ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT • OPEN ACCESS

Sustainable Alternative Futures for Agriculture in India—the energy,

emissions, and resource implications
To cite this article before publication: Kaveri Ashok et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. in press https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf0cd

Manuscript version: Accepted Manuscript

Accepted Manuscript is “the version of the article accepted for publication including all changes made as a result of the peer review process,
and which may also include the addition to the article by IOP Publishing of a header, an article ID, a cover sheet and/or an ‘Accepted
Manuscript’ watermark, but excluding any other editing, typesetting or other changes made by IOP Publishing and/or its licensors”

This Accepted Manuscript is © 2021 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd.

As the Version of Record of this article is going to be / has been published on a gold open access basis under a CC BY 3.0 licence, this Accepted
Manuscript is available for reuse under a CC BY 3.0 licence immediately.

Everyone is permitted to use all or part of the original content in this article, provided that they adhere to all the terms of the licence
https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/3.0

Although reasonable endeavours have been taken to obtain all necessary permissions from third parties to include their copyrighted content
within this article, their full citation and copyright line may not be present in this Accepted Manuscript version. Before using any content from this
article, please refer to the Version of Record on IOPscience once published for full citation and copyright details, as permissions may be required.
All third party content is fully copyright protected and is not published on a gold open access basis under a CC BY licence, unless that is
specifically stated in the figure caption in the Version of Record.

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 89.185.77.72 on 23/03/2021 at 02:08

Page 1 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

1
2
3
4 Sustainable Alternative Futures for Agriculture in India—
5
6
7 the Energy, Emissions, and Resource Implications
8

pt
9
10
Authors and affiliations:
11
12
13
Kaveri Ashoka, Ramya Natarajana, Poornima Kumara, Kabir Sharmab, Mihir Mathurb

cri
14
15
16 a Center
17 for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP)
18 10th, No. 18, Mayura Street
19
20
Papanna Layout, Nagashettyhalli

us
21 R.M.V. 2nd Stage
22 Bangalore, IN 560094
23
24 India
25
26
DESTA Research LLP
27
28
29
b

ABL Workspaces
an
G-56, Green Park (Main)
30
31 New Delhi, Delhi 110016
32 India
dM
33
34
35 Corresponding author: Ramya Natarajan (ramya@cstep.in)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
pte

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce

52
53
54
55
56
Ac

57
58
59
60
 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1 Page 2 of 35

1
2
3
4 1 Abstract
5
6
7 2 India’s falling aquifer levels, erratic monsoons, arable land constraints, stagnating crop
8

pt
9 3 yields, growing food demand, and rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions necessitate that
10
11
12 4 strategic interventions be planned and implemented to maintain food security in the
13
country. In this paper, we present two novel system dynamics simulation models—termed

cri
14 5
15
16 6 ‘Sustainable Alternative Futures for India’ (SAFARI) and SAFARI-R (a regionally disaggregated
17
18
7 version of SAFARI)—that can be used to develop and analyse specific interventions required
19
20
8 at the national and regional levels to sustainably maintain food security.

us
21
22
23
24 9 Our simulation results show that increasing micro-irrigation coverage, limiting sugarcane
25
26 10 cultivation, and improving water recycling in domestic and industrial sectors can help
27
28
29
11
an
achieve food production sufficiency within the limitations posed by the availability of
30 12 natural resources. Alternatively, a behavioural shift towards eating (and cultivating) coarse
31
32
cereals instead of rice (which is water intensive) is another effective intervention, especially
dM
33 13
34
35 14 when combined with micro-irrigation or crop yield improvements, and reduced sugarcane
36
37 15 cultivation. When compared to a scenario where current practices continue, these
38
39
16 alternative pathways to food security can reduce annual water consumption for irrigation by
40
41
42 17 18–24%, electricity demand for irrigation by 60–65%, and the agriculture sector’s total
43
pte

44 18 (direct + indirect) GHG emissions by 17–25%, by 2050.

45
46
47 19 Further, simulations on SAFARI-R indicate that the north, centre, and west zones of the
48
49 20 country are considerably pressed for water, while the south and east zones could run out of
50
51
ce

21 land. As a way to meet the food demand in these zones in future, the possibility of crop
52
53
54 22 redistribution is explored along with other strategies such as reducing groundwater
55
56 23 dependence.
Ac

57
58
59
60
Page 3 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

1
2
3
4 24 Introduction
5
6
7 25 Balancing a country’s development goals with its climate commitments is a formidable
8

pt
9
10 26 challenge, particularly for developing countries like India. The UN Global Sustainable
11
12 27 Development Report1 states that neither business-as-usual growth nor incremental changes
13

cri
14
28 will be enough for achieving a country’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)2 and
15
16
17 29 fulfilling its Paris Agreement3 commitments. The report also reviews the trade-offs and co-
18
19 30 benefits of achieving the various SDGs, and stresses the importance of studying inter-
20

us
21
22 31 sectoral dependencies to be able to limit the trade-offs.
23
24
25 32 One SDG, the achievement of which may have substantial trade-offs, is zero hunger. Health
26
27
28
29
33
an
issues like obesity, undernutrition, type II diabetes, and coronary heart disease are

30 34 attributed to specific dietary patterns. Adopting plant-based diets and avoiding red meat
31
32 35 consumption have been shown to reduce these health risks as well as greenhouse gas (GHG)
dM
33
34
35 36 emissions globally 4,5. However, crop cultivation can also be unsustainable. Excessive
36
37 37 dependence on groundwater for irrigation has contributed to its depletion in parts of north
38
39
40
38 and east India6,7. Freshwater depletion, in turn, could pose a threat to achieving various
41
42 39 SDGs, including zero hunger. Further, crop cultivation also contributes to GHG emissions—
43
pte

44
40 methane from flooded rice fields, nitrous oxide from fertiliser use, and energy-emissions
45
46
47 41 from tractors and irrigation pumps8. Climate change in turn affects crop yields9,10.
48
49 42 Understanding such interlinkages is critical to be able to limit the aforementioned trade-offs
50
51
ce

52 43 and achieve sustained food security in the long-term. Models can aid this process of
53
54 44 understanding through scenario analyses and help develop robust strategies.
55
56
Ac

57 45 There are many long-term energy forecasting models with varying purposes, sectoral
58
59
60 46 considerations, and approaches. Some models follow a top-down approach11,12 with GDP-
 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1 Page 4 of 35

1
2
3 47 driven trajectories, while others adopt a more bottom-up approach13,14 and consider
4
5
6 48 development goals too to project future energy demands. However, only a few capture the
7
8 49 interlinkages between sectors, and fewer explore non-economic feedback based on water

pt
9
10
11 50 or resources availability15,16. More often, models consider economic feedback based on
12
13 51 prices and markets17. A recent review18 of 36 conceptual frameworks linking food security

cri
14
15
16 52 and agriculture concluded that most of them are static analyses with limited representation
17
18 53 of non-linearity (feedback loops), and recommended using system dynamics (SD) modelling
19
20
54 to effectively capture interdependencies. Applying an SD approach helps identify the

us
21
22
23 55 unintended consequences of “quick fix” policy solutions to agriculture and natural resource
24
25 56 management problems19, and is useful for longer term modelling.
26
27
28
29
57
an
In this study, we present two novel SD simulation models for India’s agriculture sector with
30
31 58 its dynamic interlinkages and physical feedback processes—‘Sustainable Alternative Futures
32
dM
33 59 for India’ or the SAFARI model (national scale), and the SAFARI-R model which is regionally
34
35
36 60 disaggregated. The SAFARI model includes various development goals and sectors such as
37
38 61 housing, healthcare, education, transport, power, etc., but we focus on food and agriculture
39
40
41 62 in this paper.
42
43
pte

