Irrigation Water Management for Agricultural Development in Uttar Pradesh, India [1st ed.] 978-3-030-00951-9, 978-3-030-00952-6

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xxi
Introduction (Suman Lata)....Pages 1-19
Profile of the Study Area: Uttar Pradesh (Suman Lata)....Pages 21-47
Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework (Suman Lata)....Pages 49-80
Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation Development (Suman Lata)....Pages 81-150
Agricultural Land Use Patterns (Suman Lata)....Pages 151-251
Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops (Suman Lata)....Pages 253-314
Impact of Irrigation on Agricultural Development: A Correlative Analysis (Suman Lata)....Pages 315-347
Back Matter ....Pages 349-372

Citation preview

Advances in Asian Human-Environmental Research

Suman Lata

Irrigation Water Management for Agricultural Development in Uttar Pradesh, India

Advances in Asian Human-Environmental Research

Series Editor Prof. Marcus Nüsser, South Asia Institute, University of Heidelberg, Germany Editorial Board Prof. Eckart Ehlers, University of Bonn, Germany Prof. Harjit Singh, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India Prof. Hermann Kreutzmann, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany Prof. Kenneth Hewitt, Waterloo University, Canada Prof. Urs Wiesmann, University of Bern, Switzerland Prof. Sarah J. Halvorson, University of Montana, USA Dr. Daanish Mustafa, King’s College London, UK

Aims and Scope The series aims at fostering the discussion on the complex relationships between physical landscapes, natural resources, and their modification by human land use in various environments of Asia. It is widely acknowledged that human-environment interactions become increasingly important in area studies and development research, taking into account regional differences as well as bio-physical, socioeconomic and cultural particularities. The book series seeks to explore theoretic and conceptual reflection on dynamic human-environment systems applying advanced methodology and innovative research perspectives. The main themes of the series cover urban and rural landscapes in Asia. Examples include topics such as land and forest degradation, glaciers in Asia, mountain environments, dams in Asia, medical geography, vulnerability and mitigation strategies, natural hazards and risk management concepts, environmental change, impacts studies and consequences for local communities. The relevant themes of the series are mainly focused on geographical research perspectives of area studies, however there is scope for interdisciplinary contributions. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8560

Suman Lata

Irrigation Water Management for Agricultural Development in Uttar Pradesh, India

Suman Lata Department of Geography Ramdayalu Singh College, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University Muzaffarpur, Bihar, India

ISSN 1879-7180     ISSN 1879-7199 (electronic) Advances in Asian Human-Environmental Research ISBN 978-3-030-00951-9    ISBN 978-3-030-00952-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00952-6 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018959847 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Nomads near Nanga Parbat, 1995. Copyright © Marcus Nüsser (used with permission) This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

Introduction of high-yielding varieties (HYV) of seeds, use of chemical fertilizers, and irrigation since the mid-1960s of the last century is known collectively as a phase of Green Revolution in India that led fivefold increase in food crop production and helped in achieving self-sufficiency in food deficit areas and also met food requirements in other areas. Green Revolution brought substantial changes in land use and cropping pattern and increased the yield of crops per unit area and thus helped to raise income levels and standard of living of farming communities living in different parts of the country. Provision of assured irrigation in the adoption of HYV of seeds and fertilizers use has always remained of prime importance. Irrigation has always been a crucial demand for agriculture and more prominent during dry period and to supplement the water needs during low rainfall in monsoon season. This book written by Dr. Suman Lata discusses the scenario of irrigation development and subsequent changes that have taken place during the last two decades in the state of Uttar Pradesh of India. The book draws attention of readers to the prominent problem of fresh water and its management for agriculture in the state. This book also deals with micro-irrigation methods (drip and sprinkler) as most efficient, as they enable water to reach at the root zone of crops through a network of pipes fitted with emitters. This device if adopted can increase crop productivity with less amount of water used, can save the electricity used, and can enhance the fertilizer use efficiency. It promotes precision farming, restricts the problem of water logging, minimizes pest’s infection, and helps in maintaining water table levels. The universality of its application can benefit vast tracts of wastelands, arid lands, and saline lands in hilly area production. The study has been meticulously done by considering all aspects of agricultural development, mainly with reference to sources of irrigation, irrigation intensity, water productivity, and patterns of irrigation and its growth.

v

vi

Foreword

Dr. Lata’s efforts can well be appreciated as she worked out the composite index of agricultural productivity and a composite index of irrigation, and thus, she has arrived to establish a close relation between agricultural productivity and irrigation development in the districts of the state of Uttar Pradesh. The work presented in this book is of great importance in agricultural geography. It is a model study in applied geography and shall be useful for economists and planners. Ex-Chairman, Department of Geography Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India

Hifzur Rahman

Preface

The success of agriculture through irrigation has large implications on the reduction of poverty and maintenance of food security in a nation. With the increase in population, the per capita availability of land is decreasing, making it essential to improve the productivity to meet the increased demand for basic necessities like food, fodder, fuel, and fibre. Usefulness and importance of irrigation can be appreciated by the fact that without irrigation, it would have been impossible for India to have become self-sufficient in food with such huge population to feed. Irrigation is responsible for about 55% of food production in India. This book aims to study different irrigation sources along with water use in crop production and its management for agricultural development in the Uttar Pradesh state of India. In this context, we are looking for a path to achieve sustainable agriculture development. Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state in the country and lies in the most fertile Indo-­ Gangetic Plain. It supports 199 million population of the state. The state contributes a major share to agriculture production in the country. This book takes a close look at the patterns of water supply by various methods of irrigation in the state during 20 years period from 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. It points out to a most promising question of nowadays continuous decrease in the surface water resources which has put an enormous pressure on groundwater resources of the state; as a result, throughout the regions, groundwater tables are declining. Groundwater irrigation in the state is mainly provided from tubewells, which are owned both privately and by the state. It has also observed that tubewell-irrigated farms performed better compared to those irrigated by other sources in terms of cropping intensity, input use, and yields. This study attempts to compare growth trends in area irrigated by major irrigation sources along with area, production, and yield of crops by taking quinquennial (5 years) averages of data for all the districts for four periods of time, viz. 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010, and 2010–2015. Cropping intensity which is one of the factors of intensive agriculture in the state was also discussed by the author to make a glimpse of the present agriculture scenario in the state. It incorporates crop rankings for all the districts, and the crop-combination regions were demarcated, applying Doi’ s (1957) method in order to suggest the most suitable combination for the districts to obtain the maximum profit. The study measures crop vii

viii

Preface

productivity of major crops, namely, cereals, pulses, oilseeds, and cash crops, and delineated crop productivity regions using Yang’s (1965) ‘Crop Yield Index’ method. The study also emphasizes on the water management issues so as to optimize the crop yields and attempts to calculate water productivity (WP) of four major crops in order to increase WP of crops in low productivity regions of the state. This work also presents a correlation between irrigation development and agriculture development in the state. This book will benefit those who are working in the discipline of agriculture. It will attract the researchers focussing on irrigation water management aspect. This book is meant to give the reader a holistic view on the importance of irrigation in crop cultivation and to get higher yields with developed irrigation and suggest ecologically sound practices that help to develop and manage water resources. The entire work presented in this book has been divided into Seven chapters. Chapter 1 describes the research problem, data sources and methodology used in this study. Chapter 2 deals with the general description of the physical and socio-economic profile of Uttar Pradesh. The third chapter deals with the conceptual framework of irrigation water supply more specifically surface and groundwater sources in the state. It elaborates an understanding of the history of the development of irrigation in the state during different periods of time. It also discusses the various methods of management of irrigation water using the micro-­irrigation devices for crop cultivation. This chapter also includes the review of literature collected from many studies, emphasizing the role of irrigation in agriculture development and its management to increase the productivity of water used in agriculture sector. The fourth chapter is devoted to deal with the patterns of water supply and trends of growth in the irrigated area by various sources and for the irrigated cropped area in the state. This chapter also includes the intensity of irrigation and levels of irrigation development in the state on the basis of some selected variables. Chapter 5 focusses on spatio-temporal variations in agricultural land use patterns, including crop-­combination regions and cropping intensity. In Chap. 6, agricultural productivity regions based on major categories of crops, viz. cereals, pulses, oilseeds, and cash crops, and composite productivity by aggregating all crops were computed by applying Yang’s Crop Yield Index method. Water requirements of crops during crop growth period as well as water productivity of four major crops of wheat, rice, maize, and sugarcane were computed for all the districts of the state during triennial ending years 2001 and 2011. Further, this chapter discusses the scope for increasing water productivity of these crops using minimum water to get higher yields in the state. An attempt to compute the levels of agricultural development in the state using 21 variables was also made, and the author has tried to establish the relationship among the variables of irrigation development with the variables of agricultural development, and results are presented in Chap. 7. Conclusion and suggestions to the research problem find its place at the end of the book, followed by a bibliography. Muzaffarpur, Bihar, India

Suman Lata

Contents

1 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.1 Significance and Scope of the Study������������������������������������������������    8 1.2 Objectives������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    9 1.3 Data Sources ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    9 1.4 Methodology ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   10 1.5 Study Area����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   14 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   16 2 Profile of the Study Area: Uttar Pradesh����������������������������������������������   21 2.1 Physical Profile ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   21 2.1.1 Administrative Set Up����������������������������������������������������������   21 2.1.2 Structure and Relief��������������������������������������������������������������   23 2.1.3 Drainage��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   26 2.1.4 Climate����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   29 2.1.5 Soils��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   34 2.1.6 Groundwater Resource Development ����������������������������������   38 2.1.7 Natural Vegetation����������������������������������������������������������������   41 2.1.8 Fauna������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   42 2.2 Socio–economic Profile��������������������������������������������������������������������   43 2.2.1 Population ����������������������������������������������������������������������������   43 2.2.2 Literacy ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   43 2.2.3 Size and Structure of Operational Land Holdings����������������   44 2.2.4 Occupational Structure���������������������������������������������������������   45 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   46 3 Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework ��������������������������������   49 3.1 Irrigation Development: A Historical Perspective����������������������������   49 3.1.1 Irrigation Development in India��������������������������������������������   49 3.1.2 Irrigation Development in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������   51 3.1.3 Irrigation Development in India During Five Year Plans����������������������������������������������������������������������   52 3.2 Sources of Irrigation Water ��������������������������������������������������������������   53 ix

x

Contents

3.2.1 Irrigation by Surface Water Sources ������������������������������������   53 3.2.2 Irrigation by Groundwater Sources��������������������������������������   55 3.3 Water Management in Agriculture����������������������������������������������������   60 3.4 Water Management in Agriculture Using Micro-­irrigation Sources����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   62 3.5 Review of Literature ������������������������������������������������������������������������   64 3.5.1 Irrigation and Agriculture Development������������������������������   64 3.5.2 Water Management and Water Productivity ������������������������   73 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   76 4 Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation Development����������������������������������������������������������������������  81 4.1 Patterns of Growth in Irrigated Area: Total (Gross, Net and Area Irrigated More Than Once)������������������������������  81 4.1.1 Gross Irrigated Area����������������������������������������������������������������  83 4.1.2 Net Irrigated Area ������������������������������������������������������������������  89 4.1.3 Area Irrigated More Than Once����������������������������������������������  92 4.2 Patterns of Growth In Irrigated Area: Source-Wise����������������������������  95 4.2.1 Irrigated Area by Canals ��������������������������������������������������������  95 4.2.2 Irrigated Area by Tubewells����������������������������������������������������  97 4.2.3 Irrigated Area by Other Wells ������������������������������������������������ 105 4.2.4 Irrigated Area by Tanks���������������������������������������������������������� 108 4.2.5 Irrigated Area by Other Means (Ponds, Lakes etc.)������������������������������������������������������������������ 108 4.3 Trends of Growth in Total Irrigated Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 109 4.3.1 Gross Irrigated Area���������������������������������������������������������������� 109 4.3.2 Net Irrigated Area ������������������������������������������������������������������ 109 4.3.3 Area Irrigated More Than Once���������������������������������������������� 111 4.4 Trends of Growth in Source-Wise Irrigated Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������������������������������������ 111 4.4.1 Irrigated Area by Canals �������������������������������������������������������� 111 4.4.2 Irrigated Area by Tubewells���������������������������������������������������� 113 4.4.3 Irrigated Area by Other Wells ������������������������������������������������ 113 4.4.4 Irrigated Area by Tanks���������������������������������������������������������� 115 4.4.5 Irrigated Area by Other Means (Ponds, Lakes etc.)���������������� 117 4.5 Trends of Growth in Irrigated Cropped Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������������������������������������ 117 4.5.1 Irrigated Area Under Cereal Crops ���������������������������������������� 119 4.5.2 Irrigated Area Under Pulse Crops ������������������������������������������ 129 4.5.3 Irrigated Area Under Oilseed Crops �������������������������������������� 133 4.5.4 Irrigated Area Under Cash Crops�������������������������������������������� 136 4.6 Irrigation Intensity������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 139 4.7 Levels of Irrigation Development ������������������������������������������������������ 142 4.7.1 Regions of Very High Irrigation Development ���������������������� 143 4.7.2 Regions of High Irrigation Development�������������������������������� 143

Contents

xi

4.7.3 Regions of Medium Irrigation Development�������������������������� 148 4.7.4 Regions of Low Irrigation Development�������������������������������� 148 4.7.5 Regions of Very Low Irrigation Development������������������������ 149 References���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 149 5 Agricultural Land Use Patterns�������������������������������������������������������������  151 5.1 General Land Use Characteristics����������������������������������������������������  151 5.1.1 Gross Cropped Area��������������������������������������������������������������  153 5.1.2 Net Sown Area����������������������������������������������������������������������  156 5.1.3 Area Sown more than Once��������������������������������������������������  159 5.2 Changes in Cropping Patterns of Major Crops ��������������������������������  161 5.2.1 Cereal Crops�������������������������������������������������������������������������  166 5.2.2 Pulse Crops ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  173 5.2.3 Oilseed Crops������������������������������������������������������������������������  178 5.2.4 Cash Crops����������������������������������������������������������������������������  182 5.3 Trends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Crops: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������������������  187 5.3.1 Trends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Cereal Crops����������������������������������������������������  187 5.3.2 Trends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Pulse Crops������������������������������������������������������  207 5.3.3 Trends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Oilseed Crops ��������������������������������������������������  213 5.3.4 Trends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Cash Crops ������������������������������������������������������  218 5.4 Crop Rankings and Crop-Combination Regions������������������������������  223 5.4.1 Crop Rankings����������������������������������������������������������������������  227 5.4.2 Crop-Combination Regions��������������������������������������������������  233 5.5 Cropping Intensity����������������������������������������������������������������������������  241 5.5.1 Growth in Cropping Intensity ����������������������������������������������  242 5.6 Cropping Intensity vs. Irrigated Area: A Correlative Assessment����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  243 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  250 6 Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops������������������������������������������������������������������������������  253 6.1 Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Productivity Regions������������������������������������������������������������������  253 6.1.1 The Concept of Agricultural Productivity����������������������������  253 6.1.2 Agricultural Productivity and Methods of Its Measurement ��������������������������������������������������������������  254 6.2 Agricultural Productivity Regions: Based on Crop Yield Index Method��������������������������������������������������������������������������  257 6.2.1 Crop Productivity Regions: Cereal Crops����������������������������  258 6.2.2 Crop Productivity Regions: Pulse Crops������������������������������  261 6.2.3 Crop Productivity Regions: Oilseed Crops��������������������������  264

xii

Contents

6.2.4 Crop Productivity Regions: Cash Crops ������������������������������  267 6.2.5 Composite Productivity Regions: Composite Yield Index����������������������������������������������������������������������������  270 6.2.6 Relationship Between Irrigated Area and Crop Productivity��������������������������������������������������������������������������  272 6.3 Measurement of Water Productivity in Crop Cultivation ����������������  277 6.3.1 The Concept of Water Productivity (WP)����������������������������  277 6.3.2 Factors Affecting Water Productivity������������������������������������  281 6.3.3 Consumptive Water Use (CWU)������������������������������������������  281 6.3.4 Methods of Measurement of CWU and WP ������������������������  282 6.4 Water Productivity of Crops�������������������������������������������������������������  284 6.4.1 Water Productivity of Wheat������������������������������������������������  284 6.4.2 Water Productivity of Rice����������������������������������������������������  292 6.4.3 Water Productivity of Maize ������������������������������������������������  294 6.4.4 Water Productivity of Sugarcane������������������������������������������  296 6.5 Relationship Between CWU, Yield and WP of Crops����������������������  297 6.6 Scope for Increasing Yields and Water Productivity of Major Crops����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  298 6.6.1 Wheat Crop ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  308 6.6.2 Rice Crop������������������������������������������������������������������������������  309 6.6.3 Maize Crop���������������������������������������������������������������������������  309 6.6.4 Sugarcane Crop��������������������������������������������������������������������  310 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  310 7 Impact of Irrigation on Agricultural Development: A Correlative Analysis ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 315 7.1 Measuring the Levels of Agricultural Development �������������������������� 315 7.1.1 Irrigation Development ���������������������������������������������������������� 318 7.1.2 Agricultural Land Use Development�������������������������������������� 325 7.1.3 Technological Development��������������������������������������������������� 326 7.1.4 Agricultural Production Development������������������������������������ 329 7.1.5 Human Resource Development���������������������������������������������� 329 7.1.6 Rural Infrastructure Development������������������������������������������ 331 7.1.7 Overall Agricultural Development������������������������������������������ 333 7.2 Correlation Between Irrigation Development and Agricultural Development������������������������������������������������������������ 335 7.3 Composite Index of Irrigation Development Vis-À-Vis Agricultural Development�������������������������������������������������� 341 References���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 346 Conclusion and Suggestions������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 349 Glossary�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 361 Bibliography ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 363 Index�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 369

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Uttar Pradesh: Administrative divisions, 2011����������������������������������   15 Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.4 Fig. 2.5 Fig. 2.6

Uttar Pradesh: geology����������������������������������������������������������������������   25 Uttar Pradesh: drainage��������������������������������������������������������������������   27 Uttar Pradesh: annual temperature����������������������������������������������������   31 Uttar Pradesh: annual rainfall ����������������������������������������������������������   32 Uttar Pradesh: soils ��������������������������������������������������������������������������   35 Uttar Pradesh: distribution of workers by category of work and sex, 2011 ����������������������������������������������������������������������   46

Fig. 4.1 Uttar Pradesh: irrigated area ���������������������������������������������������������������� 86 Fig. 4.2 Uttar Pradesh: growth in irrigated area ������������������������������������������������ 86 Fig. 4.3 Uttar Pradesh: gross irrigated area, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)�������������������� 87 Fig. 4.4 Uttar Pradesh: net irrigated area, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)�������������������� 90 Fig. 4.5 Uttar Pradesh: area irrigated more than once, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)�������������������� 93 Fig. 4.6 Uttar Pradesh: canal irrigated area, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)�������������������� 96 Fig. 4.7 Uttar Pradesh: tubewell irrigated area, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)�������������������� 99 Fig. 4.8 Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in canal irrigated area, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������������������������������������ 113 Fig. 4.9 Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in tubewell irrigated area, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������������������������������������ 114 Fig. 4.10 Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in other wells irrigated area, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015���������������������������������������������������������� 116 Fig. 4.11 Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in tanks irrigated area, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������������������������������������ 117 Fig. 4.12 Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in other means irrigated area, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015���������������������������������������������������������� 118 xiii

xiv

List of Figures

Fig. 4.13 Uttar Pradesh: irrigated area under cereal crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)������������������ 120 Fig. 4.14 Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in irrigated area of cereal crops, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015������������������������������������������ 122 Fig. 4.15 Uttar Pradesh: irrigated area under pulse crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)������������������ 130 Fig. 4.16 Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in irrigated area of pulse crops, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������������ 131 Fig. 4.17 Uttar Pradesh: irrigated area under oilseed crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)������������������ 134 Fig. 4.18 Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in irrigated area of oilseed crops, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015���������������������������������������� 135 Fig. 4.19 Uttar Pradesh: irrigated area under cash crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)������������������ 137 Fig. 4.20 Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in irrigated area of cash crops, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015�������������������������������������������� 138 Fig. 4.21 Uttar Pradesh: irrigation intensity, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)������������������ 141 Fig. 4.22 Uttar Pradesh: levels of irrigation development, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)������������������ 147 Fig. 5.1 Uttar Pradesh: Land use pattern��������������������������������������������������������  154 Fig. 5.2 Uttar Pradesh: growth in land use pattern����������������������������������������  154 Fig. 5.3 Uttar Pradesh: gross cropped area, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)����������������  155 Fig. 5.4 Uttar Pradesh: net sown area, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015) ��������������������������������������������  158 Fig. 5.5 Uttar Pradesh: area sown more than once, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)����������������  162 Fig. 5.6 Uttar Pradesh: cropping patterns������������������������������������������������������  165 Fig. 5.7 Uttar Pradesh: changes in cropping patterns������������������������������������  167 Fig. 5.8 Uttar Pradesh: area under cereal crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)����������������  168 Fig. 5.9 Uttar Pradesh: area under pulse crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)����������������  175 Fig. 5.10 Uttar Pradesh: area under oilseed crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)����������������  179 Fig. 5.11 Uttar Pradesh: area under cash crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)����������������  184 Fig. 5.12 Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in area, production and yield of cereal crops, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015������������������������  192 Fig. 5.13 Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in area, production and yield of pulse crops, 1995-­96 to 2014–2015������������������������������  210

List of Figures

xv

Fig. 5.14 Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in area, production and yield of oilseed Crops, 1995–96 to 2014–2015 ������������������������  214 Fig. 5.15 Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in area, production and yield of cash crops, 1995–­96 to 2014–2015������������������������������  221 Fig. 5.16 Uttar Pradesh: first ranking crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)����������������  228 Fig. 5.17 Uttar Pradesh: second ranking crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)����������������  230 Fig. 5.18 Uttar Pradesh: third ranking crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)����������������  232 Fig. 5.19 Uttar Pradesh: crop combination regions, 1995–2000����������������������  234 Fig. 5.20 Uttar Pradesh: crop combination regions, 2000–2005����������������������  235 Fig. 5.21 Uttar Pradesh: crop combination regions, 2005–2010����������������������  236 Fig. 5.22 Uttar Pradesh: crop combination regions, 2010–2015����������������������  237 Fig. 5.23 Uttar Pradesh: cropping intensity, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)����������������  243 Fig. 5.24 Uttar Pradesh: relationship between cropping intensity and irrigated area by different sources, 2010–2015��������������������������  247 Fig. 6.1 Uttar Pradesh: agricultural productivity regions of cereal crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015) ������������������������������������������������������������������������  260 Fig. 6.2 Uttar Pradesh: agricultural productivity regions of pulse crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015) ������������������������������������������������������������������������  263 Fig. 6.3 Uttar Pradesh: agricultural productivity regions of oilseed crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015) ������������������������������������������������������������������������  267 Fig. 6.4 Uttar Pradesh: agricultural productivity regions of cash crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015) ������������������������������������������������������������������������  271 Fig. 6.5 Uttar Pradesh: agricultural productivity regions based on composite yield index, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015) ��������������������������������������������  274 Fig. 6.6 Uttar Pradesh: relationship between irrigated area and agricultural productivity of crops, 2010–2015��������������������������  278 Fig. 6.7 Uttar Pradesh: water productivity of crops in 2001, (a) water productivity of wheat, (b) water productivity of rice, (c) water productivity of maize, and (d) water productivity of sugarcane������  290 Fig. 6.8 Uttar Pradesh: water productivity of crops in 2011, (a) water productivity of wheat, (b) water productivity of rice, (c) water productivity of maize, and (d) water productivity of sugarcane������  291 Fig. 6.9 Uttar Pradesh: relationship of CWU, yield and WP of wheat, rice, maize and sugarcane crops, 2001����������������������������������������������  299 Fig. 6.10 Uttar Pradesh: relationship of CWU, yield and WP of wheat, rice, maize and sugarcane crops, 2011����������������������������������������������  303

xvi

Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3 Fig. 7.4 Fig. 7.5 Fig. 7.6 Fig. 7.7 Fig. 7.8 Fig. 7.9

List of Figures

Uttar Pradesh: irrigation development, 2010–2015��������������������������  326 Uttar Pradesh: agricultural land use development, 2010–2015��������  328 Uttar Pradesh: technological development, 2010–2015 ������������������  330 Uttar Pradesh: agricultural production development, 2010–2015���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  332 Uttar Pradesh: human resource development, 2010–2015������������������ 334 Uttar Pradesh: rural infrastructure development, 2010–2015 ������������ 336 Uttar Pradesh: agricultural development, 2010–2015������������������������ 337 Uttar Pradesh: relationship between indicators of irrigation and agricultural development, 2010–2015������������������������������������������ 342 Uttar Pradesh: irrigation development vis-à-vis agricultural development, 2010–2015�������������������������������������������������������������������� 345

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Geographical regions of Uttar Pradesh, 2011��������������������������������   14 Table 2.1 District-wise groundwater availability in Uttar Pradesh, as on 31.3.2011������������������������������������������������������������������������������   39 Table 2.2 Number and area of operational holdings by size class in Uttar Pradesh, 2010–2011����������������������������������������������������������   45 Table 3.1 Irrigation efficiency of different methods of irrigation (percent)����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   62 Table 4.1 Region-wise irrigated area by different sources in Uttar Pradesh (percent)������������������������������������������������������������������ 84 Table 4.2 Region-wise growth in irrigated area by different sources in Uttar Pradesh (percent)������������������������������������������������������ 85 Table 4.3 Gross irrigated area to gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 Table 4.4 District-wise growth in gross irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88 Table 4.5 Net irrigated area to net sown area in Uttar Pradesh�������������������������� 89 Table 4.6 District-wise growth in net irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh���������������� 91 Table 4.7 Area irrigated more than once to net sown area in Uttar Pradesh���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 93 Table 4.8 District-wise growth in area irrigated more than once in Uttar Pradesh���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 Table 4.9 Canals irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������ 96 Table 4.10 District-wise growth in canals irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 98 Table 4.11 Tubewells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh���������������������������������������� 100 Table 4.12 District-wise growth in tubewells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 101 Table 4.13 Government tubewells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh�������������������� 102

xvii

xviii

List of Tables

Table 4.14 District-wise growth in government tubewells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������ 103 Table 4.15 Private tubewells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh ���������������������������� 104 Table 4.16 District-wise growth in private tubewells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������ 106 Table 4.17 Other wells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh�������������������������������������� 107 Table 4.18 Growth rate per annum in gross irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������ 110 Table 4.19 Growth rate per annum in net irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������ 110 Table 4.20 Growth rate per annum in area irrigated more than once in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015���������������������������� 112 Table 4.21 Growth rate per annum in canals irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������ 112 Table 4.22 Growth rate per annum in tubewells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������ 114 Table 4.23 Growth rate per annum in other wells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������ 115 Table 4.24 Growth rate per annum in tanks irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������ 116 Table 4.25 Growth rate per annum in other means irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������ 118 Table 4.26 Trends of growth in irrigated cropped area in Uttar Pradesh (percent)���������������������������������������������������������������� 119 Table 4.27 Growth rate per annum in irrigated area of cereal crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������ 121 Table 4.28 Growth rate per annum in irrigated area of selected crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������ 123 Table 4.29 Growth rate per annum in irrigated area of pulse crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������ 131 Table 4.30 Growth rate per annum in irrigated area of oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������ 135 Table 4.31 Growth rate per annum in irrigated area of cash crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������������������ 138 Table 4.32 Intensity of irrigation in Uttar Pradesh�������������������������������������������� 139 Table 4.33 District-wise growth in intensity of irrigation in Uttar Pradesh�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 140 Table 4.34 Levels of irrigation development in Uttar Pradesh�������������������������� 143 Table 4.35 District-wise variations in levels of irrigation development in Uttar Pradesh (Z-scores) ���������������������������������������� 144 Table 5.1 Land utilization statistics in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������  153 Table 5.2 Gross cropped area to the reporting area in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  155

List of Tables

xix

Table 5.3 District-wise Growth in gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  157 Table 5.4 Net sown area to the reporting area in Uttar Pradesh ��������������������  159 Table 5.5 District-wise growth in net sown area in Uttar Pradesh ����������������  160 Table 5.6 Area sown more than once to net sown area in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  161 Table 5.7 District-wise growth in area sown more than once in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  163 Table 5.8 Percentage of area under crops to gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  166 Table 5.9 Area under cereal crops to gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  169 Table 5.10 District-wise growth in area under cereal crops in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  170 Table 5.11 Area under pulse crops to gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  174 Table 5.12 District-wise growth in area under pulse crops in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  176 Table 5.13 Area under oilseed crops to gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  180 Table 5.14 District-wise growth in area under oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  180 Table 5.15 Area under cash crops to gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  183 Table 5.16 District-wise growth in area under cash crops in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  185 Table 5.17 Growth rate per annum in area, production and yield of crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ��������������������  188 Table 5.18 District-wise growth rate per annum in area, production and yield of cereal crops in Uttar Pradesh: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  190 Table 5.19 District-wise growth rate per annum in area under different crops in uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ����������  194 Table 5.20 District-wise growth rate per annum in production of different crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  198 Table 5.21 District-wise growth rate per annum in yield of different crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 ������������������������  202 Table 5.22 District-wise growth rate per annum in area, production and yield of pulse crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  208 Table 5.23 District-wise growth rate per annum in area, production and yield of oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  216

xx

List of Tables

Table 5.24 District-wise growth rate per annum in area, production and yield of cash crops in Uttar Pradesh: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  219 Table 5.25 Ranking of crops in Uttar Pradesh ������������������������������������������������  225 Table 5.26 An abridged part of deviation analysis table (one sheet table)������������������������������������������������������������������������������  226 Table 5.27 Key of symbols used for crop-combination regions in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  238 Table 5.28 Crop-combination regions in Uttar Pradesh ����������������������������������  238 Table 5.29 Cropping intensity in Uttar Pradesh ����������������������������������������������  244 Table 5.30 District-wise growth in cropping intensity of Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  244 Table 5.31 Correlation matrix of variables of cropping intensity and irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh, 2010–2015 ����������������������������  246 Table 6.1 Method of calculating crop yield index of a farm��������������������������  258 Table 6.2 Productivity regions of cereal crops in Uttar Pradesh��������������������  259 Table 6.3 District-wise growth in productivity of cereal crops in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  262 Table 6.4 Productivity regions of pulse crops in Uttar Pradesh ��������������������  264 Table 6.5 District-wise growth in productivity of pulse crops in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  265 Table 6.6 Productivity regions of oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh������������������  268 Table 6.7 District-wise growth in productivity of oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  269 Table 6.8 Productivity regions of cash crops in Uttar Pradesh����������������������  272 Table 6.9 District-wise growth in productivity of cash crops in Uttar Pradesh������������������������������������������������������������������������������  273 Table 6.10 Composite productivity regions in Uttar Pradesh��������������������������  275 Table 6.11 District-wise growth in composite productivity of crops in Uttar Pradesh����������������������������������������������������������������  275 Table 6.12 Correlation matrix of irrigated area and crop yield index, 2010–2015 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  276 Table 6.13 Sowing and harvesting seasons, number of watering and the most critical stages crops in Uttar Pradesh������������������������  284 Table 6.14 Water productivity of wheat and rice crops in India- cited from different studies����������������������������������������������  285 Table 6.15 Consumptive water use, yield and WP of wheat, rice, maize and sugarcane in Uttar Pradesh, 2001 and 2011������������������  286 Table 6.16 Water productivity of wheat in Uttar Pradesh, 2001 and 2011��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  292 Table 6.17 Water productivity of rice in Uttar Pradesh, 2001 and 2011��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  293 Table 6.18 Water productivity of maize in Uttar Pradesh, 2001 and 2011��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  295

List of Tables

xxi

Table 6.19 Water productivity of sugarcane in Uttar Pradesh, 2001 and 2011��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  296 Table 6.20 Correlation matrix of CWU, yield and WP of crops in Uttar Pradesh, 2001 and 2011����������������������������������������������������  298 Table 7.1 List of indicators to ascertain agricultural development in Uttar Pradesh, 2010–2015������������������������������������������������������������ 317 Table 7.2 Composite Z-score values for the selected indicators of agricultural development in Uttar Pradesh, 2010–2015 (Z-scores)���������������������������������������������������������������������� 319 Table 7.3 District-wise Z-score values of selected variables of agricultural development in Uttar Pradesh, 2010–2015 (Z-scores)���������������������������������������������������������������������� 321 Table 7.4 Levels of irrigation development in Uttar Pradesh, 2010–2015���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 325 Table 7.5 Levels of agricultural land use development in Uttar Pradesh, 2010–2015������������������������������������������������������������ 327 Table 7.6 Levels of technological development in Uttar Pradesh, 2010–2015������������������������������������������������������������ 329 Table 7.7 Levels of agricultural production development in Uttar Pradesh, 2010–2015������������������������������������������������������������ 331 Table 7.8 Levels of human resource development in Uttar Pradesh, 2010–2015������������������������������������������������������������ 333 Table 7.9 Levels of Rural Infrastructural Development in Uttar Pradesh, 2010–2015������������������������������������������������������������ 335 Table 7.10 Overall Agricultural Development in Uttar Pradesh, 2010–2015���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 338 Table 7.11 Correlation matrix of sets of indicators of irrigation and agricultural development in Uttar Pradesh, 2010–2015������������������������������������������������������������ 338 Table 7.12 Correlation matrix of variables selected for irrigation and agricultural development in Uttar Pradesh, 2010–2015������������������������������������������������������������ 339 Table 7.13 Composite index of irrigation development vis-a-vis agricultural development in Uttar Pradesh, 2010–2015������������������������������������������������������������ 344

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract  Irrigation is a key driver of agricultural production. It is the practice of applying water to the soil to supplement the natural rainfall and provide moisture for plant growth. In most of the tropical and subtropical countries agriculture depends upon monsoon and irrigation is regarded as an inevitable resource. However, irrigated agriculture faces a number of challenges. Water availability for irrigation is also threatened by non-agricultural water uses (domestic, industrial, environmental etc.). Further, water pollution and groundwater mining have increased the risk for meeting irrigation water needs. It is quite relevant to study this research problem to the study area of Uttar Pradesh. This chapter deals with the introduction of the research problem and also focuses on the data sources collected from various departments, and the methodology adopted to find conclusions to the research problem. Keywords  Composite Z-score technique · Cropping intensity · Intensity of irrigation · Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation (r) · Least-square method of growth · Methodology · Simple linear regression technique · Study area · The simple percentage method Irrigation is a key driver of agricultural production. It is the practice of applying water to the soil to supplement the natural rainfall and provide moisture for plant growth (Weisner 1970). Since the very beginning of plant cultivation, over 10,000 years ago, water has enabled farmers to increase crop yields by reducing their dependence on rainfall distribution patterns, thus boosting the average crop production while decreasing the inter-annual variability (Turner 2004). In most of the tropical and subtropical countries agriculture depends upon monsoon and irrigation is regarded as an inevitable resource. Irrigation has helped in increasing agricultural output in arid and semi-arid environments and stabilized food production and prices of crops (Cai and Rosegrant 2003). At the global scale, irrigated agriculture uses about 70% of the available fresh water resources (Cornish et al. 2004), which accounts for about 80% in arid and semi-arid regions (Dehghanisanij et al. 2006). The success of agriculture through irrigation has large implications on the reduction of poverty and maintenance of food security in a nation (Bhattarai et al. 2002). However, irrigated agriculture faces a number of challenges. Water © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 S. Lata, Irrigation Water Management for Agricultural Development in Uttar Pradesh, India, Advances in Asian Human-Environmental Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00952-6_1

1

2

1 Introduction

availability for irrigation is also threatened by non-agricultural water uses (domestic, industrial, environmental etc.). Further, water pollution and groundwater mining have increased the risk for meeting irrigation water needs (Cai 2005). India is the largest country within the Indian Sub-Continent (ISC), both in terms of land area and population. ISC region is the most densely populated region in the world occupying around 3.2% of the global land area and hosts nearly 23.2% of the world’s population (FAO 2013). Precipitation varies spatially and temporally over the region. The ISC is drained by the rivers Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra, which collectively form the Indo-Gangetic Basin (IGB) and include some of the highest yielding aquifers of the world (Mukherjee et  al. 2015). Geographically, India accounts for 2.4% of the world’s total area and 4% of its water resources. While it is home for about 17% of world’s population and 15% of the livestock, the country has seen a steady growth in the population, averaging an annual growth of 1.3% between 2011 and 2014, reaching 1.26 billion in 2014 (FICCI 2015). In India, rainfall is quite erratic in terms of time and quantity (Dhindwal and Kumar 2005) because of the reason that it depends on nature and hence, rainfall is rarely matched as per the need of crops in terms of time and magnitude in the entire cultivated area (Verma 1993). The country has a very diverse form of agriculture particularly due to varying soil and climatic conditions. The available rainfall has large spatial and temporal variations. Major parts of the country receive annual precipitation between 750 and 1500 mm, with extremely low precipitation in the western parts (2500 mm). Most of the total precipitation occurs during the south-­ west monsoon season from June to September (Kumar et al. 2005; CGWB 2014). In major parts of the country, agriculture is carried out under rain-fed conditions. Sometimes in many areas production of the crop is not possible without the provision of irrigation and in other areas supplemented irrigation makes it possible to maintain crop production at a reasonable level to avoid crop failure due to uncertain rainfall (Cai and Rosegrant 2003). Since the very beginning of civilization, India has emerged as an agricultural country. Agriculture continues to account for a major share of the water demand in India which consumes over 80% of the available water (Amarasinghe et al. 2008). The demand for water in the agricultural sector in India always remains high for growing food and non-food crops to feed the millions and for other needs of the human population (Asawa 2005). Though India has the largest irrigated area in the world, the coverage of irrigation is relatively low (Bhaduri et al. 2008). Although there has been a significant increase in the area under irrigation, still about 65% is devoid of assured irrigation and the agricultural productivity in the rain-fed areas is low (Singh 2015). One of the main reasons for the low coverage of irrigation is the predominant use of flood (conventional) method of irrigation, where water use efficiency is very low. The estimates of Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (1994) indicate that water use efficiency under ‘flood method’ of irrigation is only about 35–40% losses in huge conveyance and distribution of water. India is endowed with a river system comprising more than 20 major rivers with several tributaries. The rivers like Ganges, Brahmaputra and Indus originate from

1 Introduction

3

the Himalayas and carry water throughout the year. The snow and ice melt of the Himalayas and the base flow contribute the flows during the lean season. Apart from the water available in the various rivers of the country, the groundwater is also an important source of water for drinking, irrigation, industrial uses, etc. (Margat and van der Gun 2013). Groundwater accounts for about 80% of domestic water requirement and more than 45% of the total irrigation in the country (Kumar et al. 2005). The water resources potential of the country which occurs as natural run off in the rivers is about 1869 Billion Cubic Meter (BCM) (Suhag 2016), considering both surface and ground water into account. Of the major rivers, the river basin Ganga-­ Brahmaputra-­Meghna is the largest in respect of catchment area of about 11 lakh sq. km. Due to various constraints of topography, uneven distribution of resource over space and time, it has been estimated that only about 1123 BCM of total potential of 1869 BCM can be put to beneficial use, 690 BCM being due to surface water resources (Central Water Commission 2015). Ground water is an annually replenishable resource but its availability is non-­ uniform in space and time. Technically, dynamic ground water refers to the quantity of ground water available in the zone of water level fluctuation, which is replenished annually. The dynamic or the replenishable ground water resources have been assessed as 447 BCM. Keeping an allocation for natural discharge, the net annual ground water availability is 411 BCM. The annual ground water draft (as on 31st March, 2013) is 253 BCM. The average stage of ground water development for the country as a whole works out to be about 62%. Out of 6584 assessment units (Blocks/Mandals/Talukas/Firkas) in the country, 1034 units in various States have been categorized as ‘Over-exploited’, i.e. the annual ground water extraction exceeds the net annual ground water availability and significant decline in long term ground water level trend has been observed either in pre- monsoon or post- monsoon or both. In addition, 253  units are ‘Critical’ i.e. the stage of ground water development is above 90% and within 100% of net annual ground water availability and significant decline is observed in the long term water level trend in both pre-­ monsoon and post-monsoon periods. There are 681semi-critical units, where the stage of ground water development is between 70% and 100% and significant decline in long term water level trend has been recorded in either Pre-monsoon or Post-monsoon. Nearly 4520 assessment units are Safe where there is no decline in long term ground water level trend. Apart from this, there are 96 assessment units, which has been categorised as ‘saline’ as major part of the ground water in phreatic aquifers is brackish or saline (CGWB 2017). In India, the onset of monsoon each year, however, remains uncertain and the rainfall received is highly erratic in nature. Sometimes, failure of monsoon causes drought conditions that adversely affect agriculture over extensive areas of the country (Dhindwal and Kumar 2005). The areas that suffer from chronic drought are confined to west Rajasthan, particularly the districts of Jaisalmer, Barmer, Jodhpur and Bikaner; and Kutch in Gujarat. The most prominent draught years in India have been recorded in the years 1877, 1899, 1918, 1965, 1966, 1972, 1979, 1987 and 2002. Amongst, the drought of 1987 was one of the worst in the country (Jain et al. 2007). In recent years, the drought of 2002 ranked fifth in terms of its

