Food Policy 56 (2015) 1–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol

Is Indian agriculture becoming resilient to droughts? Evidence from rice

production systems
Pratap S. Birthal a,⇑, Digvijay S. Negi b, Md. Tajuddin Khan c, Shaily Agarwal a
a
National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, DPS Road, New Delhi 110 012, India
b
Indian Statistical Institute, SJS Marg, New Delhi 110 016, India
c
International Food Policy Research Institute, Delhi Office, New Delhi 110 012, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Drought is one of the major constraints to sustainable improvement of agricultural productivity in the
Received 12 December 2014 rainfed farming systems. In this paper, we have examined the frequency, severity and spread of droughts
Received in revised form 13 May 2015 in India, and assessed their impact on rice production. Our results show that one-third of the rice area in
Accepted 10 July 2015
India is affected by droughts, mostly moderate droughts, the frequency of which has increased in recent
Available online 31 July 2015
years. The severity of droughts, however, has reduced. An assessment of their impact reveals a decline in
drought-induced losses in rice yield, in absolute as well as relative terms. The weakening effect of
Keywords:
droughts is attributed to improvements in farmers’ adaptive capacity due to expansion of irrigation facil-
Drought
Rice
ities and increased availability of improved varieties for the rainfed production systems, along with other
Irrigation coping strategies.
Varieties Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
India

Introduction
Climate change has become a major challenge to sustainable
development of agriculture, an activity more sensitive and linked
directly to climate change as compared to many other economic
activities (Stern, 2006; Mendelsohn and Dinar, 2009; De Salvo
et al., 2013). The challenge becomes pronounced in the case of
unusual or extreme changes in climate, typified by droughts,
floods, heat waves, etc., the frequencies of which are predicted to
increase in the future (World Bank, 2013). Developing countries,
like India, are more vulnerable to such shocks because of their
heavy dependence on agriculture and lack of technical and finan-
cial resources to cope up with them (Lal et al., 2012). In India,
the agricultural sector, despite its low and declining share in gross
domestic product (15% in 2013–2014), still engages half of the
country’s population, and is dominated by small landholders; the
holdings measuring less than or equal to one hectare (ha) comprise
two-thirds of the total landholdings.
Drought is a recurrent phenomenon in India. More than
two-thirds of the country’s geographical area is vulnerable to
droughts. The probability of occurrence of a drought is about
35%, i.e., once in three years (Pandey et al., 2007), ranging from
20% in the dry-humid regions to 40% or more in the arid regions
(GoI, 2009). India has experienced 13 major droughts since 1966,
the year of introduction of Green Revolution in the country. Four
of these have occurred quite recently, i.e., between 2001 and 2012.
Severe and prolonged droughts can have significant adverse
effects on agriculture and food security (Kumar et al., 2014), and
may cause depletion of productive assets, exacerbate rural poverty,
force outmigration, reduce demand for non-agricultural goods, and
lead to over-exploitation of natural resources (Sivakumar and
Kerbart, 2004; Pandey et al., 2007; Lal et al., 2012). From a study
in eastern India, Pandey et al. (2007) have estimated that during
a drought year household income falls by 25–60% and
head-count poverty ratio rises by 12–33%.1 Similar results have
been reported from the southern state of Tamil Nadu (Selvaraj and
Ramasamy, 2006). These studies have also reported that despite
the use of coping mechanisms to regain their pre-drought normal
livelihood levels, farm households are rarely able to recover fully
the loss of productive assets in the subsequent period.
Frequent occurrence of droughts has raised concerns about the
food and livelihood security. In fact, these concerns have been
reshaping India’s drought management policy for quite some time.
During the past two decades, India’s strategy to cope up with
droughts has undergone a paradigm shift, i.e., from crisis manage-
ment to risk management. The strategy emphasizes on (i)