44 63 India is currently self-sufficient in food grain production but is projected to have shortages
45
46 64 in the future as demand increases with population growth20. Some of the other oft-stated
47
48
49 65 reasons for this potential shortage are stagnating crop yields, arable land constraints due to
50
51 66 urbanisation, poor soil health, erratic monsoons, and groundwater overexploitation21,22.
ce

52
53
54
67 Additionally, the demand for food grains for animal feed has been growing owing to
55
56 68 increased demand for animal products. Therefore, our objectives are (i) to estimate India’s
Ac

57
58
69 food grain demand up to 2050, (ii) to explore the policy, technology, and behavioural
59
60
Page 5 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

1
2
3 70 interventions or strategies required to sustainably meet this demand, and (iii) to understand
4
5
6 71 the corresponding implications of these strategies on energy, emissions, land, and water.
7
8 72 Through the SAFARI model, we explore scenarios for sustainably achieving and maintaining

pt
9
10
11 73 food security in India up to 2050, to provide insights towards the country’s mid-century
12
13 74 long-term strategy3 development. To test how some of these national-level scenarios would

cri
14
15
16 75 play out in the different regions of India and to develop region-specific scenarios, we built
17
18 76 SAFARI-R, using which we have examined cropping pattern shifts and the impact of regional
19
20
77 water and land constraints on food security.

us
21
22
23
24 78 Methods
25
26
27
28
29
79 SAFARI model—national
an
30
31
32 80 The SAFARI model is essentially a food security ‘goal-seeking’ model, which is constrained by
dM
33
34
35 81 water and land availability. While food security entails many dimensions, our focus is on
36
37 82 adequate production of food grains23 (rice, wheat, coarse cereals, and pulses) to satisfy a set
38
39
40
83 per capita dietary requirement20,24,25. SAFARI indicates whether food grain production
41
42 84 sufficiency is achieved every year, and if not, estimates what the shortage or gap is so that
43
pte

44
85 one can then explore strategies to bridge the gap. Figure 1 represents the key variables and
45
46
47 86 architecture of SAFARI’s agriculture module through the use of a causal loop diagram (CLD).
48
49
50
51
ce

52
53
54
55
56
Ac

57
58
59
60
 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1 Page 6 of 35

us
1
2
3
4
5

an
6
7
8
9
10
11

dM
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
pte
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
ce

31
32
33
34
35
36 Figure 1 Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) for the agriculture sector in SAFARI. The ‘+’ and ‘-’ signs represent positive and negative polarities, respectively,
Ac

37
between the connected cause-and-effect variables. Exogenous variables are coloured black, endogenous variables are blue (stocks are shown
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Page 7 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

us
1
2
3
4 in dark blue), and intervention strategies are in green. The key balancing loops (or negative feedback loops) are indicated by a B# enclosed by
5 a semi-circle arrow. There are no reinforcing loops in this model.

an
6
7
8
9
10
11

dM
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
pte
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
ce

31
32
33
34
35
36
Ac

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1 Page 8 of 35

1
2
3 87 As shown in Figure 1, a ‘gap in food grain supply for human consumption’ (after accounting
4
5
6 88 for seed, feed, and wastage) causes ‘area under food grains cultivation’ to expand into
7
8 89 available arable land which then results in an increase in ‘food grain production’ and

pt
9
10
11 90 consequently an increase in ‘food grains available for human consumption’ thereby leading
12
13 91 to a decrease in the ‘gap in food grain supply for human consumption’. In this manner, the

cri
14
15
16 92 B1 balancing loop is responsible for meeting food grain production sufficiency and is the
17
18 93 dominant loop as long as there are no land or water constraints.
19
20

us
21 94 When arable land runs out, area under cultivation cannot increase further and therefore a
22
23
24 95 gap in food grain supply builds, thus requiring strategiesi such as improvements in cropping
25
26 96 intensity and yield. Crop yield is a function of fraction of irrigated area under cultivation and
27
28
29
97
an
the type of irrigation, which changes upon exogenous interventions. Water is modelled as a
30
31 98 common stock available for all sectors to draw as per their requirement, subject to water
32
dM
33 99 availability (groundwater and surface water) constraints. Agriculture is the largest
34
35
36 100 withdrawer for water; therefore, water constraints have critical implications for food
37
38 101 security. The total groundwater and surface water demands for irrigation (from food grains
39
40
41 102 and other crops) are calculated in the model endogenously as a function of the average crop
42
43 103 water requirement (CWR) per unit area and share of irrigated area, and type of irrigation.
pte

44
45
46
104 When the total water demand (including other sectorsii) exceeds availability, indicating a
47
48 105 water shortage year, the proportionate area is removed from under cultivation (B2a and
49
50
106 B2b loops). Therefore, in a water-shortage year, the area increase for bridging the food
51
ce

52
53 107 grain gap (B1 loop) is restricted unless water-saving strategies are implemented.
54
55
56
Ac

57
58 In the model, intervention strategies are exogenous and user-input-driven.
i
59 The SAFARI model has all the energy and water demand sectors – we present only the agriculture-relevant
ii
60 modules in this paper. Water demand for other sectors is detailed in the supplementary material section 2.
Page 9 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

1
2
3 108 Overall, these key balancing loops and user-driven interventions dynamically determine
4
5
6 109 system behaviour. While we do report absolute values where possible, the focus has been
7
8 110 to identify trends and system behaviour/shape over time in response to various ‘what-ifs’.

pt
9
10
11 111 The strategies reported in this paper are explained in Table 1. All input data assumptions are
12
13 112 detailed in Supplementary Table S1.1. For comprehensively modelling the agriculture sector,

cri
14
15
16 113 we have also factored in the area under cultivation for non-food-grain crops (such as
17
18 114 sugarcane, oilseeds, fruits, and vegetables).
19
20

us
21 115 Table 1 Descriptions of various what-if scenarios or intervention strategies explored in the SAFARI
22 116 model in addition to the reference case.
23
24 Scenario Abbreviation Description
25
26 In this scenario, water availability is assumed to not be a constraint.
27
28
29
an
Groundwater overexploitation (following current unsustainable
cropping practices) is assumed to continue through progressively
30 Exploitation-as- deeper borewells (depth reaching 100m by 2050). While this is
31 EAU
32 usual representative of the current situation in India, it is a hypothetical
dM
33 worst-case scenario because in reality, continued over-extraction of
34
35 groundwater will lead to disastrous impacts on the environment, which
36
will in turn impact water and food security.
37
38 In this scenario, water use is regulated and only ‘utilisable’ water (1,123
39
BCM) is considered to be the total available water for the country
40
41 (physical feedback of water constraint). All sectors (agriculture,
42
domestic, and industry) draw water from this pool, and in case of a
43
pte

44 Regulated shortage, the feedback is felt by all of them in proportion to their

45 RWU
46 water use demand. Thus, agriculture invariably takes the biggest hit when there is
47 water inadequacy. Simulating such a scenario allows us to identify the
48
49 most effective interventions required to limit water use to within
50 reasonable levels in a climate-constrained world whilst also achieving
51
ce

52 food security.
53 Precise irrigation techniques like micro-irrigation help improve crop
54
55 yields, and also reduce water consumption because of their higher
56 Micro-irrigation Micro
efficiencies. In this scenario, 60% of net irrigated area in 2050 is
Ac

57
58 assumed to be brought under micro-irrigation, which is ~47 Mha. The
59
60
 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1 Page 10 of 35