4

1 Introduction

magnitude (Poorest Areas Civil Society 2012). Consequently, the famine conditions, for example, in 1899 and 1900 led to the formation of the Irrigation Commission by the government in 1901. One of the major recommendations of this commission was to develop irrigation to reduce the impact of drought and minimising the chances of famine through increased agricultural production. Consequently, more and more areas were brought under cultivation which led to increase in land use intensity. But, there was no significant impact on the productivity of three major crops of wheat, mustard, and gram. Wheat yield did not change until 1965 and that of rapeseed and mustard until 1985 (Desai and Pujari 2007). After independence, public irrigation works were taken up in all parts of the country. However, in the same period irrigation development under private aegis in low and medium rainfall regions occurred at much higher pace. To some extent, regional differences in irrigation development on farmer’s own account may be ascribed to the difference in state and institutional support provided to the farmers for establishing their own wells and tubewells. Thus, state plans for rural electrification and programmes for subsidised finance to dig wells, and to install tubewells and pumpsets by small and marginal farmers made a difference to the rise of private groundwater irrigation in different states of India (Dhawan 1988). Electric operated tubewells gained importance with the new agricultural strategy initiated during green revolution period in the country. Tubewells are considerably more expansive than primitive forms of irrigation. It is estimated that in India per hectare cost of tubewell irrigation is about twice to that of canal irrigation. Moreover, these wells can only be installed where electric power to operate them is available. Relatively, less wasteful in human and animal labour and time, they are doing a great deal to revolutionize rural life in parts of the northern plains of the country. They make possible to exploit a considerable amount of underground water, which in turn may promote a more productive agriculture (Cantor 1967). Rapid expansions in irrigated areas in recent past, coupled with availability and access to new technology in the form of use of high-yielding varieties (HYVs), fertilizers and irrigation through tubewells and other underground water extraction mechanism since the mid 1960s and 1970s were major underlying factors for the success of Green Revolution in India as well as in other Asian countries. Usefulness and importance of irrigation can be appreciated by the fact that without irrigation, it would have been impossible for India to become self-sufficient in food to support a huge population of the country (Asawa 2005). This experience of ensuring food security has been achieved during the phase of green revolution in many of the developing countries. Increase in food production has helped in increasing per capita income and improving nutrition and health at the national level (Cai 2005). The period 1950–1951 to 1984–1985 witnessed a three-fold increase in the extent of irrigation. The area receiving irrigation from the major and medium projects went up from 9.7 million ha to 25.3 million ha while the area under minor irrigation types like wells and tanks increased from 12.9  million ha to 35.1  million ha (Rao and Deshpande 1986). An easy access to irrigation facilitated intensification of cropping practices and inputs used, thus paving the way for the ‘modernization’ of the agricultural sector. About 60% of rice and 40% of wheat production in developing coun-

1 Introduction

5

tries come from irrigated lands. This transformation was especially successful where agricultural infrastructure was in place, environmental conditions were favourable and support of government policies was available (Swaminathan 1982). While securing the first position in terms of irrigated area in the world, different regions of India have started facing severe water scarcity because the demand for water in agriculture for various purposes has increased. As a result, the number of wells and pumpsets has increased rapidly and at the same time the average depth of water table has lowered down progressively (Dick and Svendsen 1991; Dehghanisanij et al. 2006). Inventoried wells in India rose from 4 million in 1951 to 17 million in 1997and 19 million around 2000, according to IWMI, and their number probably exceeds 23 million at present. The number of diesel or electric pump sets in India has increased even faster, from 87,000 in 1950 and 1,25,80,000 in 1990 to 20 million in 2003 (Zektser and Everett 2004; Margat and van der Gun 2013). Irrigation accounts for above 85% of groundwater withdrawals in the ISC (FAO 2013) and is considered to be the primary contributor to groundwater depletion (Rodell et al. 2009; Tiwari et al. 2009; Bhanja et al. 2014). During the twentieth century, exploitation and pollution put unprecedented stress on groundwater in various regions – in both developed and developing countries. At the same time, groundwater is under increased pressure from population growth, climate change and human activities, with a widespread impact in terms of groundwater depletion and pollution (Margat and van der Gun 2013). In regions supported by irrigation, many rivers are increasingly being depleted with maximum possible groundwater footprint observed in the Gangetic aquifers (Smakthin et al. 2004; Gleeson et al. 2012), and the potential for future irrigation expansion is therefore limited (Rockstrom et al. 2007). Groundwater has steadily emerged as the backbone of India’s agriculture and drinking water security. The contribution of ground water is nearly 62% in irrigation, 85% in rural water supply and 45% in urban water supply (CGWB 2013). Population growth, urban expansion and economic development are increasing other demands for water. Therefore, there is increased competition for water between agriculture and other users, and in many regions reductions in water quality as well as quantity. Stalinization and other contamination of surface and groundwater are major problems (Wild 2003; Khan et  al. 2006; Morison et  al. 2008). Consequently, overexploitation of groundwater resources has resulted in declining water table at a very faster rate. On an average more than a 4 m decline in groundwater levels with respect to decadal mean groundwater level has been observed in several parts of the country (Samadder et al. 2011; CGWB 2014). A more recent assessment by NASA showed that during 2002–2008, three states (Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan) together lost about 109 km3 of water leading to a decline in water table to the extent of 0.33 metres per annum (Rodell et al. 2009). In India, the extreme overexploitation of the resource in some parts of the country coexisting with relatively low levels of extraction in others, the stage of groundwater development in Punjab (145%), Rajasthan (125%) and Haryana (109%) have reached unsustainable levels while Tamil Nadu (85%), Gujarat (76%) and Uttar Pradesh (75%) are fast approaching that threshold. The number of “unsafe” districts has increased from 33  in 1995 to 178  in 2004. Nearly all districts in Punjab,

6

1 Introduction

Rajasthan and Haryana are in the “unsafe” category. Seventy-two percent of the districts in Tamil Nadu and nearly half the districts in Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka are also in unsafe category. While the traditional green revolution states of Punjab and Haryana continues to lead in terms of the proportion of area and population affected by groundwater overuse, what is perhaps more remarkable is that states like Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh are rapidly moving in the same direction of quantitative depletion of their groundwater resources (Shankar et al. 2011). It is believed that one of the major causes of the decline in groundwater tables is the introduction of water-intensive crops such as paddy and sugarcane into the cropping pattern in certain regions. The cultivation of these crops over the years has brought about a massive decline in the water level. Secondly, the lack of a clear policy on the utilization of groundwater and the supply of subsidized electricity by state governments is encouraging unchecked wasteful exploitation of groundwater resources (Government of India 2016). Due to administrative simplicity, many states in the north, notably Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana operate on a flat rate system i.e. a water extracting device is charged a monthly rate per horsepower (hp) of the pumping plant regardless of actual power use. Since power is a main component of the cost of ground water extraction, the availability of cheap or subsidised power in these states adds to the greater extraction of this resource (Bhalla 2007). In 2009, of the total amount of ground water extracted, 89% was for irrigation, and 11% was for domestic and industrial uses (CGWB 2013). The Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) of Indian and ground water departments of other countries estimate the total rate of groundwater extraction in the Indian-Nepal-Bangladesh portion of the Ganga-Brahmputra and Indus basins was 172 km3/year during the mid-1990’s. Furthermore, extraction rates have increased dramatically over the last few years and it is likely that more recent rates were much larger (CGWB 2006; Foster et al. 2008). Additionally, groundwater in large parts of the north Indian shallow alluvial aquifers are anoxic, and are enriched with elevated As concentrations (Mukherjee et  al. 2008; Saha et  al. 2010; Bhattacharya et  al. 2011, 2014). Elevated groundwater concentrations have been identified in groundwater of 86 districts in 10 Indian states (CGWB 2015). The pollution is believed to have further aggravated due to extensive groundwater abstraction (Mukherjee et al. 2011). High concentrations of groundwater fluoride have also been observed, mostly in the crystalline aquifers in parts of 19 states (Maheshwari 2006; CGWB 2015). Large areas of the Ganges aquifers have been recently found to be vulnerable to groundwater pesticide pollution (Saha and Alam 2014). Intensive agriculture in the IGB basins is associated with generous input of chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides that potentially infiltrates to the groundwater systems. Consequently, most of ISC has been marked as highly water stressed areas (Bates et al. 2008). The sustainable development and efficient management of water is an increasingly complex challenge in India. Increasing population, growing urbanization and rapid industrialization combined with the need for raising agricultural production generates competing demands for water. Management of ground water resources requires a structured approach starting its usage monitoring of estimating the resources, monitoring of water levels and quality, analysing hazards to ground water

1 Introduction

7

regime and developing management strategies for their control. National Water Policy, 2012 has laid emphasis on periodic assessment of ground water resources on scientific basis. The trends in water availability due to various factors including climate change must also be assessed and accounted for during water resources planning. To meet the increasing demands of water, the National Water Policy, 2012 advocates direct use of rainfall, desalination and avoidance of inadvertent evapotranspiration for augmenting utilizable water resources (CGWB 2017). Monitoring total water storage on and beneath Earth’s surface is essential for understanding the hydrological cycle in a changing climate, and for achieving sustainable water management for a continually increasing population (Tiwari et al. 2009). In recent years, the term “socio-hydrology” was emerged as an attempt to better understand the interactions and feedback loops within water management systems (Nüsser et al. 2012; Sivapalan et al. 2012), since then the papers of many researchers have explored the usefulness and applicability of conceptual approaches within this research field (Blair and Buytaert 2016; Wesselink et al. 2017). The growing interest in this concept of socio-hydrology reflects its validity as a lens with which to identify problems and find solutions toward critical human–water relations (Nüsser 2017). In socio-hydrology, humans and their actions are considered part and parcel of water cycle dynamics, and the aim is to predict the dynamics of both (Sivapalan et al. 2012). The integrated perspective of socio-hydrology provides a flexible and nuanced way to deal with a multitude of water related issues across various scales. The socio-hydrological perspective provides for a comprehensive understanding of water systems and aims at solution oriented recommendations (Di Baldassarre et al. 2013, 2015; Sivapalan 2015; Pande and Savenije 2016; Pande and Sivapalan 2016). Thus, socio-hydrology offers novel entry points for a more fertile engagement between the natural and social sciences across different scales ranging from the plot level to entire watersheds. Its interdisciplinary nature encompasses (and integrates) various methodological approaches: from the air (remote sensing), on the ground (empirical field studies), and in the laboratory (modeling) (Nüsser 2017). The research work presented in this book deals with ‘“Irrigation Water Management for Agricultural Development in Uttar Pradesh, India”. The state of Uttar Pradesh is one of the leading states of the country where the main occupation of the rural masses is agriculture. Agriculture supports food and fibre need to the population which amounts about 199.8 million (Census of India 2011) and irrigation is also highly developed, next to the states of Punjab and Haryana. The major part of the state falls in the Indo-Gangetic plain (IGP), which is not only known to have vast ground water resources potential but also comprises one of the largest aquifer systems in the world. The state is a largest user of ground water resources with a gross withdrawal of 5.28 m. ha. m. Region wise the maximum withdrawal (ground water draft) is from the western region covering 30 districts i.e. 2.15 m. ha. m. With minimum withdrawal from Bundelkhand region, i.e., 0.23 m. ha. m. The data reveal that 70% of irrigated agriculture in the state is dependent on ground water. Besides, 80–90% of drinking water and almost all industrial needs in the state are also being fulfilled by ground water resulting into its continuous escalated abstraction and declining water level, thereby affecting its sustainability in many

8

1 Introduction

areas. Whereas, its non-integrated and unplanned use mostly in canal commands has led to various geo-environmental problem like water logging and soil sodicity. Over the last three decades, ground water scenario in the state has completely changed, mainly because of indiscriminate exploitation and improper and unscientific management practices both in rural and urban areas, leading to a stage of ‘Hydrogeological Stress’. The ground water estimation data clearly indicate that the state is gradually leading to stressed ground water condition. Studies revealed that 659 blocks are affected with ground water level decline. 179 blocks from 43 districts are categorised as stressed (Over-exploited/Critical). The low rainfall has also aggravated the problem. Therefore, effective interventions and suitable ground water management plans are urgently needed in the state of UP to overcome these critical situations. Wise-full use and conservation can save water which can further be used to irrigate the crops grown under double and triple farming practices. Although an intensive work on water management in irrigation has been well taken up by several scholars working in various disciplines like agricultural economics and disciplines in agricultural sciences, in geography, the attention to this aspect has little been paid. Keeping in mind, an attempt has been made to study this aspect with geographical orientation in 71 districts of the state. This work is an amalgamation of three aspects: sources and growth of irrigation, water management and agricultural development, and to identify the underlying causes of spatio-temporal variations in terms of irrigation and agricultural development.

1.1  Significance and Scope of the Study The significance of the present study is to deal with aspects of agriculture, irrigation and water management, without which agriculture can not be foreseen with uncertain rainfall in the state. The study confines to examine district-wise variations in the growth of major sources of irrigation, area, production, and yield of major crops by taking quinquennial averages for three periods of time for measuring the productivity of crops and computing the growth rate per annum for the period of 20 years. The crop-combinations for the respective districts of the state were determined by applying the Kikukazu Doi’s method (1957) in order to suggest the most suitable combination of the districts to obtain the maximum returns. Though the state is potentially rich in surface and groundwater sources of irrigation however these potentials vary district-wise. The study emphasizes the water management issues to optimise the crop yields in relation to the required levels of water use and attempts to expand its sphere in adopting the method of calculating Water Productivity (WP) of four major crops selected thereby, creating potential for increasing WP of crops in low and very low productivity regions of the state.

1.3 Data Sources

9

1.2  Objectives The following objectives were taken into consideration to the aforesaid problems: • To study the regional variations in sources of irrigation and to examine the growth of irrigated area (gross and net irrigated area) in the state during the period that extends over 20 years. • To study crop-wise growth in the irrigated area in districts of the state. • To compute the inter-district variations in the intensity of irrigation and the levels of irrigation development in the state. • To examine the cropping patterns of major crops and district-wise variations in cropping intensity. • To compute linear growth rates in the area, production, and yields of all the 18 crops grown in the state. • To rank crops according to their areal strength and to determine the crop-­ combination regions of the state. • To assess the impact of irrigation on land use patterns and changes therein. • To measure agricultural productivity (on the basis of crops categorised as cereal, pulse, oilseed and cash crops) and demarcate productivity regions in the state. • To examine crop water requirements and water productivity of major crops (wheat, rice, maize, and sugarcane) and to analyze the relationship between water requirements, water productivity and crop yields during triennium ending years of 2001 and 2011. • To identify the levels of agricultural development on the basis of some 21 selected variables, as well as to establish a relationship with irrigation and agricultural development.

1.3  Data Sources The study is based on 20 years of data from 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. The quinquennial averages of data for four periods of time, viz. 1995–1996 to 1999–2000, 2000–2001 to 2004–2005, 2005–2006 to 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 to 2014–2015 have been taken into consideration. The five-year averages were done to minimize short-term variations in the data. For the study, a map of Uttar Pradesh showing 71 districts have been obtained from Census of India 2011 to show spatial variations in the data. The data needed for the comprehensive analysis were collected principally from various official sources: • Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics of Uttar Pradesh (from 1995–1996 to 2014– 2015), published by the Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. • District-wise Statistical Abstracts (from 1995–1996 to 2014–2015), Directorate of Economics and Statistics (Yojana Bhawan), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

10

1 Introduction

• Agriculture Census (for various years), Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi. • District Census Handbook (2001 and 2011), Directorate of Census Operation, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. • Varshik Prashasan Prativedan (Hindi) 1995–1996 and 2014–2015, Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. • The data pertaining to temperature, rainfall and other aspects of weather and climate used in the study were taken from the Indian Meteorological Department, Pune for the respective years. • The data for the districts namely, Auraiya, Baghpat, Balrampur, Chandauli, Chitrakoot, GBN, JPN, Kannauj, Kaushambi, Mahamaya Nagar, SKN, and ­Shrawasti were not available for the years 1995–1996 and 1996–1997 for the reason that these districts were created after 1997 onwards. The district of Kanshiram Nagar was created a much later in 2008 which is to be included in the Census of 2011. As far as the reliability of data collected from the government agencies is concerned, it is to be noted that the data is collected by the concerned government departments by deputing trained and qualified officials and is based on certain criteria and methods. The data gathered in this way is considered authentic and reliable. The Planning Commission of India and other Government bodies too base their schemes for country’s development plans on such data. Hence, the reliability of such data can not be challenged.

1.4  Methodology The statistical techniques employed for the comprehensive analysis of the data are as follows: • The Simple Percentage Method This method is used in the study for classifying the data into the major categories of very high, high, medium, low and very low so as to present the spatial variations in the context of irrigation and agriculture development in the state. • Intensity of Irrigation Irrigation intensity is one of the methods to measure the frequency of irrigation water use in the sate at different cropping seasons. It shows that the variations in the intensive use of irrigation water methods to cultivate the crops in the districts of the state. It is calculated taking a ratio of net irrigated area to the gross irrigated area of the districts during an agricultural year.

1.4 Methodology

11

• Composite Z-Score Technique The levels of development in the state were computed by applying the Composite Z-score Technique. In statistical terms, the standard score indicates how many standard deviations on observation or datum are above or below the mean. It is a dimensionless quantity which is derived by subtracting the population mean from an individual raw score and then dividing the difference by the population standard deviation. This conversion process is called ‘standardizing’ or ‘normalizing’. The standard deviation is the unit of measurement of z-values, z-scores, normal scores and standardized variables; the use of ‘Z’ is because the normal distribution is also known as the “Z distribution.” The quantity of z represents the distance between the raw score and the population mean in units of the standard deviations. Z is negative when the raw score is below the mean and positive when it is above the mean. Computation of z-score can be done by applying the formula:



Zi =

Xi − X σ

where, Zi = standard score for ith observation Xi = original score for ith observation X = mean for the values of X σ = Standard deviation of X The values of standard scores thus obtained for different indicators were aggregated to obtain the Composite Standard Scores (CSS) for each district so as to ascertain the regional disparities in the development on a common scale. The values of composite standard scores can be computed by applying the formula: Tj = ∑ i Z ij m



i =1



where, j = the district m = set of indicators Zij = Standard score of the ith and jth indicators • Simple Linear Regression Technique This technique was applied to show the impact of different irrigation related variables on agricultural development. Regression technique is a mathematical measure of the average relationship between two or more variables in terms of original units of the data. The degree of regression coefficient determines the magnitude of one variable over the other. Regression goes beyond correlation by adding prediction capabilities. The coefficient of determination (R2) is the square of the correlation coefficient. Its value may vary from zero to one. It has the advantage over

12

1 Introduction

the correlation coefficient in the sense that, it may be interpreted directly as the proportion of variance in the dependent variable that can be accounted for by the regression equation. For example, the r-squared value of 0.49 means that 49% of the variance in the dependent variable can be explained by the regression equation. The other 51% is unexplained. It can be expressed by the equation as:

Y = a + bX

where, X = explanatory variable or independent variable Y = dependent variable a = intercept b = slope of the line • Least-Square Method of Growth In order to compute the rate of growth from a long series of data, Least-Square Method was applied for the above periods of time which provide the reliable growth values indicating the positive and negative trends in irrigated area in each district of the state. Computing the rate of growth with the least square method growth explains, wherever there is a sufficiently long time series to permit a reliable calculation. No growth rate is calculated if more than half the observations in a period are missing. The least square growth rate ‘r’ is estimated by fitting a least square regression trend line to the logarithmic annual values of the variable in the relevant period. The regression equation takes the following form:

ln X t = a + bt,

which is equivalent to the logarithmic transformation of the compound growth equation,

X t = X 0 (1 + r ) t.



In the above equation, X is the variable, t is time, and a = log X0, and b = ln (1 + r) are the parameters to be estimated. If b* is the least square estimate of b, the average annual growth rate (r) is obtained as [exp (b*)−1] and is multiplied by 100 to express in percentage. The calculated growth rate is an average rate that is a representative of the available observations over the entire period of time. It does not necessarily match the actual growth rate between any two periods. • Crop Combination Analysis The crop-combination regions in the state were delineated with the help of Doi’s method (1957). The detail of the method is given in Chap. 5.

1.4 Methodology

13

• Cropping Intensity An index of intensity of cropping can be calculated with the help of following formula:



Cropping Intensity ( CI ) =

GCA ×100 NSA

where, GCA = Gross cropped area NSA = Net sown area • Yang’s Crop Yield Index Method Crop productivity regions have been carved out using Yang’s (1965) Crop Yield Index method. The statistical procedure to calculate crop productivity of cereal crops, pulse crops, oilseed crops and cash crops was given in Chap. 6. • Water Productivity The district-wise variations in Consumptive Water Use (CWU) and Water Productivity (WP) of wheat, rice, maize and sugarcane crops in the state for the periods of 2001 and 2011 were computed by adopting the formula referred to as by Amarasinghe and Sharma (2009) which is presented in detail in Chap. 6. • Karl Pearson’s Coefficient of Correlation (r) This technique was used to calculate the strength of the relationship between the variables (Johnston 1978), and finally, t-test was done to test the significance level of the components. If a ‘computed value’ is greater than the ‘tabulated value’ of ‘t’ at any desired level (0.01 or 1% level, and 0.05 or 5% level), the correlation coefficient is considered to be significant.

(

t=

)(

r = Σxy ⁄ (√ Σx 2 . Σy 2

)

r. n − 2 1 − r2

where, n = number of observations. Techniques used to interpret the results and making cognition better and effective were, for example, the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 16, and diagrams and maps were drawn using Arc GIS Version 9.3 and Microsoft Office Excel 2003 and 2007.

14

1 Introduction

1.5  Study Area With a total area of 240,928 sq. km., the state of Uttar Pradesh forms the northern part of the country extending from 23°52′12″ to 30°24′30″ N latitudes and 77°05′38″ to 84°38′30″ E longitudes (CGWB 2016). It is the fifth largest and the most populous state of the country with a population of 199.8 million (Census of India 2011). Forming a part of the most fertile Ganga Plain, it contributes a major share to agricultural production in the country. The state is divided into 71 administrative districts that according to Census 2011 have been grouped into the following five geographical regions (Table 1.1, Fig. 1.1). These constitute as: I. The Ganga-Yamuna Doab, which can further be divided into three parts: upper, middle, and lower doab. Geologically, the whole region forms part of the alluvial Indo-Gangetic trough. Being most fertile region of the state, it covers an area of approximately 67,150 sq. km consisting 28% area of the state and nearly 33% population. The population density of the region is 1067 persons per sq. km. Out of total 71, 24 districts formed this region. II. Rohilkhand plains lie on upper Ganga alluvium plain and cover an area of about 30,250 sq. km. It is bounded by the Ganga river on the south and Uttarakhand to its west, Nepal on the north and Awadh plains forms its eastern boundary. The districts namely, Bareilly, Bijnor, Budaun, JPN, Moradabad, Pilibhit, Rampur, Shahjahanpur formed this region and cover 12.56% area and 12.91% population of the state. III. Awadh plains designated United Provinces of Agra and Oudh before independence lie in the centre of the state and cover an area of 26% of the state. From an agricultural point of view, it is less fertile than doab, but the soil characteristics are far better than the Purvanchal region. IV. Bundelkhand region spreads over 12% area of the state and covers seven southern districts namely, Banda, Chitrakoot, Hamirpur, Jalaun, Jhansi, Lalitpur and Table 1.1  Geographical regions of Uttar Pradesh, 2011 S. No. Name of region I. Ganga-Yamuna Doab a. Upper doab b. Middle doab c. Lower doab II. Rohilkhand plains III. Awadh plains IV. Bundelkhand region V. Purvanchal region

No. of districts 24

Area (Percent) 27.88

Population (Percent) 32.55

Density (Persons/ sq. km) 1067

7 7 10 8 15 7

11.10 8.97 12.48 12.56 25.97 12.21

7.70 8.16 12.02 12.91 24.54 4.85

1477 888 837 866 840 326

17

21.38

25.16

1105

Source: Census of India (2011)

1.5 Study Area

Fig. 1.1  Uttar Pradesh: Administrative divisions, 2011

15

16

1 Introduction

Mahoba, and possesses only 5% population of the state. The density of the state is the lowest (326) as compared to other regions. This part of the state is economically backward, barren and unproductive hilly terrain dominating the landscape. V. Purvanchal region covers an area of 21.38% and lies at the eastern end of the state. It is the most densely populated part of the state having a population density of 1105 persons/sq. km.

References Amarasinghe UA, Sharma BR (2009) Water productivity of food grains in India: exploring potential improvements. In: Kumar MD, Amarasinghe UA (eds) Water productivity improvements in Indian agriculture: potentials, constraints and prospects. International Water Management Institute, Colombo, pp 13–54 Amarasinghe UA, Shah T, Malik RPS (2008) India’s water futures: drivers of change, scenarios and issues. In: Amarasinghe UA, Shah T, Malik RPS (eds) India’s water future: scenarios and issues. IWMI, Colombo, pp 3–24 Asawa GL (2005) Irrigation and water resources engineering. New Age International Publishers, New Delhi Bates BC, Kundzewicz ZW, Wu S, Palutikof J (2008) Climate change and water. Technical paper of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Secretariat, Geneva Bhaduri A, Amarasinghe U, Shah T (2008) Groundwater expansion in Indian agriculture: past trends and future opportunities. In: Amarasinghe UA, Shah T, Malik RPS (eds) India’s water future: scenarios and issues. IWMI, Colombo, pp 181–196 Bhalla P (2007) Impact of declining groundwater levels on acreage allocation in Haryana. Econ Polit Wkly 42(26):2701–2707 Bhanja S, Mukherjee A, Rodell M, Velicogna I, Pangaluru K, Famiglietti J  (2014) Regional groundwater storage changes in the Indian sub-continent: the role of anthropogenic activities. In: American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting, GC21B-0533 Bhattacharya P, Mukherjee A, Mukherjee AB (2011) Arsenic contaminated groundwater of India. In: Nriagu J (ed) Encyclopedia of environmental health. Elsevier B.V, Amsterdam, pp 150–164 Bhattacharya P, Mukherjee A, Mukherjee AB (2014) Groundwater arsenic in India: source, distribution, effects and alternate safe drinking water sources. In: Reference module in earth systems and environmental sciences. Elsevier B.V, Amsterdam, pp 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/B9780-12-409548-9.09342-8 (Chapter 09342) Bhattarai M, Sakthivadivel R, Hussain I (2002) Irrigation impacts on income inequality and poverty alleviation: Policy issues and options for improved management of irrigation systems, Working Paper 39. IWMI, Colombo Blair P, Buytaert W (2016) Socio-hydrological modelling: a review asking “why, what and how?”. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 20(1):443–478 Cai X (2005) Risk in irrigation water supply and the effects on food production. J  Am Water Resour Assoc 41(1):679–692 Cai X, Rosegrant MW (2003) World water productivity: current situation and future options. In: Kijne JW, Barker R, Molden D (eds) Water productivity in agriculture: limits and opportunities for improvement. CABI/IWMI, Wallingford/Colombo, pp 163–178 Cantor LM (1967) A world geography of irrigation. Oliver and Boyd, London Census of India (2011). Retrieved from http://censusindia.gov.in/

References

17

Central Ground Water Board (2006) Dynamic groundwater resources of India (as on March, 2004). Central Ground Water Board of India, New Delhi. Retrieved from http://cgwb.gov.in/ Central Water Commission (2015) Water and related statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cwc. gov.in/main/downloads/Water%20&%20Related%20Statistics%202015.pdf CGWB (2013) Ground water pollution by industrial clusters. Bhu-Jal News, 28 (1–4), Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Government of India CGWB (2014) Groundwater Year Book 2013–2014. G.o.I., Ministry of Water Resources, pp 76 CGWB (2015) Groundwater quality scenario. G.o.I., Ministry of Water Resources. Retrieved from http://www.cgwb.gov.in/GWquality.html CGWB (2016) Ground Water Year Book Uttar Pradesh (2015–2016), G.o.I., Ministry of Water Resources. Retrieved from http://cgwb.gov.in/Regions/GW-year-Books/GWYB-2015-16/ GWYB%20NR%202015%20-%2016.pdf CGWB (2017) Dynamic ground water resources of India. Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation, Faridabad Cornish G, Bosworth B, Perry C, Burkeet J (2004) Water charging in irrigated agriculture: an analysis of international experience, FAO Water Reports 28. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome Dehghanisanij H, Oweis T, Quereshi AS (2006) Agricultural water use and management in arid and semi-arid areas: current situation and measures for improvement. Ann Arid Zone 45(3 & 4):355–378 Desai BK, Pujari BT (2007) Sustainable agriculture: a vision for future. New India Publishing Agency, New Delhi Dhawan BD (1988) Impact of irrigation on farm economy in high rainfall areas: the Kal project. Econ Polit Wkly 23(52/53):A173–A175 A177-180 Dhindwal RK, Kumar S (2005) Evaluation of drip and surface irrigation in sugarcane under semi-­ arid conditions. J Water Manage 13(1):21–26 Di Baldassarre G, Viglione A, Carr G, Kuil L, Salinas JL, Bloschl G (2013) Socio-hydrology: conceptualising human-flood interactions. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17(8):3295–3303 Di Baldassarre G, Viglione A, Carr G, Kuil L, Yan K, Brandimarte L, Bloschl G (2015) Debates-­ perspectives on socio-hydrology: capturing feedbacks between physical and social processes. Water Resour Res 51(6):4770–4781 Dick RM, Svendsen M (1991) Future directions for Indian irrigation: research and policy issues. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC Doi K (1957) The industrial structure of Japanese prefractures. Proceedings of IGU Regional Conference in Japan, Tokyo FICCI (2015) Transforming agriculture through mechanisation: a knowledge paper on Indian farm equipment sector. Grant Thornton India LLP, New Delhi. Retrieved from http://ficci.in/spdocument/20682/agrimach.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2013) FAO statistical year book 2013: world Food and Agriculture, 289 pp Foster S et al (2008) Groundwater resource sustainability. In: Groundwater in Rural Development, World Bank Technical Paper, vol 463. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp 40–73 Gleeson T, Wada Y, Bierkens MF, van Beek LP (2012) Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature 488(7410):197–200 Government of India (2016) State of Indian agriculture 2015–2016, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, New Delhi Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (INCID) (1994) Drip irrigation in India, New Delhi Jain SK, Agarwal PK, Singh VP (2007) Hydrology and water resources of India. Springer, Dordrecht Johnston RJ (1978) Multivariate statistical analysis in geography: a primer on the general linear model. Longman Inc, New York

18

1 Introduction

Khan S, Tariq R, Cui YL, Blackwell J (2006) Can irrigation be sustainable? Agric Water Manag 80(1–3):87–99 Kumar R, Singh RD, Sharma KD (2005) Water resources of India. Curr Sci 89(5):794–811 Maheshwari RC (2006) Fluoride in drinking water and its removal. J Hazard Mater 137(1):456–463 Margat J, van der Gun J (2013) Groundwater around the world: a geographic synopsis. Taylor & Francis, London Morison JIL, Baker NR, Mullineaux PM, Davies WJ (2008) Improving water use in crop production. Philos Trans R Soc B 363:639–658 Mukherjee A, von Brömssen M, Scanlon BR, Bhattacharya P, Fryar AE, Hasan MA, Ahmed KM, Jacks G, Chatterjee D, Sracek O (2008) Hydrogeochemical comparison and effects of overlapping redoxzoneson groundwater arsenic near the western (Bhagirathisub basin, India) and eastern (Meghna sub-basin Bangladesh) of the Bengal basin. J Contam Hydrol 99:31–48 Mukherjee A, Fryar AE, Scanlon BR, Bhattacharya P, Bhattacharya A (2011) Elevated arsenic in deeper groundwater of western Bengal basin, India: extents and controls from regional to local-­ scale. Appl Geochem 26(4):600–613 Mukherjee A, Sahab D, Harvey CF, Taylor RG, Ahmed KM, Bhanja SN (2015) Groundwater systems of the Indian sub-continent. J Hydrol 4:1–14 Nüsser M (2017) Socio-hydrology a new perspective on mountain waterscapes at the nexus of natural and social processes. Mt Res Dev 37(4):518–520 Nüsser M, Schmidt S, Dame J (2012) Irrigation and development in the upper Indus Basin: characteristics and recent changes of a sociohydrological system in Central Ladakh, India. Mt Res Dev 32(1):51–61 Pande S, Savenije HHG (2016) A sociohydrological model for smallholder farmers in Maharashtra, India. Water Resour Res 52:1923–1947 Pande S, Sivapalan M (2016) Progress in sociohydrology: a meta-analysis of challenges and opportunities. WIREs Water 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1193 Poorest Areas Civil Society (PACS) Programme (2001–2008) Droughts in India: challenges and initiatives. Retrieved from http://www.empowerpoor.org/downloads/drought1.pdf Rao VM, Deshpande RS (1986) Agricultural growth in India: a review of experiences and prospects. Econ Polit Wkly 21(38/39), A101-A103+A105-A109+A111-A112 Rockstrom J, Lannerstad, Falkenmark M (2007) Assessing the water challenge of a new green revolution in developing countries. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(15):6253–6260 Rodell M, Velicogna I, Famiglietti JS (2009) Satellite-based estimates of groundwater depletion in India. Nature 460:999–1002 Saha D, Alam F (2014) Groundwater vulnerability assessment using DRASTIC and pesticide DRASTIC models in intense agriculture area of the Gangetic plains, India. Environ Monit Assess 186(12):8741–8763 Saha D, Sarangam SS, Dwivedi SN, Bhartariya KG (2010) Evaluation of hydrogeochemical processes in arsenic-contaminated alluvial aquifers in parts of Mid-Ganga Basin, Bihar Eastern India. Environ Earth Sci 61(4):799–811 Samadder RK, Gupta RP, Kumar S (2011) Paleochannels and their potential for artificial groundwater recharge in the western Ganga plains. J Hydrol 400(1–2):154–164 Shankar PSV, Kulkarni H, Krishnan S (2011) India’s groundwater challenge and the way forward. Econ Polit Wkly XLVI(2):37–45 Singh G (2015) Agricultural mechanisation development in India. Indian J Agric Econ 70(1):64–82 Sivapalan M (2015) Debates-perspectives on socio-hydrology: changing water systems and the “tyranny of small problems”—socio-hydrology. Water Resour Res 51(6):4795–4805 Sivapalan M, Savenije HHG, Blöschl G (2012) Socio-hydrology: a new science of people and water. Hydrol Process 26:1270–1276 Smakthin V, Revenga C, Doll P (2004) Comprehensive assessment research: report 2. International Water Management Institute, Colombo

References

19

Suhag R (2016) Overview of ground water in India. Retrieved from http://www.prsindia.org/ administrator/uploads/general/1455682937~~Overview%20of%20Ground%20Water%20 in%20India.pdf Swaminathan MS (1982) Science and integrated rural development. Concept Publishing, New Delhi Tiwari VM, Wahr J, Swenson S (2009) Dwindling groundwater resources in northern India, from satellite gravity observations. Geophys Res Lett 36:L18401 Turner NC (2004) Agronomic options for improving rainfall-use efficiency of crop in dryland farming systems. J Exp Bot 55(407):2413–2425 Verma NMP (1993) Irrigation in India: themes on development, planning, performance and management. M.D. Publications Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Weisner CJ (1970) Climate, irrigation and agriculture: a guide to the practice of irrigation. Angus and Robertson, Sydney Wesselink A, Kooy M, Warne J  (2017) Socio-hydrology and hydrosocial analysis: toward dialogues across disciplines. WIREs Water 4:1–14 Wild A (2003) Soils, land and food: managing the land during the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Yang WY (1965) Methods of farm management investigations for improving farm productivity. FAO, Rome Zektser IS, LG Everett (eds) (2004) Groundwater resources of the world and their use (UNESCO, IHP-VI, Series on Groundwater No. 6). Paris: UNESCO, 346 p

Chapter 2

Profile of the Study Area: Uttar Pradesh

Abstract  In this chapter physical and socio-economic profiles of the state were discussed. The physical profile gives an insight of the location of the study area, its administrative set up during different periods of time, structure and relief, drainage, climate, soils, natural vegetation, fauna etc. The main aim of describing physical aspects is to make the reader familiar with the study area before proceeding towards the next chapters discussing the land use patterns, water resources, irrigation water management, crop productivity and agriculture development in the state. The characteristics such as population growth, literacy rate, sex-ratio and occupational structure were included in the socio-economic profile of the state. Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state of the country and lies in the most fertile Indo-Gangetic Plain. It contributes a major share to agriculture production in the country. In 2011, the population of the state has been recorded as 199.8 million. The state enjoys a tropical monsoon climate and about 60% of the workforce is engaged in agricultural activities. Keywords  Administrative set up · Climate · Drainage · Groundwater resources · Literacy · Occupational structure · Population · Soils · Structure and relief

2.1  Physical Profile 2.1.1  Administrative Set Up The state of Uttar Pradesh forms a part of the Ganga plain. It covers an area of 2,40,928 sq. km. According to Census 2001, the population of the state was 166.2 million accounting for 16.4% of the country’s population, although the state accounts for only 7.5% of the geographical area of the country. In 2011, the population of the state has been recorded as 199.8 million with the decadal growth rate of 20.2% (Census of India 2011). Situated in the Ganga plain and drained by a number of rivers, the state has had a long history of human settlement. The fertile plain of Ganga has a very high population density of 829 persons per sq. km, which is more © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 S. Lata, Irrigation Water Management for Agricultural Development in Uttar Pradesh, India, Advances in Asian Human-Environmental Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00952-6_2

21

22

2  Profile of the Study Area: Uttar Pradesh

than twice the national average of 382 persons. Garlanded by the rivers of the Ganga and the Yamuna, the state lies in a north-central part of the country. It is a landlocked state and is bordered by the state of Uttarakhand and the country of Nepal to its north, the state of Bihar in the east, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh to its southeast, Madhya Pradesh to the south, and Rajasthan and Haryana, and the national capital territory of Delhi to its west. It was created in the United Provinces on 1 April 1937 with the passing of the States Reorganisation Act and it was renamed as Uttar Pradesh on January 26, 1950, when India became a republic. Since then the state is known as Uttar Pradesh (literally, the “Northern State”). In 1991, the state comprised of 63 districts. On 9th November 2000, nine districts of the erstwhile state were transferred to the newly created state of Uttarakhand (comprising 13 districts of the hilly region, as well as the district of Hardwar). At present, the state of Uttar Pradesh organized into 71 districts, 340 tahsils, and 821 development blocks. There are 59,163 village panchayats in the state covering 97,814 inhabited villages. Lucknow is the capital of the state. The remaining of 54 districts of 1991 increased to 70 in 2001 due to the emergence of 16 new districts within the state. The districts of Meerut, Moradabad, Farrukhabad, Etawah, Hamirpur, Banda, Allahabad, Deoria, Bahraich, and Gonda were bifurcated, and as a result 10 new districts namely, Baghpat, Jyotiba Phule Nagar (JPN), Kannauj, Auraiya, Mahoba, Chitrakoot, Kaushambi, Kushinagar, Shrawasti, and Balrampur were formed. Besides, 2 new districts namely, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) (SRNB) and Chandauli were carved out from the Varanasi district. Remaining of 4 new districts namely, Gautam Buddha Nagar (GBN), Mahamaya Nagar, Ambedkar Nagar and Sant Kabir Nagar (SKN) were formed by taking the area from more than one adjoining districts. District GBN was formed in the year 1997 by carving out of entire Dadri tahsil (excluding 5 villages), 6 villages of Hapur tahsil (both belong to Ghaziabad district), 152 villages and 3 towns of Sikandrabad, 104 villages and 3 towns of Khurja tahsil (both from Bulandshahr). Whereas, Mahamaya Nagar district was also created in 1997 by transferring of entire Mahamaya Nagar tahsil, 162 villages, 3 towns of Sikandrabad tahsil of Aligarh district and 134 villages, 2 towns of Sadabad tahsil of district Mathura. Similarly, Ambedkar Nagar district was formed in 1997 by the merger of entire Akbarpur, Jalalpur and Tanda tahsils of Faizabad district and 26 villages of Burhanpur tahsil of Azamgarh district. The district namely, SKN was also formed in 1997 by transferring the entire Khalilabad tahsil, 131 villages of Basti tahsil of Basti district and 161 villages of Bansil tahsil of Siddharthnagar district. Besides these, some inter-district changes also occurred during the decade of 1991–2001. At the time of preparation of Census 2001, the state was divided into 70 districts and these districts were grouped into 17 revenue divisions (Census of India 2001). One more district Kanshiram Nagar was added to this in 2008 making a total of 71 districts in the Census of 2011.

