.
 Sources of grey-water include, sinks, showers, baths, clothes washing machines or
dish washers.
 As grey-water contains fewer pathogens than domestic wastewater, it is generally
safer to handle and easier to treat and reuse onsite for toilet flushing, landscape or
crop irrigation, and other non-potable uses.
 The application of grey-water reuse in urban water systems provides substantial
benefits for both the water supply subsystem by reducing the demand for fresh clean
water as well as the wastewater subsystems by reducing the amount of wastewater
required to be conveyed and treated.
The potential ecological benefits of grey-water recycling include
 Reduced freshwater extraction from rivers and aquifers
 Less impact from septic tank and treatment plant infrastructure
 Reduced energy use and chemical pollution from treatment

 Groundwater recharge
 Reclamation of nutrients
 Greater quality of surface and ground water when preserved by the natural
purification in the top layers of soil than generated water treatment processes.
Water Scarcity and Water Shortages:
 Water scarcity is the lack of fresh water resources to meet water demand.
 It is manifested by partial or no satisfaction of expressed demand, economic
competition for water quantity or quality, disputes between users, irreversible
depletion of groundwater, and negative impacts on the environment.
 The essence of global water scarcity is the geographic and temporal mismatch
between freshwater demand and availability.
 The increasing world population, improving living standards, changing consumption
patterns, and expansion of irrigated agriculture are the main driving forces for the
rising global demand for water.
Main Causes for the Water Scarcity:
 Water pollution is one of the main causes. There are many sources, for
example pesticides and fertilizers that wash away from human waste or industrial
waste and pollute the ground water.
 Some effects are immediate, when harmful bacteria from human waste contaminate
water and others like toxic substances from industrial processes, may take a few years
until they effect the environment. This process makes the water unusable.
 Agriculture uses 70% of the world‘s accessible freshwater, however approximately
60% of the used water is wasted.
 This is due to absorbent irrigation systems, inefficient application methods as well as
a growing cultivation of crops.
 This insufficient use of water is drying out rivers, lakes and underground aquifers.
Especially countries that produce large amounts of food—like India, China, Australia
or the United States— are close to reaching their water resource limits or have already
reached it. Nevertheless, water is essential for watering the crops to be able to provide
food for the fast growing population.
 Population growth is another main cause. The population growth already occurred
and will continue at an unpredictable rate.
 As stated by the LPR 2014, around 200 river basins, home to 2.67 billion people,
already experience water scarcity. That way, anxiety about water availability grows as
freshwater use continues at unsustainable levels.

 Furthermore, this future population does not just need freshwater itself but also food
and energy and these – as mentioned above – require water for the production.
This water scarcity will have negative impacts on the global public health, the number of
people suffering hunger and the development of the population. Moreover, it will lead to a
disappearing of wetlands, which are essential for animals, plants as well as the agriculture.
Despite these impacts, ecosystems will be in danger because natural landscapes can dry out,
change or be polluted. Additionally, economies can decline without enough water.
 Water scarcity is the lack of sufficient available water resources to meet water needswithin a
region. It affects every continent and around 2.8 billion people around the world atleast one
month out of every year. More than 1.2 billion people lack access to clean drinking
water. Water scarcity involves water stress, water shortage or deficits, and water crisis.‖
Main Causes of Water Shortage
 Excess and unnecessary demands outstrip available and scarce resources.
 Increased pollution due to excessive and unsustainable human consumption.
 There is overuse of water across the board and in all forms of industrial processes.
 Non-sustainable domestic practices such as leaving taps running when water is not needed
and needs to be stopped.
 Economic scarcity caused by poor or lack of management of existing water resources.
 Uneven distribution of water resources – regions that have excess supplies do not divert
resources to areas where it is needed more.
 Aquifers over-pumped and not re-charging quickly enough.
 Pollution remains one of the biggest problems in which governments don‘t do nearly enough
to penalize industrial use companies that illegally dump chemicals and oils into stressed
water systems.
 Fair access to land presents challenges of conflict where many people are restricted or denied
access to land, whether privately or government owned, and on which precious water
resources may be found.
The challenge of distance remains acute in some parts of the world where regions have
historically experienced dry climates and have had to rely on neighbouring countries to
supply them.
Effects and Severe Consequences of Water Shortages
 Water restrictions imposed across the board
 Poorer communities and informal settlements still lack access to potable water systems
 Negative impact on greening and domestic gardening initiatives due to water restrictions
 Increased fire hazards

 Polluted river beds and lakes harm ecosystems, including flora and fauna
 Water tariffs and/or prices increased across the board
 Particularly in drought-stricken areas, farmers unable to produce vital crops
 Due to extensive over-pollution, ice glaciers melting and contributing towards rising sea
levels and/or temperatures
 Global increase in temperatures further exacerbates water shortages.
DESERTIFICATION:
 Desertification is a type of land degradation in which a relatively dry area of land
becomes a desert, typically losing its bodies of water as well as vegetation and
wildlife.
 It is caused by a variety of factors, such as through climate change (particularly the
current global warming) and through the overexploitation of soil through human
activity.
Desertification is defined as a process of land degradation in arid, semi-arid and sub-humid areas
due to various factors including climatic variations and human activities. Or, to put it in another
way, desertification results in persistent degradation of dryland and fragile ecosystems due to
man-made activities and variations in climate.
 Desertification, in short, is when land that was originally of another type of biome turns
into a desert biome because of changes of all sorts.
 A huge issue that many countries have is the fact that there are large pockets of land that
are going through a process that is known as desertification.
 Overgrazing is the major cause of desertification worldwide. Other factors that cause
desertification include urbanization, climate-change, over-drafting of
groundwater, deforestation, natural disasters and tillage practices in agriculture that place
soils more vulnerable to wind.
 Desertification affects topsoil, groundwater reserves, surface runoff, human, animal and
plant populations. Water scarcity in dry-lands limits the production of wood, crops,
forage and other services that ecosystems provide to our community.
Causes of Desertification
 Overgrazing: Animal grazing is a huge problem for many areas that are starting to
become desert biomes. If there are too many animals that are overgrazing in certain spots,
it makes it difficult for the plants to grow back, which hurts the biome and makes it lose
its former green glory.
 Deforestation: When people are looking to move into an area, or they need trees in order
to make houses and do other tasks, then they are contributing to the problems related to

desertification. Without the plants (especially the trees) around, the rest of the
biome cannot thrive.
 Farming Practices: Some farmers do not know how to use the land effectively. They
may essentially strip the land of everything that it has before moving on to another plot of
land. By stripping the soil of its nutrients, desertification becomes more and more of a
reality for the area that is being used for farming.
 Urbanization and other types of land development. As mentioned above, development
can cause people to go through and kill the plant life. It can also cause issues with the soil
due to chemicals and other things that may harm the ground. As areas become more
urbanized, there are less places for plants to grow, thus causing desertification.
 Climate Change: Climate change plays a huge role in desertification. As the days get
warmer and periods of drought become more frequent, desertification becomes more and
more eminent. Unless climate change is slowed down, huge areas of land will become
desert; some of those areas may even become uninhabitable as time goes on.
 Stripping the land of resources. If an area of land has natural resources like natural gas,
oil, or minerals, people will come in and mine it or take it out. This usually strips the soil
of nutrients, which in turn kills the plant life, which in turn starts the process toward
becoming a desert biome as time goes on.
 Natural Disasters: There are some cases where the land gets damaged because of natural
disasters, including drought. In those cases, there isn‘t a lot that people can do except
work to try and help rehabilitate the land after it has already been damaged by nature.
Effects of Desertification
 Farming becomes next to impossible. If an area becomes a desert, then it‘s almost
impossible to grow substantial crops there without special technologies. This can cost a
lot of money to try and do, so many farmers will have to sell their land and leave the
desert areas.
 Hunger: Without farms in these areas, the food that those farms produce will become
much scarcer, and the people who live in those local areas will be a lot more likely to try
and deal with hunger problems. Animals will also go hungry, which will cause even more
of a food shortage.
 Flooding: Without the plant life in an area, flooding is a lot more eminent. Not all deserts
are dry; those that are wet could experience a lot of flooding because there is nothing to
stop the water from gathering and going all over the place. Flooding can also negatively
affect the water supply, which we will discuss next.

 Poor Water Quality: If an area becomes a desert, the water quality is going to become a
lot worse than it would have been otherwise. This is because the plant life plays a
significant role in keeping the water clean and clear; without its presence, it becomes a lot
more difficult for you to be able to do that.
 Overpopulation: When areas start to become desert, animals and people will go to other
areas where they can actually thrive. This causes crowding and overpopulation, which
will, in the long run, end up continuing the cycle of desertification that started this whole
thing anyway.
 Poverty: All of the issues that we‘ve talked about above (related to the problem of
desertification) can lead to poverty if it is not kept in check. Without food and water, it
becomes harder for people to thrive, and they take a lot of time to try and get the things
that they need.
UNIT IV ECOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURE
Ecological diversity, wild life and agriculture – GM crops and their impacts on the
environment – Insects and agriculture – Pollination crisis – Ecological farming principles –
Forest fragmentation and agriculture – Agricultural biotechnology concerns.
Agriculture and Wildlife: A two-way Relationship

The relationship between agriculture and wildlife is a complex blend of co-operation
and challenges. As agricultural land and wildlife habitat are converted for other uses, the co-
existence of agriculture and wildlife could become increasingly important. Agricultural land
provides important habitat to a variety of wildlife species, with natural land for pasture,
woodlands and wetlands having the highest habitat value. Wildlife supplies many ecosystem
services to the Canadian agricultural industry, and Canadian farmers can adopt several
agricultural practices that enhance wildlife habitat.
What you should know about this study?
This study is based on data from the 2011 Census of Agriculture, which collected data
from all agricultural operations that grow or raise livestock, poultry, crops or other
agricultural products intended for sale. Respondents were asked to enumerate their
commodities, land use and farming practices. This study does not include farms in the
territories.
While this article focuses on agricultural land type, it should be noted that other
factors such as landscape diversity and connectivity are also important to wildlife habitat
availability on agricultural land.

Definitions
Agricultural land represents the total farm area reported in the 2011 Census of Agriculture
and includes the following land use categories: cropland, summerfallow, tame or seeded
pasture, natural land for pasture, woodlands and wetlands, and all other land.
Cropland represents the areas reported for field crops, hay, vegetables, sod, nursery
products, fruits, berries and nuts.
Wildlife habitat refers to two agricultural land use categories: woodlands and wetlands, and
natural land for pasture. The category woodlands and wetlands is a combined variable and it
is not possible to determine the relative contributions of the two components.
What farm practices benefit wildlife?

There are several agricultural practices that enhance wildlife habitat. Examples
include rotational grazing, windbreaks, winter cover crops, buffer zones around water bodies,
and tillage practices that retain most of the crop residue on the surface. These practices are
mutually beneficial to both the farm and wildlife.
Hedgerows and tree windbreaks
Hedgerows, fencerows and windbreaks can provide shelter, food and breeding sites to
many wildlife species. They can also serve as valuable travel corridors that allow animals to
move between habitats. For farmers, the advantages of these agricultural features and the
wildlife they support include pollination, reduced soil erosion and natural agricultural pest
control.
Tillage
Crop residue are materials, such as straw, stalks and stubble, that are left on a field or
orchard after a crop has been harvested. The amount of crop residue that remains on the
surface after harvesting depends on the type of tillage used to prepare the soil for the next
crop.
Conventional tillage incorporates most of the crop residue into the soil, whereas
conservation tillage and no-till retain most of the crop residue on the surface. Several wildlife
species find refuge, feed and nest in crop residue, therefore these species benefit from no-till
and properly timed conservation tillage.Note16 From the perspective of the farmer, no-till and
conservation tillage can reduce soil erosion, increase soil organic matter and help retain soil
moisture. One of the negative aspects of no-till seeding is that farmers will typically rely
more heavily on pesticides to control weeds and insects.
Grazing

Farms use both natural and tame pasture land for livestock grazing. Both types of
pasture are also used by wildlife, although natural pasture is considered more valuable as
both feeding and breeding habitat. Grasslands, in particular, provide habitat for a large
diversity of wildlife, including many grassland birds that benefit from well-managed
livestock grazing.
For pasture land in general, wildlife habitat and the quality of livestock forage can be
improved by implementing rotational grazing. Rotational grazing involves alternating use of
two or more pastures at regular intervals, or temporary fences within pastures to prevent
overgrazing. This allows pastures sufficient time to recover and improves soil and plant
health.
Buffer zones
Buffer zones are strips of land around water bodies including streams, rivers and
wetlands. They prevent sediments and contaminants from entering water bodies, provide
wildlife habitat, and act as travel corridors between habitats. This, in turn, improves water
quality for livestock use and protects fish stocks for recreational use.
Can increasing wildlife populations benefit farm management?

