Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Agriculture and in : Baseline Survey Results 20th May 2020 Study Team

Lindsay Jaacks Divya Veluguri Rajesh Serupally GV Ramanjaneyulu Aditi Roy Poornima Prabhakaran India

54.6% 87.00 1.15 People Small% and Averageha land dependent Marginal holding on farming farmers

Incomes of Farm Households in 8% India

13% 32% Wages and Salaries Cultivation Livestock Non farm businesses

47% Average Income Rs. 77,888/HH Per year in India Source: NSSO, 2014 % Sources of Monthly Income for a Agricultural Household in India Cultivation Wages Livestock 1% 16% 6% 14% Govt/Pvt sources

8% otherenterprises 2% 34% Other sources 7%

Farm Labor 35% 11% MGNREGA

Non Agril: Skilled

Source: NAFIS, 2016 Non Agril Unskilled Objectives

The aim of the study was  To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including especially the lockdown, on agricultural production, livelihoods,  Food security, diet diversity,  Awareness and receipt of government support during this challenging time  Barriers to sowing in the coming season Suresh Gaddala Andhra Pradesh Akhil Ravella Telangana Hari Krishna Nuole Karnataka Karan Peer Maharashtra Rahul Khare Gujarat Jahnavi Kanabar Rajasthan Pooja Jhorar Study team - Enumerators Punjab Vikramjit Singh Haryana Diksha Pandey Uttar Pradesh Md. Shazib Siddique Madhya Pradesh Awadesh Kumar Bihar Shakir Ali West Bengal Aparna Bhagat Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh Prakash Shukla Thank You

 Foundation for Ecological Security (FES), multiple states  SOIL, Karnataka  Area Networking and Development Initiatives (ANANDI), Gujarat  Satvik Promoting Ecological Farming, Gujarat  Sampark Samaj Sevi Sanstha, MP  Sangtin Kisan Mazdoor Sanghatan (SKMS), UP  Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatan (MKSS), Rajasthan  Sarva Sewa Samiti Sanstha, WB, UP, Bihar  Vikas Anwesh Foundation, Gujarat  Rythu Swarajya Vedika (RSV), Telangana  Kheti Virasat Mission (KVM), Punjab Thank you .. continued

 Andhra Pradesh: Balu Gadi, Rajesh, Rohit Gutta, Jayshree, Sudharshan Rao, Prasad  Maharastra: Sheethal, Sudhir Paliwal, Rahul Maganti, Shatakshi, Hema Vishnavi  Karnataka: Nupur, Sajay, Manoj Kumar  Uttar Pradesh: Arundharthi Druv, Meera Sangamitra  West Bengal: Anil, Anuradha Talwar, Devashish Paul, Sunil Kumar Hembram, Somnath Mukherjee  Haryana: Tushar Dhara, Shreshta Sharma, Amith, Aryaman.  Rajasthan: Pallavi Laungani,  Madhya Pradesh: Sunilam, Mahender  Pratap Goswami,, Rohit Parakh,, Nandini, Pardasardhi, Ganesh Chari, Arup Rakshi, Amith, Sharath, Ajay Etikala, Harvest, Agricultural transportation, sale production Upcoming season

Livestock income Survey on:

Wage income

Food insecurity and diet diversity Highest net sown Andhra Pradesh area Bihar Gujarat Highest agricultural Haryana production Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Punjab Rajasthan Telangana Uttar Pradesh West Bengal

12 states Contacts from civil society networks

Snowball Sampling Called up to four additional respondents

Response rate: 76%

Collected from May 3rd to May 15th 12 states and 1,429 surveys

Number of Surveys by State

West Bengal 123 Uttar Pradesh 110 Telangana 179 Rajasthan 131 Punjab 161 Maharashtra 54 Madhya Pradesh 150 Karnataka 101 Haryana 76 Gujarat 87 Bihar 110 Andhra Pradesh 147

0 50 100 150 200 Number Number of Districts by State

West Bengal 10 Uttar Pradesh 16 Telangana 20 Rajasthan 21 Punjab 21 Maharashtra 11 Madhya Pradesh 25 Karnataka 22 Haryana 13 Gujarat 12 Bihar 17 Andhra Pradesh 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Number Participants from 200 Districts Respondent Profile

94% Male Age Groups (%) 35 29.3 30 25 20 14.1 15.1 15 13

Percent 11.6 10 6.6 6.1 4.8 5 0 <35 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65+ years 39 44 49 54 59 64 years years years years years years years Respondent Profile

High educational attainment

Educational Attainment (%) 45 40 38.3 35 29.3 30 25 23.2

20 Percent 15 9.1 10 5 0 No formal Primary school Secondary Grad/Post schooling school grad/Professional Distribution by land-size All India Size class Percent <0.01 3% Sample distribution 0.01 - 0.40 32% 60.0% 0.41 - 1.00 35% 52.7% 1.01 - 2.0 17% 50.0% 2.01 - 4.00 9% 4.01 to 10.00 4% 40.0% >10.01 0% Small + Marginal 87%

30.0% Source: NSSO 2014

Percent 19.9% 20.7% 20.0%

10.0% 6.7%

0.0% 0-2 ha 2-4 ha 4+ ha Landless Small/Marginal Medium Large Production - Harvest 63% of respondents harvested a crop in the past month

26% reported out of season

Harvest related 10% could not harvest due to lock-down related issues

Market price Market access Reasons Government restrictions Labour and machinery Primary crops harvested last month

63% harvested What was done with the harvest in past month (%) 50 44 39.3 40 30 22% stored 20 due to

Percent 12.4 10 2.4 2.1 lockdown 0 Sold it Stored Trying Not yet Wasted it to sell it decided

Reasons for storing (%)