1
2
3 ultimate micro-irrigation potential for the country has been identified
4
5 to be around 70 Mha.
6 Since sugarcane is a water-intensive crop, we explored a scenario
7 Regulated
8 where area under sugarcane cultivation is assumed to reduce to 4.5
sugarcane SC

pt
9
Mha by 2030 and further to ~4 Mha by 2050 (in EAU and RWU, it would
10 cultivation
11 have grown to >10 Mha based on historical trends).
12
50% of all non-potable water for domestic consumption and 70% of
13

cri
14 Water recycling Reuse industrial water are assumed to be recycled (efficiently withdrawn) by
15
2050.
16
17 This is a combination of moderate-level implementation of the above
18
19 three scenarios. Micro-irrigation coverage is increased to 15 Mha by
Moderate
20 2030 and 34 Mha by 2050 (which is 20% and 40% of irrigated area

us
21 effort Mix 1
22 respectively); 40% of non-potable domestic water and 50% of industrial
combination 1
23 water are recycled by 2050; and area under sugarcane cultivation
24
25 reduces to 4.8 Mha by 2050.
26 By 2050, half of water-intensive rice in our diets is replaced by coarse
27
28
29
Dietary shift
towards coarse Millets
an
cereals such as millets. The share of coarse cereals in food grain
production increases from around 14% (currently) to 33% while rice
30 cereals (millets)
31 reduces from 40% (currently) to 20%, by 2050.
32
In this scenario, we explore what happens if the livestock module does
dM
33
34 Limit on not compete with food grains for feed and instead allows for imports
35
domestic meat Meat import when the demand rises, thereby easing the pressure on local land and
36
37 production water resources. It is also representative of a scenario where the
38
increase in per capita meat consumption over time is less aggressive.
39
40 This is a combination scenario where along with the millets scenario,
41 Moderate
42 around 30 Mha is brought under micro-irrigation by 2050 (which will be
effort Mix 2
43
pte

35% of irrigated area in 2050), and sugarcane cultivation is limited to

44 combination 2
45 6.8 Mha.
46 In this combination scenario, Millets, SC, and meat import scenarios are
47 Moderate
48 assumed to be implemented together along with a yield improvement
effort Mix 3
49 scenario for coarse cereals where by 2050, 10% of the yield gap (which
50 combination 3
51 is the difference between yield and potential yield) is met.
ce

52
35% of all irrigation pumps are assumed to be solar pumps by 2050 (in
53 Solar pumps Solar
54 RWU, it is 10%).
55
56 117
Ac

57
58
59
60
Page 11 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

1
2
3 118 The area under food grains is modelled as a stock with a bi-flow that either adds or removes
4
5
6 119 area. The ‘change in area under food grains’ is calculated using the following equation:
7
8

pt
9
10
120 ∆𝐴𝑓 = [𝐼𝐹 𝐺𝑓 < 0 𝑇𝐻𝐸𝑁 𝑀𝐼𝑁 𝐼𝑓𝑤, ( ) 𝐺𝑓
𝑌𝑓 (
𝐸𝐿𝑆𝐸 (𝐼𝐹 𝐼𝑓𝑤 < 0 𝑇𝐻𝐸𝑁 𝐼𝑓𝑤 𝐸𝐿𝑆𝐸 𝑀𝐼𝑁 (𝐴𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥 ― 𝐴𝑓),
𝐺𝑓
𝑌𝑓 ) ]∆𝑇
11
12
13 121 Where,

cri
14
15
16 122 Index (f) represents the four food grains – rice, wheat, coarse cereals, and pulses.
17
18
123 Index (w) represents causal impact of water shortage.
19
20

us
21 124 A is the arrayed stock to represent area, in hectares; ∆𝐴𝑓 is the change in area under food grain cultivation.
22
23
24 125 G is the variable to represent gap in food grain supply, in tonnes.
25
26
27
28
29
126
an
Y is the variable to represent yield, in tonnes/hectare.

127 Amax is the total arable land available for food grain cultivation, in hectares.
30
31
32 128 ∆𝑇 is the time step (annual).
dM
33
34
35 129 I represents impact on area, in hectares, which is calculated using the equation:
36
37 ― (𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 (𝑇) ― 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦 (𝑇))
38 130 𝐼𝑓𝑤(𝑇) = 𝐼𝐹 (𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑(𝑇) ― 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦 (𝑇)) > 0 𝑇𝐻𝐸𝑁 (𝐶𝑊𝑅)𝑓
39 131 𝐸𝐿𝑆𝐸 0
40
41 132 Where, water demand and supply are in cubic metres, and CWR is in cubic metres per hectare.
42
43
pte

44 133 The energy (electricity, solar, and diesel) required and associated emissions to pump the
45
46
47
134 volume of groundwater required for irrigation are estimated on the basis of the water level
48
49 135 depth and average pump power. The number of pumps required is calculated using the
50
51
ce

136 following equations:

52
53
54 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑
55 137 𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑠 =
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 × 𝐹𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
56
Ac

57
58 𝑃𝑢𝑚𝑝 𝐻𝑃 × 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 × 3960
59 138 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 (𝑔𝑝𝑚) =
𝐷𝑦𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑐 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 (𝑓𝑡)
60
 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1 Page 12 of 35

1
2
3 139 Due to regional variations in variables such as pump capacity (HP) and dynamic head, we
4
5
6 140 assumed a weighted average based on data from the Minor Irrigation Census26. Tractors’
7
8 141 fuel energy is also estimated on the basis of the average number of tractors per hectare and

pt
9
10
11 142 mileage.
12
13
143 Fertiliser industry production responds to the demand from the agriculture sector (based on

cri
14
15
16 144 an average annual fertiliser footprint per unit area of cultivation) through the B3 loop.
17
18
19 145 In addition to food grain requirement per capita, we have also accounted for meat demand
20

us
21
22 146 per capita (meat being an emissions-intensive sector) and the associated livestock-related
23
24 147 water requirement and emissions, as well as cereals requirement for feed. The model is able
25
26
27
28
29
148
an
to capture this competition between food grain availability and feed.

30 149 Other non-energy GHG emissions in the model include methane from rice cultivation and
31
32 150 direct N2O emissions from fertiliser application on managed soils.
dM
33
34
35 151 Based on recommended per capita nutritional requirements27 and nutrients present in the
36
37
38 152 food grains of interest28, we scored the BAU diet and dietary shift scenarios for each
39
40 153 nutrient using the formula:
41
42
43
pte

44
45
154 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑖 = 𝐼𝐹 𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦𝑖 ≥ 𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖 𝑇𝐻𝐸𝑁 10 𝐸𝐿𝑆𝐸 ( 𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦𝑖
𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖) × 10

46
47
48 155 Where index (i) refers to the nutrient being scored, for instance, protein, fibre, calcium, etc.
49
50 156 These scores are shown in Supplementary Figure S2.1.
51
ce

52
53 157 Exploring in detail, the impact of climate change on agriculture, is not within the scope of
54
55
56 158 this study. However, based on secondary literature, we have included a few scenarios on
Ac

57
58 159 how the future food grain gap could be exacerbated by climate change. Using a recent
59
60
Page 13 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

1
2
3 160 assessment on temperature rise predictions for India29 and a comprehensive analysis on the
4
5
6 161 impact of temperature rise on crop yields10, we present three scenarios for climate change
7
8 162 along the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) RCP8.5, RCP4.5, and RCP2.6 30.

pt
9
10
11
12 163 SAFARI-R—regional model
13

cri
14
15
16 164 In order to examine possible strategies for food security at the regional level, we
17
18 165 constructed SAFARI-R. We used hydro-meteorological zoning 31 to determine the resolution
19
20

us
21 166 for this model. Based on river basins and geography, India is divided into north, west,
22
23 167 centre, east, and south zones. The groundwater and surface water availability of each zone
24
25
26 168 was estimated on the basis of average annual precipitation, basin area, and
27
28
29
169 evapotranspiration rates.
an
30
31 170 The national food grain demand is allocated to each zone based on food grain crop
32
dM
33
34 171 distribution pattern. The same model structure—gap, water, and land loops—was recreated
35
36 172 for the five zones by using relevant data sourced from agriculture and water ministry
37
38
39 173 documents (as detailed in Supplementary Table S1.2). In addition, the water stock for each
40
41 174 zone was disaggregated into surface water and groundwater stocks. Figure 2 depicts the
42
43
pte

175 SAFARI-R model architecture and Table 2 describes the scenarios developed using SAFARI-R.
44
45
46
47
176 These scenarios enable the understanding of zonal crop distribution, regional groundwater
48
49 177 vulnerability, and arable land constraints and subsequent impacts on food security.
50
51
ce