Agri-environment schemes in the UK have actively promoted the introduction of farm
management approaches which benefit our native flora and fauna. Wildlife-friendly farming
strategies can support wildlife that is considered beneficial in an agricultural context, such as
those which engage in pollination or as natural enemies of crop pests. This in turn may have
positive influences on agricultural production.
One recent field based study compared different amounts of land removed from
production for the purpose of wildlife habitat creation. Measured yield was demonstrated to
increase for the studied crops of wheat, beans and oil seed rape, in fields with up to 8% of
land set aside. When compared with control fields (with no wildlife habitat patches), the
overall yield was comparable, which indicated that the benefits derived from the wildlife
friendly approaches, in terms of increased yield, compensated for any loss incurred from
taking portions of land out of production.
This effect is due to improvements in the delivery of natural services provided by
wildlife and from the fact that the land sacrificed could be considered less productive or
lower yielding (for instance, at field edges where there is increased compaction, competition
from trees and hedgerows for light and water, and greater stress from pest species). It is also
expected that time will be needed for populations of some wildlife species to recover from

current low levels. Thus, whilst some benefits may be observable in the short term, it could
be expected that as populations will continue to improve, then beneficial influences on yield
and ecosystem service delivery, will continue to strengthen.
Other studies have demonstrated increased yield in grassland as a result of increasing
plant diversity by sowing species rich seed mixtures. In an experiment considering gradients
of plant species richness and management intensity, higher diversity was shown to be more
effective in increasing productivity than higher management intensity and low-input high-
diversity fields had similar productivity to high-input low-diversity management regimes.
Whilst overall costs associated with restoration would need further consideration, and some
thought should also be given to field and soil preparation as soil nutrient status is likely to
dictate the success of sowing species rich mixtures, this demonstrates the potential for
increasing habitat availability whilst reducing environmental impact and cost of production to
the farmer, by reducing fertiliser input requirements.
Ecoagriculture approaches
Broadly, ecoagriculture landscapes rely on six basic strategies of resource

management, three focused on the agricultural part of the landscape and three on the
surrounding matrix. In production areas, farmers sustainably increase agricultural output and
reduce costs in ways that enhance the habitat quality and ecosystem services:
a. minimize agricultural wastes and pollution,

b. manage resources in ways that conserve water, soils, and wild flora and fauna, and
c. use crop, grass and tree combinations to mimic the ecological structure and function
of natural habitats.
Farmers or other conservation managers protect and expand natural areas in ways that
also provide benefits for adjacent farmers and communities:
a. minimize or reverse conversion of natural areas,

b. protect and expand larger patches of high-quality natural habitat, and
c. develop effective ecological networks and corridors.
The relative area and spatial configuration of agricultural and natural components (and
other elements, such as physical infrastructure and human settlements) are key landscape
design issues. The conservation of wild species that are highly sensitive to habitat
disturbance—as are some of those most endangered or rare globally—requires large well-
connected patches of natural habitat. But many wild species, including many that are
threatened and endangered, can coexist in compatibly managed agricultural landscapes, even
in high-yielding systems.

Numerous approaches to agriculture, conservation and rural development contribute

components, management practices and planning frameworks that can be applied in
ecoagriculture landscapes. The outcomes of planning and negotiations among the multiple
stakeholders in any particular landscape will take diverse forms depending on the context of
local cultures and philosophies of land management.
Where ecoagriculture approaches are needed?
Ecoagriculture approaches may be relevant to some extent in all agricultural

landscapes, in light of their focus on improving landscape performance vis-á-vis three goals
(agricultural production, biodiversity conservation and livelihoods). Synergies may be most
apparent, and trade-offs least difficult, in areas with less productive agricultural lands (so that
the opportunity costs of protecting or restoring habitats are lower), and in heterogeneous
areas where farms are already interspersed with hills, forests and abandoned farms.
Nonetheless, the need to reconcile increased agricultural productivity and livelihoods with
effective conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services may be most critical in
agriculture-dominated landscapes.
Ecoagriculture approaches offer opportunities for integrated action, at a lower overall

cost, to achieve Millennium Development Goals for poverty, hunger, water, and sanitation
and environmental sustainability. Ecoagriculture also provides a strategy for implementing
national commitments to multilateral environmental conventions, including the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Ramsar and
the Convention to Combat Desertification.
But it is important to consider the situations under which integrated versus segregated
land use is likely to be especially advantageous, and the scale at which integration is
desirable. For example, where most biodiversity is likely to be lost in the transition from
pristine to extensive systems or if key species are very sensitive to fragmentation, then
segregated systems might be indicated at a coarser grain. But where the transition from
extensive to intensive agriculture will result in greater biodiversity loss, then integrated low-
intensity agriculture finely interspersed with natural areas may be most desirable.
Real costs are associated with the cross-sectoral planning and coordination and technical
innovations needed to achieve impacts at a landscape scale. These must be considered in
prioritizing private, public and civic ecoagriculture investments. Top priorities would be:

i. agricultural landscapes located in or around critical habitat areas for wild species of
local, national or international importance (e.g. landscapes in the highly threatened
habitats of the Atlantic Forest of Brazil, now dominated by farming),
ii. degraded agricultural landscapes where restored ecosystem services will be essential
to achieve both agricultural and biodiversity benefits (such as the dryland farming and
pastoral regions of West Africa),
iii. agricultural landscapes that must also function to provide critical ecosystem services
(such as the densely populated landscapes of Europe and Java), and
iv. peri-urban agricultural systems, where careful management is required to protect

ecological, wildlife and human health.
No assessment has been done of the geographical scale and location of such priority areas for
ecoagriculture development strategies (as distinct from agriculture- or conservation-led
development), but undertaking such analyses is a critical step to guide policy action.
What are the environmental benefits of GM crops?

One of the significant environmental benefits of GM crops is the dramatic reduction in
pesticide use, with the size of the reduction varying between crops and introduced trait.
1. A study assessing the global economic and environmental impacts of biotech crops for
the first twenty one years (1996-2016) of adoption showed that the technology has
reduced pesticide spraying by 671.2 million kg and has reduced environmental footprint
associated with pesticide use by 18.4%. The technology has also significantly reduced
the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture equivalent to removing 16.75
million cars from the roads.
2. According to a meta-analysis on the impacts of GM crops, GM technology has reduced
chemical pesticide use by 37 percent.
3. A study of U.S. maize and soybean farmers from 1998 to 2011 concluded that adopters
of herbicide tolerant maize used 1.2% (0.03 kg/ha) less herbicide than non-adopters, and
adopters of insect resistant maize used 11.2% (0.013 kg/ha) less insecticide than non-
adopters.
4. In China, use of Bt cotton resulted in pesticide use reduction of 78,000 tons of
formulated pesticides in 2001. This corresponds to about a quarter of all the pesticides
sprayed in China in the mid-1990s.5Furthermore, another study covering data collected

from 1999 to 2012 showed that Bt cotton adoption has caused a significant reduction in
pesticide use.
5. The use of Bt cotton can substantially reduce the risk and incidence of pesticide
poisonings to farmers.
6. Herbicide tolerant crops have facilitated the continued expansion of conservation tillage,
especially no-till cultivation system, in the USA. The adoption of conservation and no-
till cultivation practices saved nearly 1 billion tons of soil per year.
7. Biotech cotton has been documented to have a positive effect on the number and
diversity of beneficial insects in the US and Australian cotton fields.
8. Adoption of Bt corn in the Philippines did not show an indication that Bt corn had
negative effect on insect abundance and diversity.
CURRENT GM APPLICATIONS
The primary GM applications on the market today are herbicide tolerance, insect
resistance, virus resistance, and drought tolerance. Many other applications that can
contribute to sustainable agriculture (for example, blight-resistant GM potatoes) or that can
be used for humanitarian purposes (for example, golden rice) are under development or
pending approval for cultivation.
Herbicide-tolerant plants survive being sprayed with herbicides (weed killers), while all
weeds in the field die off. Herbicide tolerance is the subject of criticism because it promotes
the use of herbicides in agriculture. However, herbicide tolerance is nothing new: all crops
are tolerant to one or more herbicides. As a result, grasses can be eliminated from a potato
field using specific herbicides (such as the active substances propaquizafop and rimsulfuron)
because potatoes are tolerant to these products.5,6. In addition to naturally occurring
tolerance, herbicide tolerance can be obtained through breeding. Plants that are tolerant to
broad-spectrum herbicides have been developed through conventional breeding techniques
since the 1970s. This trait gives farmers a great advantage because it allows flexible and
simple weed control. In erosion-sensitive areas, herbicide tolerance also provides an indirect
environmental advantage, by enabling no-till farming. This improves soil structure, causes
less soil erosion, and reduces fuel use, which in turn lowers CO2 emissions. Herbicide
tolerance can also be developed with modern breeding techniques (such as GM technology).
Herbicide tolerance is therefore not specific to any particular breeding method and primarily
serves to respond to the needs of farmers. The most well-known and commercially successful
examples of GM traits are glyphosate and glufosinate tolerance (marketed under the
commercial names Round Up Ready and LibertyLink respectively).7 These GM crops get
their herbicide tolerance from the production of bacterial proteins.

Insect-resistant crops can defend themselves against certain harmful insects. This can
drastically reduce the use of insecticides, which has a positive effect on useful insects and on
the environment in general. GM crops can obtain the insect resistance trait through the
insertion of genetic information from bacteria, and more specifically from Bacillus
thuringiensis (abbreviated as Bt). Insect-resistant Bt crops produce proteins from the Bacillus
bacteria, which allows them to defend themselves from specific insects.
GMOs resistant to certain plant viruses have existed since the 1990s. The virus-resistant
GM papaya is one of the major success stories. The GM papaya was developed by two
American universities with no financial backing from industry and in 1998 it rescued the
deeply afflicted Hawaiian papaya industry from the brink of collapse.8 In addition to
papayas, GM tomatoes, GM pumpkins, and GM peppers are also cultivated on a small scale.7
They produce one or more proteins stemming from plant viruses or specific RNAi molecules,
which makes them immune to these specific viruses (for more information, see the
background report ―Virus-resistant papaya in Hawaii‖)
Since 2013, GM maize with enhanced tolerance to periods of drought, has also been
cultivated in the United States. Drought tolerance does not mean that the plants can grow in
dry areas but it does mean that they can make it through periods of drought with no disastrous
consequences for yields. The drought-tolerant maize currently available uses a protein from
the soil bacterium Bacillus subtilis and, under drought stress, delivers an average of 7% more
yield in comparison with conventional maize.
How are GM crops assessed for environmental safety?

GM crops are thoroughly evaluated for environmental effects before entering the
marketplace. They are assessed by many stakeholders in accordance with principles
developed by environmental experts around the world. Among those who conduct risk
assessment procedures are the developers of GM crops, regulatory bodies, and academic
scientists.
Most countries use similar risk assessment procedures in considering the interactions
between a GM crop and its environment. These include information about the role of the
introduced gene, and the effect that it brings into the recipient plant. Also addressed are
specific questions about unintentional effects such as:
1. impact on non-target organisms in the environment
2. whether the modified crop might persist in the environment longer than usual or invade
new habitats
3. likelihood and consequences of a gene being transferred unintentionally from the
modified crop to other species

4. Further, an increasing human population is responsible for wilderness destruction, water

quality problems, and diversion of water. The loss of habitat has resulted in many
species being displaced.
5. Thus, to conserve forests, habitats, and biodiversity, it is necessary to ensure that future
food requirements come only from cropland currently in use.
GMOs and the environment
Although the global debate on GMOs has usually allied disparate groups concerned about
food safety and the environment, environmental risks are perceived to differ from food safety
risks in several ways. Experience built up through decades of environmental impact studies
suggests that the impact of new biological elements in ecosystems may take years or decades
to be understood. The environmental impacts of introduced GMOs can be either ecological or
genetic and may include:
 unintended effects on the dynamics of populations in the receiving environment as a

result of impacts on non-target species, which may occur directly by predation or
competition, or indirectly by changes in land use or farming practices;
 unintended effects on biogeochemistry, especially through impacts on soil microbial
populations that regulate the flow of nitrogen, phosphorus and other essential
elements;
 the transfer of inserted genetic material to other domesticated or native populations,
generally known as gene flow, through pollination, mixed matings, dispersal or
microbial transfer.
Because these potentially adverse effects have been documented in the field with non-
GMO species, and because the consequences of these effects could be serious, it is important
to regulate and monitor all introductions of GMOs effectively. Field experiments in ecology
take months or years to become valid. Furthermore, current data on GMOs in the field should
be viewed as location-specific, and extrapolations from laboratory or computer simulation to
the field must be made cautiously.
Environmental issues and GM crops
GM crops are commercially available and planted on more than 40 million hectares
across six continents. These plantings represent the largest-scale experience in the
introduction of GMOs into ecosystems, and they have become the focus of environmental
concerns. Activists, worried about GMOs being released into the biosphere, have destroyed

test plots in at least four continents. This may show the depth of their commitment, but it also
prevents anyone from learning from the data that should have been collected from those tests.
The majority of the area under GM crops is planted with varieties resistant to
herbicides. These herbicides are associated with a shift towards less mechanical tillage in
large-scale arable crops, which reduces primary soil erosion. Early on, weed scientists
appreciated and studied the environmental consequences of introducing GM crops, especially
for weed control. A 1998 international technical meeting, organized by FAO on Benefits and
Risks of Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Crops, found that:
1. The repeated use of one herbicide causes a shift in the weed flora because there is
very high selection pressure on weeds to evolve biotypes that are resistant to the
herbicides associated with transgenic plants bred to be tolerant of those herbicides.
2. Gene flow occurs with the spread of genes through pollen and outcrossing from
herbicide-resistant crops to related weed species. In the absence of the particular
herbicide, the possession of this trait is unlikely to improve the strength of the weeds
but, when the herbicide is applied, it would improve the weeds' strength and could
reduce the economic benefits of herbicide resistance.
3. The risks of gene transfers are higher in areas of origin and diversification. Care
needs to be taken to ensure that native germplasm, including weed and wild crop
relatives, is not affected by the transfer of herbicide-resistant genes
While the total area planted to insect-resistant Bt crops is less than one-fourth of that
planted to herbicide-tolerant crops, commonly recognized problems are under intensive
research. This research focuses on the applied aspects of managing agro-ecosystems for
intensified production, but public attention to GMOs has also encouraged scientists in
academic and other public sector institutions to carry out more basic ecological studies,
especially concerning the impact of GMOs on non-target species. For example, Bt varieties
have been found to secrete Bt toxins into soil root zones; these zones then produce higher
concentrations of Bt toxins than are normally found, which may affect populations of soil
insects that do not eat crops.
The prominence of the Monarch butterfly as a much-loved insect in North America,

where the largest areas of GM crops are now grown, has generated the most detailed research
into the impact of GMOs on wild species, as well as considerable consumer attention.