1
This study covered drought-prone states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Odisha.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 11 25842665; fax: +91 11 25842684. Approximately 60% of the rice area in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand and 20% in Odisha
E-mail address: psbirthal@ncap.res.in (P.S. Birthal). are prone to droughts (Pathak et al., 2011).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.07.005
0306-9192/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 P.S. Birthal et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 1–12
preparedness, in terms of development of location-specific contin-
gency plans based on meteorological forecasts, (ii) mitigation and
adaptation through innovations in irrigation management and
crop breeding for drought-tolerance, and (iii) diversification of
rural economy toward non-farm sectors to reduce farm house-
holds’ excessive dependence on agriculture (Rathore et al., 2014).
In recent years, literature on the impacts of climate change on
agriculture and food security has grown considerably (see, Cline,
1996; Sanghi et al., 1998; Mendelsohn et al., 2001; Kumar and
Parikh, 2001; Schlenker and Roberts, 2006; Stern, 2006; Guiteras,
2007; Sanghi and Mendelsohn, 2008; Mendelsohn and Dinar,
2009; Nelson et al., 2009; Jacoby et al., 2011; Kurukulasuriya
et al., 2011; De Salvo et al., 2013; Birthal et al., 2014). However,
to the best of our knowledge a rigorous analysis of the impacts
of extreme climatic events, including droughts, is still lacking.
Barring a few studies (e.g., Selvaraj and Ramasamy, 2006; ECA,
2009; Li et al., 2009; Yu and Babcock, 2010; Auffhammer et al.,
2011; Kumar et al., 2014), the evidence is at best anecdotal, build-
ing largely upon the perceptions of farmers, agricultural experts
and policymakers (e.g., Udmale et al., 2014).
Through an econometric analysis, we provide estimates of the
crop losses due to droughts and assess the role of adaptation
strategies, such as irrigation and crop varieties in mitigating the
harmful effects of droughts. Such information is useful for policy-
makers to target efforts and investment toward managing drought
risks in advance and also to prevent their transmission down-
stream in the supply chains. The paper tests the hypothesis that
drought-induced losses in crop production have remained constant
over time. To do so, we construct an objective measure to identify
drought events, their frequencies and severity levels; and finally
assess their impact on crop production.
Our focus is on rice, the staple food of most Indians. Rice is cul-
tivated on 44 million hectares, mostly in kharif season (June to
September).2 Approximately 42% of the rice area in the country is
rainfed, characterized by erratic and low rainfall, and poor crop
yields. Waddington et al. (2010) identified droughts as one of the
major constraints to improving rice yields in the rainfed farming sys-
tems in South Asia. In India, close to one-third of the rice area – 6
million ha of uplands and 7 million ha of lowlands – is prone to
droughts (Pandey et al., 2007; Pathak et al., 2011).
The findings of this study show that India virtually faces a
drought every year, in one part or the other. Most drought events
are of moderate intensity, and only 15% represent a severe drought.
However, the frequency and intensity of droughts have undergone
a change over time; while severe droughts have become less fre-
quent, moderate droughts have increased. Nonetheless, their
impact on rice yield has weakened. Yield losses have declined, in
absolute as well as relative terms, under both moderate and severe
drought conditions. Results show that improvements in irrigation
and increasing adoption of improved rice cultivars in rainfed farm-
ing systems have played their roles as part of adaptation strategies
to cope with droughts.
Rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section pre-
sents data and empirical strategy used to identify drought events
and their impact on crop production. Section ‘Frequency, Severity
and Spread of Droughts’ discusses the frequency, severity and
spread of droughts, and changes therein. In Section ‘Impact of
Droughts on Rice Yield’, we provide estimates of the
drought-induced losses and explore the causes underlying the
observed changes in yield losses over time. Section ‘Discussion’
discusses the role of adaptation strategies, such as irrigation and
improved crop varieties, in drought management. The main find-
ings and their implications are summarized in the last section.
2
Kharif rice accounts for close to 90% of the total rice area in the country.
Data and empirical strategy
There is no universal definition of drought. It depends on the
disciplinary outlook – meteorological, hydrological, and agricul-
tural (Wassmann et al., 2009). In India, a drought is defined and
measured in terms of the extent of negative deviation in rainfall
from its normal value (GoI, 2009). An area is considered to be
affected by a drought if the actual rainfall is at least 25% less than
the normal. If the rainfall-deficit is between 25% and 50%, the
drought is considered as moderate; otherwise it is treated as
severe. For a drought to be declared as a national event the
rainfall-deficit at all-India level must exceed 10% and at least 20%
of the geographical area should be affected by a moderate or severe
drought.
This rainfall-based measure of drought indicates only the
degree of dryness. However, the empirical evidence suggests that
dry and hot weather is more harmful to crops rather than just
the dry conditions (O’Brien et al., 1996; Auffhammer et al., 2011;
Iizumi and Ramankutty, 2015). Several studies exploring the nexus
between climate change and agriculture have also shown that cli-
mate impacts are largely driven by rise in temperature (e.g., Cline,
1996; Sanghi et al., 1998; Mendelsohn et al., 2001; Kumar and
Parikh, 2001; Schlenker and Roberts, 2006; Guiteras, 2007;
Sanghi and Mendelsohn, 2008; Mendelsohn and Dinar, 2009;
Jacoby et al., 2011). Thus, a drought can be conceptualized as an
outcome of the occurrence of two joint events, abnormally low
moisture due to poor rainfall and abnormally high temperature.
Data
To construct a measure of drought that captures both the
degrees of dryness and hotness we use district-level data on mean
monthly temperature and cumulative rainfall for India’s main rice
growing season, viz., kharif (June to September) for the period
1969–1970 to 2005–2006. This season is hotter and receives 80%
or more of the annual rainfall (Birthal et al., 2014). The
district-level values of the temperature and rainfall have been
extracted from the 1  1 gridded-data obtained from the India
Meteorological Department. Data on rice production and irrigated
area have been compiled from the website of the International
Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (http://vdsa.icri-
sat.ac.in/vdsa-database.htm).
Between 1969–1970 and 2005–2006, a number of districts have
been bifurcated to constitute new districts. To maintain a balance
in the panel of districts, we have clubbed information on new dis-
tricts with that of their parent districts at 1970 boundaries. Thus,
we have a panel of 200 districts for this study.3
Constructing drought index
Using district-level panel data on mean monthly temperature
and cumulative rainfall during kharif season, we construct a
drought index for the rice-growing districts as the product of stan-
dardized deviations of temperature being above the normal and
standardized deviations of rainfall being below the normal (Yu
and Babcock, 2010).4 This index summarizes degree of hotness
(above normal temperature) and degree of dryness (rainfall-deficit),
and also provides level of severity of a drought event.
3
Time series district-level information for the North-Eastern states (except Assam),
Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir is either not available or is discontinuous;
hence, the districts from these states have not been included in the analysis.
4
In this paper, normal temperature and rainfall are the mean values for the period
1969–2005. We also constructed drought index using cooling degree days instead of
mean temperature. The index so constructed was almost similar to the one discussed
in the text here.
 P.S. Birthal et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 1–12
To begin, we plot in Fig. 1 the standardized deviations in the
seasonal rainfall and mean monthly temperature from their
respective historical mean values. There is a negative relationship
between the two, evoking that simultaneous occurrence of abnor-
mally high temperature and abnormally low rainfall (quadrant IV
of Fig. 1) could be more damaging to crops than the
rainfall-deficit alone (quadrant I of Fig. 1). We are interested in
quadrant IV that contains a large number of dry and hot weather
events.
Mathematically, the drought index can be written as:
DIit ¼ f minð0; TRDsd sd
it Þ  maxð0; MTDit Þg
where subscripts i and t denote district and time, respectively. DI is
drought index. TRDsd normal
it ¼ ðTRit  TRi Þ=sdðTRÞi is the standardized
deviation in the seasonal rainfall from its normal. Here, TR is the
total rainfall, and sd(TR) is the standard deviation in rainfall.
MTDsd normal
it ¼ ðMT it  MT i Þ=sdðMTÞi is the standardized deviation in
mean monthly temperature. In this expression, MT is the mean
monthly temperature and sd(MT) is its standard deviation. The
index has been standardized so as to make it comparable across dis-
tricts and time period.
DI can also be computed as the sum of the standardized devia-
tions of temperature and rainfall. However, the preferred specifica-
tion is the one based on the product of their standardized
deviations that lays relatively greater emphasis on larger devia-
tions in both rainfall and temperature. Higher the temperature
and lower the rainfall, larger is the value of DI.
DI so constructed has three main advantages (for details, see
Yu and Babcock, 2010). One, it is based on district-level data on
temperature and rainfall; and being location-specific it is more
relevant to the agricultural activities for that location. Two, it
comprises of two important causes of crop damage, viz., lack of
moisture and excess heat; hence, a single index rather than multi-
ple weather variables, offers an easy means of assessing impacts of
extreme events on agriculture. Third, it provides severity level of a
drought, making it convenient to quantify crop loss at different
severity levels.
Measuring impact of drought
There are several methods for assessing the impact of drought
depending on its nature (direct or indirect) and the level of aggre-
gation (farm, household, regional or economy-wide). In its simplest
form, the impact of a drought can be measured as the negative
deviation in crop yield in a drought year from its previous normal
Fig. 1. Relationship between deviations in rainfall and temperature.
3
or historical trend (Xiao-jun et al., 2012). The ‘value at risk’
approach has also been used to estimate probable loss from
extreme climatic events, where the loss is measured as the product
of severity and frequency of the event, value of assets exposed to
the event and their vulnerability to the event (see, ECA, 2009).
Some studies have used linear and non-linear mathematical pro-
gramming models to simulate economic impacts of droughts
(Dono and Mazzapicchio, 2010; Peck and Adams, 2010; Jenkins
et al., 2003; Booker et al., 2005). Others have used econometric
models to assess the damage due to droughts at macro-level or
at disaggregated regional or crop levels (e.g., Quiroga and
ð1Þ Iglesias, 2009). Computable general equilibrium and input–output
models have also been used to evaluate welfare impacts of
droughts (see, Pérez y Pérez and Barreiro-Hurlé, 2009;
Martin-Ortega and Berbel, 2010).
We follow the econometric approach, viz., fixed effects panel
regression, where crop yield is regressed on drought index, its
squared term, and their interactions with time trend. If the distribu-
tion of drought events remains constant over time, then the change
in tolerance level of a crop to drought translates directly into the
change in yield risk (Yu and Babcock, 2010). An increasing (decreas-
ing) drought-tolerance results in decreasing (increasing) yield risk.
Farmers follow a number of strategies, such as irrigation and
water management, adoption of drought-tolerant varieties,
increased application of fertilizers and shifting of planting dates
to cope up with droughts. We try to capture the effects of such
strategies on drought-induced losses. To do so, we include irriga-
tion as a control in our model. Irrigation is considered to be one
of the best bets against drought shocks, more so for the
water-intensive crops, such as rice, which are also more vulnerable
to droughts (O’Toole, 2004). Further, our choice of irrigation is
guided by the availability of information on different adaptation
measures that the farmers follow. Crop-wise irrigation statistics
are available at district-level, but no such information is available
on other strategic variables. In our model, we allow rice area irri-
gated (in %) to interact with drought index, squared drought index
and time trend so as to explicitly bring out the role of irrigation in
managing drought risks. Implicitly, we also assess the contribution
of adaptation strategies other than irrigation. For this purpose, we
simulate yield loss at varying levels of irrigation against the coun-
terfactual of no irrigation.
The fixed effects regression equation that we estimate is:
X
N
Y it ¼ DCT i þ /i ½DCT i  T þ b1 DIit þ b2 ðDIit  DIit Þ þ b3 ðDIit  TÞ
i¼1
þ b4 ðDIit  DIit  TÞ þ b5 IRRit þ b6 ðDIit  IRRit Þ
þ b7 ðDIit  DIit  IRRit Þ þ b8 ðDIit  IRRit  TÞ
þ b9 ðDIit  DIit  IRRit  TÞ þ it ð2Þ
where subscripts i and t denote the district and year, respectively; Y
is the rice yield measured in kilograms per hectare, DI is the drought
index, T is the linear time trend and IRR represents the proportion of
the rice area irrigated. To control the time-invariant heterogeneity
across districts, we have added district fixed effects, DCTi, in the
regression model. The model assumes a linear trend, varying across
districts (DCTi).
There is considerable heterogeneity in the conditions for rice
cultivation in India, which is likely to differentiate districts or
regions in their levels and rates of adoption of new technologies.
There is evidence that adoption of modern technology is sensitive
to the conditions that are difficult to observe, leading to slow and
heterogeneous adoption of technology (Munshi, 2004). We have
included district-specific linear trends in the model to control
heterogeneity in yield trends.
4 P.S. Birthal et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 1–12

Eq. (2) decomposes rice yield into three components: (i) deter-
ministic trend yield with district- specific mean,
P
ðDCT i þ Ni¼1 /i ½DCT i  TÞ, that includes improvements in yield
due to technological advances, increased use of inputs, etc.; (ii)
variation in trend yield due to droughts, irrigation and their inter-
actions, and (iii) a residual term, it , representing the effect of other
random factors. The change in yield due to droughts can be esti-
mated taking partial derivation of Y with respect to DI.

