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

No abstract

No abstract

Background Respiratory infections are among the leading causes of death and disability globally. Respirable aerosol particles released by agricultural crop-residue burning (ACRB), practised by farmers in all global regions, are potentially harmful to human health. Our objective was to estimate the health and economic costs of ACRB in northern India. Methods The primary outcome was acute respiratory infection (ARI) from India’s fourth District Level Health Survey (DLHS-4). DLHS-4 data were merged with Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer satellite data on fire occurrence. Mutually adjusted generalized linear models were used to generate risk ratios for risk factors of ARI. Overall disease burden due to ACRB was estimated in terms of disability-adjusted life years. Results Seeking medical treatment for ARI in the previous 2 weeks was reported by 5050 (2%) of 252 539 persons. Living in a district with intense ACRB—the top quintile of fires per day—was associated with a 3-fold higher risk of ARI (mutually adjusted risk ratio 2.99, 95% confidence interval 2.77 to 3.23) after adjustment for socio-demographic and household factors. Children under 5 years of age were particularly susceptible (3.65, 3.06 to 4.34 in this subgroup). Additional ARI risk factors included motor-vehicle congestion (1.96, 1.72 to 2.23), open drainage (1.91, 1.73 to 2.11), cooking with biomass (1.73, 1.58 to 1.90) and living in urban areas (1.35, 1.26 to 1.44). Eliminating ACRB would avert 14.9 million disability-adjusted life years lost per year, valued at US$152.9 billion over 5 years. Conclusions Investments to stop crop burning and offer farmers alternative crop-residue disposal solutions are likely to improve population-level respiratory health and yield major economic returns.

Agriculture is inherently a risky enterprise because of its dependence on rainfall. To mitigate risks, farmers diversify crops and enterprises, maintain stabilization account or resort to the sale of assets. Crop insurance is a complementary institutional mechanism that aids farmers to cope with risks better. Considering the importance of crop insurance in risk mitigation, this paper using data from a large-scale farmers' survey we identify the factors that influence farmers' decision to buy crop insurance and subsequently assess its impact on farm income, production expenses and productive investments in agriculture. Farmers' adoption of crop insurance is low-4.80% kharif season and 3.17% in the rabi season mainly on account of lack of awareness about insurance products. Nevertheless, the probability of adoption of insurance is higher for those who experience higher crop loss and have some formal training in agriculture. The subsidy on premium also positively influences crop insurance uptake decisions. On the other hand, the factors like the lower social status, tenant farming and exposure to deficit-rainfall in the previous year are negatively associated with the decision to insure. The results on the impact of insurance are not conclusive to prove that insured farmer subsumes higher risks compared to the uninsured.