Regulatory issues, especially those related to quarantine, invasive species and

biosafety become very important when GM crops move internationally, as facilitated by
trade. International treaty bodies such as the International Plant Protection Convention, the
Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety are actively
engaged in constructing a suitably workable framework. More specific regulatory
mechanisms include the draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology as it relates to Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture, under development by countries through FAO.
Environmental issues and GM forest trees
Research on the genetic modification of forest trees is undertaken almost exclusively

with a view to application in plantation forestry. Today, forest plantations supply
approximately 25 percent of the world's wood requirements. The area of forest plantations,
which currently represents less than 5 percent of the global
forest area, is expected to increase and to provide one-third of the total wood supply by the
year 2010.
One of the first reported trials with GM forest trees was initiated in 1988 using
poplars. Since then, there have been more than 100 reported trials in at least 16 countries,
involving at least 24 tree species mostly timber-
producing species for use in intensively managed plantations. There is no reported
commercial-scale production of GM forest trees.
Traits for which genetic modification can realistically be contemplated in the near
future include insect and virus resistance, herbicide tolerance and modified lignin content.
Modification of lignin is a potentially important objective for species grown for the
production of pulp and paper. Wood with modified lignin requires less processing with harsh
chemicals and is thus environmentally benign. It has also been pointed out that, as lignin
content is associated with resistance to insect feeding, the overall impacts of modified lignin
should be carefuly investigated. Monitoring should include possible secondary effects, such
as changes in the incidence of insect damage, including in surrounding forests.
A major technical factor limiting the application of genetic modification to forest trees
is the currently low level of knowledge regarding the molecular control of traits that are of
most interest, notably those relating to growth, stem form and wood quality. Investments in
GM technologies should be weighed against the possibilities of exploiting the large amounts
of generally untapped genetic variation that are available within forest tree species in nature.

Biosafety aspects of GM trees need careful consideration because of the long

generation time of trees, their important roles in ecosystem functioning and the potential for
long-distance dispersal of pollen and seed.
Effects Of Genetically Modified Crops On The Environment

Low yielding crops, such as organically grown conventional crops, are not nearly
efficient enough to maximize the land available. However, growing conventional crops on a
large scale requires the use of chemicals, such as pesticides, that harm the environment.
Mass-produced conventional crops require large quantities of pesticides and can have
many environmentally harmful consequences. The term pesticide is a general term that
encompasses insecticides, herbicides and fungicides, which are used to control insect, weed,
and fungal populations respectively (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2013). In
2008, pesticide use on corn crops in Germany had unprecedented effects on bee populations.
We rely on bees for pollination of important plant species, so the declining bee populations
diminishes plant diversity and growth.
Pesticides often harm non-target organisms, or organisms other than the one the
pesticide is meant to protect a crop against. Insecticides often harm important pollinators,
such as bees, while herbicides frequently contaminate water sources and affect aquatic plant.
By negatively impacting non-target organisms on land, in the soil, and in the water, pesticides
have huge deleterious effects on the environment. A somewhat controversial solution that
would provide enough food for the world without inducing significant harm on the
environment is genetically modified (GM) crops.
In reality, we have genetically modified crops and animals for centuries just through
breeding in favor of specific traits. This process, known as selective breeding, has the same
functional outcome as genetic modification: to produce better or more efficient organisms.
Unlike selective breeding, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are produced by
introducing a beneficial target gene into an organism (World Health Organization [WHO],
2015). This process is more time-efficient and precise than selective breeding, but it is
controversial in the public eye (EPA, 2013). However, the scientific community advocates
that GM crops are either neutral or beneficial to the environment. Continuing to use
conventional crops on the scale necessary to feed the growing population would significantly
harm the environment through the use of pesticides, an increase in tilled land, and disruption
of soil microfauna. Switching to GM crops would meet the needs of the world while also
taking into account the delicate balance of the environment. GM crops reduce the use of

pesticides and decrease the carbon footprint of farming without affecting critical soil
diversity.
GM crops reduce the need for insecticides that are often used with conventional crops.
When comparing the number of insecticide sprays and the amount of active ingredient used
on both GM crops and conventional crops, GM crops require less insecticide usage overall.
This decrease is due primarily to the fact that GM crops can be modified to carry genes that
make them resistant to pests that would harm conventional crops. Because this defense
mechanism is internal, unlike the less controllable, external use of insecticides, there tend to
be less widespread harmful effects on non-target organisms and the environment when using
GM crops.
With the high level of success of GM crops, we can assure high yield production and
reduce the amount of insecticide that is sprayed, leading to a reduction of carbon dioxide
created by insecticide use. Phipps and Park (2002) state that:
 If 50% of maize, oilseed rape, sugar beet, and cotton grown in the EU were
GM varieties, pesticide used in the EU/year would decrease by 14.5 million kg
of formulated product [and] there would be a reduction of 7.5 million hectares
sprayed, which would save 20.5 million liters of diesel and result in a
reduction of approximately 73,000 tons of carbon dioxide being released into
the atmosphere.
The reduction of diesel fuel is a result of reduced field operations that are necessary to
carry out application of pesticides, whether it was insecticide or herbicide. This is a massive
amount of non-renewable resources saved from use and a great direction of where GM crops
can take our economy and help in conserving our environment.
Pesticides are a significant concern to the environment, but using conventional crops
without pesticides is extremely impractical. In order to grow crops at the scale necessary for
our growing population, some method other than simple conventional crops must be used.
Organic crops grown without pesticides produce 25% lower yields than conventional crops
grown with pesticides. The few methods available to organic agriculture for limiting crop
loss to pests are not sufficient. Bt protein spray, which is a crop protection method that uses
the Bt protein described earlier, is allowed in organic farming because it originates from a
naturally occurring bacterium. However, Bt protein spray is not efficient because it washes
away quickly (UCSD, 2003). Increased crop loss translates to a need for even more land to
grow the same amount of crops, which increases deforestation and biodiversity losses. While
this lower yield is due to many contributing factors, the inability to guard against pests using

insecticides and herbicides when growing organic crops is a significant factor. This leaves
two alternatives – either grow crops using pesticides which are known to harm the
environment, or grow GM crops that innately ward off pests.
Farmers using conventional crops resort to tilling their land to get rid of weeds before
their crops come up. The process of tillage breaks up the topsoil structure, which can lead to a
decrease in soil integrity that takes years to come back from with continued use. Tillage
degrades soil quality and releases carbon dioxide stored in the soil into the atmosphere. ―Up
until the late 1950s, tillage (plowing) released more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than
all the burning of oil and coal in history‖ . A conventional tillage process requires around five
gallons of diesel per acre. In 2012, the average U.S. farm size was 434 acres, requiring 2,170
gallons of diesel. About 22.38 pounds of carbon dioxide are produced from a gallon of diesel
fuel. That is equal to producing nearly 49,000 pounds of carbon dioxide for the average farm
in conventional tilling. Tillage also causes surface water runoff because the soil integrity is
lost, leading to water erosion and erosion of the loose topsoil by wind. Tillage reduces the
population density of soil microorganisms that are responsible for the vast majority of
decomposition. As those populations decrease, the organisms are not there to bind soil
particles. Soil integrity is lost and organic matter can very easily be lost to erosion and runoff,
leaving the farmland non-arable (not suitable for growing crops).
The need for tillage can be reduced by using herbicide-tolerant (HT) GM crops. HT
crops often require zero tilling, reducing the need for herbicides by leaving the plant material
from the previous season on the soil. This residual plant material inhibits light from hitting
the seeds of weed species, which prevents germination and the movement of weed seeds by
equipment. A decrease in herbicide use would reduce environmental harm by eliminating the
accidental contamination of nearby land and water supplies, leading to a decrease in negative
effects on non-target plants. Farmers that reduce tillage can also take advantage of carbon
credit programs in which they get paid for keeping the carbon in the soil. The credits they
receive are sold to companies that want to reduce their emissions. Thus, with HT crops, the
reduction of tillage sustains soil health and overall integrity for continued use while also
providing economic benefits to the farmers who grow them.
Using GM crops in the place of conventional crops will allow us to grow a sufficient
amount of food without harming the environment. In order to accomplish this, farmers must
be encouraged to use GM crops — through the carbon credit program for reducing tillage, for
example. Although growing GM crops can be more expensive than conventional seeds by
about $81 per acre, they are a better investment in the long run both environmentally and

economically. The USDA reported that growing GM crops results in ―higher crop yields,
and/or lower pesticide costs, and management time savings‖. There must also be an
acceptance of GM crops by the general public through increased exposure to research
information. The significant portion of federally funded research would increase public
awareness of research, providing data-driven information for people to base their views of
GM crops on instead of the often uninformed, opinion-based media outlets.
The Environmental Impact of GMOs

The debate around genetically modified organisms (GMO) is huge and heated on
either side. One of the major considerations when arguing against the use of GMO products is
the potential for environmental harm. What exactly are the environmental risks to consider in
regards to GMOs?
First of all, it is important to understand what a GMO is precisely. The World Heath
Organization (WHO) defines them as organisms whose DNA has been altered in a non-
natural way. GM plants are usually changed to be insect resistant, virus resistant, or herbicide
tolerant. With these changes come some potentially problematic environmental challenges.
Firstly, toxicity is a huge issue surrounding chemical pesticides and herbicides, used
commonly with GMOs, in addition to the toxicity inherent to these plants. GMOs may be
toxic to non-target organisms, bees and butterflies being the most talked-about examples
currently. Bees are hugely important in the pollination of many food crops, but are
unfortunately extremely endangered by modern agricultural techniques, such as GM crops.
Monarch butterflies are specifically at risk from GMO maize plants. In addition to bees and
butterflies, birds are also at risk from pesticides, and work as biological control agents and
pollinators, again, like bees.
Furthermore, the longterm effects of GMOs are not certain. Pests that are targeted by
these agricultural methods can adapt to pesticides and herbicides, in addition to the DNA
changes in GM plants to make them ¨resistant.¨ This means that they will not always be
effective, but their toxic legacies will remain.
Cumulative effects of products such as GMOs are important to take into
consideration. Evidence also suggests that small genetic changes in plants may produce even
larger ecological shifts, meaning that there is potential for GMO´s to become persistent and
weedy in agricultural conditions, since they are modified to be resistant to some modern
agricultural techniques. This can also mean being invasive in natural settings, where GMOs,
of course, do not occur naturally. It is not impossible for new, human modified, plants to
become invasive species in delicate, natural ecosystems.

Finally, biodiversity, while it is critical in all ecosystems and to the sustainability of

all species, is put at risk by GMOs. When GM crops are planted, generally in a monocrop
fashion, many heritage seeds are no longer used. The nature of GMOs means fewer weed
flowers and, therefore, less nectar for pollinators. Toxins released into the soil through the
plants´ routes mean fewer soil bacteria, which are integral to healthy soil for plants to grow
without the use of chemical fertilizers. Toxic residues are left in the soil of GM crops.
Nutrients are not returned to the soil in mono crops and from GMO foods, meaning that soil
is becoming dry and void of all nutrients, generally integral to the growing process. A cycle
of dependence on GMO seeds and chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides is then
created in order to grow a single crop. In addition to soil issues, the irrigation used to grow
GM foods naturally carries all of these problems into water sources and into the air. This
exposes different bacteria, insects, and animals to the same problems.
All of these impacts must be taken into consideration in the larger picture; GMO´s
DNA may end up in soil, compost, animal feed and byproducts, and other living organisms
from insects to larger pests. Bees can transport pesticides, herbicides, and DNA through the
air into the environment. Once a plant is introduced in an agricultural environment, it is
reasonable to assume it will become part of a larger ecosystem, meaning the problem of
environmental damage done by GMOs is much larger than simply potentially harming our
health.
Aside from environmental issues, GMOs are the topic of social and ethical debates as
well. It goes without saying that we live in an inter-connected world, where the way we
interact with nature can cause a complex array of consequences. Being informed on the food
we are consuming, and the way modern agricultural techniques are affecting the environment,
is one effective way of consciously interacting with the natural world.
Pollination Crisis
The notion that a decline in pollinators may threaten the human food supply --
producing a situation that has been referred to as a "pollination crisis". First of all, most
agricultural crop production does not depend on pollinators. On top of that, while honey bees
may be dwindling in some parts of the world, the number of domesticated bees world-wide is
actually on the rise, their new report shows.
"The honey bee decline observed in the USA and in other European countries
including Great Britain, which has been attributed in part to parasitic mites and more recently
to colony collapse disorder, could be misguiding us to think that this is a global

phenomenon," said Marcelo Aizen of Universidad Nacional del Comahue in Argentina. "We
found here that is not the case."
By analyzing data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
for temporal trends in the number of commercial bee hives, they found that the global stock
of domesticated honey bees has increased by about 45 percent over the last five decades. That
increase has primarily been driven by an increased demand for honey from a growing human
population, rather than an increased need for pollinators, he added.
But the news isn't all good: The data also show that the demand for crops that rely on
insects for pollination has more than tripled over the last half century, suggesting that the
global capacity for pollination may still be under considerable stress. These crops include
"luxury" agriculture items, now common in any supermarket, like plums, raspberries, and
cherries, as well as mangos, guavas, Brazil nuts, and cashew nuts.
The associated increase in demand for agricultural land could also hasten the
destruction of habitat that now supports hundreds or thousands of species of wild pollinators,
which would in turn cause a drop in crop yield.
"Most importantly, decreasing yield by these pollinator-dependent crops surely would
imply rising market prices, which undoubtedly would constitute a further incentive for their
cultivation,". "This situation would create a positive feedback circuit that could promote more
habitat destruction and further deterioration of pollination services. The good news is that
less-intensively managed agro-ecosystems that preserve patches of natural and semi-natural
habitats and uncultivated field edges can sustain abundant and diverse communities of wild
pollinators."
What You Can Do About the Pollination Crisis
You don't need lots of money and time to help bees, butterflies and other pollinators.
One way you can assist them is simply by planting a few flowers. The key, experts say, is
choosing varieties that have lots of nectar and pollen. "We recommend that people go to local
nurseries and look at their regional plant list," says entomologist Stephen Buchmann. "But we
don't want people to think they can't plant nonnative flowers. It's just that many hybrid
flowers have a nice scent and look attractive but when the bees go down they don't find
nectar or pollen."
You don't have to plant acres of seedlings. Even a small border, a few pots or window
boxes are helpful. Just plant as many different kinds of flowers as possible to provide a
succession of blooms from early spring until the fall. "Any small effort is worthwhile," says