@Y it
Loss ¼ ¼ b1 þ 2b2 DIit þ b3 T þ 2b4 DIit  T þ b6 IRRit
@DIit
þ 2b7 ðDIit  IRRit Þ þ b8 ðIRRit  TÞ þ 2b9 ðDIit  IRRit  TÞ
If the crop is susceptible to drought, then marginal effect of
drought in Eq. (3) should be negative. From Eq. (3) it is possible
to test a number of hypotheses related to the change in
drought-induced losses, and the effects and efficacy of irrigation
as a coping strategy against droughts. The change in yield loss
due to drought over time can be estimated taking partial derivative
of Eq. (3) with respect to T. Likewise, the change in yield loss due to
change in irrigation level can be obtained taking partial derivative
of Eq. (3) with respect to IRR.
@Loss
DLossT ¼ ¼ b3 þ 2b4 DIit þ b8 IRRit þ 2b9 ðDIit  IRRit Þ
@T
@Loss
DLossIRR ¼ ¼ b6 þ 2b7 DIit þ b8 T þ 2b9 ðDIit  TÞ
@IRR
The role of irrigation in mitigating the harmful effects of
droughts on crop yield can be assessed from Eqs. (4) and (5). The
partial differentiation of Eq. (4) with respect to IRR, and of Eq. (5)
with respect to T results in the same expression, i.e., Eq. (6) below.
@ DLossT @ DLossIRR
¼ ¼ b8 þ 2b9 ðDIit Þ
@IRR @T
Eq. (6) estimates the change in drought-induced yield loss due
to improvements in irrigation or in other words the change in
effectiveness of irrigation in mitigating the adverse effects of
droughts on rice yield over time. Eqs. (4)–(6) can be posed as sta-
tistical test of the following hypothesis. Using Eq. (4), one can test
the hypothesis that yield loss due to droughts has remained con-
stant over time. Similarly, from Eq. (5) it is possible to test the null
hypothesis that improvements in irrigation have not made any sig-
nificant difference in the drought-induced yield loss; and from Eq.
(6) one can test the hypothesis that the efficacy of irrigation in mit-
igating the drought impacts has not changed over time.
Frequency, severity and spread of droughts
Fig. 2 depicts the distribution of drought index, i.e. DI. The index
ranges from zero to eight; zero means seasonal rainfall being
greater or equal to normal rainfall, and seasonal monthly temper-
ature being less or equal to normal temperature. Abnormally low
values of DI can be considered to be representative of the normal
weather. DI is skewed toward its lower bound, indicating that most
drought events during 1969–2005 were of low or moderate inten-
sity. The incidence of severe drought events, say of DI P 3 was rare.
Based on the dispersion of DI, drought events have been classi-
fied into low, moderate and severe intensity droughts. A drought is
of low intensity if DI is one standard deviation less than its own
mean. It is of moderate intensity if DI lies within ±1 standard devi-
ation around the mean; and of high intensity if DI is equal to or
more than one standard deviation above the mean. Accordingly,
only 15% of the total drought events in the country during the
period 1969–2005 were of severe nature, and 82% represented a
moderate drought (Table 1(a)).
ð3Þ
Fig. 2. Frequency distribution of drought index.
We have looked for the changes in frequency and severity of
droughts over time, taking 1987 as the cut-off year. We took
1987 as cut-off because that year experienced a severe drought
ð4Þ
affecting more than 60% of the cropped area (GoI, 2009), and after-
wards there was a perceptible shift in India’s drought management
policy, from crisis management to risk management. A comparison
ð5Þ
of the frequency of drought events before and after 1987 shows (i)
a decline in the incidence of severe drought events, from 21% dur-
ing 1969–1987 to 9% during 1988–2005, and (ii) an increase in the
incidence of moderate drought events, from 77% to 88%. The sever-
ity level of droughts too has declined; the mean value of DI fell
from 0.97 to 0.57.
To see if there is a long-term trend in the drought events, we
ð6Þ
regressed occurrence of a drought (drought = 1, otherwise zero)
on linear time trend using Probit model.5 The results are presented
in Table 1(b) and point toward a tendency of droughts becoming
more frequent. In case of moderate droughts, the coefficient of time
trend is positive and statistically significant, implying an increase in
the probability of their occurrence. The coefficient of severe
droughts, however, is negative but not significant.
Table 1(a) also presents the information on rice area affected by
droughts of different intensities. On an average, about one-third of
the rice area is vulnerable to droughts, an estimate close to that
reported by Pandey et al. (2007) and Pathak et al. (2011). Of the
total drought-affected rice area, about 82% is prone to moderate
droughts and 15% to severe droughts. Further, we find a marginal
decline in the drought-affected area during 1988–2005, mainly
because of fewer incidences of severe droughts during this period.
The rice area affected by moderate droughts, however, has
increased.
To understand better the temporal changes in the frequency
and severity of droughts, we plot the distribution of
drought-affected rice area for each year in Fig. 3. A few important
observations that have emerged from it are: (i) the country has
experienced a drought most of the times in one or the other region,
(ii) the droughts of 1972, 1974, 1979, 1982, 1987, 1995, 1998, and
2002 were widespread, affecting over 50% of the rice area, and (iii)
the severe droughts have become less frequent, while the moder-
ates have increased.
5
Likelihood-ratio test shows that the panel-level variance component is unimpor-
tant, and the panel estimator is not different from the pooled estimator; therefore, we
have presented results of the pooled estimator (probit) with district-clustered
standard errors.
 P.S. Birthal et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 1–12 5

Table 1

Panel (a) Distribution of drought events, their severity levels, and rice area affected by droughts.
Period Severity level Mean drought index % of total events % rice area affected
1969–2005 Low 0.05 (0.07) 2.7 1.1
Moderate 0.47 (0.45) 82.7 25.7
Severe 2.59 (1.26) 14.6 4.6
Mean 0.77 (0.99) 100.0 31.4
1969–1987 Low 0.04 (0.04) 2.3 0.7
Moderate 0.49 (0.47) 76.8 24.5
Severe 2.84 (2.55) 20.9 6.5
Mean 0.97 (1.21) 100.0 31.8
1988–2005 Low 0.06 (0.08) 3.1 1.5
Moderate 0.45 (0.42) 88.4 26.8
Severe 2.00 (0.78) 8.5 2.7
Mean 0.57 (0.64) 100.0 31.0
Figures in parentheses are standard deviations.

Panel (b) Trends in the frequency of drought events by their severity level.
Variable (1) (2) (3) (4)
Low intensity drought = 1, Moderate drought = 1, Severe drought = 1, Drought event = 1,
zero otherwise zero otherwise zero otherwise zero otherwise
Time trend 0.0038 0.0107*** 0.0025 0.0094***
(0.0041) (0.0015) (0.0026) (0.0015)
Number of events 56 1712 302 2070

Figures in parentheses are district-clustered standard errors.

***,**, and * denote significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels.

100.0
Low
90.0
Moderate
80.0
Severe
70.0

60.0
per cent

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

Fig. 3. Year-wise rice area affected by droughts of different intensities, 1969–2005.

Impact of droughts on rice yield

As a prelude to the econometric estimation of yield loss due to

droughts, we look for a likely relationship between yield loss and
severity level of a drought by plotting the deviation in rice yield
from its trend6 against the drought index in Fig. 4. As expected,
the relationship between the two is negative, and the estimated cor-
relation coefficient is 0.27 and statistically significant at 1% level.
Further, to see whether there has been any change in yield loss
over time, in Table 2 we compare it between two periods, i.e.,
1969–1987 and 1988–2005 for different severity levels. As
expected, the yield losses have declined, in absolute as well as rel-
ative terms, significant improvements in yield notwithstanding.
Under severe droughts, yield loss declined to 8.1% during 1988–
2005 from 16.8% during 1969–1987, and under moderate droughts

6
The deviations were estimated using Hodrick–Prescott (HP) filter. Fig. 4. Relationship between drought index and deviation in rice yield, 1969–2005.
6 P.S. Birthal et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 1–12

Table 2
Deviation in rice yield from its historical trend at different severity levels of drought.