52
53
54
55
56
Ac

57
58
59
60
 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1 Page 14 of 35

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

pt
9
10
11
12
13

cri
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

us
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
an
30
31
32
dM
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
pte

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce

52
53
54 Figure 2 Schematic diagram and zonal CLD for SAFARI-R. The zonal sub-models are driven by the food
55 grain demand for each zone, which is based on zonal allocation of the national demand (exogenously)
56 taking into account cropping patterns. Each sub-model then tries to meet the annual demand to limit
Ac

57 food shortage. Total food grain gap from SAFARI-R model reported is the sum of the individual zonal
58 dynamic gaps.
59
60
Page 15 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

1
2
3
4
5
6
178 Table 2 Descriptions of various what-if scenarios explored in the SAFARI-R model based on two kinds
7
8 179 of diets – a business-as-usual diet and a dietary shift towards coarse cereals.

pt
9
Diet type Scenario Abbreviation Description
10
11 Business-as-usual Reference BAU diet_Ref. This is a reference case scenario where cereal
12
13 diet where rice production continues to be distributed among

cri
14 and wheat the five zones as per current patterns.
15
16 dominate cereal Cereal crop BAU diet_Redist. In this scenario, we explore the impact of
17 consumption as redistribution shifting water-intensive rice cultivation away
18
19 per current from water scarce regions such as the north,
20 trends centre and west zones to the south and east

us
21
22 zones. By 2050, rice production from the
23 north, centre and west zones reduces to 7.5%
24
25 of total rice produced in the country (they
26
27
28
29
an currently produce 32% of the total). We also
reduce wheat contribution from these regions
to 70% (from 80% today).
30
31 Groundwater BAU diet_GW Considering the annual replenishable
32
dM
management groundwater resources and withdrawal for
33
34 irrigation, groundwater dependency of
35
36 irrigation is assumed to linearly reduce from
37 72% to 45% in the north; 56% to 45% in the
38
39 south; 75% to 50% in the centre and west; and
40 70% to 50% in the east, by 2050.
41
42 Land use BAU diet_Land The south, east, and west zones have a lower
43
pte

management cropping intensity than the national average,

44
45 and are poised to have arable land constraints
46 in the future. In this scenario, we assume that
47
48 cropping intensity in the south and west zones
49 will increase to 150% and 138% respectively
50
51 (from 124%), and in the east zone will increase
ce

52
to 165% (from 140%) by 2050. This would
53
54 increase the national average cropping
55
intensity from 143% to 156% by 2050.
56
Ac

57 Dietary shift Cereal crop Millets In this scenario, coarse cereals are assumed to
58
towards coarse redistribution diet_Redist. be equally distributed across the five zones by
59
60
 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1 Page 16 of 35

1
2
3 cereals such as 2050, and the share of wheat in the north,
4
5 millets, away centre, and west zones is further reduced to
6 from rice 60%.
7
8 Groundwater Millets diet_GW This scenario assumes reduction in

pt
9
management groundwater dependency of north, centre and
10
11 west zones to 45% by 2050.
12
Land use Millets diet_Land In this scenario, cropping intensity in the south
13

cri
14 management and west zones is increased to 150%, and that
15
of the east zone to 165%. In addition, a slight
16
17 improvement in the average yield of coarse
18
19 cereals is assumed (bridging 5% of the
20 potential yield gap by 2050).

us
21
22
23
24
180 Data inputs
25
26
27
28
29
181
an
The modelling horizon for both the national and regional versions of SAFARI is 2050, and the

182 base year is 2011. Initial values for the stocks (i.e., 2011 values) and inputs for other
30
31
32 183 exogenous variables are provided in Supplementary Tables S1.1 and S1.2. The key data
dM
33
34 184 sources are Land Use Statistics, Global Yield Gap Atlas, International Water Management
35
36
37 185 Institute (IWMI), Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA), National Bank
38
39 186 for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), Indian Council for Research on
40
41
42
187 International Economic Relations (ICRIER), Central Water Commission (CWC), and FAO32–36.
43
pte

44
45 188 Model validation
46
47
48
49 189 Based on recommended validation processes37,38 for system dynamics models, we
50
51 performed some structure and behaviour pattern tests. Results of the behaviour
ce

190
52
53
54 191 reproduction tests (for 2011-2018, simulated compared with real data) for the national and
55
56 192 regional models are in Supplementary Figures S3.1 – S3.13. Additionally, we also ensured
Ac

57
58
59
60
Page 17 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

1
2
3 193 dimensional consistency in the model, and performed extreme condition tests (Figures
4
5
6 194 S3.14, S3.15).
7
8

pt
9
10 195 Results
11
12
13
196 Gap in food grain availability

cri
14
15
16
17
18 197 The current total food grain demand for human consumption (after accounting for seed,
19
20 198 feed, and wastage) in India is around 240 million tonnes (Mt) and is expected to rise by

us
21
22
199 around 70 Mt by 2050. Owing to stagnating crop yield improvements39,40 and growing land
23
24
25 200 and water constraints, meeting this additional demand could be both challenging and
26
27
28
29
201 energy (and emissions) intensive.
an
30
202 The agriculture sector in India has been responsible for overexploitation of groundwater
31
32
dM
33 203 resources and the resultant falling aquifer levels mainly due to highly subsidised electricity
34
35 204 supply 7,41. An accurate estimate of the remaining groundwater in aquifers is yet to be
36
37
38 205 conclusively established but the average depth of irrigation wells in the country has been
39
40 206 increasing consistently42. We consider this in our exploitation-as-usual (EAU) scenario, as
41
42
43 207 described in Table 1, where progressively deeper borewells or other energy-intensive water
pte

44
45 208 purification technologies are used to ensure water supply and therefore food security.
46
47
48
209 While such overexploitation is rampant in many parts of the country, some state
49
50 210 governments have recently started taking steps towards regulating water use through
51
ce

52
211 various policies. Thus, in the rest of the scenarios explored (in Table 1), we assume
53
54
55 212 ‘regulated water use’ (RWU) where only utilisable water (1,123 billion cubic metres (BCM)
56
Ac

57 213 per year of renewable groundwater and accessible surface water) is available for use43. This
58
59
60 214 is a hypothetical ideal scenario, and understandably, moving towards RWU without making
 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1 Page 18 of 35

1
2
3 215 arrangements for alternative water procurement strategies will lead to a gap in food grain
4
5
6 216 supply (Figure 3a) caused by a feedback from water constraint. Here, we have examined
7
8 217 some interventions that could help bridge the gap in food grain supply in RWU by 2050.

pt
9
10
11 a)
12
13 110

cri
14
15 94,835,016.00
16 90
Millions

17
18
19 70
20
tonnes/year

us
21
22 50
23
24
25 30
26
27
28
29
10
an
30 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
31 -10
32
dM
33 EAU RWU Micro SC Reuse Mix 1 Micro+SC
34
35
36
b)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
pte

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce

52
53
54
55
56
Ac

57
58
59
60
Page 19 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

1
2
3
4 110
5
6 94,835,016.00
90
7
Millions

pt
9 70
10
tonnes/year

68,085,312.00
11
12 50
13

cri
14
15 30
16
17
18 10
19
20
-102020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

us
21
22 EAU RWU Millets
23 Mix 2 Millets+SC Mix 3
24 Millets + SC + Reuse
25
26 Figure 3 Projected gap in food grain supply in SAFARI. The difference between food grain
27
28
29
an
production and demand for human consumption up to 2050 across various scenarios when
(a) current diets continue and (b) with a dietary shift towards coarse cereals by 2050. The
30
31 scenarios presented include exploitation-as-usual (EAU), regulated water use (RWU), dietary
32
shift towards coarse cereals (Millets), and a few combination scenarios as described further
dM
33
34 in Table 1.
35
36 218 Considering that micro-irrigation increases crop yields and reduces water consumption44, it
37
38
39 219 seems to be a powerful intervention that reduces the food grain supply gap by half by 2050.
40
41 220 Water-related interventions in non-food-grain sectors, e.g., reducing area under sugarcane
42
43
pte