Buchmann, "especially if you join in with your neighbors, because although small native bees
have shorter flights and won't go far, honeybees, bumblebees and carpenter bees are strong
fliers and will fly miles [in search of nectar and pollen]. They will cross over from patch to
patch."
If you already have a vegetable garden, introduce some tall plants to attract and slow
down pollinators. Sunflowers are good choices, as are climbing varieties such as morning
glories, scarlet runner beans, red kidney beans, yellow and purple French beans, garden peas,
sweet peas and nasturtiums. Grow them up a fence, trellis or bamboo poles. Bees will also
visit plants that require pollination, such as cucumbers, squash, blueberries, pumpkins,
melons, tomatoes, peppers and eggplants.
Another method for enticing pollinators is to provide and protect nesting sites, even to
the point of encouraging (or at least tolerating) ground-nesting bees and wasps.
Once you've provided a pollinator garden and nests in your yard--or even if you don't--make
sure you maintain a safe haven for pollinators. Practice organic gardening methods or use
pesticides (preferably those derived from plants or microbes) only when crucial--and then in
selective, small ways and always after sundown when the pollinators have retired for the
night. Don't spray directly on the blossoms or use systemics, which travel throughout the
entire plant. And it's wise not to use dust pesticides, which cling to hairy pollinators and are
carried back to their nests. Better to spray bugs with insecticidal soap, or hose them off with a
stream of water. Don't use herbicides and insecticides on your lawn, nor water it deeply--
these practices can poison or drown ground-nesting pollinators.
It's also important to create a source of food for young pollinators and provide
overwintering places for eggs and larvae. To do so, allow a corner of your backyard to
naturalize with wild grasses, weeds and wildflowers (including Queen Anne's lace, burdock,
borage, milkweed, evening primrose), and plant extra dill, parsley and carrots, which
swallowtail butterfly larvae consume in quantity.
During hot, dry summer months provide water in very shallow birdbaths or pools
where pollinators can easily alight around the edges to sip. And because some wasps and bees
use mud to build their nests and butterflies like to congregate in muddy puddles, Buchmann
recommends allowing a hose or faucet to drip.
And what if you have no garden but you would still like to pitch in? Create window-
box gardens or plant in containers on balconies, stoops or rooftops. Join with your neighbors
to create and maintain pollinator gardens in vacant lots, public gardens or local schools. Or

call your local public works or highway department and offer to help establish or maintain
corridors of native plants on median strips.
Ecological farming principles
Ecological Farming: The seven principles of a food system
We are living with a broken food system. It needs to be replaced urgently for the
benefit of all people, and the planet. Green peace‘s Food and Farming Vision describes what
Ecological Farming means, and how it can be summarised in seven overarching,
interdependent principles – based on a growing body of scientific evidence.
Ecological Farming combines modern science and innovation with respect for nature
and biodiversity. It ensures healthy farming and healthy food. It protects the soil, the water
and the climate. It does not contaminate the environment with chemical inputs or use
genetically engineered crops. And it places people and farmers – consumers and producers,
rather than the corporations who control our food now – at its very heart.
It is a vision of sustainability, equity and food sovereignty in which safe and healthy
food is grown to meet fundamental human needs, and where control over food and farming
rests with local communities, rather than transnational corporations.
7. Food sovereignty: Ecological Farming supports a world where producers and

consumers, not corporations, control the food chain. Food sovereignty is about the way
food is produced, and by whom. A handful of large corporations control large parts of our
food system right now – informed by the demands of a disconnected commodity market.
Food sovereignty takes this control, and places it in the hands of the people who produce,
distribute, and consume food. It ensures that farmers, communities and people have the
right to define their own food systems.
Food sovereignty acknowledges the role of women as the backbone of rural

communities, and the historic role women have played in gathering and sowing seeds, as
guardians of biodiversity and genetic resources. Addressing gender equity issues is part of the
broad concept of Food Sovereignty about who controls the food we grow and eat.
2. Benefitting farmers and rural communities: Ecological Farming contributes to rural

development and fighting poverty and hunger, by enabling livelihoods in rural communities
that are safe, healthy, and economically viable.
It is one of the most perverse incongruities of our current food system that the people
who produce our food – farmers, farm workers and fisher folk – often suffer most from
poverty and a lack of access to food. Evidence from Ecological Farming initiatives across the
world shows that Ecological Farming – when sufficiently supported by policy instruments –

can be a successful tool in providing stable financial benefits to smallholder farmers, in turn
benefitting rural communities and advancing their rights to a rewarding and secure
livelihood.
3.Smarter food production and yields: To increase food availabilityglobally, and to

improve livelihoods in poorer regions, we must reduce the unsustainable use of what we
grow at the moment and we must reduce food waste, decrease meat consumption, and
99ertiliz the use of land for bioenergy. We must also achieve higher yields where they are
needed – through ecological means.
Feeding the world‘s population – which keeps growing and, on average, getting
wealthier– is not (just) about quantity. The important question is where and how we grow
more food, and where we make other changes. Yields need to be increased in regions where
they are very low right now, due to poverty, lack of resources, soil degradation, and the
inadequate use of water. In other parts of the world, we need to reduce meat consumption, the
use of croplands for bioenergy, and food waste.
Right now, corporations and food policy makers are stubbornly sticking to an increase
in yields as the global goal. This obscures the real challenge – we need to rethink how we use
the food we are producing – right now, and in the future. In a better food system, ecological
livestock systems would make use of the agricultural land and resources not required for
human food needs, and at the same time drastically reduce the amount of animal products we
produce and consume globally. Equitable distribution, however, would mean that some
regions could still improve their diets with animal products.
Blindly increasing yields – at any price, anywhere in the world – is not a solution.
Doing so in the US, for example, where a large proportion of the maize is grown for domestic
fuel needs, does not help farmers in Africa or Asia. Ecological Farming would create a
system where we increase yields where they are most needed – through ecological means.
4. Biodiversity Ecological Farming is about nature‘s diversity – from the seed to the plate,
and across the entire agricultural landscape. It is about celebrating the 99ertil, nutrition, and
culture of the food we eat, improving diets and health.
Our current model of agriculture promotes monocultures. Vast areas of land are given
over to genetically uniform plants, with little biodiversity and no refuge for wild plants or
animals. This way of farming 99ertilize the services a functioning ecosystem can provide,
and it badly affects our health through poorer diets and a lack of nutritional diversity.
Ecological Farming systems do the opposite. They place nature‘s diversity at their
core. In doing so, they not only protect the natural habitats that are vital for biodiversity

protection. They also take advantage of what nature offers in return: wild and crop seed
diversity, nutrient cycling, soil regeneration, and natural enemies of pests, for instance.
Ecological Farming combines modern technology and farmers‘ knowledge to develop
advanced diverse seed varieties, which helps farmers to grow more food in a changing
climate, without risking biodiversity with genetically engineered crops, or harming it with
pesticides.
5.Sustainable soil health and cleaner water: It is possible to increase soil fertility without
the use of chemicals. Ecological Farming also protects soils from erosion, pollution, and
acidification. By increasing soil organic matter where necessary, we can enhance water
retention, and prevent land degradation.
Ecological Farming pays central attention to nourishing the soil. It maintains or builds
up soil organic matter (for example with compost and manures), and, in doing so, feeds the
diversity of soil organisms. It also aims to protect wells, rivers, and lakes from pollution, and
to make the most efficient use of water.
All this is vital in a world where agriculture is now the biggest user of fresh water,
globally, and, in many regions, also the major contributor to water contamination, with
nitrogen and phosphorus 100ertilizer pollution one of the major threats to the stability of life
on the planet.
6.Ecological pest management Ecological Farming enables farmers to control pests and
weeds – without the use of expensive chemical pesticides that can harm our soil, water and
ecosystems, and the health of farmers and consumers. Toxic chemical pesticides are a hazard
for our health, and for the health of the planet. Unfortunately, the industrial farming model
depends on large quantities of herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides for its very existence.
Our current food system has locked farmers into a costly relationship with the corporations
that sell these chemicals.
7.Resilient food systems Ecological Farming creates resilience: it strengthens our

agriculture, and effectively adapts our food system to changing climatic conditions and
economic realities. Embracing diversity – growing different crops at the field and landscape
levels – is a proven and highly reliable way to make our agriculture resilient to increasingly
unpredictable changes in the climate. Well-tended soil, rich in organic matter, is much better
at holding water during droughts, and much less prone to erode during floods. Farmers can
benefit in another way – if your farming is diverse, so is your stream of income – providing
security in uncertain times.

A redesigned food system would provide large-scale carbon sinks and many other
ways to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (climate mitigation). Nutrient cycling,
biological nitrogen fixation, an soil regeneration would reduce carbon emissions. And while
livestock plays a key role in agroecosystems, animal production and consumption would be
changed radically. All this makes Ecological Farming one of the most powerful tools we have
in the fight against climate change.
Forest fragmentation and Agriculture
Forest fragmentation is the breaking of large, contiguous, forested areas into smaller
pieces of forest; typically these pieces are separated by roads, agriculture, utility corridors,
subdivisions, or other human development. It usually occurs incrementally, beginning with
cleared patches here and there – think Swiss cheese – within an otherwise unbroken expanse
of tree cover.
Over time, those non-forest patches tend to multiply and expand until eventually the
forest is reduced to scattered, disconnected forest islands. The surrounding non-forest lands
and land uses seriously threaten the health, function, and value of the remaining forest.
Any large-scale canopy disturbance affects a forest, but it is important to distinguish
between a forest fragmented by human infrastructure development and a forest of mixed ages
and varied canopy closure that results from good forest management. The former is typically
much more damaging to forest health and habitat quality, usually with permanent negative
effects, whereas the latter may cause only temporary change in the forest.
The effects of fragmentation are well documented in all forested regions of the planet.
In general, by reducing forest health and degrading habitat, fragmentation leads to loss of
biodiversity, increases in invasive plants, pests, and pathogens, and reduction in water
quality. These wide-ranging effects all stem from two basic problems: fragmentation
increases isolation between forest communities and it increases so-called edge effects.
When a forest becomes isolated, the movement of plants and animals is inhibited.
This restricts breeding and gene flow and results in long-term population decline.
Fragmentation is a threat to natural resilience, and connectivity of forest habitats may be a
key component of forest adaptation and response to climate change.
Edge effects are even more complicated. They alter growing conditions within the
interior of forests through drastic changes in temperature, moisture, light, and wind. Put
simply, the environment of the adjacent non-forest land determines the environment of the
forest fragment, particularly on its edges. This triggers a cascade of ill effects on the health,
growth, and survivability of trees, flowers, ferns, and lichens and an array of secondary
effects on the animals that depend on them. Ecologists suggest that true interior forest

conditions – you know, where it‘s hard to hear cars and lawnmowers and it remains cool,
shady, and downright damp even during a three-week drought – only occur at least 200-300
feet inside the non-forest edge.
And so a circular forest island in a sea of non-forest would have to be more than 14
acres in size to include just one acre of such interior forest condition. Put differently, reports
indicate that the negative habitat effects of each residential building pocket within a forest
radiate outward, affecting up to 30 additional acres with increased disturbance, predation, and
competition from edge-dwellers. This may not matter to generalist species like deer,
raccoons, and blue jays, which may actually benefit from fragmentation, but it is hell on
interior-dependent species like salamanders, goshawks, bats, and flying squirrels. The smaller
the remnant the greater the influence of external factors and edge effects. A wise person once
likened it to ice cubes: the smaller ones melt faster.
Moreover, as forest fragments become ever smaller, practicing forestry in them
becomes operationally impractical, economically nonviable, and culturally unacceptable. In
turn, we lose the corresponding and important contributions that forestry makes to our
economy and culture. The result is a rapid acceleration of further fragmentation and then
permanent loss.
Here is the tricky part: when fragmentation occurs in a heavily forested region like
ours, at least in the early going we are still left with a largely pleasant condition. We sense
that we still have lots of woods where we can work, hunt, ski, and walk the dogs. And to
most of us, this seems good enough, even when the perforations expand and those woods are
the scattered remains of a fragmented forest.
But is it enough? At some point when the larger forest is highly fragmented, the size,
integrity, and connectivity of those wooded remnants deteriorate beyond recovery and they
are no longer adequate for native forest plants and wildlife. After all, when the Swiss cheese
has more holes than cheese, the whole sandwich suffers.
Agricultural biotechnology concerns

Agricultural Biotechnology Opportunities And Challenges
Ten years ago, the word biotechnology was used to signify a variety of activities and
uses. A consensus has gradually developed whereby biotechnology is defined as a set of
technologies, methods or tools but not a monolithic entity. Agriculture and Agri-Food formal
definition sees biotechnology as "the applied use of living organisms, or their parts, to
produce new products." Many traditional food-making processes depend on living organisms:
yeast, a fungus, is used to make bread rise; bacteria are used to "age" cheese and make sour

cream. Some medicines, such as antibiotics, are manufactured from substances produced
from other organisms, such as bacteria and fungi. Today, scientists are refining these
biotechnology methods so that the results are controlled and specific.
Public concerns often centre on efficacy and health and environmental safety, but
another criterion is now being debated - the socio-economic effect of the product or
technology. Given that biotechnologies are often the tools used to achieve particular socio-
economic goals, the public is increasingly exercising its right to shape the developments of
technology to reflect these goals. This places an onus on scientists, regulators, and policy-
makers to understand and evaluate not only biotechnology's implications for human safety,
animal safety and environmental risk but also its socio-economic impacts. This criterion was
applied in the decision-making for the European Common Market's ban on growth hormones
in food products and the Canadian government's delay of the use of rbST (recombinant
bovine somatotropin) in this country.
CURRENT AND NEXT GENERATION AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY

PRODUCTS
A. Introduction
Most scientists working in agriculture tend to view advances in biotechnology as

being on the continuum of the ongoing process of refining and perfecting agricultural
practices. Evidence of this continuum abounds in Canada. Milk production per cow, for
instance, has doubled in the last 40 years so that we are producing more milk with half the
cows. The same kind of efficiencies is evident in the swine, beef and poultry industries.
Technology has played an active role in these improvements in genetics, nutrition,

disease prevention and pest control. Some of the technologies commercialized before 1980
and now taken for granted include selective breeding, vaccination, veterinary diagnostics and
therapeutics, artificial insemination, and crossbreeding. Embryo transfer and regulation of
reproductive cycles came into general use about 1980.
While there are many promising applications of biotechnology in agriculture,

biotechnology is neither a panacea for all ills nor a replacement for established tools. It
merely provides an additional approach. Changing animal nutrition, selective breeding,
administering hormones or (eventually) gene transfer, for instance, all offer different means
of producing leaner meats. The best route may be a combination of techniques, including
those using biotechnology. Similarly, new plants can be produced through selective breeding

and cell culture as well as by genetic engineering techniques for extending the range of new
traits that may be introduced into a plant from other species.
While the more lucrative therapeutic or diagnostic applications of biotechnology led

in sales in 1995, the agri-food sector contributed $1 billion of the total $3.2 billion spent on
biotechnology products in Canada that year.
B. Plants
Modification of crop plants to improve their suitability for cultivation has gone on for
at least 10,000 years. Early farmers produced better crops by saving the seeds of desirable
plants. During the past century, plant breeding has become more rigorous as a result of cross-
breeding within a species and crossing sexually incompatible species of the same family.
Now genetic engineering offers techniques for taking a gene from one species of plant and
inserting it into a different species, something that would not occur naturally or through
traditional breeding programs. Genetic engineering offers a means of endowing plants with
new traits, thus expanding their repertoire of characteristics for withstanding insects, viruses,
spoilage and herbicides.
Genetic engineers may also be able to fashion healthier foods from inserting into
crops genes for proteins with superior nutritional properties. Plants could also be tailored to
produce specific chemicals such as starches, industrial oils, enzymes and even
pharmaceuticals. Preliminary trials on such innovations are underway.
There are some technical problems with the transgenic science since genetic engineers
can at present modify traits expressed by no more than three to five genes. Furthermore, some
crops do not respond to current gene-transfer methods, and isolating useful genes for
insertion is sometimes difficult.
There is no doubt that biotechnology offers tremendous potential for increasing food
production if these technical problems can be overcome. It is estimated that food production
will have to increase threefold during the next 40 years to meet the needs of an estimated nine
billion people. Biotechnological breakthroughs could provide breathing space to deal with
upcoming serious demographic problems and problems of environmental degradation and
distribution of wealth.
According to the literature, the hundreds of field tests of engineered plants being
conducted in the U.S. and Europe confirm their safety and potential commercial viability and

the new crops should be available to farmers in the mid-1990s. Nevertheless, in 1989 and
1990 groups in the Netherlands and Germany protested against such tests.
It would appear that non-technical, rather than technical, issues may delay
commercialization of some technologies, even if they are approved by regulatory agencies.
Such issues are likely to be financial constraints and lack of public acceptance as a result of
concerns about food safety and ethics, the environmental impact, and lack of understanding
of the new technology. Thus, the next section of this paper looks at public perceptions of the
benefits and risks of biotechnology.
PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF THE BENEFITS AND RISKS
The ability to improve plants, animals, and microorganisms in ways described above
could mean dramatic improvements in the quantity and efficiency of food production and
processing and the extension of uses of raw agricultural commodities. Consumers could
benefit from reduced prices and safer and more nutritional foods. The new technologies also
have the potential to change the very nature of food itself and to expand the range of possible
food products. Consumers will show whether they find biotechnological food products
acceptable by whether or not they buy them.
Certain aspects of biotechnology raise questions regarding the ethics of tampering

with the genetic material of animals and ultimately the balance of nature. Instances where the
public has been assured that scientific breakthroughs - especially in the health sector - are
safe, only to be told down the road of emerging health problems, have made the public
cynical about the information provided by developers of innovative products on which even
government in its regulatory role has to depend for information. The promotional material
these companies provide is not as likely to address the likelihood of long-term safety or
environmental problems.
Consumer surveys conducted between 1992 and 1995 show that consumers have
more faith in information provided by third party experts, such as national health and
nutritional organizations, for weighing the pros and cons of biotechnology. Generally
speaking, consumers see nothing wrong in using biotechnology to alter plants but feel it is
morally wrong to use it to change animals. Consumers have indicated they want to be
informed through labelling about foods that have been altered, and favour such foods that
provide tangible health benefits (for instance less fat). In Canada, most consumers are

reported to have a high degree of confidence in the federal government to regulate and assess
these products for health and safety.
Another concern relates to the ownership of these technologies, many of which are in
the commercial hands of multinationals that transcend geographic boundaries and hold
limited national allegiance. The patenting of plants and animals by these corporations has the
potential to threaten genetic diversity, particularly in the Third World. In theory, the genetic
engineering of plants can provide the latest technology to farmers in a very traditional
package, the seed, to which even the most impoverished nations could have access without
the need for high-technology supplies. In practice, however, biotechnology can make the
seeds too expensive for poor farmers. Moreover, natural crops may be replaced by synthetic
equivalents; for example, in Madagascar, 100,000 farmers are dependent on the vanilla crop,
which is to be replaced by a cheaper bio-synthetic product. In such ways, those who provide
the indigenous resource placed under patent end up unable to benefit from the technology.
It would appear to make sense for the developers of biotechnology to prepare the
public for innovations by providing good information before they have made a significant
investment in research and development. It would then be possible to gauge the reaction of
the public to potential biotechnological products.
The public sector has historically played a role in conducting fundamental research
relating to the biotechnology industry and should continue to do so, since companies may be
unwilling to take on more high-risk research at this time of major spending reductions. If this
does not continue, government will not be able to evaluate the efficacy of new technologies.
This would be especially true where research related to the risk assessment of new organisms,
monitoring their dispersal, or studying gene transfer or other areas where biosafety
information might be incomplete. Unlike Canada, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has
designated a specific percentage (1%) of its biotechnology research funding for risk
assessment work. This type of research is one means of addressing public concerns since it
leads to better methods of controlling and monitoring new products of biotechnology.
UNIT V EMERGING ISSUES
Global environmental governance – alternate culture systems – Mega farms and vertical
farms – Virtual water trade and its impacts on local environment – Agricultural environment
policies and its impacts – Sustainable agriculture.
Global Environmental Governance:

We understand global environmental governance (GEG) as the sum of organizations,

policy instruments, financing mechanisms, rules, procedures and norms that regulate the
processes of global environmental protection. Since environmental issues entered the
international agenda in the early 1970s, global environmental politics and policies have been
developing rapidly. The environmental governance system we have today reflects both the
successes and failures of this development. There is great awareness of environmental threats
and numerous efforts have emerged to address them globally. At the same time—and partly
because of the rather spectacular growth in awareness and initiatives—the GEG system has
outgrown its original design and intent. The system‘s high maintenance needs, its internal
redundancies and its inherent inefficiencies have combined to have the perverse effect of
distracting from the most important GEG goal of all—improved environmental performance.
Even though the GEG system has achieved much in the way of new treaties, more
money and a more participatory and active system than anyone might have imagined three
decades ago, environmental degradation continues. Indeed, because we know so much more
about environmental conditions and environmental processes, we also know more about what
is not going well with the global environment. This state of affairs is well documented in the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006). For example, despite the feverish discussions
about global climate change, carbon emissions continue to rise; global atmospheric CO2
levels that were around 300 parts per million (ppm) in the early 1900s have now reached
approximately 380 ppm.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment also found that approximately 60 per cent of
the ecosystems that it examined were either being degraded or used unsustainably. Since
1980, 35 per cent of the world‘s mangroves have been lost and 20 per cent of the world‘s
precious coral reefs have been destroyed. A decade after the signing of the Biodiversity
Convention, the species extinction rate is still 1,000 times higher than what would be
occurring naturally, without human impact.
The project objectives are:
(a) toanalyze past and current efforts at GEG reform;
(b) to outline a practical overall direction for rationalized GEG in a bottom-up reform
of the international environmental governance system; and
(c) to propose a set of realistic and desirable steps to achieve meaningful reform.
Through a review of the now sizeable literature on GEG and discussions with the project
Advisory Group, we have identified six broad areas of concern that are usually cited as
needing attention:
(a) Proliferation of MEAs and fragmentation of GEG
(b) Lack of cooperation and coordination among international organizations

(c) Lack of implementation, enforcement, and effectiveness in GEG

(d) Inefficient use of resources
(e) GEG outside the environmental arena
(f) Non-state actors in a state-centric system
Proliferation of MEAs and Fragmentation of GEG
The proliferation of MEAs, and the resulting fragmentation of international
environmental institutions, is often described as one of the key challenges of GEG. The rapid
growth of environmental agreements, MEA-related instruments and geographically dispersed
institutions has left environmental governance in disarray. There are inconsistencies in rules
and norms, and the hectic pace of activities can overwhelm and financially drain some,
particularly the poorest, countries.
Five interrelated concerns are often identified as parts of the MEA proliferation
problem. They are: treaty congestion; institutional fragmentation; states’ struggle to meet
institutional demands; duplication and conflicting agendas in GEG; and the diminishing
role of science in GEG. However, there are also some positive aspects of proliferation and
fragmentation that also need to be acknowledged.
Treaty congestion is a common description of the state of GEG as there are more than 500
MEAs registered with the UN, including 61 atmosphere-related; 155 biodiversity-related; 179
related to chemicals, hazardous substances and waste; 46 land conventions; and 196
conventions that are broadly related to issues dealing with water. It is argued that the large
number of MEAs creates messiness, incoherence and confusion in GEG, and incites demands
for order and central decisionmaking authority.
Institutional and policy fragmentation takes place as separate conventions address related
environmental threats, while convention secretariats become geographically dispersed and
operate in different political, normative and geographical contexts.Moreover, the institutional
arrangements that have the ability to establish better coordination and synergies, tend to be
geographically dispersed.
States, especially developing countries, struggle to meet institutional demands as the
number of institutions increases. Participation in GEG represents a challenge for all states,
especially developing countries, which use very scarce resources to participate in negotiations
and meetings, and to satisfy reporting requirements and other MEA demands.
Duplication and conflicting agendas occur because new treaties often tend to be negotiated
from scratch and have different stakeholders than the pre-existing MEAs. Building upon
previous treaties in the similar issue-area or making sure that the new treaty smoothly fits into
the current system is not necessarily a priority for negotiators.

The role of science in GEG is diminishing because of the proliferation of MEAs and
fragmentation of GEG and the difficulties of coordination. Namely, science needs to be
credible and to cross political barriers to influence policy, while its own influence decreases
as it is spread thin through multiple scientific bodies, each looking at a small piece of the
environment puzzle rather than looking at the larger picture of interconnections.
Lack of Cooperation and Coordination among International Organizations:
The four key issues that are often identified within the coordination cooperation debate are:
(a) the overwhelming challenge of coordination both at international and national levels; (b)
the weak status and role of UNEP; (c) the lack of authoritative science leading international
environmental policy; and (d) the leadership deficit in the GEG.
UNEP’s inability to coordinate: politics and institutional weakness
Not only are the actors in GEG complex and myriad, the organization meant to
coordinate them, UNEP, is smaller and weaker than just about all the other parts of the
system. UNEP is itself fragmented and it can be difficult enough to coordinate its eight
divisions; six regional offices; seven liaison offices; seven out-posted offices; six
collaborating centres; a number of convention secretariats; and five scientific advisory
groups. During the Stockholm negotiations of 1972, there was general agreement that
environmental action needed a framework, but countries were deeply divided over the
appropriate institutional arrangement. The creation of an environmental super-agency was
quickly shot down due to concerns over its cost, its potential impact on sovereignty and
existing UN agencies‘ fear that they will lose a portion of their budgets, programming or
authority. Finally, the only politically acceptable solution was an organization that would
“have minimal administration and not compete legally or financially with existing
organizations.”
The weak connections between science and environmental policy-making.
There is no question that sound environmental governance must be based on the best
scientific knowledge available. However, there are
(a) large knowledge gaps in our understanding of global interactions between environmental
processes and impacts
(b) highly fragmented links between science and existing decision-making structures.
The assessment of the global environmental situation and the provision of the most
current scientific information on the environment to decision-makers is one of UNEP‘s
central mandates. Yet, UNEP is not seen as the authoritative scientific or knowledge voice on
the environment, even as many other international organizations are in their respective fields
(for example, the World Health Organization). There is, in fact, a lot of good science on the
environment. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is

generally considered to be a success. UNEP has itself launched a number of initiatives,

including the Global Environment Outlook, and the Earthwatch program which was meant to
coordinate, harmonize and catalyse environmental monitoring and assessment activities
throughout the UN system.
Leadership deficit: ―Fire in the belly‖ needed to improve GEG performance. The question of
leadership in global environmental institutions has rarely been discussed in literature. Yet, it
may be the most crucial of all issues and probably the one issue that can make a lasting
difference. Our focus here is on the individuals who lead institutions or have the ability to
influence the directions of institutions. The malaise that the GEG system has been facing in
recent years is at least a malaise born out of a leadership deficit.
Lack of Implementation, Compliance, Enforcement and Effectiveness
The problem becomes apparent at three interconnected levels: when laws are made
(negotiation level); when laws are not complied with and enforcement mechanisms do not
exist (global level); and when those implementing laws closest to environmental threats are
marginalized (domestic level).
Designing agreements that are doomed to fail
From one perspective, MEAs are condemned to succeed. Environmental negotiators
invariably find something to agree upon during those wee hours of the night, right before
time runs out. Yet, the very same desire to come to some agreement—any agreement—can
lead to agreements that just cannot or will not bring about the environmental improvement
(effectiveness) that they were meant to.
Lack of global instruments to ensure compliance and enforcement

At the international level, sovereign states need first to give their consent to an enforcement
body in order to be made to comply with international laws. Such consent is rare because
states fear that their costs outweigh benefits and that institutions could interpret given
mandates broader than envisioned. The perceptions of sovereignty are slowly changing and
there is strong pressure to act when global commons are threatened.
Inefficient Use of Resources
There are many sources of funding for the global environment: multilateral financial
flows associated with multilateral organizations; MEAs and multilateral financial
mechanisms; debt relief; private capital flows; non-traditional sources of financing; financing
via the non-governmental sector; and domestic capital flows. Still, elements of the GEG
system remain chronically under-funded and the lack of financial resources is considered to
be a key obstacle to treaty compliance, particularly in developing countries.