Period Low droughts Moderate droughts Severe droughts Mean

1969–1987 Yield (kg/ha) 1246.2 (127.1) 1259.0 (23.6) 1139.7 (50.8) 1234.1 (21.2)
Deviation from trend (kg/ha) +37.4 (26.4) 45.5 (7.7) 191.2 (15.1) 73.7 (7.0)
Deviation from trend (%) +3.0 (2.0) 3.6 (0.7) 16.8 (1.6) 6.0 (0.7)
1988–2005 Yield (kg/ha) 1936.9 (145.2) 1900.3 (30.3) 1814.2 (90.4) 1894.6 (28.2)
Deviation from trend (kg/ha) +4.6 (48.5) 25.2 (8.1) 147.0 (38.1) 34.3 (8.1)
Deviation from trend (%) +0.2 (2.4) 1.3 (0.5) 8.1 (2.0) 1.8 (0.5)
1969–2005 Yield (kg/ha) 1705.8 (110.7) 1584.3 (20.9) 1328.3 (47.8) 1550.5 (19.0)
Deviation from trend (kg/ha) +15.6 (31.7) 35.2 (5.6) 178.8 (15.3) 54.8 (5.3)
Deviation from trend (%) +0.9 (1.7) 2.2 (0.4) 13.5 (1.3) 3.5 (0.4)

Figures in parentheses are standard errors.

Table 3
to 1.3% from 3.6%. In comparison to 1969–1987, the absolute yield
loss in the latter period was 23% less under severe drought condi- Panel (a) Model specification tests.
tions and 45% under moderate drought conditions. However, the Items Linear Log linear
yield is not affected adversely by the low intensity droughts. F-test for joint significance district specific 13.04*** 4.16***
These trends provide an indication of the rice production becoming intercept F(170, 5578)
resilient to droughts. Hausman specification test (Fixed effects vs 2217.59*** 708.01***
The negative deviation in the rice yield from its trend (yield Random effects) Chi2(176)
F-test for common trend vs agroclimatic zone- 37.06*** 27.72***
loss) cannot solely be attributed to droughts. Some other factors, specific trend F(3, 5578)
for example, insect pests and diseases, can also lead to reduction F-test for district specific trend vs agro climatic 12.69*** 3.75***
in yield. The decline in yield loss can also be due to droughts zone specific-trend F(167, 5578)
becoming less severe, and improvements in irrigation and water Modified Wald test for group-wise 5.7e + 10*** 2.1e + 08***
heteroskedasticity Chi2(171)
management practices, increased adoption of drought-tolerant
F-test for significance of fixed effects regression 39.73*** 21.86***
crop varieties, fertilizers, agronomic practices, etc. The trends in F(180, 5578)
yield loss presented in Table 2 have been validated by estimating
***,**, and * denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
the panel fixed effects regressions.
There is a possibility of dependent variable (i.e., rice yield) being Panel (b) Estimated regression coefficients of Eq. (1) with heteroskedastic
non-stationary. Similarly, the drought index, constructed using robust standard errors.
temperature and rainfall, may also be non-stationary due to the Explanatory variables Linear model Log linear model
presence of a stochastic trend in either of these. The DI (drought index) 551.5 13.5
non-stationarity in the dependent and independent variables (6944.1) (10.9)
may lead to spurious estimates. To check for stationarity in the DI ⁄ DI 2902.4 8.3
time series of these variables, we have conducted panel unit root (2068.3) (5.2)
DI ⁄ Trend 0.161 0.007
tests, and the results are reported in the appendix Table A1. All
(3.50) (0.005)
the tests reject the null hypothesis that panel contains unit roots, DI ⁄ DI ⁄ Trend 1.481 0.004
and thus rule out the possibility of any of the series being (1.043) (0.003)
non-stationary. IRR (proportion of rice area irrigated) 284.014*** 0.132**
Table 3 presents the coefficients and standard errors of the (107.431) (0.063)
DI ⁄ IRR 236.6 4.7
explanatory variables for linear and log-linear specifications of (10268.1) (13.6)
Eq. (2). Table 3(a) presents specification tests to check appropriate- DI ⁄ DI ⁄ IRR 4534.1 12.2*
ness of the chosen fixed effects model with district-specific trend. (2997.8) (6.4)
The F-test for joint significance of district fixed effects is significant DI ⁄ Trend ⁄ IRR 0.142 0.002
(5.171) (0.007)
at 1% level, endorsing our preference for the fixed effects regression
DI ⁄ DI ⁄ Trend ⁄ IRR 2.3 0.006*
over pooled regression. And, the Hausman test favors the fixed (1.5) (0.003)
effects regression over the random effects regression for both lin- Constant 44838.7*** 20.7***
ear and non-linear specifications. Having chosen the fixed effects (819.4) (0.7)
model, we further conducted F-tests to justify the inclusion of No. of observations 5929 5929

district-specific trend. These tests suggest supremacy of the Average marginal effects
region-specific7 trend over the common trend; and the Trend 23.4*** 0.016***
district-specific trend over the region-specific trend. We used mod- (0.42) (0.0003)
ified Wald test to check for heteroskedasticity. The Chi2 statistic for DI 194.0*** 0.246***
(14.1) (0.022)
Wald test is significant at 1% level indicating the presence of
IRR 289.2*** 0.181***
heteroskedasticity. To take care of heteroskedasticity and serial cor- (106.8) (0.063)
relation we estimated district-clustered standard errors.
Tests of hypotheses (at mean DI = 0.77, IRR = 0.50 and T = 1987)
The coefficients of DI and DI-squared are negative in the linear
H0: DLoss(T) = 0 (Eq. (4)) 0.75 0.0072***
as well as log-linear specifications of Eq. (2), but these are not sta-
(1.22) (0.0014)
tistically significant (Table 3(b)). Though the constructed drought H0: DLoss(IRR) = 0 (Eq. (5)) 22.46 0.2102***
(30.92) (0.0401)
H0: DLoss(T,IRR) = 0 (Eq. (6)) 3.38 0.0117***
7
The regions here refer to the agroclimatic regions, viz., humid, semi-arid (3.09) (0.0035)
temperate and arid-semi-arid tropics. The districts were classified into regions
following the criteria (temperature and length of growing period) outlined in TAC Figures in parentheses are district-clustered standard errors.
(1994). ***,**, and * denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
 P.S. Birthal et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 1–12
index is capable of capturing the negative impact of weather
shocks on rice yield, the standard errors are large. The log-linear
specification provides a better precision in the estimates. The lack
of precision in the estimates associated with DI-squared are per-
haps due to the large variation in yield and the fewer events of a
severe drought. The coefficient of DI ⁄ T is positive, suggesting that
rice production has become less vulnerable to droughts over time.
It has also become less vulnerable to severe droughts as is indi-
cated by a positive coefficient of DI ⁄ DI ⁄ T.
The coefficient of IRR is positive and significant indicating the
importance of irrigation in enhancing rice yield. The interaction
of IRR with DI-squared is also positive and significant in the
log-linear specification, which indicates that irrigation moderates
harmful effects of severe droughts. The effectiveness of irrigation,
however, seems to have declined as is implied in the negative
and significant coefficient of DI ⁄ DI ⁄ T ⁄ IRR. This is likely; as with
rise in the frequency of droughts, water becomes a more acute con-
straint rendering irrigation less effective in mitigating the harmful
effects of droughts.
Table 3(b) also reports the marginal effects associated with time
trend, drought and irrigation evaluated at their mean values. The
marginal effect of time indicates an increase in rice yield at a rate
of 1.6% or 23.4 kg/ha per annum during the period 1969–2005, but
the trend varies considerably across districts (Fig. 5). In the linear
model, the trend coefficient of yield varies from 12 kg/ha to
+76 kg/ha per annum, and in the log-linear model the rate of
growth in rice yield ranges from 1.6% to +4.7% per annum.
Nevertheless, in majority of the districts rice yield has increased,
and the negative trend is confined to a fewer districts. This varia-
tion in yield trends is an indication of the heterogeneity in the pat-
tern and rate of adoption of improved technologies and practices
across districts. The positive marginal effect of irrigation reinforces
its role in improving crop yield. The effect of drought on yield,
however, is negative to the extent of 194 kg/ha or 25% of the nor-
mal yield.
Table 3(b) also provides tests of some important hypotheses.
One, the yield loss due to droughts has remained constant over
time, i.e., DLoss(T) = 0. Two, the improvements in irrigation have
not affected the drought-induced yield loss, i.e., DLoss(IRR) = 0.
Fig. 5. District-wise estimated trends in rice yield.
7
Three, the efficacy of irrigation in mitigating the harmful effects
of droughts has remained unchanged over time, i.e.,
DLoss(T,IRR) = 0. These hypotheses have been evaluated at the
respective means of DI, IRR and T. The coefficient of DLoss(T) is pos-
itive in both the specifications. We reject the hypothesis that pro-
portion of yield loss due to droughts has remained constant over
time in favor of the alternative hypothesis, i.e., drought-induced
loss has declined over time. From the log-linear specification we
could also reject the null hypothesis of yield loss (in %) due to
droughts remaining unchanged with irrigation levels. The positive
coefficient of DLoss(IRR) indicates that irrigation is an effective
means of reducing harmful effects of droughts. However, the neg-
ative and significant coefficient of DLoss(T,IRR) indicates that the effi-
cacy of irrigation in reducing adverse effects of droughts has
diminished.
Fig. 6 shows the predicted relationship between rice yield (in
kg/ha) and drought index (at 95% confidence interval) at mean
level of rice area irrigated (50%) during 1969–2005 against the
counterfactual of no irrigation. The response curve is negatively
sloped and convex in both the scenarios, implying that the drought
reduces yield, but the incremental loss becomes smaller with
increase in its severity level. The yield response curve with no irri-
gation lies below the response curve with irrigation at all levels of
drought severity.
From the descriptive statistics (in Table 2) we had noticed a
decline in the severity level of droughts, which possibly could have
been one of the reasons for reduction in yield loss. Keeping the
level of irrigation constant (at its mean level during 1969–2005)
in Eq. (4), we estimated the marginal effect of droughts assuming
no change in their severity level over time, i.e., DI = 0.77. The
results are presented in Table 4, and confirm that
drought-induced losses, absolute as well as relative, have declined.
Using Eq. (5) we estimate the marginal effect of irrigation
assuming no change in the severity level of droughts (DI = 0.77)
and time trend. The results are presented in Table 5. As expected,
the simulated yield losses decline with improvements in irrigation,
but these cannot be completely eliminated even with entire rice
area being irrigated. And, this is very much likely, as irrigation
water is limited and becomes scarcer during a drought. Over time,
8 P.S. Birthal et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 1–12