2.1 Physical Profile

23

2.1.2  Structure and Relief Structurally, the state of Uttar Pradesh can be divided into two distinct hypsographical regions: 2.1.2.1  The Ganga Plain in the North The state of Uttar Pradesh is a part of the Ganga Plain which lies between the Himalayas in the north and the Deccan Plateau in the south. The Ganga plain forms the most important area from the economic point of view which stretches across the entire length of the state from west to east. It is characterized by highly fertile alluvial soils, having a flat topology broken by numerous lakes, rivers, and ponds. The region is made of alluvium brought by the Himalayan rivers, the Ganga, the Yamuna and the Ramganga and the tributaries of these rivers. A vast expanse of alluvium of Tertiary and Quaternary age with a general elevation of about 600 m above mean sea level constitutes the plain. Alluvium is a generalized term for unconsolidated sediments consisting of a mixture of sand, silt, boulders, and pebbles. The plain forms an elongated belt all along the southern boundary of the Uttarakhand state starting from the base of the hills and continues into the state of Uttar Pradesh. The level surface of the plain commanded and traversed by the glacial-fed perennial rivers of the Himalayas. With the absence of any marked surface irregularities on the plain, rain water sinks into the ground, while percolation of water in sub-surface also contributes to maintaining water level which can be tapped and offers facility for the construction of canals (Williamson 1925). The area is very promising from the hydrogeological point of view having substantial groundwater resources and forms the major source of agriculture and industrial development (Bhatia 2010). The entire alluvial plain can be divided into three sub-regions. The first lies in the eastern tract consisting of 14 districts; they are subjected to periodical floods and droughts, classified as scarcity areas. These districts have the highest density of population which gives the lowest per capita land. The other two regions, the central and the western are comparatively better with well-developed irrigation systems. They suffer from the problems of water-logging and large-scale water user tracts. The Ganga plain is watered by the Yamuna, the Ganga and its major tributaries, the Ramganga, the Gomati, the Ghaghra and the Gandak. The entire plain made up of alluvium and is very fertile. The chief crops cultivated are rice, wheat, pearl millet, gram, and barley. Sugarcane is the chief cash crop grown in the region. The alluvium tract which forms one of the three main physiographic divisions of India separates the peninsula from the extra-peninsular region and covers an area estimated to be about 850,000 sq. km. The area is geologically uninteresting, but being a rich agricultural tract is of great importance in human history. It is a synclinal basin formed concomitantly with the elevation of the Himalayas to its north. According to Eduard Suess, a great Austrian geologist, it is a ‘fore-deep’ formed in front of the resistant mass of the peninsula when the Tethyan sediments were

24

2  Profile of the Study Area: Uttar Pradesh

thrust southward and compressed against them. According to the second view by Sir Sydney Burrard (formerly the Surveyor General of India), the plains represent a rift-­valley bounded by parallel faults on either side. A third and more recent view with regard to this region is that it is a ‘sag’ in the crust formed between the northward-­drifting Indian continent and the comparatively soft sediments accumulated in the Tethyan basin when the latter was crumpled and lifted up into a mountain system (Krishnan 1956). The exact depth of alluvium has not been ascertained, but recent gravity, magnetic and seismic explorations show that its thickness varies from less than 1000 to over 2000 m. In width, alluvial plains vary from a maximum of 480 km. in the west to less than 144  km. in the east. The floor is not structurally uniform but is segmented by ridges and hollows due to faulting. Magnetic survey reveals local highs and lows, all of which dip steeply to the north. In 130 borings, the depth from the surface to bed-rock was found to range between 90 and 390 meters. The depth of alluvium is at its maximum between Delhi and the Rajmahal Hills, and it is shallow in Rajputana and between Rajmahal and Assam (Wadia 1919). The deposits covering the Indo-Gangetic basin are composed of gravels, sands, and clays with remains of animals and plants. These sands and gravels constitute aquifers. The older alluvium (called bhangar in the Ganga valley) is rather dark coloured and generally rich in concretions and nodules of impure calcium carbonate known as kankar in northern India. The kankar concretions are seen in all shapes and sizes from small grains to lumps as large as the size of the human head. The older alluvium was accumulated on slightly elevated terraces, generally above the flood level, the river has cut through it to a lower level. It belonged to Middle to Upper Pleistocene age. The newer alluvium (called khadar) is light coloured and poor in the calcareous matter. It contains lenticular beds of sand and gravel and peat beds. It merges with insensible gradations into the recent or deltaic alluvia and assigned to belong with an Upper Pleistocene age (Krishnan 1956). 2.1.2.2  The Vindhyan Hills and Plateau of the South The southern fringe of Ganga plain is demarcated with the presence of Vindhyan hills and plateau. This region consists of the districts of Jhansi, Jalaun, Hamirpur, and Banda (Fig. 2.1). It forms the upper border of the central Indian plateau. Low hills and rocky spurs of the Vindhyachal Mountains amidst the jungles of stunted trees give this tract a distinct character. The soils of lowlands consist partly of the Ganga alluvium and partly of the detritus of Deccan trap. These are the mar and kabar soils (a characteristic feature of central India) and the parka and rakar are the deteriorated black soils. The mar is a rich dark coloured friable soil with a large number of minute kankar nodules mixed in its texture. It contains a high proportion of organic matter and characterized with an extraordinarily high moisture retentive power. The kabar is a stiff tenacious soil containing a large percentage of clay and deficient in the sand. Because of its hardness, it is difficult to work. The parua is a light sandy soil, whereas, rakar is stony, generally marked with the presence of

2.1 Physical Profile

78o

25

79o

80o

81o

82o

83o

84o

UTTAR PRADESH

o

31

o

31

Geology

N

Alluvium o 30 Siwalik system Vindhyan group Central Himalayan gneisses Bijawar group Bundelkhand granite gnesiss o 29 Deccan trap

o

30

29

o

28

o

28

27

o

27

o

26

o

26

o

o

25

25

o

o

o

o

24

24

20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Km

o

78

o

79

o

80

o

81

Source: Planning Atlas of UttaPradesh, Government of India, UP, Allahabad, 1987. o

82

o

83

o

84

Fig. 2.1  Uttar Pradesh: geology

large kankar nodules. Parts of the districts of Jhansi, Hamirpur, and Banda have mixed red and black soils. Under the heavier type of soils, a large accumulation of calcium carbonate is seen mixed with the soil. In the light or sandy type of formations, soils are shallow and large size stones are present in them. The soils contain sufficient quantity of potash and lime but are poor in P2O5 and nitrogen. These areas receive a little amount of rainfall and water scarcity is widespread. The amount of rain in this region varies between 80 and 100 cm. Dry farming is practiced over a

26

2  Profile of the Study Area: Uttar Pradesh

large area. This sub-region is important for the cultivation of gram, wheat and gram as a mixture, linseed, til and jowar crops. This sub-region is known as gram producing area, both in terms of quantity and quality. The Betwa and Ken rivers join the Yamuna river from the southwest in this region (Mirchandani 1971).

2.1.3  Drainage The holiest and sacred rivers of India, the Ganga and the Yamuna flow through the state and join at Allahabad. These two rivers along with their numerous tributaries and distributaries form a riverine alluvial land known as the upper and the middle Ganga plain. Other than these two, the Ramganga, Son, Betwa, Gandak, Rapti, Gomti, Ghaghra, Rind etc. are the other important rivers. The state lies within one major basin i.e., ‘the Ganga basin’ which is further divided into sub-basins like the Yamuna, Gomti, Ramganga, Ghaghra-Gandak, Betwa, Son, Tons and Ken. The dendritic pattern of drainage follows the general slope of the landform, i.e. from northwest to southeast. With the exception of right bank tributary of the Yamuna, almost all the rivers have their origin in the Himalayas (Fig. 2.2). Other rivers namely, the Son, Betwa, Ken, etc. have their origin in the hills of central India. With the exception of river Ghaghara, these rivers flow in more or less straight courses across the plain and somewhere forming ‘meanders’ and ‘ox-bow’ lakes. The entire land of the state lies in the catchment area of river Ganga and its principal tributaries namely, the Yamuna, the Ramganga, the Sarda, the Gomti, the Saryu and the Ghaghra. 2.1.3.1  The Ganga The Ganga originates from Gaumukh in the Gangotri glacier at an elevation of about 7010 m. above mean sea level. It enters into the plain at Haridwar. Following the general slope of the land, it flows towards the south and southeast up to Allahabad and then continues towards the east until it passes into the state of Bihar on its onward journey to West Bengal. Its total length is 2525 km, of which 1450 km lies in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The Ganga basin covers an area of 8,61,404 sq. km., of which nearly 34.2% lies in the state. Its principal tributaries are the Yamuna on its right and the Ramganga, Gomti and Saryu rivers on the left side. The headwork situated on the Upper Ganga Canal is one of the most important irrigation works in the state and is providing irrigation to 0.7 million ha (Shafi 1984). 2.1.3.2  The Yamuna Although the Yamuna itself is a tributary of the Ganga, it is the second most important river in the state. The Yamuna (which combines the waters of the beheaded Saraswati) has its source at Yamunotri in the Uttarkashi district (now in the state of

2.1 Physical Profile

78

27

o

79

o

o

80

Muzaffarnagar

M RA

Moradabad

o

30

o

Pilibhit

D

A

Shahjahanpur Etah

G

R

Azamgarh

V

Pratapgarh

R RI V ER

KEN

R IV ER

DH AS AN

Mirzapur

50

o

79

o

o

80

26

o

Ballia

100

81

o

o

24

200

o

25

Chandauli

Sonbhadra

Km

78

Mau

Ghazipur

R IVE NR O S

0

o

R VE RI

R

Sultanpur

EFatahpur

27

K

E

V I

Deoria

Faizabad Ambedkar Nagar

Banda

Mahoba

Lalitpur

I

R

YAM UNA RIV ER A W

Maharajganj

R

Lucknow R Barabanki Etawah Auraiya Kanpur KanpurUnnao Dehat Nagar

ER Gonda R IV A RIV Basti ER

I

H

A

A ND GA

P

G

A

Kannauj

R

Shrawasti Bahraich A Balrampur Siddharthnagar T

H

R IVE

Hardoi Mainpuri

28

Sitapur

A NG GA

ER IV

Kheri

I MT

Firozabad

o

R VE RI

Budaun

T BE

24

SA R

Bareilly

GO

Hathras

Agra

LR BA M A CoH 26

o

N

Rampur

R VE RI

o

25

o

31

29

A NG GA

JPN

Aligarh

o

o

Nainital

Bulandshahr

Mathura

27

84

Bijnor

Meerut

Ghaziabad GBN

28

o

Pauri Garhwal Haridwar

Saharanpur

o

83

D AN KH RA TA UT

Dehradun

o

29

o

Tehri

30

o

82

Drainage

Uttarkashi

Baghpat

o

UTTAR PRADESH

o

31

81

82

o

Source: State Atlas of Uttar Pradesh, National Atlas & Thematic Mapping Organisation, Kolkata, 2008.

83

o

84

o

Fig. 2.2  Uttar Pradesh: drainage

Uttarakhand). The river passing through Siwaliks enters the western plain at Faizabad and from there it flows roughly parallel to the Ganga for 1384 km to join it at Allahabad. The Yamuna forms the natural boundary between Uttar Pradesh and Haryana states, and enters the district of Mathura in the north and passes through Agra and Etawah, forming the northern boundary of Jalaun, Hamirpur, Banda districts and the southern boundary of Etawah, Kanpur, Fatehpur and parts of Allahabad, where it joins the Ganga. Its course is 1376 km long and the entire basin covers an

28

2  Profile of the Study Area: Uttar Pradesh

area of 320 thousand sq. km. in Uttar Pradesh. Important tributaries of the river Yamuna are the Chambal, Betwa, and Ken which originate from the Deccan plateau. Historically, important places like Delhi, Agra, holy places like Mathura and Allahabad are situated on its bank. 2.1.3.3  The Ghaghara The snow-fed Ghaghara has its source near the Gurla Mandhata peak, south of Lake Manasarovar in Tibet. The river flows in a southerly direction parallel to Ganga up to Chapra before joining it. The total catchment area of the river is 1,27,950 sq. km. This river has a high flood frequency and usually shifts its course several times. The river Sarda or the Chauka which forms the boundary between Uttar Pradesh and Nepal is the main tributary which joins it on the right bank. River Saryu is another important tributary of the Ghaghara, on whose bank lies the historical city of Ayodhya. Two other important tributaries of it are the Rapti and the Gandak. 2.1.3.4  The Ramganga River Ramganga rises in the Garhwal district (now in Uttarakhand) at an altitude of 3110 m. above mean sea level and enters the plain near Kalagarh. It joins the Ganga at Kannauj after traversing a distance of 596 km. The Ramganga basin covers an area of 32,496 sq. km. The Ramganga flows for a total length of about 1080 km., the upper half of which lies in Nepal and the lower half in Uttar Pradesh. The most important tributaries are the Sarda, the Rapti, and the Little Gandak. 2.1.3.5  The Gomti River Gomati also called Gumti, is the tributary of the Ganga river. It rises near Mainkot, about 3 km. east of Pilibhit town in the Pilibhit district of the state at an elevation of 200 m and drains the area lying between the Ramganga and the Sarda in the upper reaches and lower down the area between the Ganga and the Ghaghara. After flowing through a southerly course for a distance of about 24 km., it joins the Ganga, near Kannauj in the Farrukhabad district. The total length of the river from the source to its outfall into the Ganga is 596 km. and the entire length of it lies in the state. The important tributaries of Gomti are the Khoh, the Gangan, the Aril, the Kosi, the Deoha and the Sai. 2.1.3.6  The Sarda It is formed by two streams the Kuthiayankti and Kalapani near the Indo-Tibetan border at an elevation of 5250 m. The river flows in a southwesterly direction for some distance forming the boundary between India and Nepal. In this reach, it

2.1 Physical Profile

29

receives the Dhauli Ganga, the Khoprang, the Sarju and the Ladhiya on its right and the Chumlia on its left bank. It debouches into the plains after passing through a series of rapids. Entering the plains, the Sarda continues to form the boundary between India and Nepal for a short distance flowing over a boulder bed. Thereafter, it flows in a southeasterly direction through the district of Pilibhit in a tortuous and constantly changing course. One of the most important irrigation systems in Uttar Pradesh, irrigating lands in the Gomti-Ghaghara doab emanates from this river from Banbassa head works. 2.1.3.7  The Rapti It is another tributary of the Ghaghra to join on its left bank. It rises in the lower ranges of Nepal at an elevation of 3600 m. After traversing a distance of 150 km. within Nepal, it enters the Bahraich district. It then flows in a southeasterly direction through Gonda and Basti and joins the Ghaghara near Berhaj in the district of Gorakhpur. The Rapti also inundates large territory along both the banks. But flooding is beneficial because of the fine silt left behind, which makes the land fertile and productive.

2.1.4  Climate The state of Uttar Pradesh enjoys tropical monsoon climate. It is characterized by a rhythm of seasons which is caused by southwest and northeast monsoons. The pressure reversal takes place regularly twice in a year. At the time of northeast monsoon, winds of continental origin blow generally from west to east, while during the southwest monsoon they are oceanic in origin and blow mostly from east to west. The southwest monsoon usually enters the state by the end of the month of June and parts of the state get most of the rainfall from it, while western depressions may bring few showers during the winter months. There are climatic variations in the state due to large extent of the area surrounded by hills in the north, a considerable distance from the sea and the relative height above the sea level. The average temperature in the plains varies from 3 to 4 °C in January to 43 to 45 °C in the months of May and June, whereas the rainfall varies from 70 to 160 cm and even over in different parts of the state. The climate of the tarai belt which extends from the districts of Saharanpur to Deoria is humid and hazardous to health due to the humid characteristics. Plain areas in the state generally experience extreme conditions of climate (cold in winter and hot in summer). The southern part of the state is a plateau and being stony and barren, it is severely cold in winters and severely hot in summers. About 90% of the total rainfall in the state is received during the rainy season. Therefore, in rest of the year irrigation is necessary for the cultivation of kharif crops in the summer, and for growing of rabi crops in winters and it is also desirable even in the rainy season to

30

2  Profile of the Study Area: Uttar Pradesh

counter the effects of short dry spells.1 From a climatological point of view the tropical monsoon climate has three distinct seasons: (i) The cold weather season (October to February) (ii) The hot weather season (March to mid-June) (iii) The rainy season (Mid-June to September) 2.1.4.1  The Cold Weather Season The cold season in the state starts from the month of October every year. During the months of October and November, the entire north-western part of the country including the whole of the Ganga valley remains under the high-pressure belt. The prevailing direction of the winds is from west to east, owing to pressure distribution and the influence exerted by the Himalayan relief. The chief climatic characteristics of this season are a fall in temperature and the prevalence of dry and chilly (westerly) winds and clear skies. Occasionally, the western depressions bring rains accompanying with them cold waves of winds and register temperatures below freezing point. Seasonal variations in temperature in parts of the state are well marked. The mean minimum temperature in the month of November at stations Aligarh, Bareilly, Allahabad and Bahraich ranges between 5 and 10 °C, but mean maximum temperature ranges between 29 and 33  °C.  The month of December records a further decrease in the day and night temperatures, with the minimum temperature at some places fall below 2 °C in the month of January, while the mean maximum temperatures vary between 25 and 27 °C (Fig. 2.3). An important feature of the cold weather season is the occurrence of frost and hail. Frost is locally known as pala, which usually occurs in the month of January when rabi crops are immature and they are liable to injury. Hail occasionally may occur and it can damage the plants when they are at the stage of flowering. In these months heavy fog is locally known as kohra often occurs at night and lasts until the morning with the sun rise. In the month of February, there is seen a clear sky. By the end of the month of February, the temperature begins to increase, but it still remains colder than November. The month of December is quite cold. By the end of December and even first half of January, some western depressions enter in the northern parts of India through Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and move eastward to cover the entire Ganga plains. Snow may occur on high ranges in Himalayas and rain in sub-mountain tracks and the adjoining areas. These depressions create cloudy weather and blowing in cold waves accompanied by light rain in plains of the state (Gilbert et al. 1910). The amount of rainfall during the winter season does not exceed 10  cm. The amount of rain decreases as one goes from west to east (Fig. 2.4). The western part of the state receives 10 to 12.5 cm. of rainfall with the winter cyclones. The amount 1  Dry spells (or monsoon breaks), which generally are 2–4  weeks of no rainfall during critical stages of plant growth causing partial or complete crop failures, often occur every cropping season.

2.1 Physical Profile

31

Fig. 2.3  Uttar Pradesh: annual temperature

of rainfall decreases southward from 5 to 7.5  cm. at Jhansi, Jalaun, Hamirpur, Banda, and Lalitpur stations, whereas the plains get rainfall from 7.5 to 10 cm. The winter rains though small in amount are of great importance to the rabi season crops grown in the state. This amount of rain is not sufficient for rabi crops, especially for high yielding varieties of wheat which require 4–5 irrigation waterings. Therefore, the crops are grown during the rabi season, greater protection owing to less reliable winter rain. Under these conditions, irrigation is a must to carry out successful agricultural operations. Filling the fields with irrigation water also help save the crops from the frost.

32

2  Profile of the Study Area: Uttar Pradesh

Fig. 2.4  Uttar Pradesh: annual rainfall

2.1.4.2  The Hot Weather Season The hot weather season extends over the months of March to the first half of June. This season is characterized by rising temperatures and lowering of pressures. Though the temperature starts rising gradually from the months of February, from early March it starts rising rapidly and continues rising until May and June. In the month of May, the scorching heat becomes intolerable to human beings. The aver-

2.1 Physical Profile

33

age temperature of the state in this season is recorded from 36 to 39 °C and the minimum to the extent of 21 to 23  °C.  At some stations the temperature goes up to 40–46 °C for example, Kanpur, Allahabad, Lucknow, Agra, and Orai are the stations record high temperatures. Due to the nearness of the Tropic of Cancer, the entire Bundelkhand region remains very hot. Northwestern parts of the state also remain hot. The maximum and minimum temperatures in the months of April are recorded 38 °C and 21 °C respectively. The months of May and June record exceptionally high temperatures, as high as above 44 °C for quite a few days. Due to high temperature, a low-pressure belt is established in north-western part of the country which remains very near to the state. Due to the high-pressure gradient, the strong winds blow to the western parts. The days are characterized by intensive heat, dry air, and low relative humidity. Regular phenomena of this season are blowing of hot and dry winds, locally known as loo, and the occurrence of dust and thunderstorms, which are locally known as andhis. The andhi is characterized by a huge cloud of dust which obstructs the visibility in the atmosphere. These storms are caused by the interaction between the dryland winds of the upper strata and the damp sea winds which creeps into the lower strata. These storms are short-lived and frequently end-up with the light showers of rain. Sometimes, they are accompanied by hails and thunderstorms which modify the weather of the area for a short period of time. Total average rainfall in hot weather season is small. It ranges from 100 mm (at the northern stations) to 20 mm (at the stations in the extreme southwest). This rain benefits maize and fodder crops grown in parts of the state. The amount of rain decreases from east to west, due to increasing distance from the sea, as the air gets progressively drier. Gradually, easterly winds are replaced by the west winds, reducing the precipitation due to accompanying storms. Rainfall received during hot weather season gives a temporary relief from the heat and helps in sowing of the early rice crop. In the month of June, hot weather season becomes more intensified and continued heat and dryness of air causes unbearable conditions. 2.1.4.3  The Rainy Season Due to excessive heat of summer months, a low pressure is developed in northern parts of India and by the middle of June, a complete reversal takes place in the months of air movement. The rainy season in the state normally starts within the second week of the month of June, when the southwest monsoon enters in the state. Sometimes the onset of monsoon may take place in the last week of July. The Bay of Bengal branch, which enters in the eastern parts of the state through Bihar plains known as ‘purba’ provides the first rain by the end of June. This is the season of general rains, which is characterized by the arrival of moisture-laden oceanic currents from the Bay of Bengal; a fall in temperature is experienced with cool air and rainfall. With the burst of monsoon, a complete change in weather is brought about with an immediate fall in temperature and an upward trend in relative humidity. The maximum and minimum temperatures gradually fall from 44 °C and 27 °C in June

34

2  Profile of the Study Area: Uttar Pradesh

to about 30 °C and 25 °C in the month July. The relative humidity remains over 70% throughout the rainy season. Rainfall days alternate with rainless gaps of a day or two in months of the year as they receive more than 50% of total annual rainfall. The average rainfall amount to 75 cm. and it decreases westward and southwards. In the months of September, rains normally slacken and the rainless intervals become longer and the day temperature varies. Humidity, however, remains high due to very little movement of air. High humidity and cloudy weather make the heat intolerable. October is the month of retreating monsoon, but mean maximum temperatures remain as high as in September. Rainfall, though scantily is useful for rabi season crops and helpful for the maturity of late rice. Rainfall in the months of June and September is irregular affecting the agricultural practices of kharif and rabi season crops, whereas, continuous rainfall for several days may create flood conditions, which results in sheet and gully erosion and often floods in rivers, destroy the standing crops and bring loss to life and property.

2.1.5  Soils The soil is a vital natural resource and backbone of agriculture. Soils make available food, fodder, and fuel for meeting the basic needs of human and animal beings. With the increase in human and animal population, the demand for food has also increased. However, the capacity of the soil to produce food is limited and limits on production are set by intrinsic characteristics, agro-ecological setting, use, and management. This demands systematic appraisal of soil resources with respect to their distribution, characteristics and yield potential, which are very important for developing effective land use systems for augmenting agricultural production on a sustainable basis (FAO 1993). The state comprises of two distinct physiographic regions from north to south, which are (1) the Ganga plain and (2) the Vindhyan hills and plateau. It covers an almost three-fourth area of the Ganga plain, which is very deep and gently slopes from northwest to southeast. Elevated areas as now seen of the plain were filled with older alluvium (bhangar), and relatively lower grounds with new alluvium (khadar) along the courses of main rivers and their tributaries. The Vindhyan hills and plateau lie at the southern end of the Ganga plain. It forms part of the foreland of the Deccan tract. Its northern border is formed by the river Yamuna and parts of the Ganga river. A great variety of soil is found in different parts of the state (Fig. 2.5). These may divided into following types: 2.1.5.1  Bhabar Soils Bhabar group of soils forms a narrow belt of alluvial fans which extends from west to east, immediately adjacent to outer spurs of the Himalayas in the districts of Saharanpur and Bijnor. These soils have developed under a sub-humid and moist

2.1 Physical Profile

35

Fig. 2.5  Uttar Pradesh: soils

climate which becomes dry during summer months. These soils were formed by the alluvium transported from the adjoining Siwalik and Himalayan ranges comprising sandstones in a rapid state of weathering and conglomerates interstratified with boulders along with purple shales and clays. These soils are underlain by small or large sized pebbles and coarse gravel detritus. Dark grey, coarse gravelly to fine silty calcareous bhabar soils are rich in plant nutrients but are excessively drained due to the occurrence of boulders. Therefore, the cultivation of these soils is hampered by non-availability of the requisite amount of moisture from the soil.

36

2  Profile of the Study Area: Uttar Pradesh

2.1.5.2  Tarai Soils The term ‘tarai’ refers to a moist or wet area. The tarai region is the sub-montane tract situated along the southern boundary of the Siwalik mountain ranges. The narrow belt of tarai soils is situated at the southern side of the bhabar soil and extends from the district of Saharanpur in the west to Deoria in the extreme northeast and cover about 5.7% of the total area of the state. These soils are young and virgin as well as rich in humus. This tract can be divided into (i) northwestern tarai extending from the districts of Saharanpur to Kheri, and (ii) northeastern tarai extending from Bahraich to Deoria (Pathak 1991). The climate of the tarai area is sub-humid which characterises as damp and unhealthy with annual precipitation ranging from 1000– 1500 mm, a maximum of it occurred during the months of July to September. These soils are saturated during rainy months and remain quite moist during the winter due to a high level of underground water. Soils of western and eastern tarai are productive and possess essential of plant nutrients, especially the nitrogen which gets depleted within few years of intensive cultivation. These soils are responsive to fertilization and well suited to multiple cropping. 2.1.5.3  Alluvial Soils Alluvial soils which cover nearly 61.2% of the total land area in the state. They occur in the central, eastern, western and southern portions of the state with river Yamuna as its western and southwestern boundary for most of its expanse with the exception of a portion of Agra and Mathura districts, and river Gandak as it eastern boundary separating it from the state of Bihar. These are very deep and were formed due to the transformation of alluvium deposited by the Ganga and the Yamuna rivers and their tributaries including the Ghaghara and Gandak. These soils vary in fertility characteristics considerably, but they have been developed from the mild or strongly calcareous parent material. The nature of soils in alluvial areas differs widely from district to district. These soils have been broadly classified into different soil associations and nomenclated on the basis of the river family which has contributed to the deposition and development. These soils, in general, are classified as: (i) Riverine soils or Kadhars and the recent alluvium (ii) Soils of flat lands (iii) Soils of uplands, and (iv) Soils of low lands. Although there are wide variations in soil characteristics from district to district, the broad zonal features of soil associations remain more or less the same. The soils belonging to the alluvium of recent accumulation are greyish to ash grey in colour, light textured and calcareous. Flat land soils are neutral to moderately alkaline, calcareous and have an accumulation of lime concretion at varying depths in lower layers of the soil profile. Sub-soil of the profile exhibits marked mottling resulting from the reducing environment prevailing in these soils and due to partial water-logging. Soils of the uplands exhibit zonal characters and their profiles show a distinct evidence of maturity. Illuviation of sesquioxides and lime to ‘B’ horizon and accumulation of clay in lower layers is very profoundly exhibited by

2.1 Physical Profile

37

the soil profiles. These soils are permeable and excessively drained and are neutral to slightly acidic in reaction. Low land soils are found in depressions within the uplands. They are grey to dark grey in colour, clay loam to clay in texture. Invariably, they have an alluviated horizon of finer clay as well as a layer of calcareous nodules. Ferrogenous mottlings are extensively evidenced in the sub-soils. The soils of the Ganga family differ from each other and of the Yamuna family. With reference to morphological features and agricultural behaviour, they also differ on the basis of their parent materials. The Ganga alluvium has been formed by quite a wide variety of Himalayan rocks, whereas much of the alluvium of Yamuna owes its origin from the basaltic rocks of central India through which the Yamuna river flows in southwestern parts of the state. The recent alluvium belonging to this family is of black in colour, fine in texture and shows a marked uniformity at all depths. The flat-land soils are loam to clay loam in texture and profoundly display the profile. Upland soils of the family show an advanced stage of maturity having a zone of calcium carbonate accumulation in lower depths. The soils of this family can be named as ‘tropical chernozems’. With respect to parent material, alluvium found in the northeastern tracts of the state laid down by the rivers Gandak and Ghaghara genetically differs from the soils of Ganga plain. The soils in the Gandak and Ghaghara plains are highly calcareous in nature. A predominating pedogenic process in this family includes remarkable calcification and decalcification. The bottom soil contains calcium carbonate to the extent of 50%. The flat-lands have a surface horizon devoid of lime with an accumulation of calcium carbonate in nodular form in lower horizons. The upland soils are completely devoid of lime, excessively drained and the soil profile exhibits features of the advanced stage of maturity. Agriculturally, these alluvial soils of the state are highly productive and constitute one of the most fertile formations of the country. These soils respond very well to manuring and have widely adaptable cropping patterns in various agro-climatic regions, also they have immense potential for increased production and it is from these soils that the agricultural production levels can be achieved with the use of a high-yielding variety of seeds and adopting improved practices of cultivation. 2.1.5.4  Bundelkhand Soils The Bundelkhand region of the state lies on the southwest of the river Yamuna. The soils of this tract are entirely different from those of the state as a whole since they differ geologically from the rest as being non-alluvial in nature. Bundelkhand soils occupy 10.9% area of the state. These soils mainly occur in the districts of Jhansi, Jalaun, Hamirpur, and Banda. These soils have developed from the Vindhyan rocks abounding in gneiss and granites of the Deccan trap with highly ferruginous beds and often soft limestone. Four broad soil associations have been recognized in this area, which differs from each other in respect of colour, texture, parent material, depth and crop adaptability. These are: (i) Bundelkhand coarse-grained reddish brown soils, (ii)

38

2  Profile of the Study Area: Uttar Pradesh

Bundelkhand coarse-grained grey to greyish brown, (iii) Bundelkhand clayey loam black, and (iv) Bundelkhand clayey black soils, which can be distinguished with local names as rakar, parwa, kabar, and mar. Bundelkhand soils, in general, are devoid of moisture and organic matter and, therefore, can afford only short duration crops. This has been the main reason of backwardness in agricultural development in the region. 2.1.5.5  Vindhyan Soils The soils of Vindhyan region occur in the south of river Ganga in the southern tracts in the districts of Mirzapur, Varanasi, and Allahabad, although its area does not exceed more than 5% of the total area of the state. The Vindhyan system of rocks comprises of Vindhyan and Kaimur sandstones, shales, mixed conglomerates, calcareous and haematitic slates, schists, gneisses, Carboniferous rocks and to some extent the limestones in weathered form to make up the Vindhyan soils. The soils of the Vindhyan region can broadly be classified into three categories as (i) Vindhyan uplands, (ii) Vindhyan flats, and (iii) Vindhyan lowlands. 2.1.5.6  Aravali Soils Aravali soils occupy 0.21% area of the state and occur at the southwest corner of Agra district. Various formations of Vindhyan sandstones (including Kaimur group as the lowest member and Bhander group as the highest member in the outer spurs of Central Indian Hills occurring in Bharatpur and Dholpur districts of the state of Rajasthan) were weathered to form the Aravali soils. The soils are coarse gravel sands or even loamy sands depending on their location and topography. They are locally known as bhur. These soils support scanty sowing of crops and wherever agriculture is practiced, only inferior crops are grown.

2.1.6  Groundwater Resource Development According to the estimates, the groundwater resources of the state constitute 76,138 million cubic metres (m.c.m.) of which 48,208 m.c.m. (about 63%) are utilisable. In the districts of Baghpat and Agra, the net drafts were 556 and 980 m.c.m. which were higher than their net potential, therefore, the groundwater use in these districts exceeds to 100%, which sometimes reaches to the most critical level. This situation arises because overexploitation of groundwater resources and leads to decrease in the groundwater table. Ground water development is a ratio of the annual ground water extraction to the net annual ground water availability. It indicates the quantity of ground water available for use. In the districts namely, Saharanpur, Budaun, Fatehpur, Muzaffarnagar, Moradabad, GBN of doab region

2.1 Physical Profile

39

groundwater use is well developed which consist of 89.72, 87.33, 86.56, 86.45, 84.98 and 81.89% respectively. The districts which utilize less than 50% of groundwater resources include Banda (48%), Balrampur (46.27%), Lucknow (45.2%), Kushinagar (43.17%), Lalitpur (41.47%), Sonbhadra (41.45%), Chitrakoot (41.37%), Mirzapur (40.37%), Ballia (39.37%), Chandauli (39.35%), Kheri (39.15%), Hamirpur (38.35%) and the lowest occurs in Jalaun with 32.82% (Table 2.1). Table 2.1  District-wise groundwater availability in Uttar Pradesh, as on 31.3.2011

S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Districts Agra Aligarh Allahabad Ambedkar Nagar Auraiya Azamgarh Baghpat Bahraich Ballia Balrampur Banda Bara Banki Bareilly Basti Bijnor Budaun Bulandshahr Chandauli Chitrakoot Deoria Etah Etawah Faizabad Farrukhabad Fatehpur Firozabad GBN Ghaziabad Ghazipur Gonda Gorakhpur Hamirpur Hardoi

Net potential (million cubic meter) 950 1533 1110 933 653 1320 493 1222 1409 976 615 1984 1309 1348 1385 1096 1466 686 239 1422 1874 757 1228 588 933 1057 479 809 1181 1267 1528 824 1732

Net draft (all uses) (million cubic meter) 980 1026 607 575 372 803 556 867 555 452 295 1335 1019 901 881 957 1103 270 99 890 1027 400 921 361 808 639 392 591 625 932 1095 316 1242

Groundwater utilization (per cent) 103.11 66.95 54.71 61.6 57.02 60.82 112.76 70.99 39.37 46.27 48 67.32 77.86 66.86 63.62 87.33 75.19 39.35 41.37 62.55 54.78 52.77 74.98 61.42 86.56 60.47 81.89 73.04 52.88 73.58 71.63 38.35 71.72 (continued)

40

2  Profile of the Study Area: Uttar Pradesh

Table 2.1 (continued)

S. No. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

Districts Jalaun Jaunpur Jhansi JPN Kannauj Kanpur Dehat Kanpur Nagar Kanshiram Nagar Kaushambi Kheri Kushinagar Lalitpur Lucknow Mahamaya Nagar Mahoba Mahrajganj Mainpuri Mathura Mau Meerut Mirzapur Moradabad Muzaffarnagar Pilibhit Pratapgarh Rae Bareli Rampur Saharanpur Shahjahanpur Shrawasti Siddharthnagar Sitapur SKN Sonbhadra SRNB Sultanpur Unnao Varanasi Uttar Pradesh

Net potential (million cubic meter) 1253 1249 672 609 733 910 857 –

Net draft (all uses) (million cubic meter) 411 655 417 384 487 615 538 –

Groundwater utilization (per cent) 32.82 52.46 62.03 62.98 66.51 67.58 62.76 –

390 2842 1360 607 822 701

296 1113 587 252 371 450

75.85 39.15 43.17 41.47 45.2 64.13

356 1160 1202 1358 462 1268 749 1210 1714 961 1156 1105 900 1715 1450 485 1647 2352 941 282 351 1639 1788 476 76,138

191 758 602 782 355 873 302 1028 1482 713 895 738 556 1539 1078 309 972 1245 511 117 216 1040 1089 349 48,208

53.76 65.33 50.09 57.55 76.86 68.88 40.37 84.98 86.45 74.19 77.41 66.83 61.82 89.72 74.35 63.65 59 52.95 54.33 41.45 61.62 63.45 60.92 73.46 63.32

Source: Central Ground Water Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India (Available on http://cgwb.gov.in/gw_profiles/st_up.htm) Note: (−) denotes data not available for this district

2.1 Physical Profile

41

2.1.7  Natural Vegetation The state is endowed with rich flora and fauna. It has an amazing variety of some 1000 woody plants, including 3000 trees, 400 shrubs, and 100 woody climbers. More than 200 species of grasses have been identified in the Gangetic plains along with a rich stock of herbs and valuable medicinal plants. The plains of the state have been rich in natural vegetation which has been removed extensively for meeting out wide-ranging needs of the people. Only a few patches of natural forests are now seen scattered here and there in the plains. About 7% of the geographical area of Uttar Pradesh was under forest cover during 2001–2005. The Himalayan region and the tarai and bhabar areas consist most of the forests. The Vindhyan forests consist of mainly the scrubs. In the districts of Jaunpur, Ghazipur and Ballia are free from forest lands, whereas 31 other districts have a lesser area under forest cover. Near the snow line, there are forests of rhododendrons and Betula utilis (bhojpatra). Below them are the forests of silver fir, spruce, deodar, chir, and oak. On the foothills and in the tarai-bhabhar area the forests have sal and gigantic haldu trees. Along river courses, the sheesham grows in abundance. The Vindhyan forests consist of dhak, teak, mahua, salai, chironji and tendu. The hill forests also have a large variety of medicinal herbs. Sal, chir, deodar and sain yield building timber and railway sleepers. Chir also yields resin, the chief source of resin and turpentine. Sisso is mostly used in furniture making, while the khair yields kattha, which is used with betel leaves for chewing. Semal and gutel are used as matchwood and kanju in the plywood industry. Babul provides the principal tanning material in the state. Some of the grasses, such as baib and bamboo are raw materials used in paper industry. Tendu leaves are used in making of bidis (Indian cigarettes), and cane in baskets and furniture making. The transitional belt running along the entire length of the state, the tarai and bhabhar areas are rich in forests. The bhabhar tract gives a place to the tarai area, which is covered with tall elephant grasses and thick forests interspersed with marshes and swamps. Tropical moist deciduous forests are found in the moist region of tarai. They grow in areas which record 100–150 cm. of rainfall annually, with an average temperature between 26 and 27 °C and have a considerable degree of humidity. A special feature of the forests is that deciduous trees of uneven size grow at higher altitudes. Lower regions have several species interspersed with bamboo, climbers,

42

2  Profile of the Study Area: Uttar Pradesh

cand and evergreen shrubs. Main trees which grow in tarai are sal, ber, gular, jhingal, palas, mahua, semal, dhak, amla, jamun, etc. Tropical dry deciduous forests are found in all parts of the plains and usually in central, eastern and western parts. Since sun-light reaches the ground in abundance, shrubs and grasses also grow here. Large tracts of these forests have been removed making land available for cultivation. Important trees grow here are sal, palas, amaltas, bel, anjeer etc. Neem, peepal, sheesham, mango, jamun, babool, imli (Tamarind) etc. usually found along river banks. Tropical thorny forests are mostly found in southwestern parts of the state. Such forests are confined to the areas which have low annual rainfall (50–70 cm.), mean annual temperatures between 25 and 27  °C and low humidity (less than 47%). Widely scattered thorny trees, mainly, babool and euphorbias are extensively found here. The trees are generally small and form open dry forests. Important trees of the region are phulai, khair, kokke, dhaman, danjha, neem, etc. These trees yield various types of resins and gums. Herbs obtained from these forests include some medicinal plants, like Rauwolfia serpentina, Viala serpens, podophyllum, hexandrum and Ephecra gerardiana.