44 221 cultivation or domestic and industrial water recycling, reduce the gap by around 30% by
45
46 222 2050. A combination of aggressive micro-irrigation coverage and regulated sugarcane
47
48
49
223 cultivation (Micro + SC) can completely bridge the food grain gap up to 2050. Many less
50
51 224 aggressive or moderate combinations of these individual interventions can bridge the gap
ce

52
53 225 by 2050; we present a few examples here (as listed in Table 1). If our current diets continue,
54
55
56 226 Mix 1 which is a combination of moderate micro-irrigation coverage, reduced sugarcane
Ac

57
58 227 cultivation, and water recycling, can completely bridge the gap in food grain supply by 2050.
59
60
 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1 Page 20 of 35

1
2
3 228 In the Mix 1 scenario, B2a is the dominant loop between 2030 and 2037 (where the gap
4
5
6 229 increases due to water shortage), and beyond 2037 B1 becomes the dominant loop to
7
8 230 eventually bridge the gap.

pt
9
10
11 231 The total groundwater demand for rice, wheat, coarse cereals, and pulses in 2019 was 250,
12
13
232 108, 35, and 6 BCM, respectively, and the corresponding surface water demand was 140,

cri
14
15
16 233 60, 20, and 4 BCM, respectively. Rice cultivation is the major factor responsible for
17
18
19 234 groundwater exploitation and has one of the lowest economic and physical water
20

us
21 235 productivities45. Therefore, we have considered a dietary-shift-led crop diversification
22
23
24 236 scenario where by 2050, half of rice in our diets is replaced with coarse cereals such as
25
26 237 millets and maize (Figure 3b). In addition to reducing the gap by around 30%, this strategy
27
28
29
238
an
has co-benefits as well: first, millets are more climate resilient than rice varieties and can
30
31 239 better tolerate diverse abiotic stresses46; second, methane and N2O emissions from rice
32
dM
33 240 cultivation—contributing around 20% of the agriculture sector GHG emissions in India47—
34
35
36 241 can be reduced, and third, millets have a lower glycaemic index and are a healthier
37
38 242 alternative to rice48 (in terms of providing riboflavin, calcium, and fibre) as shown in
39
40
41 243 Supplementary Figure S2.1. The trade-off, however, is that coarse cereals typically have a
42
43 244 lower yield compared to rice and therefore require more land to attain the same
pte

44
45
46
245 production. This is why the Millets scenario does not entirely bridge the gap and in fact
47
48 246 increases it slightly in the beginning—while water shortage is no longer a problem, land is.
49
50
247 This drawback can be addressed by increasing the area under micro-irrigation because it
51
ce

52
53 248 leads to improved yields44, as explored in the Mix 2 scenario, or by pushing for higher
54
55 249 yielding varieties of coarse cereals as considered in Mix 3. Limiting domestic meat
56
Ac

57
58 250 production scenario is another effective ‘add-on’ as it eases the food-vs-feed competition.
59
60 251 This is particularly the case for the dietary shift to millets scenario because coarse cereals
Page 21 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

1
2
3 252 form the largest share of feed among other food grains49. The inverted U shape seen in all
4
5
6 253 the dietary shift scenarios indicates a change in loop dominance from B2a/b to B1 around
7
8 254 2034-37. A combination of the millets scenario with reduced sugarcane cultivation and

pt
9
10
11 255 water recycling in other sectors (Millets + SC + Reuse) can keep the gap lesser than or equal
12
13 256 to zero throughout the modelling horizon.

cri
14
15
16
17 257 Implications of the zero-gap scenarios
18
19
20

us
21 258 Of the interventions presented, there are six scenarios in which the food grain gap is
22
23 259 completely bridged by 2050—EAU, Mix 1, Mix 2, Mix 3, Micro + SC, and Millets + SC + Reuse.
24
25
26 260 In addition to achieving food security, the modelled interventions have implications on
27
28
29
261
an
energy/electricity demand, GHG emissions, and arable land and freshwater resources.
30
31 262 Table 3 shows these implications for 2050 as a representative year.
32
dM
33
34
35
36
37 Table 3 Implications of the zero-gap scenarios in 2050 as a representative year. Electricity demand
38
for irrigation, non-energy agriculture GHG emissions, total agriculture sector GHG emissions, net land
39
40 cultivated, and irrigation water demand.
41
Intervention Electricity, Non-energy* Total# GHG, Land demand, Water
42
43 scenario TWh GHG, MtCO2e MtCO2e Mha demand, BCM
pte

44 EAU 424 556 915 175 1,170

45
Mix 1 161 535 759 172 966
46
47 Mix 2 151 508 730 177 900
48 Mix 3 150 474 689 169 904
49 Micro + SC 150 521 737 169 892
50
Millets + SC + 156 518 747 181 939
51
ce

52 Reuse
53 *includes enteric fermentation methane emissions in livestock, methane from rice cultivation, and direct N2O
54 emissions from fertiliser application in soil.
55 #includes non-energy GHG emissions in addition to emissions from producing electricity for irrigation,
56 combustion emissions from diesel use in pumps and tractors, and emissions from fertiliser production.
Ac

57
58
59
60
 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1 Page 22 of 35

1
2
3 263 In EAU, the total electricity demand for irrigation increases to more than twice as high as
4
5
6 264 those for the other scenarios because of the progressively deeper borewells. Considering
7
8 265 that state governments across India spend around INR 90,000 crore per year on electricity

pt
9
10
11 266 subsidies to farmers (at around INR 4.5/kWh), we estimated that shifting to any of the other
12
13 267 scenarios (from EAU) could save the government at least INR 22 lakh crores by 2050

cri
14
15
16 268 (cumulatively, in today’s value)iii.
17
18
19 269 The difference in electricity demand in 2050 between Mix 1 (BAU diet) and Mix 2 or Mix 3
20

us
21 270 (coarse cereals diets) is around 6-7%, while that between Mix 2 and Mix 3 is less than 1%.
22
23
24 271 However, when we examine the non-energy agriculture GHG emissions, the differences
25
26 272 between Mix 1, Mix 2, and Mix 3 become more pronounced. This is because Mix 2 and Mix 3
27
28
29
273
an
have lower rice methane emissions (due to the shift towards coarse cereals), and Mix 3 has
30
31 274 lower domestic livestock emissions owing to meat imports. The cumulativeiv reduction
32
dM
33 275 (2020-2050) in agriculture sector non-energy GHG emissions by switching from EAU to Mix
34
35
36 276 1, Mix 2, Mix 3, Micro + SC, and Millets + SC + Reuse scenarios is 404, 867, 1116, 606, and
37
38 277 553 Mt CO2e, respectively.
39
40
41 278 When energy-related emissions are also considered, shifting from EAU to the other
42
43
pte

44 279 scenarios could lead to a 17%-25% reduction in annual emissions by 2050, with Mix 3
45
46 280 resulting in the most savings (of 226 Mt CO2e). Switching on the solar pump scenario can
47
48
49 281 further bring down annual emissions by almost 30-35 Mt. The cumulative reduction (2020-
50
51 282 2050) in total agriculture sector GHG emissions by switching from EAU to Mix 1, Mix 2, Mix
ce

52
53
54
55
56
Ac

57
58 iiiAnnual subsidy savings of around INR 55,000 crores in 2030 and INR 120,000 crores in 2050 are possible in
59 each of the combination scenarios due to electricity savings.
60 iv Annual values are provided in Supplementary Figures S2.2-S2.6.
Page 23 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