Fig. 6. Predicted rice yield, with and without irrigation, at varying levels of drought severity.

Table 4
Equation predicted yield loss overtime at mean DI (0.772).

Model 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

Linear model (kg/ha) 200.5 198.6 196.6 194.7 192.8 190.9 189.0 187.0
(34.13) (26.11) (19.14) (14.76) (15.38) (20.56) (27.85) (36.00)
Log-linear model (%) 35.3 32.2 29.2 26.2 23.2 20.2 17.2 14.1
(4.99) (4.03) (3.14) (2.40) (2.00) (2.12) (2.71) (3.53)

Figures in parentheses are standard errors.

Table 5
Equation predicted drought-induced yield losses at different levels of irrigation. droughts, but the efficacy of incremental irrigation declines.
These are important findings that implicitly bring out the role of
Model % rice area irrigated
adaptation strategies other than irrigation in moderating the
0 20 40 60 80 100 harmful effects of droughts. The inference is that irrigation is
Linear (kg/ha) 212.6 204.9 197.3 189.7 182.1 174.5 important, but it alone is not sufficient to cope up with droughts,
(24.68) (18.64) (14.89) (15.23) (19.45) (25.70) and needs to be complemented with other risk-mitigating strate-
Log-linear (%) 37.5 32.2 27.0 21.7 16.4 11.2
gies. These strategies can include increased adoption of improved
(4.33) (3.36) (2.47) (1.78) (1.55) (1.97)
crop varieties and agronomic practices, higher fertilizer applica-
Figures in parentheses are standard errors. tion, etc. It may be noted that the inference regarding the role of
other adaptation strategies does not follow from the regression
results.
there has been a significant expansion of the groundwater-based
irrigation in India, leading to over-exploitation of the groundwater
in many parts of the country. Discussion
Does it mean that the efficacy of irrigation to cope with
droughts has reduced overtime? Using Eq. (6) we conducted some Several studies have predicted that climate change will
counterfactual exercises to understand evolution of the role of irri- adversely affect rice production in India (Kumar et al., 2011,
gation in moderating the harmful effects of droughts on rice yield. 2014; Auffhammer et al., 2011). The magnitude of the impact
Corresponding to the linear and log-linear specifications of Eq. (6), would depend on the degree of change in temperature and precip-
in Fig. 7(a) and (b) we plot the trend in yield loss under varying itation. A smaller rise in temperature (<1 °C) is unlikely to have any
irrigation situations (see Table A2 also). There emerge two impor- harmful effect on rice yield, but a significant increase would have
tant observations from this exercise. One, the loss curve without adverse effects (Aggarwal and Mall, 2002). There is considerable
irrigation lies above its irrigation counterfactuals (50% and 90% rice heterogeneity in the rice production environments in the country,
area irrigated) suggesting that the impact of drought is bigger in and the magnitude and direction of climate impacts may differ
the rainfed farming systems. Two, as compared to higher level of across the production environments. Evidence shows that in some
irrigation, the slope of the curve with lower irrigation is steeper regions rice production may benefit from climate change, and
which implies that irrigation is important to cope up with would be adversely affected in others (Kumar et al., 2011).
 P.S. Birthal et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 1–12 9

Fig. 7. Trend in yield loss under varying levels of irrigation at DI = 0.77.