Needs further processing 3.1 Transport not available or restricted… 7.4 Other 10.6 Government did not permit 10.6 Market-related issues 44.4 Home consumption 51.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percent State-trends

Wheat harvesting states 100% 95% 90% 86% 83% 81% 80% 75% 74% 70% 60% 50%

Percent 40% 30% 21% 22% 20% 11% 10% 6% 0% 2% 0% Wheat Wheat Wheat Wheat Wheat Wheat Bihar Madhya Punjab Rajasthan Uttar Haryana Pradesh Pradesh Percent Harvested Percent Sold Percent Stored Trying to sell State-trends

Non-Wheat States 90% 81% 80%

70% 63% 60% 52% 50% 38% 39%

40% 36% 35% Percent 30%

20% 17% 13% 14% 13% 10% 4% 0% Other Other Vegetables Pulse Vegetables Vegetables Andhra Gujarat Karnataka Maharashtra West Bengal Telangana Pradesh Percent Harvested Percent Sold Percent Stored Trying to sell Crop-wise

Crop Wise

Wasted 8%

Trying to sell it 8% 29% 14%

Stored it 47% 17% 32%

Sold it 43% 40%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Wheat Vegetables Other Change in harvest costs (%)

Change in cost to harvest (%)

26%

Higher cost of 53% labour, 21% machinery

Family labour Higher Lower Same 60% reported yield loss compared to last season

Why yield loss (top 5), (%) Yes 90 80.1 80 70 60 50 40

Percent 30 20 14.6 13.6 13.4 12 10 0 Weather Pests Labor not Storage not Transport available available not available

Multiple reasons chosen: Nearly 40% reported lockdown-related issues Change in transportation costs (%)

38% incurred transportation costs last year vs. 64% this year (farmers had to take to the market) 43% 57% of wheat 55% farmers and 35% of vegetable farmers reported higher cost 2% Higher Lower Same Upcoming (summer) season

 56% reported that they anticipate problems for sowing in the upcoming season

Lockdown impacting ability to sow next High cost of season seed and fertilizer(50%) Large 67.3%

Unavailability of Medium 59.5% seed and fertilizer (21%) Small/Marginal 52.8% Labour shortages (37%) Landless 24.7%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% Weather Pests Water Leased Land Lockdown Labor Machinery Market/Inputs Government Permit Transport/Travel Storage Availability Unable to Till Soil Home consumption Processing 100

80

60

40 Percent "Yes" Percent

20

0 No Harvest Stored Yield Loss Impact on sowing (n=145) (n=343) (n=426) (n=750) Other sources of Income Livestock

 77% reported owning livestock  72% only used for home-consumption, 28% earn income  Of those earning an income, more than 60% reported a decline, with an average decline of 36% compared to January/February Decline in income from livestock since January/February (%)

63.5

36.5

Yes No Percent households reporting loss in wages

35% wage- earning households

Large 71%

Medium 75%

Small/Marginal 78%

Landless 90% Average decline in 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% wages is 76% Food Insecurity Food Insecurity

Large Medium Small/marginal Landless

82.4% of landless 59.3% 0.7 of small/marginal Went to bed without eating 0.7 1.1 received extra food 8.7 rations

1.7 Skipped a meal 2.5 4.4 19.6

13.0 Worry about food 24.7 35.2 60.9

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 Percent “Yes” in Past Month Diet diversity

Landless Small/marginal Medium Large 100

80

60

40

Past Week Past 20

0 Percent Reporting Consumption in in Consumption Reporting Percent Compared to other study

 Vikas Anvesh Foundation and seven well-known NGOs  5000+ surveys, 47 districts. Mostly lower-income regions

 68% reported reduction in ‘items consumed’  50% reported eating fewer meals  84% reported Public Distribution System (PDS) support  Phone survey  Socio-cultural barriers (wages, livestock)  Length of survey (quantity of food, etc.)

Limitations  Sample size  Diverse regional conditions  Agriculture is a state subject: root- cause analysis or policy recommendations Conclusions- Income loss  Income loss from cultivation and livestock  10% couldn’t harvest  22% stored due to lockdown. Small/marginal farmers had greatest difficulty  Reduction in yield – nearly 40% of participants cited lockdown as a factor  63% suffered income loss from livestock  Increase in harvest and transportation costs  Livestock and wages  36% reduction in livestock based income  80% wage-earning households reported reduction in wages  76% decline in wage income  53% foresaw barriers to sowing in the coming season due to the lockdown Conclusions-Nutrition Security

 Landless farmers were 10 times more likely to skip a meal and small/marginal farmers nearly 3 times more likely as compared to large farmers  A majority reported receiving extra food rations from the government, which has likely prevented more severe food insecurity  More than 75% of all farmers regardless of size reported consuming grains, pulses, and vegetables in the past week and more than 50% reported consuming dairy and potatoes  Marketing was a huge problem and access to market is still restricted. Needs to be eased quickly and effectively  Government announced 50% subsidy for transportation and storage expenses  Administrative hurdles for small-scale aggregators need to be removed  Considering this as a national disaster additional ‘Input support’ for seed and Policy fertilizer is required implications  Depressed demand for Fresh fruits and vegetables, animal products may continue. Processing for milk, adding eggs to take-home rations, etc. will help to increase demand  Government has already announced  Access to credit – renewal of bank loans  Three-month moratorium  Timely issuance of fresh loans Continued..

 NREGA  Increase in NREGA spending is timely. However, families without job-cards need to be issued cards  Wages can be provided in advance  Need to expand the scope of NREGA (into agriculture, etc.)  PDS system is effective and needs to be diversified as much as possible and additional ration distribution should continue  PM-Kisan funds should be given in a single installment before Kharif to cover income loss  Five states have direct income support measures should also extend the same We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time farmers took to respond to this survey….. Thank you