1
2
3 283 3, Micro + SC, and Millets + SC + Reuse scenarios is 3.23, 3.84, 4.16, 3.6, and 3.23 billion
4
5
6 284 tonnes (Gt) CO2e, respectively.
7
8

pt
9 4
10
11 3.5
12
tCO2e/t foodgrain production

13 3

cri
14
15 2.5
16
17 2
18
19 1.5
20

us
21 1
22
23 0.5
24
25 0
26 2020 EAU Micro + SC Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3 Millets + SC +
27
28
29
2050
an Reuse

30 Rice Wheat CC Pulses

31
32
dM
33 Figure 4 Emissions intensity of food grain production. The total GHG emissions (from energy for
34
35 irrigating food grains, production and application of fertilisers for food grain cultivation, and rice
36
methane) to produce one tonne of rice, wheat, coarse cereals, and pulses under our zero-gap
37
38 scenarios in 2050 are shown in this graph.
39
40 285 Switching from EAU to the other scenarios reduces the emissions intensity of food grain
41
42
43 286 cultivation as shown in Figure 4. The maximum reductions are for rice and wheat (over 30%),
pte

44
45 287 followed by coarse cereals in the Mix 3 and Millets + SC + Reuse scenarios. Overall, the
46
47
48 288 emissions intensity of food grain production decreases by 14% while switching to Millets + SC
49
50 289 + Reuse, 16% for Mix 3, 20% for Mix 2, and over 20% for Micro + SC and Mix 1.
51
ce

52
53 290 Impact of climate change
54
55
56
Ac

57 291 Due to the negative impact of temperature rise on crop yields, by 2050, there could be an
58
59
60 292 additional gap in food grain supply of around 30 Mt in RCP8.5, 16 Mt in RCP4.5, and 1.6 Mt
 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1 Page 24 of 35

1
2
3 293 in RCP2.6 according to our analysis (annual numbers in Supplementary Figure S2.8). This is
4
5
6 294 based on the direct negative impacts of climate change on yield, and does not include the
7
8 295 impact of changes in rainfall or atmospheric CO2. As the yields drop, more land needs to be

pt
9
10
11 296 cultivated to meet the demand, and the observed gap in food grain supply is due to arable
12
13 297 land constraints. Increasing the cropping intensity would bring down the gap. In reality,

cri
14
15
16 298 climate change would also impact water availability which would also pose constraints on
17
18 299 crop cultivation. However, due to lack of appropriate data on current and future (up to
19
20
300 2050) groundwater availability in India, we chose to examine only the direct impact of

us
21
22
23 301 climate change on yield. Further, our RWU and related scenarios already look at a water-
24
25 302 constrained future and therefore the strategies proposed would be relevant for climate-
26
27
28
29
303 change-imposed water constraints as well.
an
30
31 304 Regional context – results from SAFARI-R
32
dM
33
34
35 305 All the scenarios presented so far are important from a national-level strategy planning
36
37
306 point of view, especially towards India’s LTS formulation. In SAFARI-R, we customised the
38
39
40 307 SAFARI model for the five hydro-meteorological zones within India to explore regional
41
42 308 strategies like shifting water-intensive crops away from water scarce areas, etc. as described
43
pte

44
45 309 in Table 2.
46
47
48 310 Figure 5 shows the total food grain gap (added up from the different zones) under the
49
50 311 scenarios described. In the regulated water use (RWU) scenario, which is our hypothetical
51
ce

52
53 312 case scenario where only the ‘renewable’ ground water and utilisable surface water are
54
55 313 assumed to be available for use, food grain gap rises to 106 Mt by 2050. While many parts
56
Ac

57
58 314 of the country are water stressed, the north, centre, and west zones (NCW) are most
59
60 315 pressed for groundwater. So we tried to explore a crop redistribution strategy where mostly
Page 25 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

1
2
3 316 rice and some wheat is shifted away from the NCW region as detailed in Table 2. This
4
5
6 317 reduces the gap by around 20%. Then we reduced the groundwater dependence in all zones
7
8 318 to about 50% on average, and this in combination with the crop distribution strategy brings

pt
9
10
11 319 down the gap by almost 70% in 2050. Noting that the remaining gap is due to land
12
13 320 constraints, we then increased cropping intensity in the south, east, and west zones bringing

cri
14
15
16 321 the national average to 1.56 by 2050, and this almost completely bridges the gap.
17
18
19 322 We also developed the dietary shift scenario (Millets) and found that the impact of crop
20

us
21 323 redistribution, reduced groundwater dependence, and increased cropping intensity was
22
23
24 324 similar to the reference diet combination strategies. We find that whether our current diets
25
26 325 continue or if we shift away from rice towards coarse cereals, crop redistribution alone will
27
28
29
326
an
not be enough to sustainably maintain food security. This is because it would simply shift
30
31 327 the water problems to another region. Reducing groundwater dependence is the most
32
dM
33 328 important strategy. Increasing cropping intensity as a strategy can be avoided if crop yields
34
35
36 329 improve, but that seems unlikely considering the stagnating yields observed already39,40 as
37
38 330 well as the predicted impact of climate change on yields10.
39
40
41
42
43
pte

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce

52
53
54
55
56
Ac

57
58
59
60
 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1 Page 26 of 35

1
2
3
4 120
105,566,216.00
5
6
Millions

100
7
8

pt
9 80
10
tonnes/year

11
12 60
13

cri
14
15 40
16
17
18 20
19
20

us
21 0
22 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
23
BAU diet_Ref BAU diet_Redistribution
24
25 BAU diet_Redistribution+GW BAU diet_Redistribution+GW+Land
26
27
28
29
Millets_Redistribution
an
Millets_Redistribution+GW+Land
Millets_Redistribution+GW

30
31 Figure 5 Projected gap in food grain availability from SAFARI-R in various scenarios. The results are
32
aggregated for the national level from the regional version of the model, SAFARI-R. Crop
dM
33
34 redistribution, reducing groundwater dependence, and increasing cropping intensity are the
35
36 strategies analysed for the two diet types – BAU and Millets.
37
38
39
331 Discussion
40
41
42 332 In this study, as described earlier, principles of systems thinking were adopted to generate
43
pte

44 333 scenarios which tend to be ‘shape’ scenarios rather than ‘range’ scenariosv (which economic
45
46
47 334 models typically forecast50). For instance, the food grain supply is driven by demand and
48
49 335 constrained through feedback from water and land availability, leading to unique shape
50
51
ce

52 336 scenarios as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 5. It is evident from these figures that the food
53
54 337 grain shortage follows a similar trend and shape in both the national and regional models.
55
56
Ac

57
58
59 vRange scenarios depict the impact of changing the value of a critical variable (such as GDP), whereas shape scenarios
60 forecast alternative shapes that the system can take with a mixture of forces.
Page 27 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

1
2
3 338 The regional model estimates an 11% higher gap than the national model in 2050 (~11 Mt)
4
5
6 339 in the regulated water use (RWU) scenario without additional interventions. This difference
7
8 340 is due to the fact that the regional model has separate stocks of groundwater and surface

pt
9
10
11 341 water for each zone; thus, the groundwater issues of the north, centre, and west zones
12
13 342 further amplify the gap.

cri
14
15
16 343 While the water constraint imposed in the RWU scenario could in fact become a reality (due
17
18
19 344 to climate change51 or a volumetric pricing system for water52), we have primarily used it as
20

us
21 345 a hypothetical scenario to explore demand-management strategies. In a simulation
22
23
24 346 environment, it helps explore the question how do we maintain food security in a future
25
26 347 water-constrained world? We have shown that increasing micro-irrigation coverage,
27
28
29
348
an
reducing sugarcane cultivation, recycling of water in other sectors, reducing groundwater
30
31 349 dependence and shifting to surface water use, dietary shifts away from rice, increasing
32
dM
33 350 cropping intensity, and yield improvements are all effective strategies to varying degrees.
34
35
36 351 SAFARI-R demonstrates the zone-wise importance of each intervention strategy. For
37
38 352 example, yield improvements through micro-irrigation, or increased cropping intensity are
39
40
41 353 more important for the south and east zones since they could run out of arable land. Water-
42
43 354 based interventions such as reducing rice or sugarcane cultivation and reducing
pte