Table 6
Trend in per cent net irrigated area in India. Source: GoI (2013). irrigated area almost doubled, from 32% to 59%. Besides, emphasis
has also been laid on the development of watersheds to harvest
Years Source of irrigation Rice area irrigated
rainwater for irrigation purposes. Joshi et al. (2005) have demon-
Canal Groundwater Others All strated positive impact of these efforts on crop yields and farm
1969–70 9.1 8.1 4.6 21.8 38.2 incomes.
1986–87 11.8 14.9 3.8 30.5 43.6 Our results, however, have indicated a decline in the effective-
2005–06 11.8 25.6 5.7 43.1 56.0
ness of irrigation in coping with droughts, particularly severe ones,
2010–11 11.1 27.6 6.3 44.9 58.7
beyond a threshold level of irrigation. This has to be looked from
the perspective of the crop in question, and the availability of irri-
gation water. Of the total available water, more than 85% is utilized
Eastern region is predicted to be more affected by increased tem-
for irrigation. Groundwater, the main source of irrigation, has been
perature than the northern region.
over-exploited in many parts of the country, particularly in the arid
Nevertheless, farmers can adapt to climate change through
and semi-arid regions spread across north-western, western and
shifts in planting dates, use of short-duration crop varieties,
southern states. In the eastern region, groundwater is available in
increased and efficient use of irrigation, fertilizers, etc.
plenty, but farmers are unable to harness it due to lack of energy
(Wassmann and Dobermann, 2007; Kumar et al., 2011). Some
to pump it out. Rice being a water-intensive crop is more vulnera-
studies, for example ECA (2009), Kumar (2009), Aggarwal et al.
ble to droughts than many other crops. In a drought year, the
(2010) and Auffhammer et al. (2011), have shown that climate
groundwater is under stress, and its availability to the crop is less
impacts on agriculture can be moderated to a large extent using
than its requirement, reducing its ability to withstand drought
a combination of adaptation strategies. Our results have demon-
shocks. Some other studies (e.g., Pandey et al., 2007; ECA, 2009)
strated that rice production in India has gradually become resilient
also confirm this observation.
to droughts8 and irrigation has played an important role in it. Birthal
A related finding that has emerged from our analysis is that the
et al. (2014) have shown irrigation reducing the negative effects of
drought-induced loss in rice yield has declined even in the pre-
climate change on agricultural productivity, the biggest reduction
dominantly rainfed farming systems. This implicitly suggests the
being in the rainfed farming systems. Our results also indicate the
role of adaptation strategies other than irrigation in coping with
role of adaptation strategies other than irrigation in management
droughts. Here, we emphasize on the crop breeding for
of droughts, which we could not explicitly capture in our analysis
drought-tolerance that has attracted considerable research atten-
because of non-availability of data.
tion in the recent past (Lybbert and Bell, 2010). The
There has been a significant improvement in irrigation in India;
drought-tolerant traits embedded in seed act as an insurance.
the proportion of rice area irrigated has increased from 38% in
Drought-tolerant crop varieties are of shorter duration, and have
1969 to 44% in 1987 and further to 56% in 2005 (Table 6). The addi-
ability to withstand water scarcity and high temperature. In the
tional area has largely been irrigated using groundwater; between
case of rice, these have been reported to possess yield advantage
1969–1970 and 2005–2006, the share of groundwater in net
of 5–28% over the existing high-yielding varieties (Selvaraj and
Ramasamy, 2006; Virk and Witcombe, 2007; Pray et al., 2011;
8
A recent testimony to this is the small reduction in yields of major kharif crops IRRI, 2013).
during the drought of 2009 as compared to the drought of 2002. In 2009, rainfall India’s rice breeding strategy has undergone a gradual shift.
deficit was 22%, higher by 3 percentage points than in 2002. However, rice yield in
Two decades ago, rice breeding research was largely focused on
this year was 2.5% less from its inter-annual trend as compared to 12.5% in 2002. The
deviation in yields of cotton, groundnut and soybean in 2009 was almost half of that developing varieties for favorable environments (Pandey and Pal,
in 2002. 2007), but the realization about the limits on irrigation expansion
10 P.S. Birthal et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 1–12
Table 7
Rice varieties released for different ecologies (Nos./annum). Source: Directorate of
Rice Research, Hyderabad, India.
Ecology 1969–1987 1988–2010
Irrigated early 2.7 3.0
Irrigated mid-early 1.6 3.2
Irrigated medium 1.6 4.4
Rainfed upland 1.2 3.4
Rainfed shallow land 1.8 4.4
Deep and semi-deep water 0.7 1.3
Scented 0.5 1.7
Others 0.9 3.0
Total 11.1 24.3
prompted significant improvements in the allocation of research
resources for development of varieties for the rainfed systems. As
a result, there has been a substantial increase in the number of rice
varieties bred and released for the rainfed conditions (Table 7).
Between 1988 and 2010, on an average, 3.39 and 4.43 varieties
of rice were released per annum for cultivation in rainfed uplands
and rainfed shallow lands, respectively, representing an increase of
193% and 141% over their corresponding releases during 1969–
1987. These varietal releases were much larger than those for irri-
gated and other rice ecologies. Although, the information on adop-
tion rates of rice varieties is not much documented in the official
statistics, the evidence from field studies conducted in the
drought-prone regions of eastern India indicates a highly uneven
adoption rate of modern rice varieties across states; 47% in
Odisha to 99% in Chhattisgarh (Pandey et al., 2012). A recently
released variety, ‘Sahbhagi Dhan’, is gaining popularity in the east-
ern region (IRRI, 2013). There has also been an increased emphasis
on developing varieties of scented (Basmati) rice, whose water
requirement is about 30–35% less compared to the traditional rice
varieties. In the states like Haryana and Punjab that have very high
level of irrigation, Basmati rice occupies 30–40% of the total rice
there. Note that in these states groundwater is the main source
of irrigation and has been overexploited.
Apart from irrigation and improved crop varieties, innovations
in water management and agronomy might have also contributed
toward improving resilience of rice production systems. These
include: direct-seeded rice, alternate wet and dry irrigation
(AWD), laser land levelling, lining of the field channels,
micro-irrigation, conservation tillage, mulching, etc. The evidence
indicates that many of these practices reduce water requirement
with no yield penalty. For example, AWD has been demonstrated
to save 20% water over flooding system (Sharma et al., 2002).
The AWD system has become an integral component of the system
of rice intensification (SRI), which is estimated to have been prac-
ticed on about 2% of the rice area in the country (Barah and
Narendranath, 2011). The direct-seeded rice saves 10–30% water,
though the evidence on its yield advantage over transplanted rice
is ambiguous (Kumar and Ladha, 2011; Pathak et al., 2011). Laser
land levelling has also been reported to save water to the extent
of 20% with no yield penalty (Jat et al., 2006; Aryal et al., 2014).
Conclusions
This paper has examined the frequency, severity and spread of
droughts and their impact on rice yield in India. The roles of irriga-
tion, crop varieties and agronomic practices in managing drought
risks have also been assessed. The main findings are:
About one-third of the rice area in India is vulnerable to
droughts. Over time, the frequency of droughts have increased
but these have become less intense. An assessment of their impacts
suggest a substantial decline in drought-induced yield loss, in
absolute as well as relative terms.
Irrigation, along with other adaptation strategies, has con-
tributed toward increasing resilience of rice production systems.
The effectiveness of irrigation in mitigating the harmful effects of
% change droughts, however, has declined over time, possibly due to the
8.0 over-exploitation of groundwater – the main source of irrigation.
94.5 This has an important implication for irrigation management, in
171.8 terms of improving efficiency of the existing irrigation systems
192.9
140.8
through innovative measures, such as water harvesting, sprinkler
90.6 irrigation, alternate wet and dry system, conservation tillage, and
213.9 laser land levelling. The adoption of these measures has remained
232.6 limited to a smaller area due to a number of institutional, financial
119.0
and technical constraints. For example, micro-irrigation (sprinkler
and drip) covers only 4.2 million hectares or 4.5% of the total irri-
gated area in the country, as against a potential of 42 million hec-
tares (Palanisami et al., 2011). The need is to enhance
use-efficiency of scarce water resources through technological,
institutional and policy measures.
Crop breeding research too has contributed to the enhanced
resilience of rice production to droughts. There has been a signifi-
cant increase in the number of rice varieties released for cultiva-
tion in rainfed environments, and some of these occupy
considerable area. Unlike water-based drought management
options, drought-tolerant seeds are not expensive, are easy to mul-
tiply and adopt, and provide long-term solution reducing pressure
on water resources. The potential returns to investment on
drought-tolerant rice research have been estimated in the range
of 29–167% (Gautam, 2009; Pray et al., 2011; Mottaleb et al.,
2012). Most of the existing drought-tolerant varieties have been
developed using traditional methods of plant breeding, and these
have been reported to withstand moderate drought shocks, but
not the severe ones (Pray et al., 2011). The modern biotechnology
– molecular genetics, genomics, marker-assisted selection (MAS)
and transgenic – offers opportunities to develop cultivars capable
of withstanding severe drought shocks. Kostandini et al. (2009)
have estimated substantial ex ante benefits from the transgenic
drought-tolerant research. This indicates toward the need for
greater investment in drought-tolerance research and develop-
ment of extension systems capable of providing farmers timely
weather forecasts and seeds of varieties differentiated by their tol-
erance level to droughts.
Owing to data limitations, in this paper we could not explicitly
bring out the contributions of the adaptation strategies other than
irrigation in enhancing resilience of agriculture to droughts. The
future research may focus on a comprehensive assessment of the
contributions of different adaptation strategies, specifically the
drought-tolerant cultivars in mitigating the drought-induced
losses in different production environments. This may serve as a
guide for policymakers to prioritize adaptation strategies and to
better target efforts and investments in this direction.
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank two anonymous referees, and to
Devesh Roy, Bharat Ramaswami, Ramesh Chand, Madhur
Gautam, N.P. Singh, T.J. Lybbert, P.K. Joshi, Jaya Jumrani and B.S.
Aggarwal for their comments and suggestions that helped them
bring this manuscript in its present shape. Nonetheless, authors
are responsible for any errors and omissions. Funding supports
from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) under its
mega-program National Initiative on Climate Resilient
Agriculture (NICRA) is gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix A
See Tables A1 and A2.
 P.S. Birthal et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 1–12 11

Table A1
Panel unit root tests.