2.1.8  Fauna The variegated topography and climate of the state are conducive for the upkeep of enormous varieties of animal life. Animals depend on forests not only for food but also for their habitat. Its avifauna is among the richest in the country. Animals found in jungles of the state include the tiger, leopard, wild bear, sloth bear, chital, sambhar, jackal, porcupine, jungle cat, hare, squirrel, monitor lizards, and fox. These can be seen in all but the highest mountain ranges. The most common birds include the crow, pigeon, dove, jungle fowl, black partridge, house sparrow, peafowl, blue jay, parakeet, kite, mynah, quail, bulbul, kingfisher, and woodpecker. Certain animals are found in special habitats. The elephants are confined to tarai and the foothills. The chinkara and the sandgrouse prefer to live in dry climate and are natives of the Vindhyan forests. The musk deer and the brown bear are found in the higher Himalayas. Among the game birds resident of the state are the snipe, comb duck, grey duck, cotton teal and whistling teal. Several species of wildlife have become extinct in the state. Among them are the lions of the Ganga plain and rhinoceros of the tarai. The fate of many species has become uncertain, including the tigers, black bucks, musk deer, swamp deer, bustards, pink-headed ducks, chirs and mural pheasants and four-horned antelopes. Although a determined enforcement of laws against poaching and hunting has yielded some results, the wildlife population today in the state is alarmingly low. To preserve its wildlife, the state has established Dudhwa National Park in Kheri district and 12 game sanctuaries, the Corbett Park, which is a major tourist attraction.

2.2 Socio–economic Profile

43

2.2  Socio–economic Profile 2.2.1  Population The population of the state has become more than double since 1951 putting tremendous pressure on resources and infrastructure. According to 2011 Census, the population of the state is accounted for 199.81  million persons of whom 104.48  million were males and 95.33  million females, as against 166.19  million persons with 87.56 million males and 78.63 million females in 2001, showing a net increase of 33.61 million. The state of Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state in India. Allahabad district is the most populous with a population of 5.95  million persons followed by Moradabad (4.77 million), Ghaziabad (4.68 million), Azamgarh (4.61 million) and Lucknow (4.59 million). Mahoba with a population of 0.88 million, however, is the least populous district of the state. All India level decadal growth during 2001–2011 was 17.64%, whereas the growth rate in respect of the state of Uttar Pradesh was 20.2% higher than that of the national level. This rate was 25.4% during 1971–1981 and 25.6% during 1981– 1991, which slightly increased to 25.8% during 1991–2001. The growth rates of rural-urban components of the population for the state were 18.0 and 28.8% during the same period, respectively. It implies that rural population growth rate was lower than the overall growth rate (20.2%) by 2.2%, whereas the urban population growth rate was much higher by 8.6%. With regard to demography, the state is marked by an adverse sex ratio, high fertility and mortality rates, a high proportion of children and a slow process of demographic change. The sex-ratio as measured is the number of females per thousand males. According to 2011 Census, there is a predominance of males over females, having a sex-ratio of 912 (918 for rural and 894 urban areas). The corresponding figures for 2001 were 898 (904 and 879 respectively). The proportion of children below 7 years of age constituted 15.41% of the total population, which was significantly higher than the national average of 13.12%. In the state, the highest figure for sex-ratio was recorded for Sonbhadra (40.14%) and lowest for Sitapur (4.72%).

2.2.2  Literacy Literacy is an important indicator of socio-economic characteristics of the country. It has a direct bearing on the expansion of technology. A person who has attained 7 years and above who can both read and write with understanding in any language is considered to be as literate. The state of Uttar Pradesh does not show much better position in education. According to 2001 Census, the literacy was merely 57.36%. Showing some signs of improvement, the state assumed literacy rate of 67.68%, inching closer to the national average (74.04%) in Census 2011 (Census of India

44

2  Profile of the Study Area: Uttar Pradesh

2011). The literacy rate was higher in urban areas in comparison to rural areas, which was 75.14% versus 65.46%. Male literacy rate in total, rural and urban areas of the state were in the order of 77.3, 76.3 and 80.4% respectively, which were higher than the corresponding rates of female literacy accounting for 57.2, 53.7 and 69.2% respectively. It is observed that GBN ranked at the top with 80.12% in total literacy rate, whereas it was lowest in Shrawasti with 46.74%. In both the rural and the urban areas of the state, the district of Auraiya recorded the highest literacy rate with 77.50 and 85.70%, respectively and Shrawasti for rural (46.10%) and Rampur for urban (56.0%) were at the bottom of the list.

2.2.3  Size and Structure of Operational Land Holdings Land is a fundamental unit in agriculture without which no crop can be produced. Understanding of land ownership and size of operational holdings are important in agrarian class structure (Rawal 2008). In the context of the strategy for agricultural development, knowledge of structure and characteristics of agricultural holdings is imperative for responsive and efficient planning and implementation of the programmes. For this purpose, it is essential to have information about operational holdings as it is distinct from ownership holdings. An operational holding is defined as ‘all land which is used wholly or partly for agricultural production and is operated as one technical unit by one person alone or with others without regard to the title, legal form, size or location’ (GOI 1992). Thus, an operational holding consists of all land cultivated by a particular operational holder irrespective of whether he owns it or not. In other words, an operational holding consists of land owned and self-operated and taken on lease from others for cultivation. The land owned and leased out will not form part of a particular operational holder. This land will be included in the area of the operational holding of the person(s) who has taken on lease for cultivation. Farmers are classified as landless, marginal, small, middle and large on the basis of size of landholdings. Less than 1 ha, 1–2 ha, 2–4 ha and more than 4 ha of land are the criteria for marginal, small, medium, and large farms. The average size of land holdings in India is small, it is due to sub-divisions, and the primary cause of these sub-divisions is the pressure of population on land, apart from the existing laws of inheritance in vogue among Hindu and Muslim and other communities in the country (Gadkary 1957). With increasing urbanization and industrial demand, and subsequent pressure on the availability of cultivable land, the scope for expansion of area for cultivation becomes limited. Also, core to the challenge is an increasing population which leads to further fragmentation of land holdings. The small size of agricultural land holdings is an impediment in increasing agricultural productivity. It prevents farmers from adopting improved agricultural technology and creates barriers for accessing credit and adopting improved agricultural practices (Sankar 2011). In a study, Chand et al. (2011) have examined that the growth of rural population is the main factor underlying in an increase in number of ­holdings in India. The

2.2 Socio–economic Profile

45

Table 2.2  Number and area of operational holdings by size class in Uttar Pradesh, 2010–2011 Size class (in hectares) Marginal (Less than 1.0) Small (1.0–2.0) Semi-Medium (2.0–4.0) Medium (4.0–10.0) Large (10.0 and above) Total

Total holdings (‘000) 18,532 3036 1334 398 25 23,325

Percentage 79.5 13.0 5.7 1.7 0.1 100.0

Total area (‘000) 7171 4243 3629 2199 380 17,622

Percentage 40.7 24.1 20.6 12.5 2.1 100.0

Source: Statistical Diary Uttar Pradesh 2015, Economics and Statistics Division, State Planning Institute, Planning Department, Uttar Pradesh

study finds that while a small farm in India is superior in terms of production performance, it is weak in terms of generating adequate income and sustaining livelihood. Holdings below 1 ha do not generate enough income to keep a farm family out of poverty despite high productivity per unit area. Small size of land holdings and low yield of crops reduce the capacity of farmers from producing surpluses, and use their resources in purchase of HYV seeds and irrigation, that can support it. Highly fragmented holdings force farmers to depend on water buyers rather than investing in their own irrigation infrastructure, which would be economically inefficient due to poor utilization of the potentials created (Kishore 2004). Large-size farms with capital- intensive techniques can give higher productivity with increased land holdings, especially with multiple cropping (Rao and Chotigeat 1981). Total number of all kinds of land holding in UP state was 23.32 million ha occupying an area of 17.62 million ha in 2010–2011 (Table 2.2). Out of the total land holdings, 79.5% were under the category of marginal holdings (less than 1 ha) and small holdings (1–2 ha) constituted a share of 13%. Semi-medium (between 2 and 4 ha) and medium holdings (between 4 and 10 ha) covered 5.7 and 1.7% land holdings in the state, respectively. Only a small fraction of 0.1% of holdings was under the large holdings in the state.

2.2.4  Occupational Structure The term ‘occupation’ connotes the exact function of work that an individual performs in a sector. The Census of India has followed the UNO system of categorizing different occupations under 9 major heads. These categories are conventionally grouped into three major groups as primary, secondary and tertiary. The primary group of occupation includes: (i) cultivation, (ii) agricultural labourers, (iii) livestock, forestry, fishing hunting and plantations, orchards and allied activities, and (iv) mining and quarrying; a secondary group of occupation comprises: (va) household industry, (vb) other than household industry and (vi) constructional work; and a tertiary group of occupation comprises of (vii) trade and commerce, (viii) transport, storage and communications, and (ix) services.

46

2  Profile of the Study Area: Uttar Pradesh

UTTAR PRADESH Distribution of Workers by Category of Work and Sex (2011)

36.47 29.7

27.69

30.30

31.12 22.2

Percentage

30.00

28.96

40.00 35.00

34.82

38.4

45.00

25.00 20.00

5.92

5.00

4.72

9.7

15.00 10.00

0.00 Cultivators

Agricultural labourers

Total

Male

Household industry workers

Other workers

Female

Fig. 2.6  Uttar Pradesh: distribution of workers by category of work and sex, 2011

The occupational structure of the state of reflects the preponderance of agrarian economy. According to Census, 2011, about 60% workforce of the state was engaged in agricultural activities. Out of the total workers which include main and marginal workers, cultivators and agricultural labourers constitute 28.96% and 30.30%, respectively. Other workers were about 34.82%. If we compare sex-wise contribution, males occupied the highest share of 31.12% as cultivators, whereas a number of female was higher to work as agricultural labourers and in household industry workers (38.4 and 9.7%) as against male workers of 27.69 and 4.72%, respectively (Fig. 2.6).

References Bhatia AK (2010) Groundwater resources: Uttarakhand. Geogr You 10(61):19–22 Census of India (2001) Administrative atlas, vol I. Directorate of Census Operations, Uttar Pradesh Census of India (2011). Retrieved from http://censusindia.gov.in/ Chand R, Prasanna PAL, Singh A (2011) Farm size and productivity: understanding the strengths of smallholders and improving their livelihoods. Econ Polit Wkly 46(26–27):5–11 Food and Agricultural Organization (1993) Frame work for land evaluation. In: Soils bulletin, vol 32. FAO, Rome Gadkary DA (1957) Mechanical cultivation in India. ICAR, New Delhi Gilbert JW, Bahadur R, Raj H (1910) The cold weather storms of north India. Mem Indian Meteor Dep 21(3):10 Government of India (1992) All India report on agricultural census, 1985–86. Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi Kishore A (2004) Understanding agrarian impasse in Bihar. Econ Polit Wkly 39(31):3484–3491

References

47

Krishnan MS (1956) Geology of India and Burma. CBS Publishers & Distributors, Madras Mirchandani TJ (1971) Investigations into methods and practices of farming in various states. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi Pathak MD (1991) Rice production in Uttar Pradesh: progress and suggestions for improvement. Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi Rao V, Chotigeat T (1981) The inverse relationship between size of land holdings and agricultural productivity. Am J Agric Econ 63(3):571–574 Rawal V (2008) Ownership holdings of land in rural India: putting the record straight. Econ Polit Wkly 43(10):44–47 Sankar U (2011) Sustainable development of agriculture. Indian Econ Rev 2011 8(4):62–69 Shafi M (1984) Agricultural productivity and regional imbalances. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi Wadia DN (1919) Geology of India. Macmillan Publishers, London Willimson AV (1925) Irrigation in the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Geogr J 65(2):141–153

Chapter 3

Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework

Abstract  This chapter is a conceptual framework which focuses on the development of irrigation in India during different periods of time-pre-historic, medieval and during plan periods in which construction and development of various sources of irrigation were made to make agriculture productive and sustainable. The second section of this chapter deals with the review of the literature on the previous works made on aspects of irrigation development and water management in agriculture. Keywords  Irrigation by groundwater sources · Irrigation by surface water sources · Irrigation development in India · Irrigation development in India during five year plans · Irrigation development in Uttar Pradesh · Water management

3.1  Irrigation Development: A Historical Perspective 3.1.1  Irrigation Development in India India is endowed with vast water resources amounting to 400 million hectare meter (m. ha. m.) per year. Out of this, 215 m. ha. m. will go as percolation to recharge groundwater, 115 m. ha. m. forms surface water and 70 m. ha. m. goes as immediate evaporation (Goud 1989). India is the largest user of groundwater resources in the world. As per estimates, approximately 230 cubic km. of water per year is used which is more than a quarter of the total world consumption of water from this resource. Historical records contain many successes, failures, and challenges to large-scale irrigation schemes. Some of the known examples are the Mesopotamia, the Nile delta and the Indo-Gangetic plain (Wichelns and Oster 2006). Irrigation is practiced in India since ancient times. Sufficient proofs of this are available from Indian history, which confirm that irrigation was practiced not only during Mughals and Aryans periods but also during the period of Pandavas (about 3150 B.C.). Vedas and ancient Indian scriptures contain references to wells, canals, tanks and dams used for irrigation. In the medieval period, rapid advances were made in the construction of inundation canals. Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq who ruled © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 S. Lata, Irrigation Water Management for Agricultural Development in Uttar Pradesh, India, Advances in Asian Human-Environmental Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00952-6_3

49

50

3  Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework

d­ uring 1220–1250 is considered to be the first north Indian ruler who encouraged the digging of canals. Irrigation development during British rule began with the renovation, improvement, and extension of existing canal works. The government of India also ventured into new projects namely, the Upper Ganga Canal, the Upper Bari Doab Canal and Krishna and Godavari Delta Systems, which were all river-­ diversion works of considerable extent (Kumar 2007). The earliest and the simplest form of irrigation is raising water from a lake, river or well, and pouring it over the land. The water may be raised by mechanical power, from brawny arms of the peasant to the latest devices of the pumps. The earliest Egyptian sculptures show water was raised by a bucket attached to one end of a long pole, turning on an axis with a heavy counterpoise at the other end. Another method, largely used in northern India is the shallow bucket suspended between two strings, held by men who thus bale up the water. A step higher is the water-wheel, with buckets or pots on endless chains around it, operated by one or a pair of bullocks. Yet another method of water-raising is very common in India from wells where the spring level may be as deep as 30 meters. A large leather bag is let down the well by a rope passing over a pulley and raised by a pair of bullocks, which hauls the bag up, as they run down a slope the depth of the well. The average cost of masonry well in India varies, according to the depth required. But it is obvious that in many places the geological structure of the land is such that well-sinking is impracticable. Most favourable conditions are found in broad alluvial plains of a deltaic river, the subsoil of which may be counted as containing a constant supply of water. The great plains of northern India are well adapted for irrigation. The Ganga Canal, opened in 1854, at a time when there was not a km. of railway and hardly a steam engine, has a length of about 158 thousand km, including distributing channels. The Upper Ganga Canal takes out from the right bank of the Ganga at Haridwar where a dam has been constructed across the river. The main channel and principal branches have a total length of about 900 km irrigating about a million ha., mainly in the districts of Saharanpur, Muzaffarnagar, Meerut and Bulandshahr down to Mainpuri in Uttar Pradesh. It was supplemented in 1878 by a lower canal, drawn from the same river about 200 km further down, and these two canals now irrigate between them about 760 thousand km. annually. The lower Ganga Canal takes off on the right bank of the river Ganga at Naraura (Bulandshahr) by constructing a dam across the river. The main and principal branches run over 1000 km, while the distributaries are over 5000 km. The system irrigates over half of a million ha. in central and of lower Ganga-Yamuna doab in the districts of Aligarh, Etah, Etawah, Mainpuri, Farrukhabad, Kanpur, Fatehpur and right down to Allahabad. The Sarda Canal takes out from the Sarda at Banbasa in Nainital district, which was opened in 1928 and extended in 1941, is the most extensive (12,267 km in total length) system in the state, irrigating 0.59 million ha. in the Ganga-Ghaghara doab region of the eastern Rohilkhand and Awadh plains up to Rae Bareli district and even goes beyond to Azamgarh district. On all these canals reflect the engineering work of a very high class (Moncrieff 1905; Singh 2003). The 1980s witnessed ambitious government programs to promote private tubewells, supported by soft loans to farmers and rural electrification. Farmers across the

3.1  Irrigation Development: A Historical Perspective

51

Indo-Gangetic Basin (IGB) continued to adopt high yielding varieties of cereal crops, initially wheat with moderate to high water demand, followed by rice with very high water demand. The rice-wheat rotation that is now the most prevalent cropping pattern in the IGB resulted from a combination of high and assured procurement prices and subsidized inputs (not least energy for groundwater). Additionally, the general shift to a flat rate electricity tariff for agricultural use in most states induced new entrants to the groundwater economy (Scott and Sharma 2009). Tubewell irrigation, through modern Water Extraction Mechanisms (WEMs), has been vital to food security and sustainable livelihoods in India due to reliable and comparatively better efficiency than canal irrigation. Since installation and maintenance require huge capital, its distribution is highly skewed towards large farmers and, resource-poor farmers have to rely on them for irrigation, resulting into an emergence of an informal water market (Srivastava et al. 2009). The government of India after independence assigned high priority to the development of irrigation potentials, which increased from 22.6 million ha. in 1950–1951 to 95 million ha. in 1999–2000, with a net irrigated area of 57 million ha. The irrigated area accounts for about 40% of the net cultivated land with 55% of food grains production (Yadav 2005).

3.1.2  Irrigation Development in Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh is an important agricultural state of India. Main sources of irrigation in the state are canals and tubewells. In addition to these, tanks and other wells are also used for irrigation. The government of India first took the initiative in installing tubewells in 1930s after the installation of hydroelectric generation at the head of Ganga Canal. The first drillings were made in the district of Meerut of Rohilkhand belonging to the divisions of western Uttar Pradesh. By 1936, 732 tubewells were installed; by 1939, 1474; by 1946, 1847; and by 1950, 2305 tubewells which irrigated about 300,000 ha of agricultural lands. Of the tubewells operating in 1951, most of them were confined in the western region. The tubewells were installed first where they could be expected to show highest returns in terms of low cost of construction (including the provision of electricity) and in terms of maximum expected benefits through increased crop production. To this end, the tubewells were located on positions giving the largest commandable area, and in areas away from the canal and other sources of irrigation. Of nearly 4000 tubewells installed during the 1950s, 1500 were in the western region, 350 in the central region, and 2100 in the eastern region. As a consequence, by 1960–1961, the western region accounted for only 58% of the tubewells and the eastern region for 35%. In the following decade, the number of tubewells increased to over 10,000 by 1971. It should also be noted that some parts of central and eastern Uttar Pradesh were deep or inaccessible water tables, these conditions to some extent hindered the development of tubewells. In addition, in the eastern region, the smaller holdings, higher rainfall, a less waterintensive cropping pattern (mainly in rabi season), and low economic resources of

52

3  Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework

cultivators, tended to make the running of tubewells and full utilization problems in eastern areas (Dhawan 1973). One of the greatest advantages that western UP has over eastern UP is the public investment in canal irrigation. In the nineteenth Century, the west received large amounts of public investment for irrigation, while the east received very little. Between 1830 and 1880, the eastern Yamuna, Lower Ganga, and Agra canals were constructed in western UP, allowing for larger tracts of land to be irrigated than via the traditional wells, ponds and tanks. In 1950–1951, the land area watered by canal irrigation in the west was 12 times greater than in the east. The development of the Sharda Sahayak and Gandak irrigation projects improved canal irrigation in the east and the ratio of canal irrigated area between east and west decreased from 12:1 in the early 1950s to about 5:1 in the early 1960s.The ratio continued to decline in the mid-1970s, to 2.5:1 and by the mid-1980s, it was almost equal. However, by the time the east caught up to the west in this regard, the expansion of tubewells seen as a necessity for the timely irrigation for the new HYVs had taken off in the west (Sharma and Poleman 1993) and canal irrigation was no longer the preferred mode of irrigation (Pant 2004). The east again found itself behind the west in this form of irrigation. In 2001–2002, the proportion of net irrigated area watered by canals was significantly higher in the east than in the west (Bajpai and Volavka 2005). The Free Boring Scheme (FBS) in the state was started in 1984–1985 and by 2001–2002 the total number of free borings stood at 2.5 million. Of this 0.85 million (33.2%) were installed in the western region and 1.14 million (45.2%) in the eastern region, and the rest of 21.6 million installed in the remaining parts of the state. It was also found that about 35% borings were completed by the end of 2002; the areas were mainly inhabited by SCs and STs population. In the studies conducted by Shah (2001), and Ballabh and Choudhary (2003), were of the opinion that FBS was a great success not only from the view point of groundwater development in eastern UP but it greatly contributed in making groundwater accessible to rural poor and marginal farmers (Pant 2005).

3.1.3  Irrigation Development in India During Five Year Plans India has invested heavily in the development of infrastructure for irrigation since independence. A considerable amount was spent on the development of irrigation in the Five Year Plans (FYP). Irrigation accounted for an expenditure of ₹4560 million during the First FYP and the irrigation potentials created were of the order of 3.66 million ha. The expenditure on major, medium and minor irrigation projects during Second and Third FYP were ₹5220 and ₹9090 million, respectively. An irrigation potential of 2.83  million ha. and 4.52  million ha. were created during the Second and Third FYP, respectively. The expenditure in Annual Plans (1966–1969) and Fourth FYP (1969–1974) accounted for ₹7600  million and 17,500  million, respectively. A total irrigation potential of 3.49 and 7.10 million ha. were created in the annual plans and Fourth Five Year Plan.

3.2  Sources of Irrigation Water

53

The expenditure in the Fifth FYP was ₹30,730 million and 7.92 million ha. of irrigation potentials were created. An amount of ₹25,530 million was spent on irrigation in the annual plans of 1978–1979 and 1979–1980. A potential of 4.48 million ha. was created in the annual plan of 1978–1980. During the Sixth FYP, the total expenditure incurred on irrigation was ₹93,180 million, and a potential of 11.30 million ha. was created. During the Seventh FYP, the total expenditure on irrigation was 143,600 million and the potential of 13 million ha. was created in the Seventh Plan. The outlay on major, medium and minor irrigation projects during Eight and Ninth FYP was ₹3,66,490 and ₹6,36,820  million (including flood control), respectively. An irrigation potential of 95.40 million ha. was created during 2000–2001. The total outlay on irrigation and flood control in Tenth Plan (2002–2007) was kept at ₹9,57,430 million. The total outlay for irrigation in the Eleventh Plan (2007–2012) was kept at ₹23,23,110 million. Substantial expenditure has gone in for developing the major and medium irrigation potentials, especially the major river valley projects, like the Bhakra Nangal Project (Punjab), Beas Project (Punjab and Haryana), Hirakund Dam Project (Orrisa), Damodar Valley Corporation Project (Bihar and West Bengal), Nagarjunasagar Project (Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka), etc. However, minor irrigation continued to occupy an important place as its share in total irrigation potentials of 102.8 million ha. was created by the end of Tenth Plan (2006–2007) was 58.8% (60.4 million ha.) (Somashekaraiah 2011).

3.2  Sources of Irrigation Water 3.2.1  Irrigation by Surface Water Sources History of irrigation begins with the application of water to the fields in some kind of irrigation methods. Surface irrigation is the oldest and most common method of irrigation. In all methods of irrigation (canals, tanks, ponds, lakes, etc.), water is either ponded on the soil or flows continuously over the soil surface for the entire duration of irrigation (Asawa 1999). Surface water conveyed from reservoirs through canals to farmers’ fields tend to be inflexible in terms of timing and delivery, as a result farmers decisions making with regard to which crops to be planted, when and which area will have a limited water supply by canal water. Groundwater sources of irrigation, on the other hand, enjoy a considerable flexibility. However, a major benefit associated with receiving surface water is that irrigation charges tend to be relatively low given that federal or state governments have to incur the cost of infrastructure development and in many cases continue to subsidize canal irrigational operation costs (Wester 2008; Scott et al. 2010). In surface irrigation methods, less than 50% of water released reaches the plants. In major irrigation projects, the overall efficiency ranges from 30% to 40%. These low efficiencies may be accounted for in part by water conveyance losses due to

54

3  Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework

seepage, evaporation and non-beneficial uses. The losses are also partly the result of poor farm distribution of water due to the inadequate land preparation and lack of farm know-how in the application of water, with the consequent excess application and deep percolation (Sivanappan 1994). 3.2.1.1  Canals Canals have been used for irrigation at first to convey water from one place to another. A canal is defined as an artificial channel constructed on the ground to carry water from a river or another canal or a reservoir to the field. An irrigation canal carries water from its source to agricultural fields. Based on nature of the source of supply, the canal can either be a permanent or an inundation canal. A permanent canal has a continuous source of water supply. Such canals are also called perennial canals. An inundation canal (or non-perennial canal) draws its supply from a river only during the high stages of a river (Asawa 1999). The ancient civilizations of Sri Lanka, Egypt, China, Persia, India and the Roman Empire, all build a remarkably complex network of canals, many of them still work today look feeble. The great canal systems of India developed under the British planning and administration during the nineteenth century were not only masterpieces of administrative organization, but extended the frontiers of civil engineering works beyond that had gone before (Laycock 2007). In year 1837, the severe drought of nineteenth century was noticed in northern India, due to which society faced crisis and one third civilization get ruined. This incident grabbed the attention of British Government and government decided to create perennial canals across the state of UP, which would help in overcoming the crisis of agriculture. The western part of UP especially the Ganga-Yamuna doab was the focus for a substantial part of canal building activity during the nineteenth century. At that time canal was a costly experiment (Stone Ian 1984). The canal building activity was also noticed in Bundelkhand region of the state during nineteenth century. Bundelkhand is that part of the state where average annual rain is just 760 mm, which in result, creates the loss in surface and ground level water, which is why the storage of water for irrigation is maintained in ponds and reservoirs. In the middle of eighth and twelfth century, Chandel rulers constructed around 4000 lakes, out of which few of them still exist. Thereafter, dams were created in this region in British Era so that canal could easily be created for irrigation. In year 1885, to provide irrigation facility in the region of the districts of Jalaun and Hamirpur, construction work of Betwa Canal was completed. In 1903, Second Drought Commission worked to take irrigation facility to that extent where the first commission has recommended it. To facilitate these facilities in the southern portion of the state, Ken Canal in Banda District, Dhasan canal in Hamirpur district and Ghaghra lake in Mirzapur district and Garai lake in Mirzapur district were constructed in 1907, 1910, 1913 and 1915, respectively.

3.2  Sources of Irrigation Water

55

3.2.1.2  Tanks Tanks are the most important traditional sources of surface water supply for irrigation and other livelihood purposes over the centuries in India. Typically, tanks are relatively small in size, shallow reservoirs used to store catchment rainfall and use it to irrigate crops during dry spells, and enable the crops to be grown in the dry season that requires more water (Vaidyanathan 2006). Unlike the other surface sources of irrigation, tanks are a low-cost source of irrigation and predominantly managed by farmers themselves. However, in spite of having many advantages, the area under tank irrigation has consistently declined in the country since independence. It has created tremendous hardships for poor farmers, who mostly dependant on tank irrigation for crop cultivation (Narayanamoorthy 2008). As tanks play an important role in increasing the recharging capacity of wells, its adverse impact on groundwater irrigation has been realized particularly in parts of south India (Narayanamoorthy 1993; Vaidyanathan 2001). At present, a rapid development of well or bore-well irrigation in tank command area is one of the important reasons for appalling condition of tank irrigation. The tanks have been managed by rich and resourceful farmers for long times through community participation. But owing to recent development in groundwater irrigation, community participation in tank related activities has drastically reduced (Janakarajan 1993; Narayanamoorthy 2008). Farmers have started neglecting the works associated with tank irrigation only after the massive development of bore-­ wells/tubewells; the installation of them began during the mid-sixties with the advent of green revolution in the country. Unlike dug-wells, the supply of water from bore-wells is made assure as they draw water from deep aquifers. This provides greater benefit to farmers and hence, most of the resourceful farmers started the installation of bore-wells at possible locations hence, discouraged tank related irrigation.

3.2.2  Irrigation by Groundwater Sources The main source of groundwater storage on earth is rainfall, a part of it is penetrated beneath the surface, another is evaporated and goes into the atmosphere, and some of it takes a runs off over the surface. The portion of water penetrated into the layers of the earth is stored as groundwater. Therefore, groundwater is that portion of water beneath the surface of the earth that can be lifted through wells, tunnels or drainage galleries or that it can flow naturally on the earth’s surface. Groundwater has been an important resource for human use throughout the ages and today groundwater constitutes a major source for municipalities, industries, suburban homes and agricultural farms. The depth of groundwater may range from 1 m or less to 1000 m even more. Groundwater accounts for a major portion of the world’s fresh water supplies. Estimates of global water supply show that groundwater represents about 0.6% of the world’s fresh waters (Mahajan 1989).

56

3  Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework

Groundwater plays a unique and critical role in supporting smallholder economy. In India, some 60% of irrigated area is served by groundwater wells. The number of mechanized wells and tubewells increased from less than a million in 1960 to 19  million until 2000 (Shah 2007). The total number of groundwater irrigation structures at present is around 27 million with every fourth rural household owning at least one such irrigation structure (Shah 2009). During British rule in India (which includes India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), they accounted for over 30% of the irrigated land, even in 1903 when only 14% of the cropped area was irrigated. With the rise of tubewell technology and modern pumps, groundwater use reached to unthinkable levels after 1950; consequently, by the mid-1990s, irrigated areas through underground water sources (in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) were much larger than anywhere else in the world. In the Indian subcontinent, groundwater use increased from 10 to 12  km3 before 1950 to 240–260  km3 in 2000 (Shah 2005). Groundwater wells provided irrigation to 10 million ha. in 1970 and now serve over 35 million ha. of the net irrigated area. Surface irrigation sources (tanks and canals) that had dominated to irrigate agricultural lands in India for decades ago now gave way to groundwater irrigation. However, increase in groundwater irrigated lands on an average Indian district after 1970 has been so large that groundwater irrigation contributed much to increase the value of agricultural output per hectare, compared with surface irrigation. During the later half of the twentieth century, large-scale tubewell irrigation development occurred only in canal irrigated areas. As a result, the share of surface water in irrigation has declined from 60% in the 1950s to 30% in the first decade of the twenty-first century (Shankar et al. 2011). Tubewell density is high throughout the Ganga basin in India, which possesses a high groundwater table and very high population density. Groundwater table is also high in other parts of the country such as in the states of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka which possess insufficient water resources but population densities are high. On the other hand, in parts of central India, least available resources have been developed; and tubewell density is also low (Shah 2007). After independence, public investments in canal irrigation projects were concentrated in few pockets, leaving the rest rain-fed farming. In contrast, the development of groundwater irrigation had a significant ‘equalizing effect’. It also emerged as the biggest drought mitigator; during the 1960s, a major drought reduced India’s food production by 30–40%, forcing India into an embarrassing ‘ship to mouth’ dependence on US PL 480 wheat. Groundwater development has thus been a major restorer of India’s national pride and confidence in feeding its people. Almost everywhere in the subcontinent, groundwater contribution to irrigated area exceeded to that of surface water. In north-western parts of India, despite massive investments in canal irrigation, the bulk of the irrigation is delivered by wells and tubewells. Another key feature in groundwater irrigation in India has been its supplemental nature, which is also more productive as compared to surface irrigation, because it offers individual farmer irrigation ‘on demand’ which few surface systems can offer; and because its use entails significant incremental cost of lift, farmers tend to economize the use and maximize the application efficiency. Evidence from India suggests that crop yield per cubic meter of water applied on groundwater-irrigated

3.2  Sources of Irrigation Water

57

farms tend to be 1.2–3 times higher than that applied on surface water-irrigated farms. The best farm level productivity performance, of course, is obtained by those who use water in a judicious combination of surface and groundwater (Shah 2007). Groundwater irrigation has contributed in much of the increase in the net irrigated area of the country over the last few decades. In the past, surface water irrigation had played a significant role in increasing the net irrigated area. However, from the mid-60s, the proportion of surface water to the net irrigated area has decreased and in the last decade alone it has decreased largely by 23%. This is largely due to incompletion of planned irrigation projects and poor maintenance of the existing surface irrigation infrastructure (Gulati et al. 1999). A popular belief is that surface water recharge is a necessary condition for the expansion of the groundwater-­ irrigated area. Groundwater pumping costs generally depend on the water table level, which means that as the groundwater stock is increased, marginal extraction costs fall (Sharma et al. 2008). Tubewells are the only suitable means of groundwater resource use. Tubewells fall into two broad categories: the state/public (deep) and the private (shallow). The state tubewells tap water from deep confined aquifers (more than 100  m below ground level) are large in size and are fitted with high powered water lifting pumps (17.5 horse power capacity), whereas, the private tubewells tap water from shallow aquifers (less than 60 m below ground level) and are small in size and are fitted with small power pumps, typically of 3–5 m hp. capacity. The average discharge of a deep tubewell in the area reaches about 150 m3 per hour, whereas, that of a shallow tubewell 30 m3 per hour. The average cost of installation of state tubewell is much higher as compared to private tubewells (in 1988 its cost was around ₹600,000, and that of a private electric-tubewell was around ₹12,000). Deep or large tubewells are not suited to the majority of farmers in India who are mostly poor and have very small land holdings. These farmers afford to neither install such costly tubewells nor make full use of them since their holdings are not only small but also divided and fragmented. Of course, the state can install and administer large tubewells for collective use of farmers (Dick and Svendsen 1991). Groundwater can widely be distributed with the installation of tubewells and provides an instant and assured source of irrigation to farmers. It provides a status to irrigation supply and helps in controlling water-logging and salinisation, as it is seen in canal command areas. Groundwater development is a major activity of minor irrigation programme. It is mainly a cultivator’s own programme implemented primarily through individual and cooperative efforts. Finances for such programmes are made available from different institutional sources (Asawa 2005). Groundwater irrigation is provided to fields both from dug wells and tubewells. Dug wells can be distinguished by their water-lifting mechanism, depth, and masonry status; while the tubewells by ownership status, motive power, and depth. Tubewells now dominate as the groundwater irrigation in the Ganga plain. Over time, the productivity of groundwater-irrigated lands has risen much faster than that of surface-irrigated lands. Firstly, HYV technology has been biased in favour of farmers having an access to private means of irrigation. Secondly, the composition of groundwater irrigation tends to change much more than in the case of pubic sur-

58

3  Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework

face irrigation. While in the alluvial tracts tubewells have displaced dug wells. In hard rock areas dug wells have been deepened and equipped with power pump-sets (in the first phase diesel-driven pump-sets displaced traditional water lifts and in a later phase these are being substituted by electric pumpsets) (Dhawan 1985a, b). Studies conducted in South Asia show that the benefits from groundwater are more equitable than large-scale surface irrigation systems. The cost of irrigation water per unit of land is nearly 20 times higher in case of groundwater irrigation than in surface irrigation (Shah 2001). Despite this, farmers are increasingly expanding groundwater use because of its reliability, timely availability, and control on demand due to fewer transaction costs involved (Bhattarai et al. 2002). It is available at or near the place of use and consequently, does not require water distribution network. Further, there is less fluctuation in supply, and it is generally free of turbidity and bacterial pollution (Cantor 1967). Losses due to evaporation, which is very large in surface storages, are negligible when water is stored below the ground. Losses in conveyances are also quite small because wells have relatively small commands so that for the sake of water needs it is transported over very short distances. All this makes less water in water use and higher productivity per unit water (Vaidyanathan 2006). Over the period 1951–2007, the irrigated area from major projects in India has increased 3.5 times, from groundwater 6.3 and tanks 1.9 times. Construction of a large number of major, medium and minor irrigation projects through the FYPs, rural electrification, subsidized power and tubewell revolution in the Ganga plains since the 1980s have led to significant development of irrigation in the country. Consequently, foodgrains production increased 4.5 times from 50.82 million tonnes (mt) in 1950 to 230.67 mt in 2007–2008, thereby imparting food security in the country (Sharma 2009). Over the last quarter of a century, 89% of the total increment in the net irrigated area was contributed using groundwater through private investment; 75% share was of tubewell irrigation only (Samra and Sharma 2009). The groundwater schemes comprise of dug wells, dug-cum-bore wells, shallow and deep tubewells and filter points, each having command areas of 1 and 5 ha. Third Census of Minor Irrigation Schemes constructed during 2000–2001 reveals that about 80% dug wells were constructed with the investment from the farmers own savings. Subsidies are also made available for installation of groundwater schemes to weaker sections of farmers. The construction, operation, and maintenance of groundwater schemes are done wholly by farmers themselves. Now groundwater irrigation is under the direct control of the farmers and is amenable to precision agriculture and higher irrigation efficiency of 70–80% compared to 25–45% in canal irrigated areas (Sharma 2009). By 1970, the population pressure on farm lands in many parts of India became so inexorable that farmers everywhere felt bound to intensive cropping on small farm holdings twice, or even thrice every year. Population pressure on farm lands then flagged off India’s tubewell revolution. Especially, western and north-western parts of the country had a centuries old tradition of irrigating lands with wells. Even in 1900, India had some 4  million ha. under groundwater irrigation. At the time of independence, the areas irrigated by groundwater and surface water were evenly

3.2  Sources of Irrigation Water

59

balanced. Between 1960 and 1985, India invested in irrigation projects many times more capital in real terms than the Britishers had invested during the entire 110 year period between 1830 and 1940. Yet, even according to the government of India’s figures, over 60% of irrigated areas are today served by groundwater. Remote sensing data, as well as national sample survey, suggest that as much as 75–80% of India’s irrigated area today is served by groundwater wells. Until 1960, Indian farmers owned just a few tens of thousands of mechanical pumps using diesel or electricity to pump water; today it has over 20 million modern water extraction structures. Irrigation constitutes the main use of water and presently accounts for 84% of total water withdrawals. The share of withdrawal by the domestic and industrial sectors in India is quite low, but it is expected to increase on account of increasing urbanization and industrialization. Currently, groundwater has received preference over surface water as a source of irrigation as well as for use in domestic and industrial sectors, due to features, like the dependability of supply, widespread distribution, ease of availability in the proximity of place of use, natural availability in pure form etc. Moreover, due to inadequate dam storage capacities and poor maintenance of the public irrigation infrastructures, the contribution of public surface irrigation is declining. On the other hand, the use of groundwater is increasing. Presently about 65% of irrigation and about 90% of domestic and industrial water requirements are met through private groundwater sources. Consequently, important aspects relating to groundwater like its scientific management, conservation and augmentation tend to be neglected by the general public (Government of India 2008). In recent decades, the advent of cheaper pumping technology and new seed-­ fertilizer technology in agriculture combined with active encouragement (by extending electricity to rural areas, loans at low interest, and subsidized electricity) has led to a phenomenal expansion in groundwater exploitation for agriculture in the entire subcontinent. The area under well/tubewell irrigation in India has increased much faster than under other sources, whereas, the area irrigated by tanks and other minor sources declined between the early 1950s and 1990s, that under canals doubled even as the area under wells and tubewells more than quadrupled (Vaidyanathan 2006). The first large-scale venture in the development of groundwater for irrigation was taken in 1934 when a project of construction of about 1500 public deep tubewells in Ganga basin was initiated. Groundwater is gaining importance as a reliable water resource to meet the needs for irrigation as well as of drinking and industry. The contribution of groundwater to irrigated agriculture is about 50% and it meets out a major part of our domestic and industrial needs. Overexploitation of groundwater in certain regions has resulted in a progressive lowering of water table and a consequent decline in the yield and productivity of wells. In canal command areas, increased recharge due to over irrigation and inadequate exploitation of ­groundwater, the water table is progressively rising, creating waterlogging and salinity problems (Sharma 2000). India stands as the biggest user of groundwater for agriculture in the world. Groundwater irrigation has expanded at a very rapid rate in India since the 1970s. The data of the Minor Irrigation Census 2001 shows growing number of groundwater irrigation structures (wells and tubewells) in the country. Their numbers stood at

60

3  Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework

around 18.5 million in 2001, of which tubewells accounted for 50% (Shah 2009). The share of groundwater in the net irrigated area has also risen. With the addition to the net irrigated area of 29.75 million ha. between 1970 and 2007, groundwater accounted for 24.02  million ha. (80%). On an average, between 2000–2001 and 2006–2007, about 61% of the irrigation in the country was sourced from groundwater. The share of surface water has declined from 60% in the 1950s to 30% in the first decade of the twenty-first century (Kulkarni et al. 2011). With the development of irrigation by tubewells and bore wells from the 1980s, water-intensive crops like sugarcane, rice, and coconut started to replace crops like maize, cotton and groundnut in many parts of the country. This expansion of groundwater has been a factor in changing cropping pattern and in raising agricultural production and productivity. It has also helped in sustaining subsistence cropping for millions of small and marginal farmers. It has, therefore, played an important role in poverty reduction. As a result, at present in India, there are about 19 million groundwater structures and 7900  m3/year water is extracted from each structure (Sharma 2000).