Inefficiency in the use of the monies that are available is another chronic complaint.
Inefficiencies are everybody‘s loss: they act as a disincentive for donors to invest in the
system, diminish the credibility of the system‘s institutions and fail to provide funds to those
who need them most. Minimizing inefficiencies through synergies-oriented financial
management could produce significant extra funding.
Currently, the belief that the system is ineffective and wasteful of its resources comes
with a heavy reputational price and creates further reluctance among uninterested donors. The
problem is, therefore, a serious one and relates to: (a) attracting new resources to the system;
(b) better coordinating the use of the resources already available to the system; and (c)
creating confidence in the system‘s ability to utilize both existing and new resources
efficiently in terms of its institutional activities and effectiveness in terms of its substantive
environmental activities.
GEG outside the Environmental Arena:
Many of the most important decisions affecting the environment occur outside the
complex web of international treaties and organizations that comprise the formal GEG
system. Decisions related to investment, development, and trade affect patterns of natural
resource use, production and consumption to, arguably, an even greater extent than the
negotiation of MEAs.
Security and environment are linked through both the potential for conflict arising
from scarcity of natural resources and environmental degradation in conflict zones.
Environmental issues are also spilling over into the health arena, as the health risks posed by
environmental degradation become increasingly prevalent. The system of international trade
consists of trade rules arising from World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements and
various Regional Free Trade Agreements and their respective dispute resolution mechanisms
have particularly deep impacts on global environmental governance.
Trade and environment: friends or foes?: No one doubts that trade and environment are
closely linked. It is the nature of the link and what should be done about it that remains
disputed. Although the primary objective of the WTO is the liberalization of trade, the
preamble of the 1994 WTO Agreement recognizes that trade should be conducted ―in
accordance with the objective of sustainable development, seeking to both protect and
preserve the environment.‖ Nevertheless, the legal obligations and policy priority of the
WTO is, and will remain, trade.
Health, environment and human security: Poverty, infectious disease and environmental
degradation have been recently defined in a common cluster as threats to international
security. Health topics have been moving to central places on the international agenda. It has

been argued that the expansion of conventional international health law is emerging as an
important tool for multilateral cooperation.
Environment, peace and security: Principle 25 of the 1992 Rio Declaration says: ―Peace,
development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.‖ Recent events
in the international system reaffirm the importance of this principle. Namely, conflicts over
illegal exploitation of natural resources have been discussed at the Security Council level
(e.g., Congo and coltan), sudden natural disasters outlined the imperative of sustainable
development, climate change has raised serious security concerns over vulnerable
populations, millions of climate refugees and their uncertain legal status and eventual
destabilization due to reduction of carrying capacity and possible food, water and energy
scarcity.
Non-state Actors in a State-centric System
The debate on environmental governance has largely centred on how to reform a
state-centric system of international organizations, multilateral treaties and national
government implementation. The shortcomings of GEG are analyzed in terms of the inability
of international organizations to coordinate activities and the failure of national governments
to implement treaties. As a result, the traditional approach to GEG reform often overlooks the
tremendous contribution and increasing involvement of civil society actors and the private
sector in international policy-making, capacity building and implementation. NGOs are
playing an increasingly large role, not just as stakeholders, but as ―motors‖ of international
environmental policy-making through setting agendas, drafting treaties, providing scientific
information and monitoring implementation. Local and international NGOs also engage in
implementation and capacity building. In addition to the achievements of civil society, great
strides have been made in engaging the private sector as partners in development and
environmental protection rather than as culprits of environmental degradation.
Alternate Culture Systems:
The International Institute for Sustainable Development proposed an agenda for
global governance. These objectives are:
 expert leadership;
 positioning science as the authoritative basis of sound environmental policy;
 coherence and reasonable coordination;
 well-managed institutions;
 incorporate environmental concerns and actions within other areas of international
policy and action
Coherence and coordination

Despite the increase in efforts, actors, agreements and treaties, the global environment
continue to degrade at a rapid rate. From the big hole in Earth's ozone layer to over-fishing to
the uncertainties of climate change, the world is confronted by several intrinsically global
challenges.However, as the environmental agenda becomes more complicated and extensive,
the current system has proven ineffective in addressing and tackling problems related to
trans-boundary externalities and the environment is still experiencing degradation at
unprecedented levels.
Inforesourcesidentifies four major obstacles to global environmental governance, and
describes measures in response. The four obstacles are:
 parallel structures and competition, without a coherent strategy
 contradictions and incompatibilities, without appropriate compromise
 competition between multiple agreements with incompatible objectives, regulations
and processes
 integrating policy from macro- to micro- scales.
Recommended measures:
 MDGs (Millennium Development Goals)and conventions, combining sustainability
and reduction of poverty and equity;
 country-level approach linking global and local scales
 coordination and division of tasks in a multilateral approach that supports developing
countries and improves coordination between donor countries and institutions
 use of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs)in development planning
 transform conflicts into tradeoffs, synergies and win-win options
Democratization
Starting in 2002, Saward and others began to view the Earth Summit process as capable
opening up the possibility of stakeholder democracy. The summits were deliberative rather
than simply participative, with NGOs, women, men, indigenous peoples and businesses
joining the decision-making process alongside states and international organizations,
characterized by:
 the importance given to scientific and technical considerations

 the official and unofficial participation of many actors with heterogeneous activity scopes
 growing uncertainty
 a new interpretation of international law and social organization models
As of 2013, the absence of joint rules for composing such fora leads to the development of
non-transparent relations that favour the more powerful stakeholders. Criticisms assert that

they act more as a lobbying platform, wherein specific interest groups attempt to influence
governments.
Institutional reform
Actors inside and outside the United Nations are discussing possibilities for global
environmental governance that provides a solution to current problems of fragility,
coordination and coherence.Deliberation is focusing on the goal of making UNEP more
efficient. A 2005 resolution recognizes ―the need for more efficient environmental activities
in the United Nations system, with enhanced coordination, improved policy advice and
guidance, strengthened scientific knowledge, assessment and cooperation, better treaty
compliance, while respecting the legal autonomy of the treaties, and better integration of
environmental activities in the broader sustainable development framework.‖
Proposals include:
 greater and better coordination between agencies;
 strengthen and acknowledge UNEP's scientific role;
 identify MEA areas to strengthen coordination, cooperation and teamwork between
different agreements;
 increase regional presence;
 implement the Bali Strategic Plan on improving technology training and support for
the application of environmental measures in poor countries;
 demand that UNEP and MEAs participate formally in all relevant WTO committees
as observers.
 strengthen its financial situation;
 improve secretariats‘ efficiency and effectiveness.
Transform daily life
Individuals can modify consumption, based on voluntary simplicity: changes in purchasing

habits, simplified lifestyles (less work, less consumption, more socialization and constructive
leisure time). But individual actions must not replace vigilance and pressure on
policies. Notions of responsible consumption developed over decades, revealing the political
nature of individual purchases, according to the principle that consumption should satisfy the
population's basic needs. These needs comprise the physical wellbeing of individuals and
society, a healthy diet, access to drinking water and plumbing, education, healthcare and
physical safety.The general attitude centres on the need to reduce consumption and reuse and
recycle materials. In the case of food consumption, local, organic and fair trade products
which avoid ill treatment of animals has become a major trend.

 Alternatives to the personal automobile are increasing, including public transport, car
sharing and bicycles and alternative propulsion systems.
 Alternative energy sources are becoming less costly.
 Ecological industrial processes turn the waste from one industry into raw materials for
another.
 Governments can reduce subsidies/increase taxes/tighten regulation on unsustainable

activities.
Policies and regulations
 Establish policies and regulations that promote ―infrastructures for well being‖ whilst
addressing the political, physical and cultural levels.
 Eliminate subsidies that have a negative environmental impact and tax pollution
 Promoting workers‘ personal and family development.
Coordination
A programme of national workshops on synergies between the three Rio Conventions

launched in late 2000, in collaboration with the relevant secretariats. The goal was to
strengthen coordination at the local level by:
 sharing information
 promoting political dialogue to obtain financial support and implement programmes
 enabling the secretariats to update their joint work programmes.
Mega farms and vertical farms:
Mega Farm:Factory farming or Mega farming is the practice of raising animals in high
density situations to produce the highest output at the lowest possible cost. The main food
products of factory farming are meat, poultry, eggs, and milk.
 Factory farming became a viable method of raising livestock once the discovery of
vitamins was minerals were made. Antibiotics and vaccines made it possible to raise
livestock with reduced disease.
 Factory farming in the U.S., U.K., and other industrialized countries became a reality
in 1966, when they began to raise beef, pigs, and dairy cattle on factory farms. By
2005, 40% of the world's meat production was done on factory farms.

 Today it is estimated that two of every three animals worldwide are factory farmed.
Factory farming is being scrutinized because of the conditions livestock is raised.
 Factory farming is also known as intensive animal farming, and also as industrial
livestock production.
Factory farms often squeeze large numbers of animals into small spaces to increase profit.
Many animals cannot move about, or even lie down because of the cramped living
conditions.In order to reduce the risk of disease among factory farmed animals, they are fed
antibiotics. The antibiotics also make the animals grow faster and gain more weight.
The majority of factory farmed animals are genetically modified. This means their genes
have been altered to help them grow larger. In some cases, often with chickens, they grow so
big that their legs can't support their weight. These animals will often suffer because they can
no longer reach food or water. Factory farmed animals are often genetically modified to
produce more milk or more eggs.Factory farmed livestock is often fed food such as soy,
wheat, and corn. These foods have been heavily treated with pesticides. The pesticides are
consumed by the livestock, which is then consumed by humans.
In factory farms where ducks, chickens, and turkeys are raised, it is common to
remove the beaks of these birds. This reduces pecking and cannibalism that would normally
occur in such overcrowded environments. The average chicken purchased in a grocery store
today has roughly one-third less protein than it would have 40 years ago. It also contains
twice the fat.
It is estimated that 99% of the meat sold in the United States has been factory farm
raised.In 2013 alone, there were 36.8 billion pounds of broiler chickens factory farmed in the
United States.Chickens, turkeys, and ducks are exempt from the Human Slaughter Act, which
means that in the United States, the factory farm owner can slaughter the fowl any way they
see fit.
The majority of the antibiotics (80% or more) used in the world are fed to livestock.
Despite the argument that this reduces disease, the reason for antibiotic use is mainly to
increase growth rapidly. Antibiotics do not degrade, which means that a human that
consumes animal products raised with antibiotics is also ingesting antibiotics. This is a major
health concern in regards to the risk of humans becoming resistant to antibiotics.
Vertical Farm

A vertical farm grows plants and produce in a vertical orientation, maximizing the use
of the location's square footage. Most often this is achieved through the use of growing
shelves suspended on a wall or fence. Because vertical farming uses so little space, it is a
popular and preferred method for roof-top and other urban forms of agriculture.
Vertical farming is a common

method of growing produce in an
indoor environment (e.g., a
building or walk-in container) with
carefully controlled conditions
and lighting. Some vertical farms
have conditions similar to greenhouses,
using natural sunlight and primarily
solar heating during the day. Other vertical farms are completely indoors, using artificial
lighting and humidity and heating controls.
Lettuce, kale, and other forms of greens are the most common vegetables grown in
vertical farms. Some crops like corn or grain just are not practical for this form of agriculture.
Outside vertical farming dates back to the French method of growing vertical fruit trees by
pruning espalier, a method of pruning a fruit tree so that it doesn‘t have the branching effect
of conventional orchard trees and can be grown in a vertical orientation on a trellis or fence.
Some vineyards prune and grow grapes in a vertical orientation.
Vertical Farming Working:
Vertical farms have three main features- LED's (light emitting diodes), an aeroponics
system and a cloth medium. LED lighting gives out light of different wavelengths that target
different types of chlorophyll. This increases the amount of sunlight absorbed, therefore
making photosynthesis very efficient. The Aeroponics system is the key part of vertical
farming. Plants are grown in a soilless mist that is sprayed from internal micro jets.

This provides hydration (water), oxygen and nutrients, which are normally found in
soil, and are required for roots. Since in vertical farms the roots are uncovered and exposed to
more oxygen, the plants/crops will be able to grow at a faster rate. This Aeroponics system is
called a closed loop system and uses 95% less water than traditional farming methods.
Finally the cloth medium is used for seeding, germination (when seeds sprout), growing and
harvesting of plants.
Advantages:
Vertical farming has many advantages such as that it allows maximum crop yield.
This means that vertical farming can allow crops to be grown at all times throughout the year,
as it is not weather dependent. It can also be grown throughout the entire day and night as it
uses L.E.D. lights since photosynthesis can occur at all times.
 Another advantage is that it reduces transportation costs as it will be cheaper for

transportation since you can build vertical farms in cities, so you don‘t need to import
the crops from other regions.
 It is eco-friendly as decreased need for transportation means less pollution. Another

advantage is that it uses very minimal water. Since the water is used in a controlled
manner, water losses are very minimal.
 Vertical farming only uses 10% of the amount of water that traditional farming
methods use. The water from transpiration is also re-used so most of it doesn‘t get
wasted. Also currently 70% of all accessible potable water is used for agriculture this
can be decreased using vertical farming.
 Another advantage of vertical farming is the area required to grow crops/plants. Land
is much less than when using traditional farming methods since vertical farms can be
expanded upwards.
 Vertical farming also grows food organically since no pesticides will be required as
there are no pests to damage the crops. So it is healthier, safer and more eco-friendly.
Finally the price is another advantage of vertical farming.
 In the start vertical farming may be very expensive ($100 million for a 60 hectare
vertical farm) but after the first few years it will become a cheaper form of farming.
Also the price for the crops/plants grown in vertical farms will also decrease.
Disadvantages:
 There are also some disadvantages to vertical farming such as that there will be less
jobs as there is not a need for people transporting the crops.