Variables H0: Panels contain unit roots H0: All panels contain unit roots H0: All panels contain unit roots
H1: Panels are stationary (lags chosen H1: Some panels are stationary H1: At least one panel is stationary (lags 2)
to minimize AIC) (lags chosen to minimize AIC)
LLC (adjusted statistic) p-value IPS (z-t-tilde-bar) p-value Fisher (modified inverse chi2 Pm) p-value
Rice yield (kg/ha) 10.59 0.00 17.26 0.00 36.43 0.00
Ln rice yield 14.17 0.00 32.73 0.00 55.00 0.00
Drought index 60.47 0.00 59.42 0.00 75.09 0.00

Table A2
Trend in yield loss under varying levels of irrigation at DI = 0.77.

Model 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

Counterfactual scenario 1: no irrigation
Linear (kg/ha) 228.3 223.9 219.5 215.1 210.6 206.2 201.8 197.3
(50.7) (37.8) (27.3) (22.7) (27.3) (37.9) (50.8) (64.7)
Log-linear (%) 53.1 48.8 44.5 40.1 35.8 31.5 27.1 22.8
(10.3) (8.3) (6.5) (5.0) (4.1) (4.4) (5.6) (7.3)
Counterfactual scenario 2: 50% area under irrigation
Linear (kg/ha) 200.6 198.6 196.7 194.7 192.7 190.7 188.7 186.8
(34.1) (26.1) (19.1) (14.8) (15.4) (20.5) (27.8) (36)
Log-linear (%) 35.3 32.3 29.2 26.2 23.2 20.1 17.1 14.1
(5.0) (4.0) (3.1) (2.4) (2.0) (2.1) (2.7) (3.5)
Counterfactual scenario 3: 90% area under irrigation
Linear (kg/ha) 178.5 178.4 178.4 178.4 178.4 178.3 178.3 178.3
(51.0) (40.4) (31.1) (24.3) (22.5) (26.9) (35.2) (45.2)
Log-linear (%) 21.0 19.0 17.1 15.1 13.1 11.1 9.1 7.1
(4.3) (3.4) (2.6) (2.0) (1.6) (1.8) (2.4) (3.1)

Figures in parentheses are standard errors.