3.3  Water Management in Agriculture Water management at present time is supposed to be a crucial importance with new developments in agricultural technology. It is now recognized that the performance of many of the earlier irrigation systems in the country is inadequate to meet the expanding water requirements of agricultural operations. There exists a gap in actual utilization of created potentials, for some of the irrigation projects. Apart from this, another significant deficiency regarding the use of irrigation water is that even from the irrigation potential that has been actually harnessed; the production benefits derived are found to be much below the optimum. In many areas, problems of waterlogging and salinity damage were also quite severe (Dantwala 1986). Over exploitation of groundwater beyond the sustainability limits in several parts of the country has resulted in widespread and progressive depletion of its levels in selected pockets of 370 (61%) out of 603 districts in the country. In 15% of blocks, the annual extraction of groundwater exceeds the annual recharge and in 4% of blocks, it is more than 90%. Reduction in groundwater supply, saline water encroachment, drying up of springs and shallow aquifers, increased the cost of pumping by replacing centrifugal pumps with expensive submersible pumps, reduction in free flow, weakening drought protection and even local land subsidence in some places are threatening the sustainability of aquifers. Further, the practice of sale of water, either in cash or on crop sharing basis has also encouraged the rich farmers to construct deep tubewells and over-pumping the groundwater. The rapid decline in groundwater levels in the drier parts of the country is a matter of concern. It has also reported that declining groundwater level could reduce India’s harvest by 25% or more (Sharma 2009). Sustainable groundwater development and management in the overexploited regions needs to be taken up by incorporating artificial

3.3  Water Management in Agriculture

61

recharge to groundwater and rainwater harvesting, management of salinity ingress in coastal aquifers, conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater, management of poor/marginal quality groundwater, water conservation by increasing water use efficiency, regulation of groundwater development, etc. (Sharma 2009). For the economic betterment of people, living in drought-prone areas with miserable living conditions, the government implemented several programmes and Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP) has been one of them. The DPAP covered 556 blocks spreading in over 74 districts in the country. Under this programme 25–50% subsidies on digging of wells, installation of pumpsets, etc. were provided to small and marginal farmers (Reddy et al. 1986). The DPAP is considered to be one of the earliest area development programmes which were launched by the central government in 1973–1974 to tackle special problems faced by fragile areas, which were very often affected by severe drought conditions. The basic objectives of the programme were to minimize the adverse effects of drought on the production of crops and livestock and productivity of land, water, and human resources, thereby ultimately leads to drought proofing of affected areas. The programme aimed at promoting overall economic development and improving the socio-economic conditions of poor and dissadvantaged sections inhabiting drought-prone areas through the creation, widening and equitable distribution of resource base and increased employment opportunities. The objectives of the programme are addressed by taking up development works through watershed approach for land development, water resource development, and aforestation/pasture development. The recent impact assessment studies sponsored by the ministry have revealed that, with the implementation of watershed projects under drought-­ prone areas programme, the overall productivity of land and groundwater table has increased and there has been a significant impact on checking of soil erosion by water and wind. The DPAP during 1994–1995 covered 627 blocks of 96 districts in 13 states, 384 new blocks were brought into the purview of this programme and 64 were transferred to District Drought Prone Area Programme (DDPAP) to Desert Development Programme (DDP). Consequently, coverage of the programme was extended to 947 blocks of 164 districts in 13 states. With the reorganisation of states, districts, and blocks, at present the programme is under implementation in 972 blocks of 182 districts in 16 states namely, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. The centrally sponsored Command Area Development Programme (CADP) was initially introduced in 1974 with 60 irrigation projects in 13 states with a Cultural Command Area of about 15 million ha. The programme now covers 156 projects in 20 states and two Union Territories, covering a CCA of 20.7 million ha. in the country (Misra 1993). CADP, launched in 1974–1975, includes the main objectives of improving the utilization of created irrigation potential and optimizing agriculture production and productivity from irrigated lands on a sustainable basis, by integrating all functions related with irrigated agriculture through a multi-disciplinary team under an area development authority. The CAD programme was initiated with 60

62

3  Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework

major and medium irrigation projects. So far, 314 irrigation projects with a Culturable Command Area (CCA) of about 28.68 million ha. have been included in the programme, out of which 136 projects are ongoing. The CAD programme was restructured and renamed as ‘Command Area Development and Water Management Programme (CADWMP) from 1 April 2004.

3.4  W  ater Management in Agriculture Using Micro-­ irrigation Sources Micro-irrigation (MI) introduced primarily to save water and increase the water use efficiency in agriculture, which includes both drip and sprinkler method of irrigation. It is proved to be an efficient method in saving water and increasing water use efficiency as compared to conventional surface methods of irrigation, where water use efficiency is only about 35–40%. Micro-irrigation has emerged as an ideal technology, through which the required amount of water is applied to the root zone of the crop by means of a network of pipes in the form of trickles. It has been defined as the application of a frequent but pre-determined quantity of water at root zone of the plant usually as consistent or continuous drops or tiny streams or sprays through a network of plastic pipes. The efficiency under micro-irrigation is as high as 80–90% (Table  3.1). Hence, there is little loss of water through conveyance and distribution system and only a small loss by evaporation from the soil surface. Micro-irrigation is ideally suitable for horticultural crops covering orchards and plantations. Micro-irrigation was launched during the Ninth Five Year Plan with a target to bring 0.62 million ha. under micro-irrigation. Under sprinkler/drip irrigation, water is sprinkled evenly on total agriculture ground through a pipe network with the help of emitters on or beneath the soil surface. Micro-irrigation is especially well adapted for undulating terrain, shallow soils, porous soils, and water scarce areas (Sivanappan 1994). The estimated total cropped area suitable for micro-irrigation in the country is to the tune of 27  million ha. Out of this, in Uttar Pradesh, it was 14,559  ha (Choudhary and Kumar 2005). Typically on-farm irrigation efficiency of properly designed and managed drip irrigation systems in India is higher than 90% as compared to about 60–70% in case sprinkler and about 40–50% in surface irrigation Table 3.1  Irrigation efficiency of different methods of irrigation (percent) Irrigation efficiency Conveyance efficiency Application efficiency Surface water moisture evaporation Overall efficiency Source: Sivanappan (1998)

Methods of irrigation Surface 40–50(canal) 60–70(well) 60–70 30–40 30–35

Sprinkler 100 70–80 30–40 50–60

Drip 100 90 20–25 80–90

3.4  Water Management in Agriculture Using Micro-irrigation Sources

63

systems (Sivanappan 1998). This new system of irrigation also ensures 20–25% more productivity per ha. Although Drip Irrigation Method (DIM) is considered highly suitable for wide spaced and high-value commercial crops, it is also being used for cultivating oilseeds, pulses, cotton and even for the wheat crop (Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, 1994). Closely grown crops such as millets, pulses, wheat, sugarcane, groundnut, cotton, vegetables, fruits, flowers, spices, and condiments can suitably be cultivated under sprinkler irrigation. The benefits of micro-irrigation in terms of water consumption and productivity gains are substantial in comparison to the same crops cultivated under flood method of irrigation (Narayanamoorthy 2001). Micro-irrigation also entails a reduction in energy (electricity) consumption, weed problems, soil erosion and cost of cultivation. Investment in micro-irrigation is also economically viable, even without availing the state subsidy. Today, the coverage of drip (2.13%) and sprinkler (3.30%) method of irrigation is very meagre to their total potentials, which is estimated to be 21.01 million ha. for drip and 50.22 million ha. for sprinkler irrigation method. There are distinct characteristics differences between the two methods in terms of flow rate, pressure requirement, wetted area and mobility. While drip method supplies water directly to the root zone of the crop through a network of pipes with the help of emitters, sprinkler irrigation method (SIM) sprinkles water similar to rainfall into the air through nozzles, which subsequently breaks into small water drops and fall on the field surface. Unlike flood irrigation method, DIM supplies water directly to the root zone of the crop, instead of land, and therefore, the water losses which may occur through evaporation and in distribution are completely absent (Narayanamoorthy 1996, 1997 and Dhawan 2002). Though a remarkable growth is seen in adoption of micro-irrigation over the last 15  years, its share to the gross irrigated area in the country is only to negligible percent as of today. Among various reasons of the slow progress of adoption of this new technology, its capital-intensive nature seems to be one of the main deterrent factors. Micro-irrigation technology requires fixed investment that varies from ₹20,000 to ₹55,000 per ha depending upon the nature of crops (wide or narrow spaced) and the material to be used in the system. As farmers are getting water on low cost from public irrigation system and also from well irrigation (because of free and flat-rate electricity tariff), there is less incentive to them to adopt this capital-­ intensive technology, unless it is necessary. Scientists at the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore, have conducted large-scale demonstrations on the farmers’ field for various crops and received encouraging responses from the farmers (INCID 1994). However, the adoption of drip method of irrigation was very slow till mid-eighties mainly because of lack of promotional activities from the State and Central governments. DIM was initially introduced in early 1970s by the agricultural universities and other research institutions in India with the aim to increase the water use efficiency in crop cultivation. The development of drip irrigation was very slow in the initial years and a significant development is now seen especially since 1990s. Micro-irrigation is not only suitable for those areas that are presently under cultivation, but it can also be operated efficiently in undulating terrain, rolling topogra-

64

3  Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework

phy, hilly areas, barren lands and areas which have shallow soils (Sivanappan 1994). The important crops that are suitable for DIM are pulse, groundnut and other oilseed crops, sugarcane, fruits, vegetables, flowers, condiments and spices, cotton, etc. In fact, the state of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Punjab together account for 50.26% of India’s total potential area under drip method of irrigation. As the characteristics of sprinkler method of irrigation somewhat different from drip method, but drip method is highly suitable for widely spaced horticulture and other crops. Sprinkler irrigation can be used in closely grown crops like cereals and millets besides using for horticultural crops. Therefore, the potential area for sprinkler irrigation in India can be much higher than that available for drip irrigation, because of predominant cultivation of cereal crops under irrigated conditions. Drip irrigation can precisely apply water and chemicals to crops at low pressure and, thus has the potential to save water, energy, and chemicals. However, the high installation cost combined with lack of awareness about drip tape placement, flow rates, efficiency rates of chemicals delivered through drip system in different soil types raises growers’ concern to shift crop production and provide water to crops through drip irrigation. Chemicals applied through drip irrigation system can influence residue levels in tubers or affect breakdown and movement. Drip irrigation can deliver chemicals in small doses directly to roots of the crop; chemical use can also be reduced (Pereira and Pires 2011). According to the estimates, the state of UP alone accounts for about 27.70% in the India’s total potential followed by Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, and Bihar. The state level position will be changed completely, if we exclude areas of cereal crops from the estimates. For instance, in UP state, the potential area will come down from 13.95  million ha. to 9.37  million ha., if area under cereal is excluded from the estimates. Similarly, the potential of Punjab would be only 1.82 million ha., instead of 5.37 million ha. It is expected that, the large scale adoption of sprinkler irrigation may not take place immediately given the low canal water rates and electricity tariff (Narayanamoorthy 2012).

3.5  Review of Literature Some of the previous studies undertaken are reviewed as follows:

3.5.1  Irrigation and Agriculture Development Cantor (1967) in his book ‘A World Geography of Irrigation’ has outlined the history of irrigation and its development, and further attempted to describe the methods (both traditional and modern) through which water is applied to land. His work also deals with the conditions of irrigated agriculture in different regions of the world,

3.5  Review of Literature

65

i.e. Monsoon Asia, South-West Asia, Europe and Russia, Africa, North America, Latin America and Australasia. Dastane and Patil (1968) in their study concluded that the water requirements of crops are essential to realize the full potential of yields. They emphasized that, water is needed for obtaining maximum yield of crops. Clift (1977) in his study to measure the progress of irrigation in the state of U.P., examined the development of irrigation facilities in historical perspective, particularly in Post-Independence period and pointed out significant differences in the nature and state of irrigation in different regions of the state, and also accounted for the underlying causes of these differences. Dhawan (1977) has focused on the regional differences in tubewell expansion in five major states namely, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal covering extensive area of the plains formed by the Ganga and the Indus rivers. He examined that, the development of tubewell irrigation has been due to certain forces which are behind the installation of tubewells. The forces which have made investment on installation of private tubewells have been much more profitable in western plains than the eastern one. A comparative study of eastern and western parts of UP has also been done to find out intra-regional differences in tubewell growth. Dhawan (1979) made an attempt to ascertain trends in tubewell irrigation during the planning period (1951–1978) and analyzed the chief factors determining the trends. He has mentioned that, private tubewell irrigation was emphasized with the beginning of the First Five-Year Plan, since then the installation of private tubewells has risen steadily. Narain and Roy (1980) have examined the impact of irrigation and labour availability on multiple cropping in selected states of India. They have further examined the importance of irrigation in multiple cropping on overall production of crops and its relationship with the quantity of water and type of irrigation by applying statistical techniques of multiple regression and correlation. Agarwal (1984) attempted to measure the impact of tractors and tubewells on cropping intensity applying two indexes (the conventional and crop duration index) for Indian Punjab taking data of 237 farms for the year 1971–1972. As measured by both indices, she comes out with the results that relative to bullocks and canal irrigation, tractors and tubewells are respectively associated with higher cropping intensities. The study also indicates that owned tractors have an advantage over hired ones and the effect of tubewells is substantially greater than of tractors. Chambers (1982) in his study on ‘Irrigation Management: End, Means and Opportunities’ proposed five focal objectives and criteria. These objectives were: productivity, especially of water; equity especially in its distribution; long-term ­stability, both environmental and through maintenance of works; carrying capacity, reflecting the size of population supported at a decent and secure level; and well being, including health, amenity, nutrition and psychic factors. He also suggested three major opportunities, so all can gain. First, the professional training and incentives of irrigation managers; second, search for ways through which farmers of head reach can gain while receiving less water; and third, distribution of land to landless

66

3  Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework

and very small farmers at the time when the provision of irrigation water is made available. Giri and Mallik (1984), while taking into consideration economic aspects have compared public sources of irrigation with that of private sources in Nadia district of West Bengal during 1983–1984 cropping season. For this, they selected two deep tubewells and three shallow tubewells from the homogenous tract of the district. The study reveals a large inequality in land ownership within deep tubewell command area in which majority of the farmers belonged to small and marginal size-­ groups. The study indicates greater inequality in land distribution in areas served by private sources of irrigation than in areas served by public sources of irrigation, but the cropping intensity has been much higher in areas served by shallow tubewells. Sidhu et al. (1984) in their study on economic analysis of different sources of irrigation in the districts of Punjab compared the operation and performance of different farm categories. The study indicates a positive relationship between the degree of water supply flexibility and reliability and use of fertilizer, irrigation and other inputs. The study concludes that the performance of farmers having diesel plus electric alternative was much better compared with all other categories. Thakur and Kumar (1984) examined the economic efficiency of different irrigation systems in western Uttar Pradesh. They observed that irrigation coupled with better water management in crop production has increased the yield and use of inputs. The study has been undertaken with objectives like, the effect of irrigation on cropping intensity, cropping pattern, use of inputs, yield and income, total change in crop production due to irrigation system into its constituent causal forces like water management and changes in input levels and measure the returns to water management through different sources of irrigation. The study concludes with some suggestions that timely and adequate water supply can improve the productivity of land and inputs on private tubewell irrigated farms as compared to state tubewell irrigated farms and canal irrigated farms. Dhawan (1985a, b) in a statewise analysis of performance of Indian irrigation during two consecutive drought years of 1972–1973 and 1974–1975 has pointed out that during these years irrigation worked as protective agent to drought. Donde (1985) has considered the benefits of irrigation in two drought prone districts of Haryana namely, Bhiwani and Mohindergarh. He is of the opinion that the provision of irrigation reduces the fluctuations in crop output during the periods of drought and produces positive results to cropping intensity, change in cropping pattern, use of modern inputs, returns on investment etc. Irrigation reduces the extent of unirrigated area and adds the extent of irrigated area. Jairath (1986) tried to focus on social factors in evaluating the role of technology on production in the districts of Punjab during the period of 1965–1970. He ­investigated the role of irrigation technologies in yield in different regions. The study clearly demonstrates that irrigation from private tubewells is more efficient to that of canals. This is mainly due to that private ownership of tubewells enables a greater control over time and quantity of irrigation in water uses. He further points out that large landowners have a relative advantage over the smaller ones. Poor productivity in the districts is characterized by the dominance of small holdings

3.5  Review of Literature

67

despite of high level of private irrigation. In the districts with high level of public irrigation and dominated by large holdings, one finds a medium level of productivity giving the higher productive potential to large holdings. Evans (1986) while evaluating the impact of irrigation and crop improvement in temperate and tropical environments argued that irrigation has created new opportunities as well as challenges for plant breeders. In temperate environment the primary emphasis is on raising yield potential, especially as irrigation enhances the use of inputs but in tropical environment, breeding for greater yield potential and more comprehensive pest and disease resistance are important. However, shortening the length of life cycle, reducing its sensitivity to seasonal signals and increasing yield per day may be more important than raising yield per crop because of the scope for multiple cropping made possible by irrigation in the tropics because of the limited constraints by low temperatures. Pawar and Shinde (1986) have highlighted spatio-temporal development of different sources of irrigation during the period of 1951–1955 and 1976–1981 and evaluated the intensity of irrigation, growth and regional differences in Maharashtra. To increase the intensity of irrigation and to remove regional imbalances, they put emphasis on efficient utilization of water resources in the state. Rao and Ali (1986) have examined the impact of irrigation on cropping pattern in Karimnagar district of Andhra Pradesh under command area of Sreeramsagar Project in 1984. A sample of fifty households from three villages was taken randomly, each one from the Head-Reach-Area (HRA), Middle-Reach-Area (MRA), and Tail-End-Area (TEA). A village of less irrigated area (LIA) was also chosen for comparison. The study highlights that impact of irrigation was not diffused in an equitable manner to all categories of farmers. The performance of TEAs has to be placed at last and below LIAs; on the other hand MRAs performance is almost nearer to HRAs. In another study by Rao (1986) entitled ‘Irrigation: A Clue for Rural Development’ in Malaprabha command area in Karnataka concludes that a shift from subsistence farming to market oriented cropping coupled with HYV seeds and more remunerative crops is evident in Konnur village. Other direct benefits like increase in per capita income, especially in lower land holdings were observed which were due to proper water management and optimum use of inputs. Reddy et al. (1986) examined the role of minor irrigation in drought prone district of Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh covered by two financial institutions; the Primary Agricultural Development Bank (PADB) and the Union Bank of India (UBI). A total of 17 villages were surveyed. The study reveals that there is a considerable impact of investments in Drought Prone Area Development and raising the living standards of farming community. Besides, direct benefits achieved change in cropping pattern, increased yield and accruing tremendous incremental income. They have also enhanced the employment opportunities to agricultural labourers in the study area. Singh and Azam (1986) examined the growth of irrigation and crop output in western Uttar Pradesh during the period of 1960–1980. The study reveals that, there has been a high positive correlation in irrigation and crop output that was due to an

68

3  Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework

increase in irrigation, mainly with privately owned tubewells; this was reflected owing to an increase in number of tubewells. Dhawan (1988) has focused his attention on to study the impact of Kal irrigation project in the Konkan region (known for very high rainfall) on the crop economy using the parameters to aggregate crop output, national income generation, income from crop enterprise and labour employment by taking a sample of 14 villages. He argued that returns to irrigation can be substantial despite gross underutilization of irrigation potential occurring primarily in kharif season. Siddiqui (1988) investigated the role of water management in food crop production in Uttar Pradesh during 1983–1984. The study proved that the state can increase its production to a large extent if adequate and assured irrigation facilities are available to fertile lands. In his opinion, assured irrigation can help to a greater extent the adoption of certain agricultural innovations like chemical fertilizers and manures, new varieties of seeds, plant protection chemicals, as all of these require assured irrigation waters. For managing water resources, he has suggested measures to reduce the loss of irrigation water through evaporation and seepage, and new techniques may be adopted in lifting of water to high levels in an optimum economic way. He has also emphasized to test the water quality, as poor quality of water for irrigation can increase soil salinity and may cause permanent damage to crops. Singh et  al. (1988) examined the inter-district variations to assess the overall development of irrigation considering growth of irrigated area, sourcewise irrigated area and intensity of irrigation during the period of 1960–1985 in western U.P. The study reveals that after green revolution period tremendous increase in tubewell irrigation was observed. Oppen et al. (1989) have evaluated the impact of Tawa Irrigation project on agricultural production in Hoshangabad district of Madhya Pradesh. The project has been considerably helpful in increasing agricultural productivity and market sale of commodities produced in the region. Misra and Tripathi (1989) have examined the impact of agricultural development on regional economy of Basti district of U.P. by using z-score technique. For the analysis, they selected five indicators in 32 development blocks of the district for two points of time, i.e. 1979–1980 and 1984–1985. They considered the levels of agricultural development in the district of Basti on the basis of adoption of modern technology, use of agricultural inputs, proliferation of post-harvest technology, co-­ operative societies, financial institutions and marketing facilities, coupled with concomitant rise and diversification of animal husbandry that led to growth in agricultural income of the farmers. Misra (1990) analyzed management of water for agriculture in Barmer district of Rajasthan. He suggested that proper conservation of rainwater in situ reviewing of existing agricultural practices and cropping system can help much to improve water management in arid environment. Singh and Azam (1990) have tried to compare the cost and benefit of canal and tubewell irrigation in Aligarh district of western U.P. The study concludes that the benefits accrued from irrigation were highest on farms which were irrigated by pri-

3.5  Review of Literature

69

vate tubewells, especially electric operated, and lowest on farms taking water on hire basis from diesel operated private tubewells. Verma (1990) examined the impact of irrigation on agricultural structure and productivity in U.P. The author in his study categorized different non-hill districts of the state on the basis of a range of 20% irrigation level (as a percent of gross irrigated area to gross cropped area) and related it with the variables pertaining to agricultural structure and productivity. The study concludes that the assured provision of irrigation has increased the extent of multiple cropping, rate of mechanization in farming, raising yield of crops and also helped in commercialization of agriculture. Prasad and Mahto (1991) examined the impact of irrigation development in Boreya village of Ranchi district of Bihar. Basically located on a hilly terrain, the village has registered a significant increase in the number of sources and area under irrigation. After 1960, the village started developing and expanded rapidly owing to the establishment of large and small industries in Ranchi. The urban large scale migration of people took place from outside, and as a consequence, a remarkable development was seen accounting for 57% cropped area received irrigation. Dhawan and Datta (1992) examined the impact of irrigation development on multiple cropping in 14 states of India by using multiple regression technique for seven quinquennial periods: 1953–1957, 1958–1962, 1963–1965, 1968–1972, 1973–1977, 1978–1982 and 1983–1987. The analysis reveals a positive relationship between irrigation and cropping intensity. Khanna (1992) in her paper on ‘Sustainable Agricultural Development’ took the problems of tradition and commercial agriculture. The study was conducted in the traditional agricultural areas of Banaskanta in a semi-arid zone of north Gujarat and Panchmahals in hilly zone of eastern Gujarat and in the commercial agricultural areas: Surat and Kheda of south Gujarat. She pointed out that commercialization of agriculture is not the solution to bring higher yields from the low yields in crop output, hunger and poverty, but the unequal distribution of seeds, implements, water, fertilizer, land, social services are the root causes of these problems. Sivanappan (1994) examined the prospects of applying water to agriculture through micro-irrigation in India. As has been emphasized that micro-irrigation, if used extensively can save water about 40–80% and yield can also be increased up to 100%. It is suitable for growing high value crops like fruit, vegetable and plantation crops in hilly and undulating tracts, coastal sand terrain and to a great extent in the water scarce areas of south and western India. Soundaram (1994) has made an assessment of needs and development of irrigation facilities in Tamil Nadu state. For determining the irrigation requirements in the districts of the state, he adopted the methodology used by More and Shinde (1988) and identified the districts that should be given highest priority in irrigation development. Tyagi (1994) examined agricultural development in Aligarh district for the period from 1974–1975 to 1984–1985 by selecting 7 indicators: the yield of crop per hectare, proportion of irrigated area to gross cultivated area, consumption of fertilizers (kg/ha), number of implements used in agricultural operations, proportion of area

70

3  Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework

under high-yielding varieties of seeds to gross cultivated area, percentage of gross cultivated area to net cultivated area and percentage of gross irrigated area to net irrigated area. It was realized that the identification of areas, according to differential levels of development, typology and dimension of backwardness are crucial for the implementation of plans. Khan (1997) empirically tested the relationship between levels of agricultural development and technological and institutional changes in the districts of western U.P. The study reveals that the change in technological and institutional variables is directly proportional to the change in overall development of agriculture in the study area. Karunakaran and Palanisami (1998) in a study of Tamil Nadu state by using data from 1969–1970 to 1993–1994 concluded that there is a close relationship between irrigation development and intensity of cropping. The results were also confirmed by taking a cross section regression analysis with different sources of irrigation. Besides, canal and tank irrigation, dug well irrigation have also shown positive impact on cropping intensity. Bhattarai et al. (2002) explored some conceptual and policy issues pertaining to impact of irrigation on crop production, farm income, income distribution and poverty alleviation. They also argued that improved irrigation is a powerful instrument for reducing rural poverty, not only through increased yield and farm returns, but also through providing increased rural employment and livelihood within a region. Narayanamoorthy and Deshpandey (2003) on the basis of their study have confirmed the role of irrigation development on agricultural wages through increased demand for labour, cropping intensity and shift in cropping pattern from low value crops to high value crops. Statewise cross section data pertaining to five points of time: 1972–1973, 1977–1978, 1983, 1987–1988 and 1993–1994 for India were used. The study shows that, there is a positive impact of irrigation on real wages of agricultural labourers. Irrigation also helps to narrow down the difference between the statutory minimum wages and prevailing wage rates. The gender wage differential is becoming narrow at a faster rate in the states where provision of irrigation is higher. Pant (2004) in his study on ‘Trends in Groundwater Irrigation in Eastern and Western U.P.’ examined significant changes that have been taken place during the 20 years, these include changes in socio-economic aspects, groundwater irrigation, productivity of crops and changing face of rural elites. The study shows that there has been a decline in high cast supremacy, in terms of owning of modern agricultural implements, and the backward castes are surging ahead in such ownerships. Sisodia and Kumar (2004) in their study on the scenario of agricultural development in eastern UP have drawn an inference that, the productivity of different crops has increased with the increase in area under irrigation. Yield of rice has increased more than twice during the last two decades (1980–1981 and 2000–2001). Similar trends were also recorded for wheat and other crops (maize, gram, mustard, peas and lentil). Vakulabharanam (2004) in a study of ‘Agriculture Growth and Irrigation in Telangana Region’ examined and pointed that agricultural growth corresponds with

3.5  Review of Literature

71

growth in irrigation during the period of 1970–2001, although in perception the region suffers from insufficiency of irrigation is also valid. In district level analysis, he has mentioned that most of growth has been due to expansion of well irrigation using private capital, which has adverse implications on groundwater. He has suggested that remedial steps have to be taken in irrigation improvements in order to counter the losses to poor cultivators (small and marginal farmers) in the region. Dhindwal et al. (2005) studied the performance of sugarcane crop under three methods of irrigation, viz. drip method, border strip and ridge and furrow, each with four moisture regimes. Field experiments were conducted at the research farm of CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar during 1997–1998 and 1998–1999. They found that under drip irrigation method, the average cane yields of both first and ratoon crops were 16–18% higher and simultaneously using 12–30% less irrigation water than the surface methods of irrigation. There was substantial saving of water (17–29%) under drip method. Drip irrigation gave substantially higher irrigation water productivity than the other methods of irrigation in both crop seasons. Singh (2006) has outlined some key issues and options for agricultural development in rain-fed areas in India. Watershed development approach adopted in 1980s was the key strategy for the development of these areas. Further, the re-orientation policies and strategies with proper technology, institutions and infrastructure policies are needed. Such re-orientations are crucial steps for achieving food security and for relieving pressure on land, water and vegetation. Singh and Singh (2006) examined the structure, determinants and efficiency of groundwater market and suggested policy options for realization of equitable benefits in western UP. Primary data from 180 farms were collected out from Meerut district during 1994–1995. The study finds that both owners of the WEMs and buyers of the groundwater were benefited on one way or the other by working of water markets. The buyers have an inverse relationship with farm size. The electric operated WEMs dominate the use of groundwater for irrigation. Significant factors governing the groundwater-selling to the farmers were: the size of owned operational holdings, number of fragmented farms, joint-ownership of WEMs and horse power per unit of land. Pawar and Pujari (2007) conducted the study to ascertain the role of irrigation facilities and its impact on agricultural productivity of Shirol tahsil of Kolhapur district in Maharashtra. They found that, the productivity of cash crops of sugarcane and soyabean was higher in the region, which happens to be moderate in previous years. The rate of increase in productivity has been due to growth in irrigation facilities in the region. High productivity was more profound in areas adjacent to the river banks, where intensity of irrigation was high. Munir and Rukhsana (2008) in their study considering the districts of western U. P. calculated the trends in foodgrains availability and agricultural development by computing the composite z-score values. They considered the following indicators as: net area sown to total cultivated area, irrigated area by canals and tubewells to the total cultivated area (in percentage), cropping intensity and fertilizers consumption. They concluded that the availability of foodgrains was high due to the use of HYV of seeds and fertilizer consumption, low availability of foodgrains was due

72

3  Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework

to high density of population, high rate of urbanization and small size of land holdings. Rahman et al. (2008) computed the trends and levels of diffusion of irrigation and its impact on agriculture in the districts of Upper Ganga-Yamuna doab of UP.  The levels of diffusion of irrigation were computed by applying the z-score technique and the trends computed were depicted on logistic curves. Srivastava et  al. (2009) examined groundwater extraction and water use efficiency in Central Plain Zone (CPZ) of UP under different water-market regimes (self-users; self-users and buyers; only buyers; self-users and sellers), where water-­ intensive cropping pattern is followed. Most of the resource-poor farmers (small and marginal) buy water from the WEMs owners to apply to cultivation of crops. Due to the sowing of water intensive crops as paddy, wheat and sugarcane, groundwater table has lowered down which poses a constraint to the sustainability of agriculture. Kumar (2009) examined the inter-district and inter-regional disparities in agricultural development in 70 districts of UP by using a composite index. The study reveals that the districts of western region are most developed and the districts of Bundelkhand region are least developed, both in case of output based and input based indicators considered for agricultural development. He, further, suggested that a huge investment is needed in building of agricultural infrastructure and for inputs in development of agriculture in backward areas. Narain et al. (2009) enumerated levels of development by calculating composite indices for the districts of Andhra Pradesh state, considering an optimum combination of 50 socio-economic indicators for the year 2001–2002. Development levels were estimated separately for agricultural sector, infrastructural facilities and overall socio-economic sector. Rahman and Parvin (2009) examined the growth of irrigated area and its impact on foodgrain production during last three decades (from 1980–1981 to 2006–2007) by applying a number of statistical methods (mean, percentage, linear and exponential growth). In the study area surface water sources have sharply declined due to lack of new surface irrigation project and ineffectiveness of earlier projects. Whereas, underground water sources provided irrigation to more than 70% of total irrigated area under Shallow Tubewells (STWs) with the government’s withdrawal of restrictions on tubewell setting rules, encouraging the private sector and the cost effectiveness of Chinese engines, which have been affordable to small and medium farmers. Irrigated area increased to three times and cropping intensity from 154% to 176%. Mondal (2010) examined the role of irrigation in crop diversification in the state of West Bengal in the period of 1990–1991 to 2004–2005 by applying the Gibbs-­ Martin’s Crop Diversification Index (1962). Irrigation intensity was measured by considering 8 major crops of aus paddy, aman paddy, boro paddy, jute, wheat, oilseeds, pulses and potato. He concluded that the value of crop diversification index has increased as a result of increase in intensity of irrigation, but exceptions were also observed in some districts.

3.5  Review of Literature

73

Pervaiz et  al. (2010) in their study on ‘Productivity Enhancement through Tubewell Irrigation’ analyzed the effect of tubewell irrigation on agricultural productivity in North West Frontier Province (NWFP) of Pakistan. Four districts were randomly selected and 291 respondents were interviewed from 12 selected villages taking into account the criteria that respondents were having their own tubewells. The availability of water in the study area changed the cropping pattern and land use intensity has also been increased. The application of green revolution technology package increased considerably with tubewell irrigation in the study area. Aregay and Minjuan (2012) in a study entitled ‘Impact of Irrigation on Fertilizer Use Decision of Farmers in China: A Case Study in Weihe River’ using ordinary least square model confirmed that fertilizers use has a significant relationship with irrigation. They also concluded that policies to improve irrigation water efficiency can have an impact on fertilizer use efficiency. Raman and Kumari (2012) analyzed district level and regional level disparities in agricultural development in Uttar Pradesh by applying United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) methodology for two cross section years of 1990–1991 and 2008–2009 and considering 13 development indicators. Singh and Singh (2012) measured levels of agricultural development in Chandauli district of UP by applying z-score technique for the periods of 1994–1995 and 2004–2005. Following a similar approach, Rahman and Lata (2012a) in their studies have computed the levels of irrigation development in UP, and in another study (2012b) the impact of irrigation on cropping intensity has been examined in different districts of the state.

3.5.2  Water Management and Water Productivity Some of the previous studies ever undertaken on water management and water productivity also invite attention. Gadgil and Deosthali (1990) analyzed water need and water availability in hybrid jowar during various stages of its growth in Pune. The study reveals that during mid-season stage of hybrid jowar, water requirement exceeds the water availability. This phase during the growth is regarded a very critical period, when water stress can drastically affect yields, therefore, it demands a protective irrigation for better yields. Singh and Salvia (1993) studied the use of water resources for agriculture in western UP. The study suggests that if water is used with scientific management, crop yields can be multiplied many times. Sharma et  al. (2001) computed water productivity for wheat crop of UP for which Water Productivity values ranged between 0.48 and 0.71  kg/m3, with the median value of 0.64 kg/m3. Bastiaanssen et al. (2003) analyzed crop WP at various irrigation-system scales in the Indus basin of Pakistan by applying remote sensing and GIS technologies. Their study found high variability in crop WP at the scale of

74

3  Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework

small canal-command areas. Tuong and Bouman (2003) also found that WP for rice at scale levels larger than the field varies widely but less than at the field level. Cai and Rosegrant (2003) have analysed variations in WP of rice and other cereal crops for 36 countries of the world. The results of analysis of the WP for rice ranged from 0.15 to 0.60 kg/m3, and for other cereal crops it was from 0.2 to 2.4 kg/m3 in 1995. The projections made from 1995 to 2025 for the global average water productivity of rice and other cereal crops will increase from 0.39 to 0.52 and from 0.67 to 1.01 kg/m3 respectively. Hussain et al. (2003) analyzed land and water productivity variations of wheat crop in western Indo-Gangetic plains of India and Pakistan. Their study relates to Bhakra Canal System (BCS) in Kaithal Irrigation Circle in India, and the Lower Jhelum Canal System (LJCS) in Chaj sub-basin in Pakistan. This study analyses variations in wheat yields in almost similar environments of both the systems and assesses the range of factors affecting wheat yields and profitability of wheat production in selected irrigation systems in India and Pakistan. Average wheat yield in India was somewhat higher (4.48 tons/ha) than in Pakistan (4.11 tons/ha). The average productivity of consumed water was similar in both countries to the tune of 1.36 kg/m3 for India and 1.37 kg/m3 for Pakistan. However, average productivity of diverted water is higher for BCS-India (1.47  kg/m3) than that of LJCS-Pakistan (1.11  kg/m3). They added that location specific factors such as soil salinity, land quality and rainfall, factors such as seed variety, application of recommended doses of weedicides, planting dates and groundwater quality were contributory factors in yield differences. Kijne et al. (2003) reported that data on water productivity with respect to evapotranspiration (WPET) show considerable variations in wheat (0.6–1.9 kg/m3), maize (1.2–2.3 kg/m3), rice (0.5–1.1 kg/m3), forage sorghum (7–8 kg/m3) and potato tubers (6.2–11.6 kg/m3) with incidental outliers obtained under experimental conditions. Data pertaining to field-level water productivity per unit of water applied (WPirrig), are lower than WPET and vary over on even wider range. For example, grain WPirrig for rice varied from 0.05 to 0.6 kg/m3, for sorghum from 0.05 to 0.3 kg/m3, and for maize from 0.2 to 0.8 kg/m3. The variability occurs because of the data were collected from different farms located in different environments and under different crop management systems. These affected the yield of the crops and the amount of water supplied to them. Ahmad et al. (2004) examined the spatio-temporal variations in crop water productivity for rice-wheat cropping system of Pakistan’s Punjab. Water productivity per unit of gross inflow ranged from 0.17 to 0.38 kg/m3 for rice and 0.78 to 2.03 ­kg/ m3 for wheat. Spatio-temporal variations were due to differences in water use, sowing date of crops, fertilizer’s use, soil quality and socio-economic conditions, whereas amount and incidence of rainfall emerged as the most important factor for ascertaining temporal changes in water productivity. Choudhary and Kumar (2005) analyzed the role of micro-irrigation over the conventional methods of irrigation. According to them, micro-irrigation, if applied ensures increase in crop yield, higher quality of crop, less water and energy con-

3.5  Review of Literature

75

sumption, less fertilizers use, reduced leaching and run-off, less growth of weeds and soil compaction. Rockstrom et al. (2007) while assessing the water challenge of a new green revolution in developing countries, quantified the relative contribution from infiltrated green water and in rain-fed agriculture and blue water from irrigation, and how water productivity gains can go in reducing pressure on fresh water resources. They suggested that WP gains may reduce additional water needs in agriculture, with 16% in 2015 and 45% by 2050. They further add that, despite an optimistic irrigation development, most of the additional water will originate from rain-fed production. Shah (2007) has examined groundwater development in south Asian economies and described its role in the growth of agricultural and socio-economic development. He is also concerned with the groundwater’s over-exploitation and has suggested some methods, if taken can help to reduce groundwater use. He also suggests to the government that switching over to the technology of water development to management can help in reducing the overutilization of groundwater. According to him, water management practices, such as groundwater recharge and rainwater harvesting can be much helpful. Farre and Faci (2009) evaluated the effect of moderate deficit irrigation created by increasing the interval between irrigations at different growth stages in maize crop development, grain yield and on yield-irrigation relationship. For this purpose, they conducted two yield experiments in 1995 and 1996  in loam soil in parts of northeast Spain to monitor the responses of maize to deficit irrigation with surface water irrigation in three phases of crop growing season: vegetative, flowering and grain field. Results obtained show that flowering stage was the most sensitive stage to water deficit, leading a reduction in biomass, yield and harvest index. They concluded that yield reductions were manifested lowering number of grains per square metre. Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) was higher under treatments with full irrigation at the time of flowering. Amarsinghe et al. (2010) found some potential improvements in water productivity of foodgrains in 403 districts belonging to different states of India, which varied between 0.11 and 1.01 kg/m3. Study finds that the maximum yield function is based on consumptive water use, and it further explores the potential improvements in water productivity to bridge the gap between actual and maximum yields, keeping CWU constant or changing the maximum yield and adjusting the CWU using supplementary or deficit irrigation. Akinbile et al. (2011) examined the trends in rice production and water use efficiency pattern for attaining self-sufficiency in Malaysia. It was estimated that Malaysia will attain 100% self-sufficiency in rice production by 2015, the rice yield per capita must be increased from the current level of 82.3 to 106 kg of rice per capita, and per hectare yield must be increased from 3.6 in 2008 to 5.0 tonnes by 2015. Karrou et al. (2012) in a study entitled ‘Yield and Water Productivity of Maize and Wheat under Deficit and Raised Bed Irrigation Practices in Egypt’ highlighted the role of drip irrigation (DI) and raised bed (RB) irrigation practices in saving

76

3  Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework

water as compared to the full irrigation in Nile delta of Egypt in two different seasons during the years 2005–2006 and 2006–2007. DI resulted in saving of 1600 m3 water/ha in maize and 1500 m3 water/ha in wheat. The study concluded that a substantial amount of water can be saved by applying DI with no significant effect on yields especially in wheat, whereas, RB remains a more promising technique for both the crops.