 This will cause a lot of people to be left jobless and there will also be job losses for
farmers.
 Another disadvantage is pollination costs since there are no insects to pollinate the
crops it will have to be done manually. Wages will also be very high since pollination
has to be done by hand.
 Finally the dependence on technology is a big disadvantage to vertical farming. If a

vertical farm loses power for one day then it will be a big loss in production.
 Also if the power stops all the crops growing will die since they are dependent on the
artificial atmosphere, which maintains a constant temperature of 40 degrees Celsius
and constant humidity.
Virtual water trade and its impacts on local environment:
The concept of Virtual Water Trade is based on the idea that water-poor developing
countries are increasingly importing their food from water-rich countries in order to conserve
their own water resources and use them in other, more productive areas where more value
added per volume unit of water is generated. The aim of Virtual Water Trade is thus to
compensate for water shortages through the geographical shift of agricultural production and
the sectoral shift of water consumption.
The concept of Virtual Water Trade is based on the idea that water-poor countries are
increasingly meeting their food requirements by importing crops from water-rich countries.
The aim in this context is to ensure that the water resources thus saved are used in more
productive areas, possibly even within agriculture, but rather in the industrial sector, where
more value added is generated per volume unit of water. As agricultural production in most
developing countries accounts for the largest proportion of water consumed (some 70 %, up
to 90 % in arid and semi-arid countries), the potential for (national) savings and the windows
of opportunity opened if this strategy was implemented consistently would be enormous.
Humans consume water directly for drinking, cooking and washing, but much more
for producing commodities such as food, paper, cotton clothes, etc. The amount of water that
is used in the production processes of commodities during their entire life cycle is referred to
as the virtual water contained within them. Virtual water can be further divided into ‗blue‘
water (which evaporates from rivers, lakes or aquifers in production processes such as
irrigation), ‗green‘ water (rainfall that evaporates during crop growth), and ‗grey‘ water
(polluted after agricultural, industrial and household use).The water footprint of an
individual, community or business is defined as the total volume of freshwater that is used to
produce the goods and services consumed by that individual or community or produced by

the business.Some sample water footprints are set out below (Source:
www.waterfootprint.org):
• The production of 1 kilogram of beef requires 16,000 litres of water.

• To produce one cup of coffee we need 140 litres of water.
• The water footprint of China is about 700 m3 per year per capita. Only about 7 percent of
the Chinese water footprint falls outside China.
• Japan with a footprint of 1,150 m3 per year per capita, has about 65 percent of its total water
footprint outside the borders of the country.
The US water footprint is 2,500 m3 per year per capita.
Since the per capita consumption of virtual water contained in our diets varies according to
the type of diet (from 1 m3/day for a survival diet, to 2.6 m3/day for a vegetarian diet and over
5 m3/day for a US-style meat-based diet) it is clear that the moderation of diets (reducing
meat consumption) can have a big impact on virtual water use. However, the precise impact
of a water footprint depends entirely on where water is taken from and when.
An increased footprint in an area where water is plentiful is unlikely to have an

adverse effect, but an increase in an area experiencing scarcity could result in the drying up
of rivers, the destruction of habitats and livelihoods, and the extinction of species – in
addition to affecting agricultural prices, supplies and local economies. Some proponents of
virtual water argue for the need for a labelling scheme, with the water footprint of a product
clearly set out so as to encourage demand management. This would help consumers and
policy-makers recognize links between production and consumption.
On the policy level, a water-scarce country can import products that require a lot of
water in their production (import of virtual water) to relieve pressure on its own resources.
This is a strategy first adopted by Israel, which imports almost all cereals. Conversely,
arguments are made that dry countries such as Spain should not be exporting tomatoes with a
high virtual water content to wet Northern Europe. Exports of paper pulp, soybeans or
ethanol from Latin America to Europe or China imply large exports of virtual water. This
type of global virtual water trade has geopolitical implications: it induces dependencies
between countries.
Virtual water proponents believe insufficient attention is placed on demand

management in comparison to supply management. In their opinion, consumer demand

management through education/information, labeling schemes has been overlooked, because

consumers and policy-makers do not recognize links between production and consumption.
One problem with virtual water labeling is that water content should be considered
bearing in mind its geographical and temporal importance (50 litres of water taken from
England is not the same as from the Sahara, or from Valencia in summer – high tourist season
when water is scarce). Similarly, an agricultural product grown with rainwater is not
comparable with one grown with irrigated water extracted from non-renewable ground water.
Thus, virtual water gives no indication if water is being used within sustainable
extraction limits, which can change annually based on rainfall. Finally, the virtual water
argument can also have consequences politically, particularly regarding equity. Water
released from one use will not necessarily be used more efficiently, or distributed more
equitably. If water is released from agriculture, and farmers grow lower-value crops with less
water requirements, the released water could easily be absorbed by urban users, or by the
industrial sector instead of being distributed more equitably among the rural poor.
Agricultural Environment Policies and Its Impacts
Understanding links between agriculture and the environment is critical to integrating
agricultural and environmental policies. Agriculture has close and complex links with the
environment. The natural environment supplies the resources (i.e., soil, water and air) for
agricultural production. In turn, it is shaped by these activities. The extent of the
environmental impact depends on the structure of agriculture, the amount of land and other
resources used, and the effects of farming practices on ecosystems at a local and national
level. The impact of agricultural production on the environment may be both beneficial and
harmful. It may change the quality and quantity of local resources, which are also the basis of
natural habitats, biodiversity and landscape.
Farmers have a crucial role in controlling environmental quality, through their dual
responsibilities as producers of food and as custodians of the countryside. Farmers ensure the
continued economic viability of agricultural production, safeguard the natural resource base
of the farm, maintain or enhance other ecosystems influenced by farming activities, and
provide a natural amenity, the rural landscape (OECD 1993). Sustainable agriculture involves
farm practices and systems that are compatible with these roles. In general, sustainable
agriculture involves three aspects: an economically viable agricultural production system, the
maintenance or enhancement of the natural resource base and ecosystems affected by
agricultural activities, and the provision of natural amenities, including landscapes (OECD
1998).

Agriculture is linked to the environment, and there is a mutual interdependence

between the two, which could be seen as a kind of joint production. There are various
definitions of joint production, but in essence they all refer to a situation where a firm
produces two or more outputs that are linked. A key characteristic of jointness is that an
increase or decrease of the supply of one output affects the levels of the others. If for
technical or other reasons, it is impossible to separate an agricultural commodity from its
positive or negative environmental outputs, the environmental impact of agricultural
production practices is more profound. Practices or programs aimed at influencing the level
or type of environmental output will directly affect the level of commodity production. The
extent of the production response will depend on the degree of jointness.
Agricultural Policies and Environmental Quality
Agricultural policies, including price and income supports, were not originally developed
to affect environmental quality in any way. They included no explicit conservation
objectives. Agricultural policies influence farming practices mainly by changing the relative
costs and returns of using resources in agriculture, or by imposing direct restrictions on
output and input use. In particular, agricultural policies influence farming activities through
changes in:
 The relative prices of inputs and outputs;
 Direct and indicate restrictions on the use of inputs and outputs;
 Incentives (or disincentives) for adopting new practices;
 Impediments to resource movement; and
 Agricultural and rural infrastructure (OECD 1998b).
The main objectives of agricultural policy are to support farm incomes and ensure a stable
and reasonably priced supply of food. These objectives are achieved through a complicated
system of farm programs that insulate the farm sector from the market economy by
artificially supporting the prices of certain commodities, and controlling their supply. Each
mechanism employed to support commodity prices, farm incomes and control the supply
goals has secondary, and unintentional, effects on environmental quality. As well as price
supports, agricultural policies may include trade barriers, subsidies for inputs and direct
payments to farmers.
In general, agriculture is affected by a number of measures reflecting multiple policy
objectives and changes in priorities over time. As shown in Table 2(1359), increasing or
sustaining a high price for a particular commodity sends strong signals to farmers to produce
more of it, and to use more agricultural chemicals in producing it.

It is increasingly recognized that price supports provided to farmers have encouraged

them to expand their production, making intensive use of potentially polluting inputs such as
chemical fertilizers and pesticides. However, the effects of agricultural policies on the
environment also involve some uncertainties. To make things more complex, many policies
are administered on a commodity basis, whereas the environmental effects of agriculture are
resource-specific. Furthermore, there can be a considerable time lag between a change in a
policy and its environmental impact. The effects of changes in policies and production
practices on the environment are often gradual and cumulative. It may take some time before
they become noticeable and measurable.
How to Integrate Agricultural and Environmental Policies:
Goals and Principles;
Integration means to make whole, or to bring different parts together. Policy integration
requires that policy instruments designed to achieve a particular objective in one sector
should first be assessed in terms of their effects on other sectors. Conflicts and
inconsistencies are common in agricultural policy programs. They arise because the policies
have different goals.
Goal
To achieve sustainability, the public decision processes must incorporate the shadow prices
of environmental quantity and quality. Shadow prices reflect the social opportunity costs of
using the resources, whether they are traded in markets or allocated in some other manner.
Conservation of the natural resource base has emerged as a goal of environmental
policy. This is critical, because agricultural production relies heavily on the quality and
quantity of the natural resource base. Furthermore, agriculture produces a wide array of
positive environmental services, and affects the quality of environmental resources used by
the public.
While these broad goals give us a general policy direction, we need more specific
principles to develop programs for integrating agricultural and environmental policies. The
following principles to achieve integrated agricultural and environmental policies have been
formulated by OECD (1993).
 View rural countryside assets as a source of agricultural products and environmental
services;
 Promote comprehensive resource use efficiency by directly or indirectly including
environmental shadow prices;
 Alter agricultural commodity program provisions that cause distortions in inputs, or
crop and livestock outputs, which result in environmental degradation;

 Encourage farmers to recognize that it is in their and society's best interests to

maintain and enhance their asset base;
 Promote pollution prevention rather than waste management;
 Target specific environmental objectives rather than use broad agricultural and
environmental initiatives;
 Apply the principle "The polluter pays";
 Create an administrative framework which can promote integration.
Regulatory approach
The regulatory approach is the most important set of policy instruments. Regulatory
action may restrict the availability of environmentally hazardous agricultural inputs, or
prohibit the use of environmentally damaging production practices. It can be applied
uniformly to all farmers, or may target specific farming operations or particularly vulnerable
production areas. The most common adverse effect of environmental regulations is a change
in the distribution of incomes within the farming sector. Other effects include an increase in
the cost of agricultural production, with the possibility of higher consumer prices and
decreased trade competitiveness.
In practice, the regulatory approach has only been employed if the perceived environmental
costs are high. The political and administrative structure of many countries, prevents the strict
enforcement of regulations. Only the most blatant offenses are penalized. Because of these
limitations, it is usual to use voluntary programs to achieve the desired state of the
environment and the economy, and social well-being.
Economic incentive approach
There is now widespread interest in the use of economic instruments to complement
regulatory instruments for environmental management. These include taxes on farm inputs
which are sources of pollution, on farm emissions, or taxing farmers for their failure to meet
required levels of environmental quality. An approach being tried in several countries is the
use of input taxes to reduce the use of agricultural chemicals.
Fertilizer charges as high as 100% are needed to reduce pollution significantly. However,
taxes of only 10 - 20% may have a favorable effect. Kim and Kim (2001) showed that a tax
of 100% on the nitrogen in chemical fertilizer leads to a reduction of 14.6% in fertilizer use
and a fall of 0.3% in rice yield and 3.1% in farm income. Generally, taxes raised in this way
are used to finance pollution control and finance research into improving input use.
A subsidy program might pay farmers who use environmentally friendly production practices
such as sound nutrient management or integrated pest management (IPM). When the issue is
not one of pollution, but rather one of maintaining or enhancing the environment, incentive

schemes are particularly effective. The administrative costs of incentive-based approaches are
often significantly lower than regulatory schemes. Most governments have a strong
preference for this approach.
Cross-compliance
Cross-compliance means that a farm's operations must meet certain requirements in order for
the farmer to be eligible for assistance under government support schemes. Farmers claiming
support under one program have to meet the rules for that program and certain obligations of
other programs. This makes a link "across programs", giving rise to the term "cross-
compliance" (Baldock and Michell 1995).
Cross-compliance is a marvelous way of ensuring that participants in commodity programs
keep to minimum standards of environmental conservation. It has increased the consistency
between farm commodity programs and environmental objectives, yielding significant
environmental gains. For example, participants in some programs have been obliged to use
fertilizer and pesticides in stipulated ways.
Various forms of cross-compliance and their consequences for the agricultural sector and the
environment have not yet been fully examined. However, the requirements may be made in a
variety of ways (Dwyer, Baldock and Einschutz 2000):
 One or several conditions which apply across the board must be fulfilled.
 A choice can be made from several sets of conditions, as a kind of a package system.
 An even more flexible opinion is the points system, whereby several options are
combined to achieve the required number of points.
 Point systems or package systems are a more flexible approach, as they enable
farmers to select the options that fit in best with the actual situation on their farms.
This is important, because certain options may be feasible in some areas but not in
others.
Advisory approach
Voluntary or direct advisory approaches to farmers are widely used in most OECD
countries to achieve agricultural objectives (OECD 1993). To be successful, they must take
into account all the economic conditions faced by farmers. Problems have been encountered
if advisory methods alone are used, to try and persuade farmers to adopt environmentally
friendly farming practices. Consequently, in most countries, advisory approaches are
supplemented by regulations and economic incentives. In addition, education and technical
assistance help farmers to adopt environmentally benign practices. Assistance may include
providing data on soil quality, disseminating information about new sustainable practices,
and helping farmers prepare conservation plans.