44
45
46
355 groundwater dependence are more crucial for the north, west, and centre zones. Crop
47
48 356 redistribution strategies where water-intensive crops are shifted away from water-scarce
49
50
357 regions do have some positive impact but most often also end up shifting the water
51
ce

52
53 358 problems to the new region. So to be effective in the long-term, crop redistribution must be
54
55 359 combined with other strategies such as reduced groundwater dependence and improved
56
Ac

57
58 360 yields (through micro-irrigation or new varieties).
59
60
 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1 Page 28 of 35

1
2
3 361 There are of course some limitations and caveats worth noting about our modelling study.
4
5
6 362 First, adopting micro-irrigation could lead to farmers cultivating more water-intensive crops
7
8 363 or expanding their irrigated area thereby negating the water-saving potential of micro-

pt
9
10
11 364 irrigation53. We have not accounted for such a rebound effect of efficiency improvement in
12
13 365 our study. Second, we have not explicitly modelled costs of production or profits, and

cri
14
15
16 366 instead looked at the system from a more biophysical angle. Considering that the agriculture
17
18 367 sector in India is heavily regulated and driven by policy rather than markets, and the fact
19
20
368 that costs will also be affected by the biophysical constraints, we believe that the trends

us
21
22
23 369 observed in our model will continue to hold true. In our zero-gap scenarios, the electricity
24
25 370 subsidy savings (of around INR 55,000-100,000 crores per year) can be diverted towards
26
27
28
29
371
an
improving farmer incomes, however, further detailed analysis on farmer welfare is an

30 372 important area for future research. Third, a dietary shift towards coarse cereals (and away
31
32
dM
33 373 from water-intensive crops like rice) is a personal choice and could be difficult to
34
35 374 implement, however, the benefits seem to far outweigh the trade-offs. In addition to
36
37
38
375 nutritional health benefits48, shifting away from rice cultivation could potentially avoid the
39
40 376 air-pollution-inducing menace of stubble burning in North India every winter, thereby
41
42
377 resulting in indirect health benefits. Moreover, the otherwise hard-to-abate rice methane
43
pte

44
45 378 emissions will also be avoided. There is already a policy push for growing and eating more
46
47 379 millets, and with the right behavioural nudges, this scenario could be realised. Fourth, we
48
49
50 380 analysed the impact of climate change on food grain production as separate scenarios for
51
ce

52 381 RCP2.6, 4.5, and 8.5, instead of adding on to our what-if strategies. This is because each of
53
54
55 382 our strategies could put us on a different temperature rise trajectory which might skew the
56
Ac

57 383 results if combined. Finally, while we have tried our best to ensure that the scenarios
58
59
60
Page 29 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

1
2
3 384 presented here are reasonable, this is predominantly a what-if analysis so we have not
4
5
6 385 examined in detail the feasibility of farm-level implementation or under specific situations.
7
8

pt
9
10 386 Conclusion
11
12
13

cri
14
387 SAFARI is a novel SD simulation model developed to be a decision-support tool that can be
15
16
17 388 used to generate hundreds of user-driven scenarios, specifically towards formulating India’s
18
19 389 LTS. The SAFARI model can also be customised for other countries or regions – we replicated
20

us
21
22 390 the structure for five regions within India (north, west, centre, south, and east) based on
23
24 391 river basins and geography, to create the SAFARI-R model, also presented in this paper.
25
26
27
28
29
392
an
India’s total food grain demand is expected to reach around 310 Mt in 2050. Using the two

30 393 models, we have selected and discussed some alternative pathways to sustainably meet this
31
32 394 demand (food security) in India. The most effective strategies to achieve food security
dM
33
34
35 395 within the limitations posed by natural resources availability include:
36
37
38 396 1. Increasing precise irrigation (such as micro-irrigation) coverage to 34-50 Mha, and
39
40 397 limiting sugarcane cultivation to 4-5 Mha by 2050.
41
42
43 398 2. A dietary shift where half of the rice that we consume (and cultivate) today is
pte

44
45 399 replaced by coarse cereals by 2050, combined with a yield improvement strategy
46
47
400 such as micro-irrigation or development of high yielding varieties of coarse cereals
48
49
50 401 (where the average yield of coarse cereals increases from around 1.25 t/ha today to
51
ce

52 402 1.8-2 t/ha in 2050).

53
54
55 403 3. Reducing ground water dependence across regions to 45-50% by 2050 (compared to
56
Ac

57 404 ~70% today) and shifting rice cultivation away from the north, centre, and west
58
59
60 405 regions to the south and east.
 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1 Page 30 of 35

1
2
3 406 These alternative pathways have lower water, land, energy, and emissions footprints when
4
5
6 407 compared to the unsustainable exploitation-as-usual (EAU) scenario.
7
8

pt
9 408 While we have presented our scenarios and analyses from SAFARI and SAFARI-R, the
10
11 409 ultimate intended utility of these models lies in users being able to develop their own
12
13
410 scenarios based on their unique priorities. The user interface of the SAFARI model has been

cri
14
15
16 411 designed and will be published online for easy access.
17
18
19
20
412 Acknowledgements

us
21
22
23
24 413 We would like to thank the 2050 Pathways Platform of the European Climate Foundation (ECF), and
25
26
27
28
29
414
an
Agence Française de Developpement (AFD) for supporting this work.

30
31
32
dM
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
pte

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce

52
53
54
55
56
Ac

57
58
59
60
Page 31 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

1
2
3
4 References
5
6
7
8
415 1. United Nations. Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The Future is Now – Science for

pt
9
10
11 416 Achieving Sustainable Development. (2019).
12
13 417 2. United Nations. U.N.G. Assembly, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

cri
14
15 418 Development. (2015).
16
17 419 3. United Nations (UNFCCC). Paris Agreement. (2015).
18
19
20 420 4. Kim, B. F. et al. Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises. Glob.

us
21
22 421 Environ. Change 101926 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.010.
23
24 422 5. Clark, M. A., Springmann, M., Hill, J. & Tilman, D. Multiple health and environmental impacts of
25
26 423 foods. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 23357–23362 (2019).
27
28
29 424
an
6. Famiglietti, J. S. The global groundwater crisis. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 945–948 (2014).
30
31 425 7. Rodell, M. et al. Emerging Trends in Global Freshwater Availability. Nature 557, 651–659 (2018).
32
dM
33 426 8. Smith P., M. Bustamante, H. Ahammad, H. Clark, H. Dong, E. A. Elsiddig, H. Haberl, R. Harper, J.
34
35 427 House, M. Jafari, O. Masera, C. Mbow, N. H. Ravindranath, C. W. Rice, C. Robledo Abad, A.
36
37
38
428 Romanovskaya, F. Sperling, and F. Tubiel. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU)
39
40 429 In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the
41
42 430 Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. (2014).
43
pte

44 431 9. Guntukula, R. Assessing the impact of climate change on Indian agriculture: Evidence from major
45
46
432 crop yields. J. Public Aff. 20, e2040 (2020).
47
48
49 433 10. Zhao, C. et al. Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent
50
51 434 estimates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 9326–9331 (2017).
ce

52
53 435 11. IESS. NITI’s energy sector planning tool — IESS, 2047 | NITI Aayog, (National Institution for
54
55
436 Transforming India), Government of India. http://niti.gov.in/content/niti%E2%80%99s-energy-
56
Ac

57
58 437 sector-planning-tool-iess-2047 (2015).
59
60
 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1 Page 32 of 35

1
2
3 438 12. Parikh, J., Parikh, K., Ghosh, P. & Khedkar, G. Low Carbon Development Pathways for a
4
5
6
439 sustainable India. (2014).
7
8 440 13. de la Rue du Can, S. et al. Modeling India’s energy future using a bottom-up approach. Appl.

pt
9
10 441 Energy 238, 1108–1125 (2019).
11
12 442 14. Rao, N. D., Min, J. & Mastrucci, A. Energy requirements for decent living in India, Brazil and
13

cri
14
443 South Africa. Nat. Energy 4, 1025–1032 (2019).
15
16
17 444 15. Amarasinghe, U. A., Shah, T., Turral, H. & Anand, B. K. India’s water future to 2025-2050:
18
19 445 business-as-usual scenario and deviations. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iwmirr/44522.html
20

us
21 446 (2007).
22
23
447 16. Simonovic, S. P. World water dynamics: global modeling of water resources. J. Environ. Manage.
24
25
26 448 66, 249–267 (2002).
27
28
29
449
an
17. GCAM v5.3 Documentation: Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM).