References Agarwal B (1984) Tractors, tubewells and cropping intensity in the Indian Punjab. J  Dev Stud 20(4):290–302 Ahmad MD, Masih I, Turral H (2004) Diagnostic analysis of spatial and temporal variations in crop water productivity: a field scale analysis of the rice-wheat cropping system of Punjab, Pakistan. J Appl Irrig Sci 39(1):43–63 Akinbile CO, Abd El-Latif KM, Abdullah R, Yusoff (2011) Rice production and water use efficiency for self-sufficiency in Malaysia: a review. Trends Appl Sci Res 6(10):1127–1140 Amarsinghe UA, Malik RPS, Shrma BR (2010) Overcoming growing water scarcity: exploring potential improvements in water productivity in India. Nat Res Forum 34(3):188–199 Aregay FA, Minjuan Z (2012) Impact of irrigation on fertilizer use decision of farmers in China: a case study in Weihe river basin. J Sustain Dev 5(4):74–82 Asawa GL (1999) Elementary irrigation engineering. New Age International Publishers, New Delhi Asawa GL (2005) Irrigation and water resources engineering. New Age International Publishers, New Delhi Bajpai N, Volavka N (2005) Agricultural performance in Uttar Pradesh: a historical account, Working paper no. 23. Centre on Globalization and Sustainable Development, Columbia Ballabh V, Choudhary K (2003) Groundwater and agriculture production: a comparative study of Eastern UP, Bihar and West Bengal. IWMI-TATA Water Policy Programme, Anand Bastiaanssen W, Ahmad MD, Tahir Z (2003) Upscaling water productivity in irrigated agriculture using remote sensing and GIS technologies. In: Kijne JW, Barker R, Molden D (eds) Water productivity in agriculture: limits and opportunities for improvement. CABI/IWMI, Wallingford, pp 289–300 Bhattarai M, Sakthivadivel R, Hussain I (2002) Irrigation impacts on income inequality and poverty alleviation: policy issues and options for improved management of irrigation systems, Working paper 39. IWMI, Colombo Cai X, Rosegrant MW (2003) World water productivity: current situation and future options. In: Kijne JW, Barker R, Molden D (eds) Water productivity in agriculture: limits and opportunities for improvement. CABI/IWMI, Wallingford/Colombo, pp 163–178 Cantor LM (1967) A world geography of irrigation. Oliver and Boyd, London Chambers R (1982) Irrigation management: ends, means and opportunities. Paper presented at the workshop on productivity and equity in irrigation systems in India, Giri Institute of Development Studies, Lucknow Choudhary ML, Kumar R (2005) Role of efficient water management technologies. J  Water Manage 13(2):73–78 Clift C (1977) Progress of irrigation in Uttar Pradesh: East-west differences. Econ Polit Wkly 12(39):A83–A90 Dantwala ML (1986) Indian agricultural development since independence. Oxford and I.B.H. Publishing Co, New Delhi Dastane NG, Patil VS (1968) Water need of crops. India Farming 17(10):34–36

References

77

Dhawan BD (1973) Demand for irrigation: a case study of government tubewells in UP. Indian J Agric Econ 28(2):59–67 Dhawan BD (1977) Tubewell irrigation in the Gangetic plains. Econ Polit Wkly 12(39):A91–104 Dhawan BD (1979) Trends in tubewell irrigation. Econ Polit Wkly 14(51/52), A143, 154-147,149,151-154 Dhawan BD (1985a) Irrigation impact on farm economy. Econ Polit Wkly 20(39):A124–A128 Dhawan BD (1985b) Irrigation performance during drought. Econ Polit Wkly 20(28):A1191–A1196 Dhawan BD (1988) Irrigation in India’s agriculture development: productivity, stability, equity. Sage Publications, New Delhi Dhawan BD (2002) Technological change in Indian irrigated agriculture: a study of water saving methods. Commonwealth Publishers, New Delhi Dhawan BD, Datta HS (1992) Impact of irrigation on multiple cropping. Econ Polit Wkly 27(13):A15–A18 Dhindwal AS, Kumar R, Kumar S (2005) Evaluation of drip and surface irrigation in sugarcane under semi-arid conditions. J Water Manage 13(1):21–26 Dick RM, Svendsen M (eds) (1991) Future directions for Indian irrigation: research and policy issues. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC Donde WB (1985) Benefits of irrigation. Agric Situat India 40(4):377–379 Evans LT (1986) Irrigation and crop improvement in temperate and tropical environment. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 316(1537):319–330 Farre I, Faci JM (2009) Deficit irrigation in maize for reducing agricultural water use in a Mediterranean environment. Agric Water Manag 96(3):383–394 Gadgil A, Deosthali V (1990) Determination of net irrigation requirement with reference to hybrid jowar: an agro-meteorological approach. Annals 10(1):23–27 Gibbs JP, Martin WT (1962) Urbanisation, technology and the division of labour: international patterns. Am Sociol Rev 27:667–677 Giri AK, Mallik G (1984) Some economic aspects of public sources of irrigation: a comparison with private sources of irrigation. Indian J Agric Econ 39(3):512–520 Goud JV (1989) Water resources of India and Karnataka: problems and prospects. Agric Situat India 44(5):323–327 Government of India (2008) Institutional framework for regulating use of ground water in India. Retrieved from http://www.indiawaterportal.org/sites/indiawaterportal.org/files/ Institutionalpercent20Framework_Groundwater_IRMED_MoWR_2008.pdf Gulati A, Meinzen-Dick R, Rajus KV (1999) From top down to bottoms up: institutional reforms in Indian canal irrigation. Institute of Economic Growth, New Delhi Hussain I, Sakthivadivel R, Amarasinghe U, Mudasser M, Molden D (2003) Land and water productivity of wheat in the western Indo-Gangetic plain of India and Pakistan: a comparative analysis, Research report 65. IWMI, Colombo Ian S (1984) Canal irrigation in British India: perspectives on technology change in a peasant economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (1994) Drip irrigation in India. Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, New Delhi Jairath J (1986) Social conditions of technology use: a study of irrigation and production in Punjab, 1965–1970. Econ Polit Wkly 21(13):A26–A37 Janakarajan S (1993) Economic and social implication on groundwater irrigation: some evidence from South India. India J Agric Econ 48(1):65–75 Karrou M, Oweis T, Enein AE, Sherif M (2012) Yield and water productivity of maize and wheat under deficit and raised bed irrigation practices in Egypt. Afr J Agric Res 7(11):1755–1760 Karunakaran KR, Palanisami K (1998) An analysis of impact of irrigation on cropping intensity in Tamil Nadu. Indian Econ Rev 33(2):207–220 Khan W (1997) Agricultural development in western Uttar Pradesh. Indian Geogr J 72(2):146–149 Khanna S (1992) Sustainable agricultural development: a comparison between commercial and traditional agricultural systems. Natl Geogr 27(2):147–157

78

3  Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework

Kijne JW, Barker R, Molden D (2003) Water productivity in agriculture: limits and opportunities for improvements. CABI, Wallingford Kulkarni H, Shankar PSV, Krishnan S (2011) India’s groundwater challenge and the way forward. Econ Polit Wkly 46(2):37–38 Kumar MD (2007) Groundwater management in India: physical, institutional and policy alternatives. Sage Publications, New Delhi Kumar S (2009) Inter-regional and inter-district disparities in agricultural development: a study of Uttar Pradesh. India J Reg Sci 41(1):22–36 Laycock A (2007) Irrigation systems: design, planning and construction. CABI, Wallingford Mahajan G (1989) Evaluation and development of ground water. Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi Misra KM (1990) Irrigation and economic development. Ashish Publication House, New Delhi Misra DC (1993) Agricultural extension for irrigated commands in India. Agric Situat India 48(4):231–243 Misra BN, Tripathi SN (1989) Level of agricultural development and its contribution to regional economy in Basti district, UP. Natl Geogr 24(2):97–108 Moncrieff CS (1905) Irrigation. Science 22(567):577–590 Mondal TK (2010) Crop diversification and irrigation intensity: a study of West Bengal, India (1990–1991 to 2004–2005). Asian Profile 38(6):553–563 More KS, Shinde D (1988) Irrigation potential and development in Maharashtra. Geogr Rev India 48(1):164–167 Munir A, Rukhsana (2008) Spatio-temporal analysis of foodgrains availability and agricultural development in western Uttar Pradesh. Indian J Reg Sci 40(1):1–12 Narain D, Roy S (1980) Impact of irrigation and labour availability on multiple cropping: a case study of India, Research report 20. IFPRI, Washington, DC Narain P, Sharma SD, Rai SC, Bhatia VK (2009) Inter-district variation of socio-economic development in Andhra Pradesh. J Indian Soc Agric Stat 63(1):35–42 Narayanamoorthy A (1993) Competition for borewell water and its impact on tank: some observations. In: Proceedings of the 15th Congress on Irrigation and Drainage, The Hague, The Netherlands. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, New Delhi Narayanamoorthy A (1996) Evaluation of drip irrigation system in Maharashtra, Mimeograph series no. 42. Agro-Economic Research Centre, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune Narayanamoorthy A (1997) Economic viability of drip irrigation: an empirical analysis from Maharashtra. Indian J Agric Econ 52(4):728–739 Narayanamoorthy A (2001) Impact of drip irrigation on sugarcane cultivation in Maharashtra. Agro-Economic Research Centre, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune Narayanamoorthy A (2008) Tank irrigation in India: status, trends and issues. In: Thapliyal BK, Sharma SSP, Ram PS, Kumar UH (eds) Democratisation of water. Serials Publication, New Delhi, pp 383–417 Narayanamoorthy A (2012) Potential for drip and sprinkler irrigation in India. Retrieved from http://nrlp.iwmi.org/PDocs/DReports/Phase_01/12.percent20Waterpercent20Savingspercent20Technologiespercent20-percent20Narayanmoorthy.pdf Narayanamoorthy A, Deshpandey RS (2003) Irrigation development and agricultural wages: an analysis across states. Econ Polit Wkly 38(39):3716–3722 Oppen MV, Kashive, Wightman WR (1989) Impact of Tawa irrigation project on agricultural production. Agric Situat India 44(6):271–272 Pant N (2004) Trends in groundwater irrigation in eastern and western Uttar Pradesh. Econ Polit Wkly 39(31):3463–3468 Pant N (2005) Control of and access to groundwater in UP. Econ Polit Wkly 40(26):2672–2680 Pawar CT, Pujari AA (2007) Impact of irrigation on agricultural productivity: a micro level analysis. In: Mohammad A, Munir A, Siddiqui SH (eds) Fifty years on Indian agriculture: determinants of production. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp 165–174

References

79

Pawar CT, Shinde SD (1986) Irrigation in Maharashtra: spatio-temporal perspective. Natl Geogr J India 32(2):105–110 Pereira A, Pires L (2011) Evapotranspiration and water management for crop production. In Gerosa G (ed) Evapotranspiration-from measurements to agricultural and environmental applications. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andre_Pereira19/publication/221919364_Evapotranspiration_and_Water_Management_for_Crop_Production/ links/541752a10cf2f48c74a406bb/Evapotranspiration-and-Water-Management-for-CropProduction.pdf Pervaiz U, Akram M, Nawab K, Khan A, Khan MZ, Muhammad N (2010) Productivity enhancement through tubewell irrigation. Sarhad J Agric 26(1):97–102 Prasad N, Mahto A (1991) Impact of irrigation development in a hilly area of Chotanagpur. India J Reg Sci 23(1):107–115 Rahman H, Lata S (2012a) Regional analysis of irrigation development in Uttar Pradesh. Indian J Reg Sci 44(1):123–131 Rahman H, Lata S (2012b) Comparative analysis of irrigation in cropping intensity in Uttar Pradesh, India. Natl Geogr J India 58(3):25–34 Rahman MW, Parvin L (2009) Impact of irrigation on food security in Bangladesh for the past three decades. J Water Res Prot 1(3):216–225 Rahman F, Siddiqui AR, Ansari AH (2008) Diffusion of irrigation and its impact on agriculture: a case study. Indian J Reg Sci 40(1):43–52 Raman R, Kumari R (2012) Regional disparity in agricultural development: a district level analysis for Uttar Pradesh. J Reg Dev Plann 1(2):71–90 Rao DV (1986) Irrigation: a clue for rural development. Kurukshetra 34(11 &12):14–70 Rao CSK, Ali MI (1986) Impact of irrigation on cropping pattern. Kurukshetra 34(11 & 12):37–40 Reddy RR, Rao NVN, Sarma PVSRL (1986) Role of minor irrigation in drought prone area development. Kurukshetra 34(11 & 12):20–24 Rockstrom J, Lannerstad, Falkenmark M (2007) Assessing the water challenge of a new green revolution in developing countries. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(15):6253–6260 Samra JS, Sharma KD (2009) National groundwater congress. Central Ground Water Board, New Delhi Scott CA, Sharma B (2009) Energy supply and the expansion of groundwater irrigation in the Indus-Ganges Basin. Int J River Basin Manag 7(1):1–6 Scott CA, Dall’erba S, Caravantes RD (2010) Groundwater rights in Mexican agriculture: spatial distribution and demographic determinants. Prof Geogr 62(1):1–15 Shah T (2001) Wells and welfare in Ganga Basin: essay on public policy and private initiative in eastern Uttar Pradesh, India, Research report 54. IWMI, Colombo Shah T (2005) Groundwater and human development: challenges and opportunities in livelihoods and environment. Water Sci Technol 51(8):27–37 Shah T (2007) The groundwater economy of South Asia: an assessment of size, significance and socio-ecological impacts. In: Giordano M, Villholth KG (eds) The agricultural groundwater revolution: opportunities and threats to development. IWMI, Colombo, pp 7–36 Shah T (2009) Taming the anarchy: groundwater governance in South Asia. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC Shankar PSV, Kulkarni H, Krishnan S (2011) India’s groundwater challenge and the way forward. Econ Polit Wkly xlvi(2):37–45 Sharma SK (2000) Spatial framework and economic development: a geographical perspective on resources and regional disparities in Madhya Pradesh. Northern Book Centre, New Delhi Sharma KD (2009) Groundwater management for food security. Curr Sci 96(11):1444–1447 Sharma R, Poleman TT (1993) The new economics of India’s green revolution: income and employment diffusion in Uttar Pradesh. Cornell University Press, Ithaca Sharma NK, Samra JS, Singh HP (2001) Influence on boundary plantation of poplar (Populusdeltoids M.) on soil-water use and water use efficiency of wheat. Agric Water Manag 51(3):173–185

80

3  Sources of Irrigation: A Theoretical Framework

Sharma BR, Rao KV, Vittal KPR (2008) Converting rain into gain: opportunities for realizing the potential of rain-fed agriculture in India. In: Amarasinghe UA, Shah T, Malik RPS (eds) India’s water future: scenarios and issues. IWMI, Colombo, pp 169–180 Siddiqui FA (1988) Water management and food crop production in Uttar Pradesh. The Geographer 36(2):44–50 Sidhu DS, Chand R, Kaul JK (1984) An economic analysis of various sources of irrigation in Punjab. Indian J Agric Econ 39(3):506–511 Singh RL (2003) India: a regional geography. National Geographical Society of India, Varanasi Singh H (2006) Policy issues for agricultural development of rain-fed area in India. Agric Situat India 63(5):301–307 Singh AL, Azam SF (1986) Correlation of irrigation and crop output in western Uttar Pradesh. The Geographer 32(1):93–104 Singh AL, Azam SF (1990) Economics of irrigation from canals and tubewells in Aligarh District. The Geographer 37(1):23–34 Singh AL, Salvia L (1993) Utilization of water resources for agricultural purposes in western Uttar Pradesh. Indian J Reg Sci 25(1):49–58 Singh DR, Singh RP (2006) Structure, determinants and efficiency of groundwater markets in western Uttar Pradesh. Agric Econ Res Rev 19(1):129–144 Singh V, Singh J (2012) Levels of agricultural development and its correlates in Chandauli district (Uttar Pradesh). Natl Geogr J India 58(3):13–24 Singh AL, Azam SF, Hashmi SN (1988) Inter-district variations in the development of irrigation in Western Uttar Pradesh. Natl Geogr 23(1):45–53 Sisodia BVS, Kumar S (2004) Scenario of agricultural development in eastern Uttar Pradesh. Agric Situat India 60(11):715–721 Sivanappan RK (1994) Prospects of micro-irrigation in India. Irrig Drain Syst 8(1):49–58 Sivanappan RK (1998) Irrigation water management for sugarcane. Vasantdada Sugar Institute, Pune Somashekaraiah NT (2011) Development of irrigation during five-year plans in India. Kurukshetra 59(4):5 Soundaram SV (1994) Need for irrigation and its development in Tamilnadu. Geogr Rev India 56(3):60–64 Srivastava SK, Kumar R, Singh RP (2009) Extent of groundwater extraction and irrigation efficiency on farms under different water-market regimes in central Uttar Pradesh. Agric Econ Res Rev 22(1):87–97 Thakur J, Kumar P (1984) A comparative study of economic efficiency of different irrigation systems in western Uttar Pradesh. Indian J Agric Econ 39(3):521–527 Tuong TP, Bouman BAM (2003) Rice production in water scarce environments. In: Kijne JW, Barker R, Molden D (eds) Water productivity in agriculture: limits and opportunities for improvement. CABI/IWMI, Wallingford, pp 53–67 Tyagi S (1994) Levels of agricultural development in Aligarh district. Indian J Reg Sci 26(1):9–16 Vaidyanathan A (ed) (2001) Tanks of South India. Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi Vaidyanathan A (ed) (2006) India’s water resources: contemporary issues on irrigation. Oxford University Press, New Delhi Vakulabharanam V (2004) Agricultural growth and irrigation in Telangana: a review of evidence. Econ Polit Wkly 39(13):1421–1426 Verma NMP (1990) Irrigation change and agricultural development: an impact analysis. Uppal Publishing House, New Delhi Wester P (2008) Shedding the waters. Wageningen University, Wageningen Wichelns D, Oster JD (2006) Sustainable irrigation is necessary and achievable, but direct costs and environmental impacts can be substantial. Agric Water Manag 86(3):114–127 Yadav JSP (2005) Efficient and eco-friendly management of water resources for sustainable high production. J Water Manage 13(2):61–72

Chapter 4

Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation Development

Abstract  This chapter deals with patterns of water supply, growth trends in irrigated area and its development in different regions of the state by taking account the data of 20 years period that ranged from 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. Growth rates per annum in irrigated area through different sources of irrigation and for irrigated crops were also computed for each district by applying ‘Least Square Method’. Further, a comparative picture of intensity of irrigation was presented afterwards the levels of irrigation development were assessed applying the Composite Z-Score method for the study. Keywords  Area irrigated more than once · Gross irrigated area · Irrigated area by canals · Irrigated area by other means · Irrigated area by other wells · Irrigated area by tanks · Irrigated area by tubewells · Irrigated area under cash crops · Irrigated area under cereal crops · Irrigated area under oilseed crops · Irrigated area under pulse crops · Irrigation intensity · Levels of irrigation development · Net irrigated area · Patterns of growth in irrigated area · Trends of growth in irrigated cropped area · Trends of growth in source · Wise irrigated area · Trends of growth in total irrigated area

4.1  P  atterns of Growth in Irrigated Area: Total (Gross, Net and Area Irrigated More Than Once) The state of Uttar Pradesh forms a part of the Ganga plain of north India which is quite unique in terms of fertile alluvial soils and adequate amount of rainfall received in the months of rainy season, which helps to grow a large number of crops. Irrigation has led an increase in cropped area in recent years to make double cropping possible, and because of security provided under the provision of irrigation. Irrigated agriculture makes the production of crops far more certain and their growth far more steady rather than under rain-fed conditions. Hence, the Ganga plain is one of the most intensively cultivated regions of the country, especially for the cultivation of wheat, oilseeds, cotton, and sugarcane. Because of seasonal contrasts, rabi © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 S. Lata, Irrigation Water Management for Agricultural Development in Uttar Pradesh, India, Advances in Asian Human-Environmental Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00952-6_4

81

82

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

crop of wheat and many of vegetables are grown in the cool winter season under irrigation, and kharif crops of millet, rice, cotton, and maize in hot summer season, with rainfall supplemented by irrigation wherever necessary. Irrigation in the state is provided both by the canals (which stem from the main rivers) and by the tubewells. In most areas water table is too low to tap by shallow wells, and more permanent masonry lined wells are necessary to support cultivation. Modern tubewells were installed in the state during 1930s and onwards (Cantor 1967). Different sources of irrigation have helped in the transformation of irrigation capacity in the state, which began since the mid-1960s. The western part1 of the state showed a substantial increase in irrigated area. To a lesser extent, this is also evident in the central part. But the increase in area under irrigation in eastern region has been marginal, though it is significant. When the expansion of irrigation took place in the mid-1960s, it was mainly confined to the western part reflected in a sharp increase in the intensity of irrigation as well as in cropping intensity. A similar but less marked trend was also been apparent in the central part. The eastern region with a small increase in the irrigated area experienced a little change in these two factors (Clift 1977). During the past several years, power supply in rural areas of eastern part of the state has been far from satisfactory. As a result, state tubewells (deep) remained highly inefficient in performance. Whereas, the private (shallow) tubewells most suited to the holding structure, because of small in size and low cost, allowed the farmers for irrigating the fields. The economic cost of irrigating through state tubewells appears to be higher than that through private tubewells because state tubewells have fixed rates per hour and are inefficient (Dick and Svendsen 1991). In this chapter, an attempt has been made to examine the trends of growth and patterns in irrigated area of different regions of the state during 20  years of the period from 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. Growth rates in irrigated area through different sources of irrigation and for major crops were computed for individual district of the state. For computing the annual growth rate for the selected period least square method was applied. Thereafter, the intensity of irrigation and irrigation development are assessed for four periods, viz., 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005– 2010 and 2010–2015.

1  For making development plans, the state of UP has been divided into four economic regionsWestern, Central, Eastern and Bundelkhand by the Planning Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh. The first three regions form parts of the Ganga plain, while Bundelkhand belongs to the southern plateau. Western region comprises 27 districts covering an area of 79,832  km2 and a population of 74.3 million in the year 2011. It is distinct from other regions of the state in demographic, economic and cultural point of view and has experienced rapid economic growth due to the Green Revolution. The central region comprises 10 districts, with an area of 45,834 km2 and 35.9 million populations, whereas eastern region covers an area of about 85,845 km2 with population of 79.8  million and segmented into 27 districts. About seven districts form Bundelkhand region which occupies 29,417 km2 area with population of 9.6 million.

4.1 Patterns of Growth in Irrigated Area: Total (Gross, Net and Area Irrigated More…

83

4.1.1  Gross Irrigated Area The gross irrigated area refers to the sum of the area under various irrigated crops taken together during the current agricultural year. This is the aggregate area of individual irrigated crops raised during the year, even if two or more crops have been raised on the same land in different seasons during the year under consideration. The actual gross irrigated area in the state was 17.59 million ha. during 1995– 2000 that rose to 18.25, 19.36 and 20.11 million ha. during the periods of 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively registered the highest growth of 6.09% during 2000–2005 to 2005–2010. Region-wise comparison of growth in gross irrigated area shows that growth was highest in the central region of the state being 11.07% for the period1995–2000 to 2000–2005, as against the western region which showed negative growth of −1.22% in respective period of study (Tables 4.1 and 4.2). Bundelkhand region of the state showed high positive growth in gross irrigated area in all periods of the study being highest (20.42%) during 2005–2010 to 2010– 2015. It is revealed from Figs.  4.1 and 4.2 showing gross irrigated area to gross cropped area during 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, and growth during three successive growth periods of 1995–2000 to 2000–2005, 2000– 2005 to 2005–2010 and 2005–2010 to 2010–2015 that, the percentage of gross irrigated area in the state was 67.28% during 1995–2000, this recorded a significant increase of 7.25, 5.25 and 2.5% during the corresponding periods of growth and increased to 72.16, 75.95 and 77.85%, respectively. It can be seen from Table 4.3 and Fig. 4.3 that, there were 13 districts during 1995–2000 which accounted for above 85% gross irrigated area, the numbers increased to 18, 26 and 32  in this category during 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively. During the period of 2010–2015, out of 32 districts in this category, five of them namely, Bulandshahr, Meerut, Ghaziabad, GBN and Baghpat registered 100% irrigated area. All of these districts lie in the most fertile Ganga-­ Yamuna doab region of the state. In the category of 70–85% gross irrigated area, there were 23, 26, 22 and 20 districts, respectively in these periods of study. Between 55% and 70% gross irrigated area, there were 16 districts during 1995–2000, which decreased to 11, 10 and 7 in numbers in the later periods. A total of 18 districts came under the category of below 55% gross irrigated area during 1995–2000, the number of districts decreased to 15, 13 and 12 during the periods of 2000–2005, 2005– 2010 and 2010–2015, respectively. During the period of 2010–2015, these districts were namely, Lalitpur, Jhansi, SKN, Mahrajganj, Banda, Shrawasti, Bahraich, Hamirpur, Balrampur, Mahoba, Chitrakoot and Sonbhadra. The most significant change during these periods of study was seen in the category of above 85% gross irrigated area wherein the proportion of districts increased from 18% during 1995– 2000 to 45% during 2010–2015 because of the shift of the districts of the lower categories to the next higher category. The change was also noticed in the very low category where the percentage of districts got decreased from 14% to 7% during the same period (Table 4.3 and Fig. 4.3).

Canals 16.67 13.85 13.16 11.87 29.98 22.90 20.83 18.67 53.99 46.38 39.51 37.53 26.86 23.59 21.64 20.71 24.55 20.88 19.25 18.15

Tubewells Government 3.96 2.24 1.55 1.76 4.26 2.62 1.63 1.76 4.42 4.20 4.21 4.42 9.91 5.85 5.01 5.44 5.89 3.58 2.84 3.14 Private 73.21 76.79 75.24 72.97 63.37 72.83 76.74 78.65 6.54 10.43 20.87 25.46 58.94 67.18 69.74 69.51 62.69 68.29 69.64 68.73

Total 77.17 79.03 76.79 74.73 67.62 75.45 78.37 80.41 10.96 14.63 24.68 29.88 68.85 73.03 74.74 74.95 68.58 71.87 72.46 71.88

Other wells 3.88 6.04 9.44 12.11 0.54 1.22 0.58 0.84 23.44 27.51 27.46 24.16 1.55 2.00 2.26 3.03 3.89 5.45 6.93 8.27

NIA Tanks etc. Other means (Million ha.) 0.07 2.21 5.71 0.09 0.99 5.65 0.06 0.56 5.73 0.01 1.28 5.78 0.35 1.50 2.11 0.18 0.25 2.37 0.18 0.05 2.53 0.05 0.02 2.58 1.55 10.07 0.84 6.80 4.67 0.94 6.77 1.57 1.03 6.46 1.97 1.23 1.62 1.12 3.90 1.01 0.38 4.08 1.21 0.30 4.18 0.94 0.38 4.33 0.70 2.28 12.56 0.88 0.93 13.04 0.95 0.46 13.47 0.88 0.83 13.92

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Notes: NIA-Net irrigated area; MTOIA-Area irrigated more than once; GIA-Gross irrigated area

Periods 1995–2000 2000–2005 2005–2010 2010–2015 Central 1995–2000 2000–2005 2005–2010 2010–2015 Bundelkhand 1995–2000 2000–2005 2005–2010 2010–2015 Eastern 1995–2000 2000–2005 2005–2010 2010–2015 Uttar Pradesh 1995–2000 2000–2005 2005–2010 2010–2015

Regions Western

Table 4.1  Region-wise irrigated area by different sources in Uttar Pradesh (percent) GIA

(Million ha.) (Million ha.) 2.60 8.32 2.56 8.22 2.91 8.63 2.91 8.63 0.95 3.06 1.03 3.40 1.13 3.66 1.25 3.83 0.07 0.90 0.06 1.00 0.06 1.09 0.08 1.32 1.40 5.31 1.55 5.63 1.79 5.97 2.00 6.33 5.03 17.59 5.21 18.25 5.89 19.36 6.25 20.11

MTOIA

84 4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Growth periods 1995–2000 to 2000–2005 2000–2005 to 2005–2010 2005–2010 to 2010–2015 1995–2000 to 2000–2005 2000–2005 to 2005–2010 2005–2010 to 2010–2015 1995–2000 to 2000–2005 2000–2005 to 2005–2010 2005–2010 to 2010–2015 1995–2000 to 2000–2005 2000–2005 to 2005–2010 2005–2010 to 2010–2015 1995–2000 to 2000–2005 2000–2005 to 2005–2010 2005–2010 to 2010–2015

Tubewells Canals Government −16.93 −43.58 −4.95 −30.55 −9.84 13.54 −23.64 −38.46 −9.03 −37.78 −10.38 8.24 −14.09 −4.87 −14.81 0.10 −5.03 5.15 −12.18 −40.98 −8.27 −14.37 −4.28 8.71 −14.97 −39.27 −7.79 −20.51 −5.71 10.54 Private 4.89 −2.03 −3.02 14.94 5.36 2.50 59.46 100.03 22.02 13.98 3.80 −0.33 8.94 1.98 −1.31

Total 2.40 −2.84 −2.68 11.58 3.86 2.61 33.54 68.69 21.06 6.07 2.35 0.27 4.80 0.82 −0.80

Other wells 55.93 56.09 28.38 123.99 −52.39 45.57 17.36 −0.19 −12.01 29.45 13.00 33.85 39.88 27.15 19.37

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Notes: NIA-Net irrigated area; MTOIA-Area irrigated more than once; GIA-Gross irrigated area

Uttar Pradesh

Eastern

Bundelkhand

Central

Regions Western

Table 4.2  Region-wise growth in irrigated area by different sources in Uttar Pradesh (percent) Tanks etc. 28.16 −33.18 −76.02 −48.11 −4.15 −69.66 339.80 −0.55 −4.57 −37.45 19.21 −22.53 25.86 8.44 −7.58

Other means −55.13 −43.86 129.04 −83.26 −79.40 −54.21 −53.62 −66.29 25.25 −66.46 −19.93 24.23 −59.16 −50.42 79.10

NIA MTOIA −1.05 −1.58 1.28 13.37 0.92 0.26 12.29 8.38 6.78 9.19 2.11 10.99 12.25 −8.99 10.05 3.09 19.64 33.26 4.49 10.28 2.57 15.46 3.46 12.06 3.79 3.53 3.32 13.05 3.36 6.25

GIA −1.22 5.05 −0.05 11.07 7.51 4.85 10.68 9.63 20.42 6.02 6.12 6.03 3.72 6.09 3.91

4.1 Patterns of Growth in Irrigated Area: Total (Gross, Net and Area Irrigated More… 85

86

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

144.44

143.69

160.00

139.93

140.03

UTTAR PRADESH Irrigated Area

140.00

83.97 37.71

31.04

28.21

40.00

35.43

60.00

77.85

81.09

79.95

77.75

70.47

80.00

72.16

100.00 67.28

Percentage

120.00

20.00 0.00

1995-2000

2000-05

2005-10

2010-15

Fig. 4.1  Uttar Pradesh: irrigated area

14.13

UTTAR PRADESH Growth in Irrigated Area 16.00

2.00

6.44 3.55

-0.07

4.00

2.50

2.69

6.00

4.30

8.00

5.25

10.00

7.25

Percentage

12.00

10.04

10.33

14.00

0.00 -2.00

1995-2000 to 2000-05

2000-05 to 2005-10

2000-05 to 2010-15

Growth period

Fig. 4.2  Uttar Pradesh: growth in irrigated area

It is evident from Table 4.4 depicting district-wise growth in gross irrigated area in the state that during the period of 1995–2000 to 2000–2005, above 10% growth in gross irrigated area was reported in 17 districts among these the top rank districts were namely, Bahraich (47.91%), Faizabad (44.52%), and Deoria (33.66%), whereas during later periods of growth, 13 and 11 districts, respectively came in this category. There were 47, 47 and 48 districts, respectively were within the category of 0–10% growth. In the category of −10% to 0% growth, there were 6 districts during the first period of growth and in the later periods 8 and 10 districts were seen

4.1 Patterns of Growth in Irrigated Area: Total (Gross, Net and Area Irrigated More…

87

Table 4.3  Gross irrigated area to gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh

Category (%) Very high (above 85) High (70–85) Medium (55–70) Low (40–55) Very low (below 40)

1995–2000 No. of districts 13 23 16 8 10

% 18 32 23 11 14

2000–2005 No. of districts 18 26 11 7 8

% 25 37 15 10 11

2005–2010 No. of districts 26 22 10 6 7

% 37 31 14 8 10

2010–2015 No. of districts 32 20 7 7 5

% 45 28 10 10  7

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

Fig. 4.3  Uttar Pradesh: gross irrigated area, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

Table 4.4  District-wise growth in gross irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh Growth

(%) Above 10

0 to 10

−10 to 0

Growth period (1995–2000 to 2000–2005) No. Name of district 17 Bahraich, Faizabad, Deoria, Gonda, Sitapur, Hamirpur, Shrawasti, Jhansi, Sultanpur, Azamgarh, Kheri, Moradabad, Hardoi, Kaushambi, Siddharthnagar, Balrampur, and Allahabad 47 Mau, SRNB, Pratapgarh, Chitrakoot, Gorakhpur, Farrukhabad, Jalaun, Kushinagar, Basti, Varanasi, Sonbhadra, Bijnor, Ballia, Etah, Lalitpur, Kanpur Dehat, Mainpuri, Kanpur Nagar, Fatehpur, Saharanpur, Lucknow, Mahoba, Kannauj, Ghazipur, Banda, Shahjahanpur, Bara Banki, Bareilly, Muzaffarnagar, Unnao, SKN, Rampur, Ambedkar Nagar, Mahrajganj, Rae Bareli, Budaun, Firozabad, Agra, JPN, Pilibhit, Bulandshahr, Ghaziabad, Auraiya, Meerut, Jaunpur, Mahamaya Nagar and GBN

6

Below −10 –

Growth period (2000–2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 13 Gonda, Etawah, Deoria, Jalaun, Mau, Bahraich, Balrampur, Lalitpur, Azamgarh, Hamirpur, Sitapur, Basti and Kaushambi

47

Baghpat, Chandauli, 8 Aligarh, Mathura, Mirzapur and Etawah

–

2

Growth period (2005–2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 11 Shrawasti, Chitrakoot, Gonda, Basti, Jhansi, Hamirpur, Siddharthnagar, Gorakhpur, Deoria, Jalaun and Banda

48 Siddharthnagar, Sultanpur, Banda, Farrukhabad, Kheri, Ballia, Agra, Etah, Kannauj, Bara Banki, Kushinagar, Gorakhpur, Mathura, Pratapgarh, Hardoi, Bijnor, Mainpuri, JPN, SKN, Mahamaya Nagar, Jaunpur, Saharanpur, SRNB, Firozabad, Kanpur Nagar, Auraiya, Pilibhit, Mahrajganj, Chandauli, Lucknow, Allahabad, Moradabad, Rae Bareli, Ghazipur, Varanasi, Fatehpur, Bareilly, Unnao, Faizabad, Ambedkar Nagar, Aligarh, Budaun, Rampur, Ghaziabad, Shahjahanpur, Bulandshahr and GBN 10 Meerut, Kanpur Dehat, Baghpat, Muzaffarnagar, Shrawasti, Mirzapur, Chitrakoot and Mahoba Jhansi and Sonbhadra 2

Kannauj, Bahraich, Mirzapur, Sonbhadra, Fatehpur, Sitapur, Kheri, Etah, Kaushambi, Farrukhabad, Auraiya, Bijnor, Ballia, Kushinagar, Bara Banki, Allahabad, Mau, Lucknow, Faizabad, Etawah, Kanpur Dehat, Hardoi, Ghazipur, Baghpat, Rampur, Unnao, Pilibhit, Agra, Pratapgarh, JPN, Azamgarh, Bareilly, Sultanpur, Mahamaya Nagar, Chandauli, Aligarh, Moradabad, Saharanpur, SRNB, Muzaffarnagar, Kanpur Nagar, Mahrajganj, Jaunpur, Mathura, Ambedkar Nagar, Meerut, Ghaziabad and Bulandshahr GBN, Shahjahanpur, Rae Bareli, Varanasi, SKN, Mainpuri, Mahoba, Firozabad, Kanshiram Nagar and Balrampur Lalitpur and Budaun

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Note: (–) denotes data not available in this category

4.1 Patterns of Growth in Irrigated Area: Total (Gross, Net and Area Irrigated More…

89

Table 4.5  Net irrigated area to net sown area in Uttar Pradesh

Category (%) Very high (above 85) High (70–85) Medium (55–70) Low (40–55) Very low (below 40)

1995–2000 No. of districts % 22 31 21 30 12 17 8 11 7 10

2000–2005 No. of districts % 33 46 19 27 9 13 4 6 5 7

2005–2010 No. of districts % 43 61 14 20 6 8 4 6 4 6

2010–2015 No. of districts % 48 68 13 18 2 3 6 8 2 3

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

in this category. The districts namely, Jhansi and Sonbhadra, and Lalitpur and Budaun, respectively recorded very low growth (below −10%) in gross irrigated area during later periods of growth.