Providing the public with information may increase the use of conservation practices
by farmers. Training, education and demonstration projects spread information and make
farmers aware of the environmental effects of alternative farming practices. Such programs
are completely voluntary. Their effectiveness largely depends on whether a given practice
provides enough benefits to farmers to offset the cost of adoption.
The relative efficiency of a voluntary program increases if:
 There is no rivalry between different government services;
 Government services are less expensive than those provided by the private sector; and
 Enforcement costs are low compared to those of regulations and restrictions.
Sustainable Agriculture
A sustainable agriculture is a system of agriculture that will last. It is an agriculture
that maintains its productivity over the long run. Sustainable agriculture is both a philosophy
and a system of farming. It has its roots in a set of values that reflects an awareness of both
ecological and social realities. It involves design and management procedures that work with
natural processes to conserve all resources, minimize waste and environmental damage, while
maintaining or improving farm profitability. Working with natural soil processes is of
particular importance. Sustainable agriculture systems are designed to take maximizes
advantage of existing soil nutrient and water cycles, energy flows, and soil organisms for
food production. As well, such systems aim to produce food that is nutritious, without being
contaminated with products that might harm human health.
The idea of sustainable agriculture has been around a long time. Since the very first crop was
sown and animal was penned, farmers have tried to ensure that their land produces a similar
or increasing yield of products year after back-breaking year; recent attempts to popularise
the concept build on this tradition.
Objectives of Sustainable Agriculture
 Make best use of the resources available

 Minimize use of non-renewable resources
 Protect the health and safety of farm workers, local communities and society
 Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources
 Protect the economic viability of farming operations
 Provide sufficient financial reward to the farmer to enable continued production and
contribute to the well-being of the community
 Produce sufficient high-quality and safe food

 Build on available technology, knowledge and skills in ways that suit local conditions
and capacity.
Basic Elements of Sustainable Agriculture
Sustainable agriculture‘s benefit to farm and community economies is grounded in four well-
established economic development principles and a fifth, concern for the community:
 Input Optimization: Sustainable production practices maximize on-farm resources.

Internally derived inputs, such as family labor, intensive grazing systems, recycled
nutrients, legume nitrogen, crop rotations, use of renewable solar energy, improved
management of pests, soils and woodlands are a few examples of substituted
resources. Studies have shown that these substitutions can be made while maintaining
yields and often result in increased net farm earnings. These earnings can benefit the
community by increasing local retail sales and providing a stronger tax base.
 Diversification: To develop healthy soils and reduce purchased inputs, sustainable
agriculture emphasizes diverse cropping and livestock systems. Diversification can
lead to more stable farm income by lowering economic risk from climate, pests, and
fluctuating agriculture markets. This helps to keep farmers on the land and helps
buffer the local economy from the shock of a dramatic decline in a single
commodity/industry.
 Conservation of Natural Capital: It is standard accounting practice to depreciate
capital assets. It has not been standard practice for farmers to depreciate natural
capital that is depleted by farming methods that do not conserve resources.
Nevertheless, the loss is real, eventually affecting yields, farm profitability, and
sustainability. In sustainable agriculture, economic value is created by maintaining the
productivity of land and water resources while enhancing human health and the
environment.
 Capturing Value-Added: The marketing of crops and products grown is by far the
weakest link in the farmers‘ role in the ‗field to table‘ food system. To create and
maintain a truly sustainable agriculture, farmers will have to develop ways of
retaining a higher percentage of value-added on the farm. While individuals farmers
can and do design, process and direct-market their own products, many other value-
added strategies require more resources than one farmer can handle financially.
Therefore, these value-added strategies will require the formation of a coop of local
farmers and a collaborative relationship with the local community.

 Community: The elements of sustainable agriculture are integral to all communities.

If we are to support sustainable agriculture, we must recognize the rural/urban
interconnection, the conflicts and tremendous opportunities. The positives of a
sustainable farming system include shared commitment to profitability, food security,
food safety, open space for water recharge, natural habitats for flora, fauna and
recreation and a cooperative and supportive social and economic community
infrastructure. Currently our urban communities are separated from farming
communities not only in philosophy, but also in their mutual understanding,
particularly in their knowledge of the entire food production and distribution system.
Recognition of the role farming has played in stabilizing our community is critical or
we shall continue to disintegrate our rural fabric and preferred standards of living. In
other words, we must rekindle a sense of caring about the welfare of our neighbors in
order for viable rural and urban communities to survive.
Steps to a Sustainable Agriculture: The agro-ecosystem is made up of many interacting

components with multiple goals. Soil quality is one important part of sustainable agro-
ecosystem management, analogous to water and air quality. Assessing soil quality may help
managers identify practices that could be adapted to become more sustainable.
Soil quality is one aspect of sustainable agro-ecosystem management.
1. Conserve and Create Healthy Soil
 Stop soil erosion by terracing, strip cropping, repairing gullies

 Add organic matter to soil (with "green manure" cover crops, compost, manures, crop
residues, organic fertilizers)
 Conservation tillage
 Plant wind breaks
 Rotatecash crops with hay, pasture, or cover crops
2. Conserve Water and Protect Its Quality
 Stop soil erosion in field and pasture

 Reduce use of chemicals
 Establish conservation buffer areas
 Grow crops adapted to rainfall received
 Use efficient irrigation methods
3. Manage Organic Wastes and Farm Chemicals So They Don't Pollute

Organic wastes:
 Test soil and applying manures and litters only when needed
 Compost dead birds and litters
 Store litter piles out of the rain and snow
 Raise pastured or free-range poultry
 Raise hogs in hoop houses or free-range
 Farm chemicals and trash:
 Look for alternatives to chemicals
 Use the least amount necessary
 Buy the least toxic chemical
 Recycle
 Dispose according to label instructions
4. Manage Pests with Minimal Environmental Impact Weed Management
Mechanical Approaches
 Mowing
 Flaming
 Flooding
 Tillage
 Controlled burns
Cultural Approaches
 Crop Rotation
 Smother crops
 Cover crops
 Allelopathic plants
 Close spacing of plants
Biological Approaches
 Multi-species grazing
 Rotational grazing
 Chemical Approaches
 Integrated Pest Management

 Use of narrow spectrum, least-toxic herbicides

 Properly calibrated sprayers
Application methods that minimize amount used, drift, and farmer contact
Insect and Disease Management
 Introduce or enhance existing populations of natural predators, pathogens, sterile

insects, and other biological control agents.
 Traps
 Maintain wild areas or areas planted with species attractive to beneficial insects
 Selective insecticides or botanical insecticides which are less toxic
 Trap crops
 Crop rotation (avoid monoculture) Intercropping, strip cropping
 Maintain healthy soil (prevents soil-based diseases)
 Keep plants from becoming stressed
5. Select Plants and Animals Adapted to the Environment
 Grow crops and crop varieties well-suited to Oklahoma's climate

 Match crops to the soil
 Experiment with older, open pollinated varieties that do well without chemical inputs
 Raise hardy breeds of livestock adapted to climate
 Raise livestock that gain well on grass and native forages
6. Conserve Energy Resources
 Reduce number of tillage operations

 Cut use of chemicals and fertilizers
 Develop production methods that reduce horsepower needs
 Recycle used oil
 Use solar-powered fences and machines
 Use renewable, farm-produced fuels: ethanol, methanol, fuel oils from oil seed cops,
methane from manures and crop wastes
7. Increase Profitability and Reduce Risk
 Diversify crops and livestock

 Substitute management for off-farm inputs

 Maximize the use of on-farm resources

 Work with, not against, natural cycles
 Keep machinery, equipment and building costs down
 Add value to crops and livestock
 Try direct marketing
Approaches of Sustainable Agriculture
 Sustainable agriculture has been practiced for many decades and encompasses a
tremendous number of different approaches described by many different names. To
this point, most of these approaches have largely been limited to the substitution of
environmentally
 More significant advances can be expected, however, as a result of developments in
the science and art of agro-ecosystem design and management. The names of the
major schools of thought in sustainable agriculture are outlined in Figure 1, and are
classified according to whether their operating principles are based on concepts of
"efficiency", "substitution", or "redesign".
 Many of the approaches in conventional agriculture (minimum tillage, chemical
banding) would fall into the "efficiency" category. They demonstrate a reduction in
resource use and associated negative environmental impact, and in many cases a
reduction in input expenses for the farmer. They represent, however, only an initial
step towards a truly sustainable system.
 Efforts to substitute safe products and practices (botanical pesticides, biocontrol
agents, imported manures, rock powders and mechanical weed control) are also
gaining popularity. Despite the reduced negative environmental damage associated
with them, they remain problematic. Botanical pesticides also kill beneficial
organisms, the release of bio-controls does not address the question of why pest
outbreaks occur dependence on imported fertilizer materials makes the system
vulnerable to supply disruptions and excessive cultivation to control weeds is
detrimental to the soil.
 The systems that focus on redesign of the farm are the most sophisticated, generally
the most environmentally and economically sustainable, over the long term. These
farm systems recycle resources to the greatest extent possible, meaning that little is
wasted, few pollutants are generated, and input costs are reduced substantially. For
example, chicken and orchard operations have been successfully integrated. The
manure is used as a fertilizer, the chickens eat pests that attack the fruit, the feed bill

for the chickens is greatly reduced, and the eggs and/or meat can be consumed or
sold. Three to seven year crop rotations can be designed that minimize tillage, use
legumes and green manures to maintain soil fertility, prevent pest and disease
outbreaks, and provide a diverse diet for livestock.
 Pigs and goats can be used to renovate wooded lands in preparation for sheep pasture.
The pigs and goats replace the petrochemical energy that would be consumed in
machines, herbicides and fertilizers. All these practices involve redesigning the farm
(as well as the institutional supports, which will be discussed later).
As in conventional agricultural systems, the success of sustainable approaches is very
dependent on the skills and attitudes of the producers. The degree to which different
models of such farms are sustainable is very variable, and is dependent on the
physical resources of the farmer, and the degree deficiencies in support farm, the
talents and commitment of the support available. The current from government,
universities, and agricultural professionals means that farmers must often rely on their
own talents and commitment.
Indicators of Sustainable Agriculture
Sustainability cannot be measured directly; it is too elusive a concept and it operates over too
long a time scale. The best we can do is to identify measurable phenomena that, when put
together, suggest how sustainable our system might be. These are called indicators.
Indicators are widely used as benchmarks to help gauge performance in a number of human
endeavours. For example, the consumer price index and gross domestic product are
indicators, albeit crude ones, of economic performance.In Australia, some work has already
been done on the development of indicators for sustainable agriculture. In 1992, the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management (SCARM) established an expert group
to develop a set of indicators to be used by decision-makers at the regional and national
scales. This led to the establishment of a National Collaborative Project on Indicators of
Sustainable Agriculture, which aims to prepare 'report cards' on the sustainability of
Australian agriculture.
A number of criteria can be used to judge the usefulness of a given indicator
 Is it measurable?
 Is it relevant and easy to use?
 Does it provide a representative picture?

 Is it easy to interpret and does it show trends over time?

 Is it responsive to changes?
 Does it have a reference to compare it against so that users are able to assess the
significance of its values?
 Can it be measured at a reasonable cost, and can it be updated?
Regional/National indicators could be divided into four main areas:
 Profitability
 Land and water quality to sustain production
 Managerial skills and
 Off-site environmental impacts.
Making indicators relevant to farmers
The process of consulting with farmers about sustainability indicators was just as informative
as the outcomes themselves. Early on, facilitators found it necessary to 'bring the indicators to
life' by explaining their background and justifying the need for them. Without such
justification, say the project coordinators, farmers were profoundly uninterested.
So, why should farmers pay any attention to indicators of sustainability?
1. Indicators can help farmers notice changes at an early stage and seek advice if
required;
2. Profitability indicators can highlight strengths and weaknesses and show trends;
3. Land and water quality indicators can highlight natural resource issues which may be
'sleepers' and not obvious to the eye until they are well advanced and difficult to
address;
4. Managerial skills self-auditing can assist individual business partners to appraise
honestly their talents and to plan for professional development; and
5. Off-site impact monitoring can ensure that individual businesses maintain quality
standards and do not contribute to problems for the wider community.

Eva Unit I-Iv

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eva Unit I-Iv

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OA1551 Environment and Agriculture Department of Biotechnology 2020 - 21

OAI551 ENVIRONMENT AND AGRICULTURE

UNIT I ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

UNIT II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

UNIT III CLIMATE CHANGE

Global warming and changing environment – Ecosystem changes – Changing blue-green-

UNIT IV ECOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURE

UNIT V EMERGING ISSUES

1. M.LakshmiNarasaiah, Environment and Agriculture, Discovery Pub. House, 2006.

2. Robert D. Havener, Steven A. Breth, Environment and agriculture: rethinking development

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 1

UNIT I ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

Agriculture & Environment: Introduction

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 2

Environmental basis for agriculture and food

Interactions between agriculture and the environment

Water quality and quantity (pollution concerns):

Air quality (pollution concerns):

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 3

Biodiversity (conservation concerns):

Landscape (amenity concerns):

Food safety and animal welfare concerns:

Land use and landscape changes

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 4

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 5

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 6

Water pollution and management

Water pollution and management

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 7

Changing social structure and economic focus

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 8

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 9

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 10

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 11

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 12

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 13

The study of effects of globalization would be incomplete without considering it‘s

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 14

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 15

Impact of Globalization on Agriculture and current trends:

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 16

Growth Of Corporate Farming

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 17

Traditionally, agroecosystems have been considered primarily as sources of

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 18

Agroecosystems can provide a range of other regulating and cultural services to

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 19

services, the intensification of agriculture or the conversion of agroecosystems to urban or

UNIT II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

2.1 Irrigation Development

2.1.1 Irrigation during Medieval India

2.1.2 Irrigation Development under British rule

According to sources of irrigation close to nineteenth century; canals irrigated 45 %,

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 20

necessitated British to appoint first irrigation commission in 1901, especially to report on

Irrigation development in Indiawas taken up in a big way after independence through

2.2 Plan Development

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 21

b) Command Area Development and Water Management Programme (CADWM)

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 22

2.3 Irrigation Potential Created and Utilized

Irrigation Potential Creation: Expansion of irrigation facilities, along with consolidation of

St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology 23