30 450 https://jgcri.github.io/gcam-doc/.
31
32 451 18. Nicholson, C. F. et al. Conceptual frameworks linking agriculture and food security. Nat. Food 1,
dM
33
34
35 452 541–551 (2020).
36
37 453 19. Turner, B. L., Menendez, H. M., Gates, R., Tedeschi, L. O. & Atzori, A. S. System Dynamics
38
39 454 Modeling for Agricultural and Natural Resource Management Issues: Review of Some Past Cases
40
41 455 and Forecasting Future Roles. Resources 5, 40 (2016).
42
43
pte

44 456 20. Kumar, P., Joshi, P. K. & Birthal, P. S. Demand Projections for Foodgrains in India. Agric. Econ.
45
46 457 Res. Rev. Volume 22, 1–7 (2009).
47
48 458 21. Gahukar, R. T. Food Security in India: The Challenge of Food Production and Distribution. J.
49
50 459 Agric. Food Inf. 12, 270–286 (2011).
51
ce

52
53
460 22. World Food Programme & Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. Food and
54
55 461 Nutrition Security Analysis, India, 2019. (2019).
56
Ac

57 462 23. Swaminathan, M. S. & Bhavani, R. V. Food production & availability--essential prerequisites for
58
59 463 sustainable food security. Indian J. Med. Res. 138, 383–391 (2013).
60
Page 33 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

1
2
3 464 24. Kumar, P., Kumar, A., Parappurathu, S. & Raju, S. S. Estimation of Demand Elasticity for Food
4
5
6
465 Commodities in India. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 24, (2011).
7
8 466 25. Kumar, P. Demand vs Supply of Food in India - Futuristic Projection. Proc. Indian Natl. Sci.

pt
9
10 467 Acad. 82, 1579–1586 (2016).
11
12 468 26. Ministry of Water Resources. 5th CENSUS OF MINOR IRRIGATION SCHEMES.
13

cri
14
469 http://164.100.229.38/sites/default/files/5th-MICensusReport.pdf (2017).
15
16
17 470 27. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015-2020
18
19 471 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. (2015).
20

us
21 472 28. Kaur, K. D., Jha, A., Sabikhi, L. & Singh, A. K. Significance of coarse cereals in health and nutrition:
22
23
473 a review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 51, 1429–1441 (2014).
24
25
26 474 29. Krishnan Raghavan et al. Assessment of Climate Change over the Indian Region: A Report of the
27
28
29
475
an
Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES), Government of India. (Springer Singapore, 2020).

30 476 30. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the
31
32 477 Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014).
dM
33
34
35 478 31. Bhanja, S. N. et al. Groundwater rejuvenation in parts of India influenced by water-policy change
36
37 479 implementation. Sci. Rep. 7, 7453 (2017).
38
39 480 32. Sharma, B., kv, R., Vittal, K. & Amarasinghe, U. Realizing the Potential of Rainfed Agriculture in
40
41 481 India. (2006).
42
43
pte

44 482 33. Global Yield Gap Atlas. Yield Gap http://www.yieldgap.org/gygamaps/app/indexSas.html.

45
46 483 34. Crop Water Information. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
47
48 484 http://www.fao.org/land-water/databases-and-software/crop-information/en/ (2020).
49
50 485 35. Water Requirement of Different Crops. Agropedia http://agropedia.iitk.ac.in/content/water-
51
ce

52
53
486 requirement-different-crops (2010).
54
55 487 36. Land Use Statistics At a Glance 2005-06 To 2014-15. (2015).
56
Ac

57 488 37. Barlas, Y. Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 12,
58
59 489 183–210 (1996).
60
 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1 Page 34 of 35

1
2
3 490 38. Schwaninger, M. & Groesser, S. System Dynamics Modeling: Validation for Quality Assurance. in
4
5
6
491 Complex Systems in Finance and Econometrics (ed. Meyers, R. A.) 767–781 (Springer, 2011).
7
8 492 doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7701-4_42.

pt
9
10 493 39. Ray, D. K., Mueller, N. D., West, P. C. & Foley, J. A. Yield Trends Are Insufficient to Double Global
11
12 494 Crop Production by 2050. PLOS ONE 8, 1–8 (2013).
13

cri
14
495 40. Ray, D. K., Ramankutty, N., Mueller, N. D., West, P. C. & Foley, J. A. Recent patterns of crop yield
15
16
17 496 growth and stagnation. Nat. Commun. 3, 1293 (2012).
18
19 497 41. Dubash, N. K. The Electricity-Groundwater Conundrum: Case for a Political Solution to a Political
20

us
21 498 Problem. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 42, 45–55 (2007).
22
23
499 42. Ministry of Water Resources. 5th CENSUS OF MINOR IRRIGATION SCHEMES.
24
25
26 500 http://164.100.229.38/sites/default/files/5th-MICensusReport.pdf (2017).
27
28
29
501
an
43. Central Water Commission. Water Sector at a Glance. (2008).

30 502 44. Avil Kumar, K., Ramanjaneyulu, A., Ramulu, V., Velchala, P. & Sarkar, N. Micro Irrigation for Food
31
32 503 Security and Improving Water Productivity. in (2017).
dM
33
34
35 504 45. Saha and Kapuria. Resource use efficiency and productivity: An analysis of India’s food grain
36
37 505 sector. https://www.orfonline.org/research/resource-use-efficiency-and-productivity-an-
38
39 506 analysis-of-indias-food-grain-sector-59894/ (2020).
40
41 507 46. Bandyopadhyay, T., Muthamilarasan, M. & Prasad, M. Millets for Next Generation Climate-
42
43
pte

44 508 Smart Agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 1266 (2017).

45
46 509 47. MoEFCC. India: Second Biennial Update Report to the United Nations Framework Convention on
47
48 510 Climate Change. (2018).
49
50 511 48. DeFries, R. et al. Impact of Historical Changes in Coarse Cereals Consumption in India on
51
ce

52
53
512 Micronutrient Intake and Anemia Prevalence. Food Nutr. Bull. 39, 377–392 (2018).
54
55 513 49. MInistry of Agriculture. Status paper on coarse cereals.
56
Ac

57 514 https://www.nfsm.gov.in/StatusPaper/StatusMillets2016.pdf (2014).

58
59 515 50. Arun Maira. Transforming Systems: Why the World Needs a New Ethical Tool Kit. (2019).
60
Page 35 of 35 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-110192.R1

1
2
3 516 51. Zaveri, E. et al. Invisible water, visible impact: groundwater use and Indian agriculture under
4
5
6
517 climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 084005 (2016).
7
8 518 52. Parween, F., Kumari, P. & Singh, A. Irrigation water pricing policies and water resources

pt
9
10 519 management. Water Policy (2020) doi:10.2166/wp.2020.147.
11
12 520 53. Fishman, R., Devineni, N. & Raman, S. Can improved agricultural water use efficiency save India’s
13

cri
14
521 groundwater? Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 084022 (2015).
15
16
17
18
19
20

us
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
an
30
31
32
dM
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
pte

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce

52
53
54
55
56
Ac

57
58
59
60