4.1.2  Net Irrigated Area Net irrigated area refers to the physical area irrigated during an agricultural year, each hectare of which is counted only once even if two or more crops are irrigated in different seasons on the same land. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 depict that net irrigated area in the state increased from 12.56 million ha. during 1995–2000 to 13.04 million ha. in 2000–2005, and it further increased to 13.47 and 13.92 million ha. during 2005–2010 and 2010–201 showing growth of 3.79, 3.32 and 3.36%, respectively. The central region of the state again showed highest positive growth of 12.29% in contrast to negative growth of −1.05% in the western region during 1995–2000 to 2000–2005, whereas during 2005–2010 to 2010–2015, Bundelkhand region recorded the highest positive growth of 19.64% followed by eastern region (3.46%) of the state. As far as net irrigated area as a percentage of net sown area is concerned, a significant increase of 10.33% was recorded in the state during the period of 1995–2000 to 2000–2005 which slowed down to 3.55% during 2005–2010 to 2010–2015 (Fig. 4.2). In terms of net irrigated area, as depicted in Table 4.5, the number of districts within the category of above 85% net irrigated area increased from 22 during 1995– 2000 to 33, 43 and 48 during the periods of 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively. In the category of 70 to 85%, the numbers of districts were 21, 19, 14 and 13 in respective periods. The whole of the western part and most of the districts from Awadh and Purvanchal regions of the state were covered by above 70% irrigation. In the above categories of very high and high net irrigated area, almost 85% of districts were included during 2010–2015 (Fig. 4.4). In the next category of 55 to 70%, 12 districts were seen during 1995–2000, the number decreased to 9, 6 and 2, respectively during the later periods and in the next two categories of 40 to 55% and below 40% of net irrigated area, the number of districts were 8 and 7, respectively

90

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Fig. 4.4  Uttar Pradesh: net irrigated area, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

during 1995–2000 which again decreased to 4 and 5, 4 and 4, and 6 and 2, respectively during the subsequent periods of study. Regarding the growth in net irrigated area in the state, there were 21 districts which recorded high growth of above 10% during the period of 1995–2000 to 2000– 2005, whereas during 2000–2005 to 2005–2010 and 2005–2010 to 2010–2015, there were 9 and 8 districts, respectively were included in this category (Table 4.6). The growth of 0 to 10% was shown by 43, 42 and 53 districts and the growth in

Table 4.6  District-wise growth in net irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh Growth (%)

Growth period (1995–2000 to 2000–2005) No. Name of district

Above 10

21

0 to 10

43

−10 to 0

6

Below −10 –

Growth period (2000–2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district

Faizabad, Shrawasti, 9 Bahraich, Deoria, Sitapur, Gonda, Hamirpur, Kheri, Jhansi, Etawah, Moradabad, SKN, Kaushambi, Allahabad, Siddharthnagar, Hardoi, Lalitpur, Sonbhadra, Kushinagar, Ballia and Jalaun Varanasi, Azamgarh, 42 Mahrajganj, Sultanpur, Shahjahanpur, Rampur, Meerut, Chitrakoot, Banda, Bara Banki, Kanpur Dehat, Pratapgarh, Lucknow, Ghazipur, Gorakhpur, Mahoba, Unnao, SRNB, Bijnor, Rae Bareli, Jaunpur, Saharanpur, Mathura, Etah, Balrampur, Agra, Fatehpur, Muzaffarnagar, Firozabad, Pilibhit, Chandauli, Budaun, Basti, Ambedkar Nagar, Mainpuri, Aligarh, Kannauj, Mahamaya Nagar, Bulandshahr, Bareilly, Ghaziabad, Farrukhabad and GBN

Mau, Baghpat, Auraiya, JPN, Mirzapur and Kanpur Nagar

16

–

3

Growth period (2005–2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district

Etawah, Jalaun, Gonda, 8 Siddharthnagar, Lalitpur, Sitapur, Banda, Hamirpur and Bahraich

Balrampur, Hamirpur, Jhansi, Chitrakoot, Shrawasti, Basti, Banda and Moradabad

Kheri, Agra, 53 Farrukhabad, Bijnor, Auraiya, Kushinagar, Mahrajganj, Sultanpur, Basti, Allahabad, Kaushambi, Unnao, Gorakhpur, Mirzapur, Bara Banki, Pratapgarh, Etah, Deoria, Rae Bareli, Ghazipur, Hardoi, Fatehpur, Lucknow, Mau, Budaun, Azamgarh, Faizabad, Kanpur Nagar, Saharanpur, Mainpuri, Jaunpur, Kanpur Dehat, SKN, Kannauj, Chandauli, Shahjahanpur, Jhansi, Mahamaya Nagar, Ghaziabad, Firozabad, Bulandshahr and GBN

Sonbhadra, Jalaun, Mahoba, Fatehpur, Deoria, JPN, Rampur, Kanshiram Nagar, Bahraich, Gonda, Mau, Kheri, Kaushambi, Farrukhabad, Aligarh, Bareilly, Allahabad, Ballia, Pilibhit, Sitapur, Lalitpur, Baghpat, Gorakhpur, Etawah, Bara Banki, Mirzapur, SKN, Etah, Agra, Azamgarh, Hardoi, Unnao, Ghazipur, Lucknow, Budaun, SRNB, Bijnor, Mahrajganj, Auraiya, Varanasi, Mathura, Jaunpur, Sultanpur, Muzaffarnagar, Pratapgarh, Ambedkar Nagar, Kushinagar, Saharanpur, Mahamaya Nagar, Chandauli, Meerut, Ghaziabad and Bulandshahr GBN, Firozabad, Kannauj, Siddharthnagar, Kanpur Dehat, Shahjahanpur, Rae Bareli, Faizabad, Mainpuri and Kanpur Nagar –

Meerut, Bareilly, 10 Ambedkar Nagar, Ballia, Muzaffarnagar, Baghpat, Mathura, Varanasi, Moradabad, Mahoba, Pilibhit, SRNB, Rampur, Aligarh, JPN and Chitrakoot Balrampur, Shrawasti – and Sonbhadra

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Note: (–) denotes data not available in this categor.

92

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

between −10% and 0% was recorded in 6, 16 and 10 districts, respectively during the corresponding periods. In very low growth category, 3 districts namely, Balrampur (−10.68%), Shrawasti (−17.51%) and Sonbhadra (−22.64%) fall in this category during 2000–2005 to 2005–2010.

4.1.3  Area Irrigated More Than Once The area irrigated more than once refers to the difference between gross irrigated area and net irrigated area. It can easily be identified as the irrigated component of total multiple cropped area. A close examination of Tables 4.1 and 4.2 shows that, an increase of above 13% in area irrigated more than once was observed in the state during 2000–2005 to 2005–2010 as compared to the other two periods of time. An increase of as high as 33.26 and 15.46% was seen in Bundelkhand and the eastern regions, respectively during 2005–2010 to 2010–2015 and 2000–2005 to 2005– 2010. During 1995–2000 to 2000–2005, Bundelkhand region recorded a high negative growth of −8.99% in area irrigated more than once. From Figs. 4.1 and 4.2, it is clear that during 1995–2000, 28.21% area irrigated more than once as a percentage of net sown area was recorded in the state, with an increase of 10.04, 14.13 and 6.44%, respectively it reached to 31.04, 35.43 and 37.71% in the corresponding periods of growth. It is clear from (Fig.  4.5 and Table 4.7) that, there were 2 districts to record 65% and above as area irrigated more than once during 1995–2000, the number of districts increased to 3, 9 and 6, respectively during 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015. During the period of 2010– 2015, the districts namely, Bara Banki, Rampur, Bulandshahr, Mainpuri, Ambedkar Nagar and Pilibhit recorded very high area irrigated more than once. In the category of 50 to 65%, the number of districts was in order of 8, 11, 9 and 20 in the corresponding periods, respectively. There were 14, 15, 18 and 16 districts in which 35–50% area was irrigated as more than once. Within the category of 20–35%, there were 24, 19, 18 and 13 districts in the respective periods. During 2010–2015, in the category of below 20% area irrigated more than once, most of the districts belonged to the Bundelkhand and eastern regions of the state. It is evident from Table 4.8 that, the growth of above 20% in area irrigated more than once was seen in 18, 23 and 16 districts of the state during the three successive periods of growth, respectively. In the growth category of 0 to 20%, there were 29, 31 and 34 districts in respective periods, whereas low negative growth of −20 to 0% was occupied by 20, 10 and 16 districts, respectively. The growth of below −20% was recorded in 3, 6 and 5 districts, respectively. In the later period, the districts namely, Lalitpur, Hamirpur, Mahoba, Balrampur and SKN were included within this category.

4.1 Patterns of Growth in Irrigated Area: Total (Gross, Net and Area Irrigated More…

93

Fig. 4.5  Uttar Pradesh: area irrigated more than once, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015) Table 4.7  Area irrigated more than once to net sown area in Uttar Pradesh

Category (%) Very high (Above 65) High (50–65) Medium (35–50) Low (20–35) Very low (Below 20)

1995–2000 No. of districts % 2 3 8 11 14 20 24 34 22 31

2000–2005 No. of districts % 3 4 11 15 15 21 19 27 22 31

2005–2010 No. of districts % 9 13 9 13 18 25 18 25 17 24

2010–2015 No. of districts % 6 8 20 28 16 23 13 18 16 23

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

Table 4.8  District-wise growth in area irrigated more than once in Uttar Pradesh Growth (%) Above 20

0 to 20

−20 to 0

Growth period (1995– 2000 to 2000–2005) No. Name of district 18 Balrampur, Bahraich, Gonda, Deoria, Jalaun, Faizabad, Azamgarh, Mau, Jhansi, Meerut, Allahabad, Sitapur, Gorakhpur, Hamirpur, Sultanpur, Moradabad and Hardoi, Basti 29 JPN, Ghazipur, Siddharthnagar, Kushinagar, Bara Banki, Bareilly, Etawah, Budaun, Kanpur Nagar, Ambedkar Nagar, Kaushambi, Auraiya, SKN, SRNB, Shrawasti, Mainpuri, Baghpat, Ballia, Firozabad, Mahamaya Nagar, Bijnor, Lucknow, Rae Bareli, Rampur, Chandauli, Banda, Kannauj, Ghaziabad and Shahjahanpur

Growth period (2000–2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 23 GBN, Jalaun, Lalitpur, Deoria, Mahoba, SKN, Balrampur, Jhansi, Varanasi, Mainpuri, Gonda, Azamgarh, Mau, Etawah, Agra, Gorakhpur, Firozabad, Hardoi, Bahraich, Aligarh, Jaunpur, Kaushambi and JPN 31 Bara Banki, Basti, Etah, Chandauli, Sultanpur, Ballia, Moradabad, Mathura, Kannauj, Farrukhabad, Pilibhit, Shahjahanpur, Mahamaya Nagar, Rampur, Faizabad, Siddharthnagar, Rae Bareli, Bareilly, Budaun, SRNB, Kushinagar, Unnao, Allahabad, Ghazipur, Kheri, Ambedkar Nagar, Sitapur, Auraiya, Bulandshahr, Baghpat and Fatehpur

20

10

16 Meerut, Kanpur Nagar, Muzaffarnagar, Ghaziabad, Lucknow, Kanpur Dehat, Saharanpur, Bijnor, Pratapgarh and Banda

6

5 Mahrajganj, Mirzapur, Shrawasti, Chitrakoot, Hamirpur and Sonbhadra

Below −20 3

Etah, Saharanpur, Kanpur Dehat, Kheri, Jaunpur, Bulandshahr, Fatehpur, Pilibhit, Mahoba, Pratapgarh, Farrukhabad, Muzaffarnagar, Mirzapur, Unnao, Aligarh, Sonbhadra, Chitrakoot, Mathura, Varanasi and Agra Lalitpur, Mahrajganj and GBN

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 16 Siddharthnagar, Jhansi, Shrawasti, Gonda, Gorakhpur, Bahraich, Agra, Chitrakoot, Pratapgarh, Kannauj, GBN, Deoria, Bara Banki, Banda, Sitapur and Fatehpur

34

Kaushambi, Auraiya, Mahamaya Nagar, Etah, Jalaun, Mirzapur, Kushinagar, Basti, Bijnor, Unnao, Rae Bareli, Ballia, Kheri, Muzaffarnagar, Faizabad, Etawah, Allahabad, Farrukhabad, Bulandshahr, Sultanpur, Lucknow, SRNB, Jaunpur, Kanpur Nagar, Aligarh, Saharanpur, Firozabad, Ghaziabad, Mathura, Baghpat, Mau, Ghazipur, Shahjahanpur and Mahrajganj Ambedkar Nagar, Azamgarh, Meerut, Bareilly, Chandauli, Pilibhit, Rampur, Kanpur Dehat, Varanasi, Sonbhadra, Kanshiram Nagar, Hardoi, JPN, Budaun, Mainpuri and Moradabad

Lalitpur, Hamirpur, Mahoba, Balrampur and SKN

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

4.2 Patterns of Growth In Irrigated Area: Source-Wise

95

4.2  Patterns of Growth In Irrigated Area: Source-Wise Uttar Pradesh is fortunate to have different methods of irrigation such as canals, tubewells (government and private), other wells, tanks and other means (ponds, lakes etc.). The main sources of irrigation in the state are tubewells and canals occupying about 72% and 18%, respectively together making up 90% of the net irrigated area in the state. The remaining area (i.e., 10%) is irrigated by other irrigation methods (wells, tanks and other means).

4.2.1  Irrigated Area by Canals Canal irrigation in the country is one of the principal and older methods of irrigation used for growing of crops. Canal irrigation is possible in those areas that have large level plains and deep fertile soils which are drained by perennial rivers. As a result, canal irrigation is limited to plain areas of northern India, valleys of Indian peninsular plateau and costal lowlands. Next to tubewells, canal is the second major source of irrigation in the state. The results depicted in Fig. 4.6 and Table 4.9 show that, during 1995–2000, the districts of Chandauli (92.41%) and Sonbhadra (89.56%) of Purvanchal region, and Jalaun (80.47%) of Bundelkhand recorded very high percentage of canal irrigated area (i.e., above 80%) in the state, whereas during 2000–2005 and 2005–2010, only two districts of Sonbhadra (87.5 and 86.34%) and Chandauli (85.3 and 84.71%), respectively received highest irrigation area from canals. During the period of 2010– 2015, single district Chandauli with 83.47% irrigated area from canals falls in this category. Within the next category of 60–80% irrigated area, only 2 districts namely, Mirzapur and Banda were having high irrigation by this source during 1995–2000, and Jalaun, Mirzapur and Banda during 2000–2005, and Jalaun during 2005–2010. During 2010–2015, the districts namely, Sonbhadra and Jalaun were seen in this category. In the medium category of 40–60%, there were 14, 8, 9 and 7 districts, respectively during these periods. Quite a large number of districts in order of 14, 16, 16 and 16 in the category of 20–40%, and 37, 41, 43 and 45 in the category of below 20% area under canal irrigation were found during 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively. It is evident from Table  4.9 that above 60% districts of the state were having below 20% irrigation through canals. It is clear from Table 4.2 that in canal irrigation, the state registered a negative growth of −14.97, −7.79 and −5.71%, respectively during the periods of 1995– 2000 to 2000–2005, 2000–2005 to 2005–2010 and 2005–2010 to 2010–2015. While examining the region-wise growth, all the regions of the state showed negative growth but the central region (the districts of Awadh plains) recorded the highest negative growth of −23.64% in 1995–2000 to 2000–2005, whereas the Bundelkhand region of the state registered the highest negative growth of −14.81% during the period of 2000–2005 to 2005–2010.

96

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Fig. 4.6  Uttar Pradesh: canal irrigated area, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015) Table 4.9  Canals irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh

Category (%) Very high (above 80) High (60–80) Medium (40–60) Low (20–40) Very low (below 20)

1995–2000 No. of districts % 3 4 2 3 14 20 14 20 37 52

2000–2005 No. of districts % 2 3 3 4 8 11 16 23 41 58

2005–2010 No. of districts % 2 3 1 1 9 13 16 23 43 61

2010–2015 No. of districts % 1 1 2 3 7 10 16 23 45 63

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

4.2 Patterns of Growth In Irrigated Area: Source-Wise

97

The district−wise growth in canal irrigated area in the sate has been presented in Table 4.10 which showed that, very few districts of the state (9 in number) have recorded positive growth while rest of the districts showed negative growth during the previous period of 1995–2000 to 2000–2005. This was due to the rapid expansion of tubewells irrigated area in the state during this period. In the next two periods of growth, the number of districts showing positive growth in canal irrigated area increased to 19 and 20, respectively. During the previous period, the growth of above 50% in canal irrigated area was seen in Siddharthnagar and Bijnor districts, whereas during 2000–2005 to 2005–2010, JPN followed by GBN and Gonda came in this category. During the third period of growth, the districts namely, Gonda and SKN followed the growth of above 50%. The growth in between 0 to 50% was recorded in 7, 16 and 18 districts during the respective periods, and in between −50 and 0 was experienced by 53, 47 and 47 districts, respectively. The growth of below −50% was seen in 8, 4 and 4 districts. These districts were namely, Rampur, Gorakhpur, JPN and Budaun during the later period of 2005–2010 to 2010–2015.

4.2.2  Irrigated Area by Tubewells At present, tubewells have become not only the principal mode of groundwater irrigation in the state but also are the single most important source of irrigation overtaking canal irrigation which had a dominance since long as the main source of irrigation in northern India. The state of UP has the largest area (about 72%) under tubewell irrigation among other methods. One distinctive feature of tubewell irrigation vis-à-vis other modes of irrigation is sustained and copious supply of water throughout the whole year. Therefore, cropping intensity can be increased to its maximum extent with the introduction of tubewells on farm. Tubewell irrigation was previously confined to the districts of western, eastern and central regions of the state because it is technically not feasible in other parts, for example, in Bundelkhand region (Dhawan, 1977 and Kumar, 2007). But at present, as indicated in Table 4.1 and Fig. 4.7, it has also covered entire state including a significant area (nearly 30%) in Bundelkhand region also. The data presented in Tables 4.1and 4.2 indicates that area irrigated through tubewells (Government and Private) was 68.58% during 1995–2000 which increased to 71.87, 72.46 and 71.88% during 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015 registering a growth of 4.8, 0.82 and −0.8%, respectively during these periods. The districts of Bundelkhand region showed a stupendous growth of 33.54, 68.69 and 21.06%, in contrast to small and even negative growth of 2.4, −2.84 and −2.68% in the western region in the respective periods. This shows that the farmers of this backward region now prefer tubewells as more reliable and supplementary source to canal irrigation in providing water to the fields. Such groundwater source of irrigation is significantly more productive as compared to surface irrigation (canals and tanks), because it offers irrigation to individual farmer ‘on demand’, which other surface irrigation systems can not offer, because its use entails significant incremental cost of lift. With this method of irrigation, farmers can economize on its use and

Table 4.10  District-wise growth in canals irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh Growth (%) Above 50 0 to 50

−50 to 0

Growth period (1995–2000 to 2000–2005) No. Name of district 2 Siddharthnagar and Bijnor 7 SRNB, Azamgarh, Meerut, Ambedkar Nagar, Bahraich, Jaunpur and Faizabad

53

Below −50 8

Growth period (2000–2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 3 JPN, GBN and Gonda 16

47 Pratapgarh, Sonbhadra, Ghazipur, Allahabad, Shahjahanpur, Pilibhit, Mathura, Etawah, Bareilly, Chandauli, Lalitpur, Kannauj, Rae Bareli, Jalaun, Kaushambi, Mainpuri, Jhansi, Banda, Mau, Mirzapur, Kheri, SKN, Firozabad, Hardoi, Bara Banki, Ballia, Muzaffarnagar, Etah, Auraiya, Ghaziabad, Sultanpur, Bulandshahr, Aligarh, Gonda, Kanpur Dehat, Chitrakoot, Fatehpur, Deoria, Hamirpur, Lucknow, Unnao, Mahoba, Gorakhpur, Kushinagar, Saharanpur, Moradabad, Kanpur Nagar, Mahamaya Nagar, GBN, Balrampur, Agra, Mahrajganj and Sitapur 4 Farrukhabad, Baghpat, Budaun, Shrawasti, Rampur, Varanasi, Basti and JPN

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 2 Gonda and SKN

18 Bijnor, Moradabad, Agra, Lalitpur, Kaushambi, Ambedkar Nagar, Faizabad, Mahrajganj, Kannauj, Ghazipur, Auraiya, SKN, Siddharthnagar, Pratapgarh, Rae Bareli and Mathura 47 Chandauli, Jhansi, Ghaziabad, Etawah, Sonbhadra, Deoria, Unnao, Hardoi, Pilibhit, Azamgarh, Mainpuri, Aligarh, Kanpur Dehat, Jaunpur, Lucknow, Sultanpur, Fatehpur, Mau, Meerut, Bara Banki, SRNB, Muzaffarnagar, Allahabad, Bulandshahr, Mirzapur, Firozabad, Saharanpur, Varanasi, Mahamaya Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, Jalaun, Balrampur, Bareilly, Shrawasti, Etah, Basti, Mahoba, Kushinagar, Ballia, Banda, Farrukhabad, Bahraich, Kheri, Sitapur, Gorakhpur, Shahjahanpur and Hamirpur

Chitrakoot, Rampur, Budaun and Baghpat

4

Bijnor, GBN, Faizabad, Basti, SRNB, Ghazipur, Mainpuri, Farrukhabad, Etah, Baghpat, Deoria, Allahabad, Ballia, Jalaun, Pratapgarh, Sultanpur, Mirzapur and Lalitpur Chandauli, Jhansi, Unnao, Mathura, Hamirpur, Meerut, Etawah, Bara Banki, Moradabad, Ambedkar Nagar, Saharanpur, Auraiya, Rae Bareli, Mahamaya Nagar, Kushinagar, Jaunpur, Fatehpur, Kanpur Nagar, Firozabad, Mahoba, Kanpur Dehat, Muzaffarnagar, Lucknow, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, Mahrajganj, Varanasi, Kanshiram Nagar, Hardoi, Bulandshahr, Mau, Azamgarh, Sonbhadra, Kheri, Chitrakoot, Banda, Shahjahanpur, Kannauj, Aligarh, Sitapur, Agra, Balrampur, Pilibhit, Bahraich, Shrawasti, Bareilly and Siddharthnagar Rampur, Gorakhpur, JPN and Budaun

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

4.2 Patterns of Growth In Irrigated Area: Source-Wise

99

Fig. 4.7  Uttar Pradesh: tubewell irrigated area, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005– 2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

maximize application efficiency (Shah, 2007). Following this, out of total 71, there were 29, 33, 34 and 35 districts, respectively during 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005– 2010 and 2010–2015 recorded 80% and above as area under tubewell irrigation (Table  4.11). During 2010–2015, the districts namely, Gorakhpur, Farrukhabad, Baghpat, Kheri, Sitapur, Gonda, Mahamaya Nagar, Shrawasti, Agra, Aligarh, Mau, Kannauj and Firozabad were having above 90% tubewells irrigated area. In the next category of 60–80% area irrigated by tubewells, the districts were in order of 19, 20, 17 and 19, respectively. In the category of 40–60%, 12, 7, 13 and 10 districts were included. In the category of 20–40% irrigated area, 1, 3, 3 and 2 districts, and below

100

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Table 4.11  Tubewells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh

Category (%) Very high (Above 80) High (60–80) Medium (40–60) Low (20–40) Very low (Below 20)

1995–2000 No. of districts % 29 41 19 27 12 17 1 1 9 13

2000–2005 No. of districts % 33 46 20 28 7 10 3 4 7 10

2005–2010 No. of districts % 34 48 17 24 13 18 3 4 4 6

2010–2015 No. of districts % 35 49 19 27 10 14 2 3 5 7

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

20% was recorded by 9, 7, 4 and 5 districts of the state, respectively. During 2010– 2015, the districts with low and very low tubewell irrigated area were namely, Jalaun, Lalitpur, Mirzapur, Chandauli, Sonbhadra, Jhansi and Mahoba (Fig. 4.7). As far as the growth in irrigated area of tubewells is concerned, there were 56 districts which showed positive growth during 1995–2000 to 2000–2005, the number of districts showing positive growth decreased to 49 during the later periods. The growth of above 20% was seen in 10, 7 and 8 districts in respective periods. During 2000–2005 to 2005–2010, all the 7 districts of Bundelkhand region of the state fell in this category (Table 4.12). This shows that the farmers in Bundelkhand region now prefer tubewells as a supplementary source of irrigation in place of canals. The growth in between 0% and 20% was attained by 46, 42 and 41 districts, respectively. Negative growth in the category of −20 to 0% was seen in 13, 19 and 18 districts. Whereas, the growth of below −20% was occupied by Moradabad district during the previous period, and the districts of Rampur and Moradabad recorded negative growth of below −20% in later period. There were 4 districts namely, Rampur, JPN, Bareilly and Shahjahanpur included in this category during the period from 2005–2010 to 2010–2015. 4.2.2.1  Irrigated Area by Government Tubewells It is seen from Tables 4.1 and 4.2 that during the period of 1995–2000, area irrigated by government tubewells in the state shared a small proportion of 5.89% to net irrigated area. With a negative growth of −39.27 and −20.51%, it decreased to 3.58 and 2.84% during 2000–2005 and 2005–2010, respectively. Later in the period of 2010– 2015, it showed a positive growth of 10.54% and covered an area of 3.14% in the state. There has been a rapid decrease in irrigated area of government tubewells in the western, followed by the eastern and the central regions of the state during 1995–2000 to 2000–2005. During 2000–2005 to 2005–2010, high negative growth was recorded in the central and the western regions. It is noteworthy to mention that during 2005–2010 to 2010–2015, all the regions showed positive growth in area irrigated by in government tubewells. The highest positive growth (13.54%) in government tubewells irrigated area was recorded in the western region while the lowest (5.15%) was seen in Bundelkhand region.

4.2 Patterns of Growth In Irrigated Area: Source-Wise

101

Table 4.12  District-wise growth in tubewells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh Growth period (1995–2000 Growth to 2000–2005) (%) No. Name of district Above 10 Lalitpur, Chandauli, 20 Varanasi, Mahoba, Banda, Chitrakoot, Jalaun, Kushinagar, Kanpur Dehat and Kanpur Nagar 0 to 20 46 Mahrajganj, Auraiya, Sitapur, Ghaziabad, Gonda, Unnao, Bareilly, Hamirpur, Siddharthnagar, Basti, JPN, Baghpat, Bara Banki, Saharanpur, Fatehpur, Lucknow, Sultanpur, Etawah, Balrampur, GBN, Rae Bareli, Mainpuri, Agra, Muzaffarnagar, Mahamaya Nagar, Bulandshahr, Mathura, Mirzapur, Gorakhpur, Deoria, Aligarh, Kaushambi, Shahjahanpur, Hardoi, Allahabad, Farrukhabad, Firozabad, Jaunpur, Mau, Rampur, Ghazipur, Kannauj, Pratapgarh, Ballia, Kheri and Bahraich

Growth period (2000–2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 7 Mahoba, Chitrakoot, Lalitpur, Jhansi, Banda, Jalaun and Hamirpur

42

−20 to 0 13

Faizabad, Jhansi, Ambedkar Nagar, Budaun, Meerut, Shrawasti, Azamgarh, SRNB, SKN, Bijnor, Pilibhit, Etah and Sonbhadra

19

Below −20

Moradabad

2

1

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 8 Sonbhadra, Chitrakoot, Mahoba, Etah, Banda, Hamirpur, Kanshiram Nagar and Lalitpur

Bahraich, Kushinagar, 41 Mirzapur, Chandauli, Ballia, Sitapur, Allahabad, Bareilly, Etah, Kanpur Nagar, Baghpat, Farrukhabad, JPN, Ghaziabad, Bara Banki, Balrampur, Varanasi, Shahjahanpur, GBN, Kanpur Dehat, Pilibhit, Kheri, Saharanpur, Gorakhpur, Muzaffarnagar, Sultanpur, SRNB, Fatehpur, Mainpuri, Etawah, Meerut, Jaunpur, Mahamaya Nagar, Aligarh, Lucknow, Unnao, Mau, Azamgarh, Mahrajganj, Firozabad, Hardoi and Bulandshahr Kannauj, Agra, Basti, 18 Mathura, Ambedkar Nagar, Ghazipur, Kaushambi, Faizabad, Pratapgarh, Auraiya, Rae Bareli, Deoria, Siddharthnagar, Shrawasti, Gonda, Sonbhadra, SKN, Budaun and Bijnor Rampur and Moradabad

4

Pilibhit, Siddharthnagar, Jhansi, Rae Bareli, Shrawasti, Kanpur Dehat, Jalaun, SKN, Chandauli, Auraiya, Hardoi, Deoria, Bulandshahr, Azamgarh, Agra, Sitapur, Etawah, Aligarh, Lucknow, Bijnor, Kanpur Nagar, Gonda, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, Jaunpur, Gorakhpur, Mahrajganj, Fatehpur, Mathura, Mau, Firozabad, Kannauj, Kheri, Saharanpur, Varanasi, Ambedkar Nagar, Meerut, Unnao, Kushinagar, Mahamaya Nagar and Farrukhabad Baghpat, Ballia, SRNB, Sultanpur, Muzaffarnagar, Ghazipur, Mainpuri, Faizabad, Allahabad, Moradabad, Bahraich, Budaun, Balrampur, Pratapgarh, Bara Banki, Mirzapur, GBN and Basti Rampur, JPN, Bareilly and Shahjahanpur

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

102

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Table 4.13  Government tubewells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh

Category (%) Very high (above 20) High (15–20) Medium (10–15) Low (5–10) Very low (below 5)

1995–2000 No. of districts % 5 7 2 3 7 10 20 28 36 51

2000–2005 No. of districts % 2 3 – – 3 4 17 24 48 68

2005–2010 No. of districts % 2 3 – – 3 4 10 14 56 79

2010–2015 No. of districts % 2 3 – – 1 1 17 24 51 72

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Note: (–) denotes data not available in this category

From Table  4.13, it can be depicted that, some of the districts of Awadh and Purvanchal regions namely, Shrawasti, SRNB, Varanasi, Basti, Deoria showed more than 20% of area irrigated by government tubewells during 1995–2000, whereas during the later periods, the districts which came in this category were SRNB and Varanasi. In the next category of 15 to 20% of area irrigated, there were only 2 districts in 1995–2000 and not even a single district fell in this category in the later three periods. In the category of 10–15%, there were 7, 3, 3 and 1 districts during the corresponding periods. Between 5% and 10% of irrigated area, there were 20, 17, 10 and 17 districts, respectively. Below 5% of area irrigated, there were 36 districts in 1995–2000, the number increased to 48, 56 and 51 during the later periods, respectively. Among these during 2010–2015, the lowest irrigated area by government tubewells (below 1%) was recorded in 21 districts. The low and very low categories together include more than 95% districts of the state. High growth of above 50% was seen in four districts namely, Lalitpur, Chitrakoot, Bara Banki and Chandauli during first period, the number of districts in this category decreased to 2, and later it increased to 7 in the last period (Table 4.14). The growth between 0 and 50% in tubewells irrigation was recorded in 6 districts during previous period which increased to 12 and 24 during the later periods, respectively. The negative growth in between −50 to 0% was found in as much as 35, 41 and 35 districts, respectively. The negative growth below −50% was recorded in 25, 15 and 5 districts during corresponding periods, respectively. 4.2.2.2  Irrigated Area by Private Tubewells An important aspect related to agriculture in the state has been the stupendous growth in the number of private tubewells which rose from about 3 thousand in 1951 to 600 thousand in 1977, and further 1.05 million by 1980. By mid-1970s, tubewell irrigation overtook canal irrigation which has been the dominant mode of irrigation earlier (Pant, 2005). It is only with the expansion of private tubewells irrigation that disparities in irrigation have become marked and the state aided the process of private tubewells irrigation through subsidizing the credit and electricity and construction cost (Clift, 1977). According to recent statistics of 2014–2015,

4.2 Patterns of Growth In Irrigated Area: Source-Wise

103

Table 4.14  District-wise growth in government tubewells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh Growth period (1995– 2000 to 2000–2005) No. Name of district 4 Lalitpur, Chitrakoot, Bara Banki and Chandauli

Growth period (2000–2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 2 Mahoba and Chandauli

0 to 50

6

Varanasi, Kannauj, Banda, SRNB, Mainpuri and Meerut

12

−50 to 0

35

41 Hamirpur, Bijnor, Mirzapur, Kanpur Dehat, Faizabad, Kanpur Nagar, Saharanpur, Jhansi, Allahabad, Lucknow, Jalaun, Etawah, Aligarh, Farrukhabad, Moradabad, Auraiya, Balrampur, Kheri, Ambedkar Nagar, Sultanpur, Azamgarh, Muzaffarnagar, Kushinagar, Unnao, JPN, Etah, Ghaziabad, Fatehpur, Rae Bareli, Jaunpur, Ballia, Agra, Ghazipur, Budaun and Pilibhit

Growth (%) Above 50

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 7 Baghpat, Siddharthnagar, Moradabad, GBN, Kanpur Dehat, Kheri and Deoria 24 Ambedkar Nagar, Ambedkar Nagar, Gonda, Mainpuri, Gonda, Mirzapur, Budaun, Rampur, Mau, Faizabad, JPN, Kaushambi, Bijnor, Agra, Allahabad, SKN, Sultanpur, Kushinagar, Hamirpur, Jalaun, Etah, Farrukhabad and Farrukhabad, Banda Kanpur Nagar, Kushinagar, Chandauli, Etawah, SRNB, Banda, Sitapur, Varanasi, Ghazipur, Mahrajganj, Kanshiram Nagar and Ballia Jalaun, Shahjahanpur, 35 Mathura, Sonbhadra, SRNB, Jhansi, Ballia, Saharanpur, SKN, GBN, Etawah, Allahabad, Fatehpur, Mahrajganj, Balrampur, Rampur, Etah, Ghaziabad, Gorakhpur, Auraiya, Gorakhpur, Mainpuri, Kanpur Hamirpur, Bahraich, Nagar, Kanpur Dehat, Bulandshahr, Sultanpur, Kannauj, Mahamaya Nagar, Pratapgarh, Bara Banki, Chitrakoot, Lucknow, Kannauj, Hardoi, Azamgarh, Ghazipur, Firozabad, Aligarh, Jaunpur, Aligarh, Faizabad, JPN, Varanasi, Rae Bareli, Fatehpur, Basti, Bareilly, Muzaffarnagar, Kaushambi, Lucknow, Basti, Saharanpur, Unnao, Rae Bareli, Unnao, Balrampur, Deoria, Bareilly, Mirzapur, Moradabad, Bijnor, Jaunpur, Mau, Agra, Meerut, Pilibhit, Azamgarh, Meerut, Muzaffarnagar and Pilibhit, Jhansi, Hardoi Auraiya and Chitrakoot (continued)

104

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Table 4.14 (continued) Growth period (1995– 2000 to 2000–2005) Growth (%) No. Name of district Below −50 25 Hardoi, Mahamaya Nagar, Mahrajganj, Rampur, Mau, Basti, Bahraich, Deoria, Gorakhpur, Pratapgarh, Shahjahanpur, Baghpat, Bulandshahr, Kaushambi, Shrawasti, SKN, Siddharthnagar, Gonda, Sonbhadra, Firozabad, Sitapur, GBN, Mathura, Bareilly and Mahoba

Growth period (2000–2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 15 Budaun, Baghpat, Firozabad, Bulandshahr, Bara Banki, Ghaziabad, Bahraich, Siddharthnagar, Mahamaya Nagar, Sitapur, Kheri, Lalitpur, Shrawasti, Mathura and Sonbhadra

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 5 Mahoba, Shahjahanpur, Lalitpur, Pratapgarh and Shrawasti

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Table 4.15  Private tubewells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh

Category (%) Very high (above 80) High (60–80) Medium (40–60) Low (20–40) Very low (below 20)

1995–2000 No. of districts % 14 20 31 44 11 15 4 6 10 14

2000–2005 No. of districts % 22 31 26 37 11 15 3 4 8 11

2005–2010 No. of districts % 24 34 25 35 12 17 5 7 5 7

2010–2015 No. of districts % 24 34 25 35 13 18 4 6 5 7

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

there are more than 4.1 million private tubewells and pumpsets in the state. During 2010–2015, irrigated area in the state by means of private tubewells has been about 69% to the net irrigated area of the state (Table  4.1). It is clearly revealed by Table 4.2 that, private tubewells irrigation increased by 8.94 and 1.98% during the first two periods of growth whereas in the later period it showed a small decrease of −1.31%. During 1995–2000, there were 14 districts to record in the category having more than 80% of area under private tubewells irrigation (Table  4.15). This number increased to 22, 24 and 24 during the later periods of 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively. As many as 7 districts namely, Kheri, Sitapur, Baghpat, Farrukhabad, Gorakhpur, Mahamaya Nagar and Shrawasti during 2010–2015 recorded above 90% area under private tubewells irrigation. In the category of 60 to

4.2 Patterns of Growth In Irrigated Area: Source-Wise

105

80% area under irrigation, there were 31, 26, 25 and 25 districts in respective periods. The same numbers of districts (i.e., 11) were having irrigated area between 40 and 60% during both the previous periods whereas in 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, there were 12 and 13 districts, respectively counted in this category. Area irrigated below 40% was confined in 14, 11, 10 and 9 districts during 1995–2000, 2000– 2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively. It becomes necessary to highlight that about 63 districts, out of 71, registered a positive growth during the periods of 1995–2000 to 2000–2005 (Table 4.16). High positive growth of above 20% in private tubewells irrigation was recorded in 22 districts during previous period whereas in the later periods 10 and 7 districts fell in this category. The Bundelkhand region has shown a remarkable progress in bringing high positive growth in private tubewells irrigated area during the periods of study. The significant growth recorded in private tubewells in this region has enhanced the total availability of water for crop production. Over and above, it can also provide benefits to the farmers with greater control over irrigation water supplies. Besides, groundwater irrigation from private tubewells can keep the farmers free from the clutches of the rigid warabandi2 schedule of canal deliveries, now with tubewells, application of irrigation water can be more closely matched according to the crop water needs (Dick 1994). Growth in irrigated are in between 0 and 20% was found in 41, 45 and 37 districts, and negative growth (−20 to 0%) was recorded in 7, 13 and 23 districts, respectively in the corresponding periods. Low negative growth (below −20%) in 2005–2010 to 2010–2015 was recorded in the district of JPN, Rampur, Bareilly and Shahjahanpur.

4.2.3  Irrigated Area by Other Wells Other wells irrigated about 8% area in the state during 2010–2015. Irrigation by this source in the state showed positive growth of 39.88, 27.15 and 19.37% in respective growth periods by registering a very high growth in the central region (123.99%), followed by the western (55.93%) during 1995–2000 to 2000–2005. The central and Bundelkhand regions experienced negative growth in other wells irrigation in the later periods (Table 4.2). There were four districts namely, Jhansi, Lalitpur, Mahoba and Bijnor which had more than 20% area under irrigation by other wells during 1995–2000. The number of districts increased to 8, 9 and 11 in the later periods by adding few more districts in this category (Table 4.17). There were 57, 47, 49 and 48 districts in the state, respectively which fell in the category of below 5% irrigated 2  Warabandi system is based on rotational irrigation to farmers at sub-outlet level. ‘Wara’ means ‘week’ and ‘bandi’ means ‘fixation’ of turns. Under this system, water is made available to each farmer in the command of an outlet level for a specific period in proportion to the size of his holding and according to the schedule of turns of the farmers prepared in advance. In the year 1980– 1981, Government of India established 45 Command Area Development Authorities (CADA) for 75 irrigation projects.

106

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Table 4.16  District-wise growth in private tubewells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh Growth (%) Above 20

0 to 20

Growth period (1995–2000 to 2000–2005) No. Name of district 22 Lalitpur, Sonbhadra, Jalaun, Mahoba, Banda, Varanasi, Chandauli, Basti, Chitrakoot, GBN, Gonda, Kushinagar, Sitapur, Kanpur Dehat, Bareilly, Shrawasti, Deoria, Hamirpur, Kanpur Nagar, Mahrajganj, Ghaziabad and Auraiya 41 Siddharthnagar, Balrampur, Mirzapur, Kaushambi, Baghpat, Gorakhpur, Unnao, Sultanpur, Fatehpur, Rae Bareli, Etawah, Lucknow, Saharanpur, JPN, Bahraich, Agra, Bulandshahr, Bara Banki, Muzaffarnagar, Mainpuri, Ghazipur, Ballia, Jhansi, Mahamaya Nagar, Allahabad, Jaunpur, Hardoi, Mathura, Firozabad, SKN, Aligarh, Mau, Shahjahanpur and Farrukhabad, Rampur, Kheri, Pratapgarh, Faizabad, Budaun, Ambedkar Nagar and Kannauj

Growth period (2000–2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 10 Jhansi, Lalitpur, Mahoba, Chitrakoot, Banda, Jalaun, Hamirpur, Sonbhadra, Varanasi and Bahraich

45

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 7 Sonbhadra, Mahoba, Chitrakoot, Etah, Hamirpur, Banda and Kanshiram Nagar

Kushinagar, Sitapur, 37 Ballia, Balrampur, Kanpur Nagar, Ghaziabad, Bareilly, Etah, Bara Banki, Baghpat, Allahabad, Shrawasti, Saharanpur, Kanpur Dehat, SRNB, Farrukhabad, JPN, Mirzapur, GBN, Kheri, Muzaffarnagar, Shahjahanpur, Sultanpur, Gorakhpur, Meerut, Pilibhit, Lucknow, Jaunpur, Mainpuri, Fatehpur, Etawah, Basti, Mahamaya Nagar, Aligarh, Unnao, Bulandshahr, Hardoi, Azamgarh, Kannauj, Kaushambi, Firozabad, Mau, Mahrajganj, Deoria and Ghazipur

Jhansi, Pilibhit, Lalitpur, Siddharthnagar, Shrawasti, Rae Bareli, Auraiya, Hardoi, Agra, Azamgarh, Bulandshahr, SKN, Lucknow, Jaunpur, Aligarh, Sitapur, Fatehpur, Ghaziabad, Gorakhpur, Mau, Etawah, Bijnor, Kanpur Dehat, Mahrajganj, Kannauj, Mathura, Meerut, Firozabad, Kanpur Nagar, Saharanpur, Kaushambi, Unnao, Kheri, Mahamaya Nagar, Deoria, Kushinagar and Jalaun

(continued)

4.2 Patterns of Growth In Irrigated Area: Source-Wise

107

Table 4.16 (continued) Growth (%) −20 to 0

Growth period (1995–2000 to 2000–2005) No. Name of district 7 Azamgarh, Meerut, Bijnor, Pilibhit, SRNB, Etah and Moradabad

Below −20 –

Growth period (2000–2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 13 Agra, Mathura, Auraiya, Pratapgarh, Rae Bareli, Siddharthnagar, Ambedkar Nagar, Faizabad, Chandauli, SKN, Budaun, Gonda and Bijnor

2

Rampur and Moradabad

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 23 Gonda, Farrukhabad, Ballia, Ambedkar Nagar, Varanasi, Mirzapur, Muzaffarnagar, Faizabad, Baghpat, Sultanpur, Ghazipur, Allahabad, Mainpuri, Chandauli, Bahraich, Pratapgarh, Budaun, Balrampur, Bara Banki, SRNB, Moradabad, Basti and GBN 4 JPN, Rampur, Bareilly and Shahjahanpur

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Note: (–) denotes data not available in this category Table 4.17  Other wells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh

Category (%) Very high (above 20) High (15–20) Medium (10–15) Low (5–10) Very low (below 5)

1995–2000 No. of districts % 4 6 4 6 2 3 3 4 57 80

2000–2005 No. of districts % 8 11 1 1 1 1 13 18 47 66

2005–2010 No. of districts % 9 13 4 6 2 3 7 10 49 69

2010–2015 No. of districts % 11 15 2 3 1 1 9 13 48 68

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

area under other wells in the respective periods. The remaining districts belonged to the categories ranging in between the above two ranges. Out of total districts, there were 45, 27 and 26 districts, respectively which have registered a significant increase in irrigated area of other wells during the study periods, and rest of the districts showed negative growth.