References Guiteras, R., 2007. The Impact of Climate Change on Indian Agriculture. Working
paper, Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA.
Aggarwal, P.K., Kumar, S.N., Pathak, H., 2010. Impacts of Climate Change on Growth
Iizumi, T., Ramankutty, N., 2015. How do weather and climate influence cropping
and Yield of Rice and Wheat in the Upper Ganga Basin. Indian Agricultural
area and intensity? Glob. Food Secur. 4, 46–50.
Research Institute, New Delhi.
IRRI (India International Rice Research Institute), 2013. Cluster Demonstrations of
Aggarwal, P.K., Mall, R.K., 2002. Climate change and rice yields in diverse agro-
Stress Tolerant Rice Varieties in Stress Prone Parts of India. Annual Report
environments of India. II Effect of uncertainties in scenarios and crop models on
submitted to National Food Security Mission, Ministry of Agriculture,
impact assessment. Clim. Change 52, 331–343.
Government of India. IRRI, New Delhi Office.
Aryal, J.P., Bhatia, M., Jat, M.L., Sidhu, H.S., 2014. Impact of laser land levelling in
Jacoby, H., Rabassa, M., Skoufias, E., 2011. Distributional Implications of Climate Change
rice-wheat rotations of the north-western Indo-Gangetic plains of India. In:
in India. Policy Research Working Paper 5623, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Paper Presented at the Fifth World Congress of Environmental and Resource
Jat, M.L., Chandna, P., Gupta, R., Sharma, S.K., Gill, M.A., 2006. Laser Land Levelling: A
Economists, Istanbul, June 28–July 2.
Precursor Technology for Resource Conservation. Rice-Wheat Consortium
Auffhammer, M., Ramanathan, V., Vincent, J.R., 2011. Climate change, the monsoon
Technical Bulletin Series 7, Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-Gangetic
and rice yield in India. Clim. Change 111 (2), 411–424.
Plains, New Delhi.
Barah, B.C., Narendranath, 2011. Status of SRI in India: upscaling strategy and global
Jenkins, M.W., Lund, J.R., Howitt, R.E., 2003. Economic losses for urban water
experience sharing. In: Proceedings of the Roundtable Discussion, The National
scarcity in California. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 95 (2), 58–70.
Consortium on SRI, New Delhi.
Joshi, P.K., Jha, A.K., Wani, S.P., Joshi, L., Shiyani, R.L., 2005. Meta-analysis to assess
Birthal, P.S., Negi, D.S., Kumar, S., Agarwal, S., Suresh, A., Khan, Md.T., 2014. How
impact of watershed program and people’s participation. IWMI Research
sensitive is Indian agriculture to climate change? India J. Agric. Econ. 69 (4),
Reports H037467, International Water Management Institute, Colombo.
474–487.
Kostandini, G., Bradford, F.M., Omamo, S.W., Wood, S., 2009. Ex-ante analysis of the
Booker, J.F., Michelsen, A.M., Ward, F.A., 2005. Economic impact of alternative policy
benefits of transgenic drought tolerance research on cereal crops in low-income
responses to prolonged and severe drought in the Rio Grande Basin. Water
countries. Agric. Econ. 40 (4), 477–492.
Resour. Res. 41 (2), W02026.
Kumar, P., Joshi, P.K., Aggarwal, P.K., 2014. Projected effect of droughts on supply,
Cline, W., 1996. The impact of global warming on agriculture: comment. Am. Econ.
demand, and prices of crops in India. Econ. Pol. Weekly 49 (2), 54–63.
Rev. 86 (5), 1309–1311.
Kumar, K.S.K., 2009. Climate Sensitivity of Indian Agriculture: Do Spatial Effects
De Salvo, M., Raffael, R., Moser, R., 2013. The impact of climate change on
Matter? SANDEE Working Paper 45-09. SANDEE, Kathmandu.
permanent crops in an alpine region: a Ricardian analysis. Agric. Syst. 118,
Kumar, K.S.K., Parikh, J., 2001. Indian agriculture and climate sensitivity. Glob.
23–32.
Environ. Change 11 (2), 147–154.
Dono, G., Mazzapicchio, G., 2010. Uncertain water supply in an irrigated
Kumar, S.N., Aggarwal, P.K., Rani, S., Jain, S., Saxena, R., Chauhan, N., 2011. Impact of
Mediterranean area: an analysis of the possible economic impact of climate
climate on crop productivity in Western Ghats, coastal and north-eastern
change on the farm sector. Agric. Syst. 103, 361–370.
regions of India. Curr. Sci. 101 (3), 332–341.
ECA (Economics of Climate Adaptation), 2009. Shaping Climate Resilient
Kumar, V., Ladha, J.K., 2011. Direct-seeding of rice: recent developments and future
Development: A Framework for Decision-making. A Report of the Climate
research needs. Adv. Agron. 111, 297–413.
Adaptation Working Group. Climate Works Foundation, Global Environment
Kurukulasuriya, P., Kala, N., Mendelsohn, R., 2011. Adaptation and climate change
Facility, European Commission, McKinsey & Company, The Rockfeller
impacts: a structural Ricardian model of irrigation and farm income in Africa.
Foundation, Standard Chartered Bank and Swiss Re.
Clim. Change Econ. 2, 149–174.
Gautam, A., 2009. Impact Evaluation of Drought Tolerant Rice Technologies through
Lal, P.N., Mitchell, T., Aldunce, P., Auld, H., Mechler, R., Miyan, A., Romano, L.E., Zakaria, S.,
Participatory Approaches in Eastern India. Masters’ dissertation. The State
2012. National systems for managing the risks from climate extremes and disasters.
University of New Jersey, Rutgers.
In: Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Dokken, D.J., Ebi, K.L., Mastrandrea,
GoI (Government of India), 2009. Manual for Drought Management. Department of
M.D., Mach, K.J., Plattner, G.K., Allen, S.K., Tignor, M., Midgley, P.M. (Eds.), Managing
Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi.
the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A
GoI (Government of India), 2013. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. Department of
Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi.
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, pp. 339–392.
12 P.S. Birthal et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 1–12
Li, Y.P., Ye, W., Wang, M., Yan, X.D., 2009. Climate change and drought: a risk
assessment of crop-yield impacts. Clim. Res. 39 (1), 31–46.
Lybbert, T.J., Bell, A., 2010. Stochastic benefit streams, learning, and technology
diffusion: why drought tolerance is not the new Bt. AgBioForum 13 (1), 13–24.
Martin-Ortega, J., Berbel, J., 2010. Using multi-criteria analysis to explore non-
market monetary values of water quality changes in the context of the Water
Framework Directive. Sci. Total Environ. 408 (19), 3990–3997.
Mendelsohn, R., Dinar, A., 2009. Climate Change and Agriculture: An Economic
Analysis of Global Impacts, Adaptation, and Distributional Effects. Edward Elgar
Publishing, Cheltenham.
Mendelsohn, R., Dinar, A., Sanghi, A., 2001. The effect of development on the climate
sensitivity of agriculture. Environ. Dev. Econ. 6 (2001), 85–101.
Mottaleb, K.A., Rejesus, M.R., Mohanty, S., Murty, M.V.R., Li, Tao. Valera, H.G.,
Gumma, M.K., 2012. Ex-ante impact assessment of a drought tolerant rice
variety in the presence of climate change. In: Paper Presented at the
Agricultural & Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, August
12–14.
Munshi, K., 2004. Social learning in a heterogeneous population: technology
diffusion in the Indian Green Revolution. J. Dev. Econ. 73 (1), 185–213.
Nelson, G.C., Rosegrant, M.W., Koo, J., Robertson, R., Sulser, T., Zhu, T., Ringler, C.,
Msangi, S., Palazzo, A., Batka, M., Magalhaes, M., Valmonte-Santos, R., Ewing, M.,
Lee, D., 2009. Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation. Food
Policy Report. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
O’Brien, D., Hayenga, M., Babcock, B., 1996. Deriving forecast probability distributions
of harvest-time corn futures prices. Rev. Agric. Econ. 18 (2), 167–180.
O’Toole, T.C., 2004. Rice water: the final frontier. In: Paper Presented in the First
International Conference on Rice for the Future. Bangkok, Thailand August 31–
September 2.
Palanisami, K., Mohan, K., Kakumanu, K.R., Raman, S., 2011. Spread and economics
of micro-irrigation in India: evidence from nine states. Econ. Pol. Weekly 46
(26/27), 81–86.
Pandey, S., Bhandari, H., Hardy, B., 2007. Economic Costs of Drought and Rice
Farmers’ Coping Mechanisms: A Cross-country Comparative Analysis from Asia.
International Rice Research Institute, Manila.
Pandey, S., Gauchan, D., Malabayabas, M., Bool-Emerick, M., Hardy, B. (Eds.), 2012.
Patterns of Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties and Farm-level Impacts in
Stress-prone Rainfed Areas in South Asia. International Rice Research Institute,
Manila.
Pandey, S., Pal, S., 2007. Are less-favored environments over-invested?: the case of
rice research in India. Food Policy 32 (5–6), 606–623.
Pathak, H., Tewari, A., Sankhyan, S., Dubey, D.S., Mina, U., Singh, V.K., Jain, N., Bhatia,
A., 2011. Direct-seeded rice: potential, performance and problems. Curr. Adv.
Agric. Sci. 3 (2), 77–88.
Peck, D.E., Adams, R.M., 2010. Farm-level impacts of prolonged drought: is a
multiyear event more than the sum of its parts? Aust. J. Resour. Econ. 54 (1),
43–60.
Pérez y Pérez, L., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., 2009. Assessing the socioeconomic impacts of
drought in the Ebro River Basin. Span. J. Agric. Res. 7 (2), 269–280.
Pray, C., Nagarajan, L., Li, L., Huang, J., Hu, R., Selvaraj, K.N., Napasintuwong, O., Babu,
R.C., 2011. Potential impact of biotechnology on adaption of agriculture to
climate change: the case of drought tolerant rice breeding in Asia. Sustainability
3 (10), 1723–1741.
Quiroga, S., Iglesias, A., 2009. A comparison of the climate risks of cereal, citrus,
grapevine and olive production in Spain. Agric. Syst. 101, 91–100.
Rathore, B.M.S., Sud, R., Saxena, V., Rathore, L.S., Rathore, T.S., Subrahmanyam, V.G.,
Roy, M.M., 2014. Drought conditions and management strategies in India. In:
Country Report Presented at the Regional Workshop for Asia-Pacific on Capacity
Development to Support National Drought Management Policies Hanoi, UN-
Water Initiative, May 6–9.
Sanghi, A., Mendelsohn, R., 2008. The impacts of global warming on farmers in
Brazil and India. Glob. Environ. Change 18 (4), 655–665.
Sanghi, A., Mendelsohn, R., Dinar, A., 1998. The climate sensitivity of Indian
agriculture. In: Dinar, A., Mendelsohn, R., Evenson, R., Parikh, J., Sanghi, A.,
Kumar, K., McKinsey, J., Lonergon, S. (Eds.), Measuring the Impact of Climatic
Change on Indian Agriculture. World Bank Technical Report No. 409, World
Bank, Washington.
Schlenker, W., Roberts, M.J., 2006. Estimating the Impact of Climate Change on Crop
Yields: The Importance of Non-linear Temperature Effects. Working Paper
13799, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge.
Selvaraj, K.N., Ramasamy, C., 2006. Drought, agricultural risk and rural income: case
of a water limiting rice production environment, Tamil Nadu. Econ. Pol. Weekly
41 (26), 2739–2746.
Sharma, P.K., Bhushan, L., Ladha, J.K., Naresh, R.K., Gupta, R.K., Balasubramanian,
B.V., Bouman, B.A.M., 2002. Crop water relations in rice–wheat cropping under
different tillage systems and water management practices in a marginally sodic,
medium-textured soil. In: Bouman, B.A.M., Hengsdijk, H., Hardy, B., Toung, T.P.,
Ladha, J.K. (Eds.), Water-wise Rice Production. International Rice Research
Institute, Manila.
Sivakumar, S., Kerbart, E., 2004. Drought, sustenance and livelihoods: ‘Akal’ survey
in Rajasthan. Econ. Pol. Weekly 39 (3), 285–294.
Stern, N., 2006. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. H.M. Treasury,
London.
TAC (Technical Advisory Committee of the CGIAR), 1994. A Review of CGIAR
Priorities and Strategies. TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome.
Udmale, P., Ichikawa, Y., Manandhar, S., Ishidaira, H., Kiem, A.S., 2014. Farmers’
perception of drought impacts, local adaptation and administrative mitigation
measures in Maharashtra State, India. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduction 10, 250–
269.
Virk, S.D., Witcombe, J.R., 2007. Trade-offs between on-farm varietal diversity and
highly client-oriented breeding: a case study of upland rice in India. Genet.
Resour. Crop Evol. 54, 823–835.
Waddington, S.R., Li, X., Dixon, J., Hyman, G., de Vivente, M.C., 2010. Getting the
focus right: production constraints for six major food crops in Asian and African
farming systems. Food Secur. 2 (1), 27–48.
Wassmann, R., Dobermann, A., 2007. Climate change adaptation through rice
production in regions with high poverty levels. SAT e-J. 4 (1), 1–24.
Wassmann, R., Jagdish, S.V.K., Heuer, S., Ismail, A., Redona, E., Serraj, R., Singh, R.K.,
Howell, G., Pathak, H., Sumfleth, K., 2009. Climate change affecting rice
production: the physiological and agronomic basis for possible adaptation
strategies. Adv. Agron. 101, 59–122.
World Bank, 2013. Turn Down the Heat: Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts, and
the Case for Resilience. A Report for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Xiao-Jun, W., Jian-Yun, Z., Shahid, S., El Mahdi, A., Rui-Min, H., Zhen-Xin, B., Ali, M.,
2012. Water resources management strategy for adaptation to droughts in
China. Mitigation Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 17 (8), 1–15.
Yu, T., Babcock, B.A., 2010. Are U.S. corn and soybeans becoming more drought
tolerant? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 92 (5), 1310–1323.