108

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

4.2.4  Irrigated Area by Tanks Tank irrigation is one of the oldest and significant sources of irrigation in India (Palanisamy and Balasubramaniyan, 1998). Water obtained from tanks has multiple uses, for drinking (rural and urban communities) and livestock, fish culture, recharge of ground water, control of floods etc. (Gurunathan and Shanmugam, 2006). This system has a special significance to marginal and small farmers who depend solely on tank irrigation. Tanks in the Indian context inextricably linked to the socio-­ cultural aspects of rural life and have historically been an indispensable part of the village habitat, sustaining its socio-ecological balance (Sakthivadivel et al. 2004). However, tank irrigation has consistently declined since independence. This decline can be seen equally in the shape of decrease in the relative importance of tanks and other modes of irrigation. At the same time today there is alarm, that these valuable and extensive resources are in a state of near collapse, contributing to increased drought vulnerability in some of the poorest districts in the country. The reason for drastic reduction of area under tank irrigation might be the urban agglomeration due to this, in different parts of the country; tanks situated near the cities are encroached for housing and other non-agricultural purposes. This could be one of the reasons for drastic reduction of area under tank irrigation in the state (Narayanamoorthy 2008). Table 4.1 shows region-wise percentage of tank irrigated area from the net irrigated area during the periods of 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010– 2015. There exists an insignificant proportion of tank irrigated area in the state being 0.7, 0.88, 0.95 and 0.88% during the corresponding periods, respectively. Overall growth in tank irrigated area has been positive being 25.86 and 8.44%, respectively during the previous two periods while in the later period it recorded a negative growth of −7.58% (Table  4.2). When we consider the district-wise patterns, there were 3, 4, 7 and 7 districts, respectively during 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015 which covered greater than 5% area irrigated by tanks. During 2010–2015, these districts were namely, Mahoba (14.38%), Lalitpur (10.19%), Mirzapur (9.43%), Jhansi (8.28%), Balrampur (7.60%), Sonbhadra (5.99%) and Chitrakoot (5.27%). Of the total of 71 districts, 29, 20 and 14 districts, respectively recorded a positive growth during the corresponding periods of growth while rest of the districts showed negative growth in tank irrigated area.

4.2.5  Irrigated Area by Other Means (Ponds, Lakes etc.) Irrigated area by other means accounted for only 2.28% during 1995–2000, and it further decreased to 0.93, 0.46 and 0.83%, respectively during 2000–2005, 2005– 2010 and 2010–2015 which is relatively very small in proportion to canals and tubewells irrigated area (Table 4.1). During 1995–2000, there were 11 districts namely, Lalitpur (24.81%), Mahoba (16.71%), Chitrakoot (13.75%), GBN (13.68%), Sitapur

4.3 Trends of Growth in Total Irrigated Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

109

(11.46%), Bareilly (11.28%), Budaun (7.95%), Shahjahanpur (6.31%), Jhansi (6.19%), Sonbhadra (5.93%) and Banda (5.54%) which had above 5% of area irrigated by this source. This number decreased to 2 districts namely, Lalitpur (11.51%) and Mahoba (8.26%) during 2000–2005, and in the next period there was no district to record above 5% of area by this source. During 2010–2015, only Kanshiram Nagar district came in this category. As far as the growth is concerned, there were at least 50 districts to show negative growth during these periods.

4.3  T  rends of Growth in Total Irrigated Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 The growth rate per annum in irrigated area in the districts of the state was computed by applying least square method for the period of 20 years (from 1995–1996 to 2014–2015). The growth was categorised as very high, high, medium, low and very low, taking class interval on the basis of Standard Deviation (SD) method because it gives more accurate results than other methods when number of observation is large generally above 50, and the data is without very high extreme values.

4.3.1  Gross Irrigated Area The gross irrigated area in the state during the period under consideration recorded an increase of 1.06% per  annum, it increased from 16.35  million ha. to about 20.82 million ha. from 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. It is evident from Table 4.18 that, very high growth rate (above 2.93%) per  annum was recorded in the districts of Bahraich, Gonda, Lalitpur, Sitapur, Deoria and Jalaun. The districts which recorded high growth rate of 1.48–2.93% per  annum were 11 namely, Jhansi, Hamirpur, Siddharthnagar, Kaushambi, Azamgarh, Kheri, Bara Banki, Sultanpur, Hardoi, Mau and Balrampur. A total of 40 districts had medium growth rates in between 0.03% and 1.48% per annum. There were in total 11 districts to record low growth rate (−1.41% to 0.03%), and three districts namely, Etah, GBN and Sonbhadra recorded very low growth rate of below −1.41% per annum.

4.3.2  Net Irrigated Area Net irrigated area in the state was 11.49  million ha. during 1995–1996, which recorded a positive growth of 0.86% per  annum during a span of 20  years and increased to 14.48 million ha. during 2014–2015. It is evident from Table 4.19 that very high annual growth (above 2.63%) during this period was recorded by the

110

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Table 4.18  Growth rate per  annum in gross irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 Growth rate (% per annum) Very high (above 2.93) High (1.48–2.93) Medium (0.03–1.48)

Low (−1.41 to 0.03) Very low (below −1.41)

No. Name of district 6 Bahraich, Gonda, Lalitpur, Sitapur, Deoria and Jalaun 11 40

11 3

Jhansi, Hamirpur, Siddharthnagar, Kaushambi, Azamgarh, Kheri, Bara Banki, Sultanpur, Hardoi, Mau and Balrampur Kushinagar, Mainpuri, Gorakhpur, Kanpur Nagar, Mahoba, Chitrakoot, Kannauj, Auraiya, Ballia, Jaunpur, Unnao, Fatehpur, Agra, Banda, Firozabad, Pilibhit, Mahamaya Nagar, Basti, Ghazipur, Shahjahanpur, Moradabad, Bareilly, Bijnor, SKN, Rampur, Kanshiram Nagar, Ambedkar Nagar, Chandauli, Mahrajganj, Faizabad, Lucknow, Saharanpur, Rae Bareli, Pratapgarh, Shrawasti, Muzaffarnagar, Baghpat, Mathura, Budaun and Bulandshahr Aligarh, JPN, Allahabad, SRNB, Ghaziabad, Etawah, Kanpur Dehat, Mirzapur, Farrukhabad, Varanasi and Meerut Etah, GBN and Sonbhadra

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

Table 4.19  Growth rate per  annum in net irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 Growth rate (% per annum) Very high (above 2.63) High (1.21 to 2.63) Medium (−0.21 to 1.21)

Low (−1.63 to −0.21) Very low (below −1.63)

No. Name of district 4 Bahraich, Sitapur, Lalitpur and Jalaun 12 41

9 5

Kheri, Hamirpur, Jhansi, Gonda, Siddharthnagar, Kaushambi, Banda, Chitrakoot, Kanshiram Nagar, Hardoi, Balrampur and Mahoba Unnao, Kushinagar, Kanpur Nagar, Sultanpur, Fatehpur, Deoria, Mahrajganj, Moradabad, Bijnor, Agra, Auraiya, Azamgarh, Budaun, Pilibhit, Ballia, Jaunpur, SKN, Bara Banki, Lucknow, Rampur, Ghazipur, Saharanpur, Firozabad, Shahjahanpur, Gorakhpur, Faizabad, Ambedkar Nagar, Basti, Kannauj, Pratapgarh, Mahamaya Nagar, Mainpuri, Chandauli, Bareilly, Mau, Muzaffarnagar, Mathura, Rae Bareli, Baghpat, Bulandshahr and Shrawasti Mirzapur, Aligarh, Allahabad, JPN, SRNB, Kanpur Dehat, Ghaziabad, Etawah and Farrukhabad Meerut, Varanasi, Sonbhadra, Etah and GBN

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

4.4 Trends of Growth in Source-Wise Irrigated Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

111

districts of Bahraich, Sitapur, Lalitpur and Jalaun. This was followed by 12 districts of high growth rate (1.21–2.63% per annum). There were 41 and 9 districts, respectively which showed medium and low growth rates during this period whereas the districts namely, Meerut, Varanasi, Sonbhadra, Etah and GBN were recorded a very low growth rate (below −1.63% per annum).

4.3.3  Area Irrigated More Than Once Area irrigated more than once has shown a positive growth rate of 1.58% per annum during the period of 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. In all, about 52 districts of the state showed positive growth rate. Very high growth rate of above 8.57% per annum was recorded in the districts namely, Bahraich, Gonda, Jhansi, Deoria, Jalaun and Basti. The districts namely, Gorakhpur, Shrawasti, GBN, Azamgarh and Mau recorded high growth of 4.03–8.57% per  annum. Medium growth rate (−0.52 to 4.03% per annum) was recorded by 47 districts of the state whereas, 9 districts showed low growth rate in between −5.07% and −0.52% per  annum. The districts of SKN, Hamirpur, Siddharthnagar and Sonbhadra recorded a very low negative growth rate that lies below −5.07% per annum during this period (Table 4.20).

4.4  T  rends of Growth in Source-Wise Irrigated Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 4.4.1  Irrigated Area by Canals The growth in source-wise net irrigated area also exhibits temporal and spatial trends as a consequence of shifts in irrigation development. During 1995–1996, canal irrigated area in the state accounted for 2.99 million ha. which decreased to 2.48  million ha. during 2014–2015 giving an annual growth rate of −0.94% per annum. Table 4.21 presents the values of growth rate of canal irrigated area during 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. During the corresponding period, canal irrigated area showed a decrease in most of the districts in which only 16 districts (out of 71) recorded positive growth rates. The single district Bijnor showed very high (7.63% per annum) annual growth rate, followed by Lalitpur, Siddharthnagar, Faizabad, SKN, Bahraich, Jhansi, Ghazipur, Ambedkar Nagar, Kaushambi, Pratapgarh, Jalaun, Jaunpur, Azamgarh, Moradabad, Gonda and Mainpuri which showed high growth rate during this period. Medium growth rate (−5.3 to −0.18% per annum) was recorded in 43 districts whereas 5 and 6 districts, respectively showed low (−10.42 to −5.3%) and very low (below −10.42%) growth rate per annum (Fig. 4.8).

112

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Table 4.20  Growth rate per annum in area irrigated more than once in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 Growth rate (% per annum) Very high (above 8.57) High (4.03 to 8.57) Medium (−0.52 to 4.03)

Low (−5.07 to −0.52) Very low (below −5.07)

No. Name of district 6 Bahraich, Gonda, Jhansi, Deoria, Jalaun and Basti 5

Gorakhpur, Shrawasti, GBN, Azamgarh and Mau

47

Kannauj, Kaushambi, Mainpuri, Bara Banki, Sitapur, Sultanpur, Agra, Hardoi, Firozabad, Lalitpur, Mahamaya Nagar, Ballia, Auraiya, Kushinagar, Jaunpur, Kanpur Nagar, JPN, Bareilly, Pilibhit, Aligarh, Fatehpur, Ghazipur, Chandauli, Budaun, Ambedkar Nagar, Shahjahanpur, Rae Bareli, Unnao, Kheri, Faizabad, Rampur, Allahabad, Mathura, Baghpat, Balrampur, SRNB, Bulandshahr, Varanasi, Lucknow, Muzaffarnagar, Pratapgarh, Moradabad, Bijnor, Saharanpur, Meerut, Etawah and Banda Mahoba, Ghaziabad, Farrukhabad, Kanshiram Nagar, Chitrakoot, Etah, Kanpur Dehat, Mirzapur and Mahrajganj SKN, Hamirpur, Siddharthnagar and Sonbhadra

9 4

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Table 4.21  Growth rate per  annum in canals irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 Growth rate (% per annum) Very high (above 4.93) High (−0.18 to 4.93) Medium (−5.30 to −0.18)

No. Name of district 1 Bijnor 16

43

Low (−10.42 5 to −5.30) 6 Very low (below −10.42)

Lalitpur, Siddharthnagar, Faizabad, SKN, Bahraich, Jhansi, Ghazipur, Ambedkar Nagar, Kaushambi, Pratapgarh, Jalaun, Jaunpur, Azamgarh, Moradabad, Gonda and Mainpuri Kanshiram Nagar, Auraiya, SRNB, Chandauli, Mathura, Deoria, Sultanpur, Hardoi, Unnao, GBN, Rae Bareli, Bara Banki, Allahabad, Fatehpur, Kannauj, Etawah, Pilibhit, Mirzapur, Firozabad, Ballia, Meerut, Mau, Lucknow, Muzaffarnagar, Kheri, Kanpur Nagar, Mahrajganj, Banda, Ghaziabad, Agra, Saharanpur, Kanpur Dehat, Mahoba, Hamirpur, Bulandshahr, Kushinagar, Mahamaya Nagar, Aligarh, Sonbhadra, Balrampur, Shahjahanpur, Sitapur and Bareilly Etah, Farrukhabad, Chitrakoot, Varanasi and Gorakhpur JPN, Baghpat, Basti, Rampur, Shrawasti and Budaun

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

4.4 Trends of Growth in Source-Wise Irrigated Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

113

Fig. 4.8  Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in canal irrigated area, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

4.4.2  Irrigated Area by Tubewells Tubewell irrigated area in the state during 1995–1996 was accounted for 7.74 million ha. which recorded an increase of 1.15% per annum and increased to 10.21 million ha. during 2014–5. Very high growth of above 9.61% per annum in tubewell irrigation was attained by the districts of Sonbhadra, Lalitpur, Mahoba and Chitrakoot. High growth rate in between 4.65% and 9.61% per annum was recorded in 7 districts namely, Jhansi, Banda, Jalaun, Hamirpur, Sitapur, Kanshiram Nagar and Siddharthnagar. Among these two categories, most of the districts belonged to Bundelkhand region of the state (Table  4.22 and Fig.  4.9). Medium growth rate per annum was obtained by 48 districts of the state. Whereas low (−5.28 to −0.32% per  annum) and very low growth (below −5.28% per  annum) rates during this period were recorded by 11 and 1 district, respectively. These districts were namely, Pratapgarh, SRNB, Bijnor, Farrukhabad, Budaun, Shahjahanpur, JPN, Meerut, Etah, Rampur, Moradabad, and GBN.

4.4.3  Irrigated Area by Other Wells Area irrigated by other wells showed a significant increase of 5.83% per annum during the period from 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. As much as 31 districts of the state recorded positive growth rate during this period. It is clear from Table  4.23 and

114

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Table 4.22  Growth rate per  annum in tubewells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 Growth rate (% per annum) Very high (above 9.61) High (4.65 to 9.61) Medium (−0.32 to 4.65)

Low (−5.28 to −0.32) Very low (below −5.28)

No. Name of district 4 Sonbhadra, Lalitpur, Mahoba and Chitrakoot 7 48

11 1

Jhansi, Banda, Jalaun, Hamirpur, Sitapur, Kanshiram Nagar and Siddharthnagar Bahraich, Chandauli, Kushinagar, Kheri, Kanpur Nagar, Gonda, Unnao, Mahrajganj, Fatehpur, Kaushambi, Sultanpur, Hardoi, Auraiya, Lucknow, Pilibhit, Saharanpur, Ballia, Agra, Balrampur, Bara Banki, Deoria, Kanpur Dehat, Jaunpur, Gorakhpur, Baghpat, Azamgarh, Varanasi, Firozabad, Mahamaya Nagar, Mainpuri, Ghaziabad, Muzaffarnagar, Rae Bareli, Mau, Kannauj, Bulandshahr, Ghazipur, Mathura, SKN, Ambedkar Nagar, Faizabad, Mirzapur, Aligarh, Etawah, Basti, Bareilly, Allahabad and Shrawasti Pratapgarh, SRNB, Bijnor, Farrukhabad, Budaun, Shahjahanpur, JPN, Meerut, Etah, Rampur and Moradabad GBN

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

Fig. 4.9  Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per  annum in tubewell irrigated area, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

4.4 Trends of Growth in Source-Wise Irrigated Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

115

Table 4.23  Growth rate per annum in other wells irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 Growth rate (% per annum) Very high (above 28.33) High (5.53 to 28.33)

No. Name of district 4 Budaun, Firozabad, Rampur and JPN 15

Medium (−17.26 to 5.53)

28

Low (−40.06 to −17.26)

21

Very low (below −40.06)

3

Shahjahanpur, Muzaffarnagar, Moradabad, Auraiya, Siddharthnagar, Chandauli, Basti, Mahrajganj, SKN, Allahabad, Kushinagar, Bareilly, Mirzapur, Jalaun and Sonbhadra Mahoba, Bijnor, Balrampur, Jhansi, Bulandshahr, Banda, Deoria, Baghpat, Unnao, Lalitpur, Hamirpur, Bara Banki, Rae Bareli, Gonda, Sultanpur, Pilibhit, GBN, Ambedkar Nagar, Varanasi, Mahamaya Nagar, Saharanpur, Kanpur Nagar, Ghaziabad, Jaunpur, Bahraich, Faizabad, Kanpur Dehat and Kannauj Mainpuri, Pratapgarh, Ghazipur, Ballia, Chitrakoot, Hardoi, Etawah, Meerut, Mathura, Fatehpur, Lucknow, Mau, SRNB, Agra, Gorakhpur, Shrawasti, Azamgarh, Kaushambi, Kheri, Aligarh and Sitapur Farrukhabad, Etah and Kanshiram Nagar

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

Fig. 4.10 that, four districts namely, Budaun, Firozabad, Rampur and JPN recorded very high growth rate in order of 67.60, 50.89, 43.76 and 28.38%, respectively. There were 15 districts which recorded high growth rate (5.53–28.33% per annum). A total of 28 districts showed medium growth rate, and 21 districts had low growth rate (−40.06 to −17.26% per  annum) during this period. Very low growth rate (below −40.06% per annum) was experienced by the districts of Farrukhabad, Etah and Kanshiram Nagar.

4.4.4  Irrigated Area by Tanks Tanks are one of the most important sources of surface irrigation in the state since ancient time. Irrigated area through tanks has increased from 58.58 thousand ha. during 1995–1996 to 183.64 thousand ha. in 2014–2015 sustaining a growth rate of 2.75% per annum. Very high growth rate of above 11.49% per annum was observed in 6 districts of Chandauli, Jalaun, Hamirpur, Mirzapur, Jhansi and Lalitpur. There were 18 and 21 districts, respectively which recorded high and medium growth rates (Table 4.24 and Fig. 4.11). Low growth rate was recorded in 22 districts whereas, the districts which showed a very low growth rate in tank irrigation were namely, Shahjahanpur (−27.49% per  annum), Jaunpur (–28.03% per  annum), Bahraich (−33.89% per annum) and Gonda (−34.75% per annum).

116

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Fig. 4.10  Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per  annum in other wells irrigated area, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 Table 4.24  Growth rate per  annum in tanks irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 Growth rate (% per annum) No. Name of district Very high 6 Chandauli, Jalaun, Hamirpur, Mirzapur, Jhansi and Lalitpur (above 11.49) High (−1.49 to 18 Mahoba, Auraiya, Banda, Meerut, Siddharthnagar, Allahabad, GBN, 11.49) Mainpuri, Balrampur, Sonbhadra, Kannauj, Aligarh, Ghaziabad, Kanshiram Nagar, Mahamaya Nagar, Azamgarh, Etawah and Ballia 21 Firozabad, Bulandshahr, Fatehpur, Saharanpur, Baghpat, Mahrajganj, Medium Kanpur Nagar, Ambedkar Nagar, JPN, SKN, Lucknow, Kushinagar, (−14.46 to Basti, Mathura, Varanasi, Bijnor, Kanpur Dehat, Unnao, Kaushambi, −1.49) Muzaffarnagar and Gorakhpur Low (−27.44 22 Bareilly, Agra, Chitrakoot, Sitapur, Moradabad, Hardoi, Pilibhit, Rae to −14.46) Bareli, Pratapgarh, Sultanpur, Bara Banki, Budaun, Deoria, Etah, Rampur, SRNB, Faizabad, Kheri, Shrawasti, Farrukhabad, Ghazipur and Mau Very low 4 Shahjahanpur, Jaunpur, Bahraich and Gonda (below −27.44) Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

4.5 Trends of Growth in Irrigated Cropped Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

117

Fig. 4.11 Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per  annum in tanks irrigated area, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

4.4.5  Irrigated Area by Other Means (Ponds, Lakes etc.) Area irrigated by other means recorded a negative growth rate (−6.0% per annum) during the period of study period. Very high growth rate (above 41.23% per annum) was seen in Kanshiram Nagar district. High and medium growth rates were shown in 2 and 59 districts, respectively (Table 4.25). A total of 9 districts namely, Mathura, Shrawasti, Gonda, Farrukhabad, Etah, Gorakhpur, Shahjahanpur, Bulandshahr and Sitapur recorded a low negative growth rate ranging between −64.85 and −29.49% per  annum, and no district fall in the category of very low (below −64.85% per annum) growth (Fig. 4.12).

4.5  T  rends of Growth in Irrigated Cropped Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 For the study, 18 crops grown in the state during an agricultural year in two cropping seasons- kharif and rabi, were selected. These include cereals crops: wheat (Triticum sativum), rice (Oryza sativa), barley (Hordeum vulgare), jowar (Sorgum vulgare), pearl millet or bajra (Pennisetum glaucum), maize (Zea mays); pulse crops: black gram or urad (Phaseolus mungo), green gram or moong (Phaseolus dureus), tur or arhar (Cajanus indicus), gram (Cicer arientinum), lentil or masoor

118

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Table 4.25  Growth rate per annum in other means irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 Growth rate (% per annum) Very high (above 41.23) High (5.87 to 41.23) Medium (−29.49 to −5.87)

Low (−64.85 to −29.49) Very low (below −64.85)

No. Name of district 1 Kanshiram Nagar

2

Moradabad and Budaun

59

Faizabad, Mirzapur, Mahamaya Nagar, Chandauli, Jalaun, Kushinagar, SKN, Firozabad, SRNB, Ballia, Sonbhadra, Baghpat, Etawah, Lalitpur, Mau, Fatehpur, Allahabad, Hamirpur, Rae Bareli, Muzaffarnagar, Banda, Mahoba, Pilibhit, Azamgarh, Aligarh, Bareilly, Saharanpur, Jhansi, Pratapgarh, Unnao, Sultanpur, Jaunpur, Ghazipur, Kaushambi, Balrampur, JPN, Ambedkar Nagar, Bahraich, Mahrajganj, Mainpuri, Meerut, Kanpur Nagar, Hardoi, Deoria, Rampur, Kanpur Dehat, Agra, Siddharthnagar, Varanasi, GBN, Bara Banki, Lucknow, Kheri, Chitrakoot, Kannauj, Bijnor, Ghaziabad, Auraiya and Basti Mathura, Shrawasti, Gonda, Farrukhabad, Etah, Gorakhpur, Shahjahanpur, Bulandshahr and Sitapur

9

–

–

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Note: (–) denotes data not available in this category

Fig. 4.12  Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per  annum in other means irrigated area, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

4.5 Trends of Growth in Irrigated Cropped Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

119

Table 4.26  Trends of growth in irrigated cropped area in Uttar Pradesh (percent) (Per cent) Major crops/ S.no. crops I. Cereal crops 1. Barley 2. Maize 3. Pearl millet (bajra) 4. Rice 5. Sorghum (jowar) 6. Wheat II. Pulse crops 7. Black gram (urad) 8. Gram 9. Green gram (moong) 10. Lentil (masoor) 11. Pea 12. Pigeon pea (arhar) III. Oilseed crops 13. Groundnut 14. Mustard and rapeseeds 15. Sesamum (til) 16. Soybean IV. Cash crops 17. Potato 18. Sugarcane

1995– 2000 73.74 59.94 29.55 5.63

2000– 2005 78.66 65.91 30.12 5.55

2005– 2010 82.28 69.78 33.27 8.03

2010– 2015 85.04 69.81 38.67 11.49

Growth rate/annum (1995–1996 to 2014–2015) 1.19 −2.95 −0.29 5.56

64.72 1.73 94.76 25.54 22.01

72.11 0.74 96.96 23.84 13.63

78.82 0.74 97.87 23.93 13.12

82.86 1.12 98.44 23.42 10.14

2.02 −5.55 0.90 −1.59 −1.65

15.99 76.25

16.65 58.51

15.01 47.67

16.75 55.28

−2.67 −3.48

10.06 66.63 12.64

11.79 75.47 14.07

11.65 80.41 13.27

9.90 81.40 12.61

−0.79 −0.65 −2.47

54.69 0.98 74.19

54.97 1.12 74.86

53.33 2.51 80.59

48.40 4.03 82.93

0.03 7.44 −0.01

0.77 1.21 91.00 99.42 89.19

0.53 1.09 91.89 99.60 90.31

0.66 0.97 94.24 99.78 92.95

0.52 0.21 96.63 99.83 95.82

5.70 −8.28 1.40 2.16 1.21

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

(Lens culinaris), pea (Pisum sativum); oilseed crops: mustard and rapeseed (Brassica juncea), soybean (Glycine max), groundnut (Arachis hypogaea), til (Sesamum indicum); and cash crops: sugarcane(Saccharrum officinarum) and potato (Solanum tuberosum).

4.5.1  Irrigated Area Under Cereal Crops Irrigated area under cereal crops in the state was 12.17 million ha. during 1995– 1996, which increased to 15.64 million ha. in 2014–2015 registering an increase of 1.19% per annum during this period (Table 4.26). It is illustrated in Fig. 4.13 that, out of 71 districts, very high irrigated area of above 85% was noticed in about 23

120

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Fig. 4.13  Uttar Pradesh: irrigated area under cereal crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

districts during 1995–2000, the number of districts in this category increased to 30, 40 and 43 districts, respectively during 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015. Baghpat, Bulandshahr, GBN, Ghaziabad and Meerut districts of upper doab showed 100% area as irrigated under cereal crops during 2010–2015. In the category of 70 to 85% irrigation, there were 23, 21, 17 and 19 districts, medium irrigation in between the range of 55 to 70% was noticed in 11, 9, 6, and 2 respectively in the corresponding periods. Low irrigation from 40 to 55% was experienced in 6, 7, 6

4.5 Trends of Growth in Irrigated Cropped Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

121

Table 4.27  Growth rate per annum in irrigated area of cereal crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 Growth rate (% per annum) Very high (above 3.09) High (1.60 to 3.09)

No. Name of district 4 Bahraich, Lalitpur, Deoria and Gonda 16

Medium 34 (0.11 to 1.60)

Low (−1.39 to 0.11) Very low (below −1.39)

13 4

Jhansi, Azamgarh, Kanpur Nagar, Sitapur, Jalaun, Balrampur, Kaushambi, Mau, Hamirpur, Sultanpur, Siddharthnagar, Mainpuri, Gorakhpur, Hardoi, Kannauj and Bara Banki Ballia, Kushinagar, Mahoba, Shrawasti, Jaunpur, Auraiya, Chitrakoot, Ghazipur, Firozabad, Basti, Budaun, Unnao, Kheri, Rampur, SKN, Banda, Shahjahanpur, Agra, Fatehpur, Mahrajganj, Bareilly, Ambedkar Nagar, Mathura, Pilibhit, Chandauli, Bijnor, Pratapgarh, Aligarh, Kanshiram Nagar, Rae Bareli, Faizabad, Mahamaya Nagar, Bulandshahr and SRNB Lucknow, Moradabad, Allahabad, Muzaffarnagar, Baghpat, Kanpur Dehat, JPN, Ghaziabad, Saharanpur, Varanasi, Etawah, Farrukhabad and Mirzapur Meerut, Etah, GBN and Sonbhadra

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

and 6 districts in respective periods, and below 40% irrigated area was the feature of Chitrakoot, Siddharthnagar, Sonbhadra, Gonda, Shrawasti, Balrampur and Bahraich districts during 1995–2000. Only Sonbhadra falls in this category during 2010–2015. As far as growth rate is concerned, a total of 56 districts showed a positive growth in which very high growth rate per annum was seen in the districts namely, Bahraich (4.35% per annum), Lalitpur (4.31% per annum), Deoria (3.98% per annum) and Gonda (3.68% per annum). High growth rate between 1.60 and 3.09 was recorded in 16 districts of the state whereas medium growth rate (0.11–1.60% per annum) was recorded in 34 districts of the state. Remaining two sets of 13 and 4 districts had to lie in low and very low growth rates during this period (Table 4.27 and Fig. 4.14). The districts possessing very low growth rate were namely, Meerut (−1.88% per annum), Etah (−1.91% per annum), GBN (−3.23% per annum) and Sonbhadra (−4.01% per annum). As far as the percentage of irrigated cropped area to total cropped area is concerned, among cereal crops, wheat acquired strikingly high percentage to the extent of 98.44% during 2010–2015. Irrigated area of Rice and barley was reported as 82.86% and 69.81%, respectively in the state during this period. Irrigated area for jowar crop was the lowest (only 1.12%). During 1995–2000, irrigated area for these crops was in order of 94.76, 64.72, 59.94 and 1.73%, respectively (Table 4.26). Annual growth rates in crop−wise irrigated area during the period of 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 are presented in Tables 4.26 and 4.28. It is noticed that, bajra, rice and wheat showed a positive growth rate of 5.56, 2.02 and 0.90% per annum during the study period, whereas negative growth rate was seen in irrigated area of jowar (−5.55% per annum), barley (−2.95% per annum) and maize (−0.29% per annum).

122

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Fig. 4.14  Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in irrigated area of cereal crops, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

4.5.1.1  Wheat From the analysis it was noticed that wheat is the most irrigated crop and is grown in all the districts of the state during rabi season. Out of total 71 districts, there were 38, 44, 50 and 54 districts, respectively during 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015 which recorded above 99% irrigated cropped area under wheat. Among them, about 26 districts showed 100% irrigated area under wheat during the period 2010–2015. In the category of below 40% irrigated area, only Sonbhadra district of Bundelkhand recorded very low irrigated area under wheat crop during all the periods under consideration. As regards to growth trends in irrigated wheat cropped area, out of 71 districts of the state, wheat recorded a positive growth in 53 districts (Table 4.28). Very high growth rate of above 2.32% was recorded in 4 districts namely, Lalitpur (4.23% per annum), Bahraich (3.78% per annum), Kanpur Nagar (2.69% per annum) and Jalaun (2.41% per  annum). High growth rate (1.14 to 2.32% per  annum) was achieved by 15 districts, whereas medium (−0.04 to 1.14% per  annum) and low growth (−1.22 to −0.04% per annum) was attained by 35 and 13 districts, respectively. The districts having very low growth rate below −1.22% per annum were namely, Meerut, Farrukhabad, Etah and GBN.

−2.52

4.84

−11.19 −32.10

−7.28

−3.18

−4.35

−7.58

Etah

Etawah

7.59

11.87

23.87

−0.70

−2.12

17.68

0.65

4.05

18.94

0.38

Deoria

−6.12

−0.97

Chitrakoot

9.24

2.83

1.41

0.48

10.17

0.35

2.05

−14.75

−21.50

0.00

0.00

−12.43

−13.81

−7.73

−1.29

−1.30

−2.83

−4.11

0.00

2.67

28.04

−4.02

0.00

−11.98

−3.20

−1.61

0.00

−4.00

−16.74

−15.32

−0.57

−2.52

0.90

1.15

0.76

0.30

0.77

0.58

−0.98

1.01

1.27

1.70

0.18

0.79

3.78

−0.05

0.77

1.47

0.59

0.10

0.16

0.73

−4.71

3.97

17.70

−16.04 −12.87

−7.98

−7.27 −3.05

−8.82

−8.49

6.48

−6.16

−0.07

−6.68

−4.65

−21.93

−3.81

−3.37

−3.08

−16.79

−27.57

−11.09

−1.20

0.05

−2.24

−8.78

0.00

15.02

2.90

−3.75

0.66

−2.22

0.94

2.63

−3.81

−5.06

−7.42

5.92

−14.16 −11.64

−12.51 −11.04

4.64

−8.35

−21.36

−19.15

−21.27 −11.36

−2.33

−15.83 −12.00 −11.30

−11.20

1.36

−3.52

−9.82

−6.05

−4.74

−1.69

−8.04

0.53

−14.84

−13.46

−11.15

−3.62

−6.05

−2.66

−11.18

−4.72

0.70

−7.04

−21.10

−2.94

−1.48 −3.89

−1.83

1.40

−9.48

−4.29

7.47

−3.43

0.03

−0.54

−5.39

8.60

0.71

7.73

−2.82

−1.16

0.00 −5.70

0.27 −21.16 −13.01

−39.92

−2.46

0.85

−6.54 −11.98

−9.08

−9.47

−14.53

−3.72

−1.75

−0.17

16.03

−2.38

5.21

5.74

−16.56

−1.92

−20.61

1.01

−1.95 −14.77

−18.39

Oilseed crops

−3.32

10.09

14.60

2.11

−2.91

−10.91

0.76

3.03

0.00

−8.11

−9.77

−10.57

8.86

−2.12

0.00

0.00

−0.36

1.62

0.00

−6.23

11.84

−5.25

−0.88

−4.96

−0.03

−4.02

−3.40

−1.19

3.94

5.91

−1.38

2.19

5.55

0.78

−2.47

1.84

2.56

3.67

5.76

0.53

2.44

−3.65

−4.16

−2.49

6.08

5.19

0.00

−0.61

0.00

−5.42

−5.01

2.52

0.00

−5.12

−19.80

2.46

0.00

0.00

0.00

−2.57

0.82

32.38

10.94

−9.22

3.68

−1.60

−0.81

0.00

0.00

−1.09

0.00

0.00

−1.10

−8.77

0.00

6.38

−1.80

−19.75

0.00

0.00

1.18

0.00

0.00

−0.85

0.00

−10.21

0.00

−0.72

9.46 9.50

3.62

0.31

1.11

2.16 0.33

5.31

(continued)

2.35

−9.73 −2.25

−4.28 −2.76

−3.84

−5.77 −1.62

1.00

0.95 −1.74

0.65 −3.28

2.52 −3.87

0.93 −5.93

−2.36 −0.21

−2.66

3.89 −1.52

−4.94 −0.10

8.83

1.08 −4.58

−2.17 −1.20

−5.99

0.72 −1.07

−7.38 −0.82

−1.90

−8.75

Sugarcane

Cash crops

Pigeon Mustard pea and Sesamum (arhar) Groundnut rapeseeds (til) Soybean Potato

−16.36 −11.03

Green gram Lentil (moong) (masoor) Pea

−12.81 −13.11 −11.16

10.82

0.46

−1.22

4.55

0.71

−6.01

1.35

−3.85

−0.40

−0.24

−6.86

Pulse crops Black Sorghum gram (jowar) Wheat (urad) Gram

−0.87

2.61

0.40

−4.52

−6.16

Bulandshahr

Chandauli

6.23

−7.46

0.74

10.90

0.43

11.33

−2.56

4.30

−2.57

0.00

1.02

5.95

−6.17 −15.21

−16.76

−8.65

−4.88

1.14

8.98

−11.59

−12.33

Bareilly

Basti

Bijnor

−3.64

−11.70

Bara Banki

Budaun

0.00

10.26 −11.88

6.44

−14.66

Balrampur

Banda

−7.24

16.74

−4.47

Ballia

0.00

7.65

19.24

0.16

Bahraich

Baghpat

1.42

−0.59

−3.37

−2.81

Auraiya

Azamgarh

0.68

−0.03

0.00

−17.04 −22.81 −0.55

8.81

−4.09

0.79

16.78

Rice

−1.05

−5.05

−7.57

Aligarh

−5.07

Allahabad

1.45

−2.93

Pearl millet (bajra)

Ambedkar Nagar

Maize

Barley

District

Agra

Cereal crops

Table 4.28  Growth rate per annum in irrigated area of selected crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

10.47

−4.00

9.97

17.28

2.95

8.92

9.17

−4.19

Kushinagar

8.26

−2.25

2.15

1.40

4.69

15.26

0.09

−1.91

−6.89

1.93

1.79

10.35

2.95 −10.28

11.52

−3.46

−2.35

2.90

17.93

10.56

3.45

−0.73

−16.94

−0.86

2.07

14.87

12.08

−5.65

−6.58

−6.45

−3.80 −15.20 −1.00

Kheri

Kaushambi

4.56

−6.24

Kanpur Nagar

Kanshiram Nagar

0.18

Kanpur Dehat

Kannauj

−1.83

−5.53

6.60

−4.39

Jhansi

JPN

−4.40

−5.21

2.03

3.24

0.00

2.11

10.66

0.00

−7.68

−21.83

−24.03

0.39

−5.50

23.98

1.23

4.15

3.11

3.09

1.63

−2.58

0.78

−1.43

0.84

0.46

1.27

0.32

2.69

−0.10

−0.07

−0.32

2.25

1.03

2.41

1.21

2.00

0.49

0.30

0.90

−0.61

−3.18

0.33

1.27

−1.87

0.21

−8.70

−0.15

9.45

6.47

9.32

−0.62

−2.37

5.24

6.06

−0.66

−11.57

4.18

−11.17

−5.13

17.44

2.35

6.92

−2.86

1.36

−1.78

−1.31

−5.20

−9.52

−9.69

−7.64

−26.60

1.88

−4.42

−2.92

−7.58

3.25

−14.09

−4.60

−13.62

4.95

−10.07

−15.79

−4.02

−20.67

−27.66

−11.29

−2.91

−6.46

6.94

Pulse crops Black Sorghum gram (jowar) Wheat (urad) Gram

−0.20

0.44

Rice

1.77

0.00

−0.04

0.00

−8.48

−4.52 −14.10

5.63

−5.19

Hardoi

2.87

9.76

7.26

−3.94

0.70

6.05

−1.96

Gorakhpur

Hamirpur

Jaunpur

10.91

Jalaun

−1.01

−0.40

−5.12

Ghazipur

Gonda

−18.59 −20.87

−22.05 −15.06

−9.88

−8.22

GBN

14.95

0.63

9.18

−1.43

Pearl millet (bajra)

Ghaziabad

2.90

−5.04

Firozabad

2.63

0.78

−3.58

Farrukhabad

1.55

−0.67

−0.03

Fatehpur

Maize

Barley

District

Faizabad

Cereal crops

Table 4.28 (continued)

−6.10

−4.20

13.78

0.30

5.74

0.36

−3.81

3.54

−5.83

−0.26

7.60

−2.39

18.10

−7.63

1.07

0.24

0.31

−4.42

−4.68

12.22

−2.53

−0.11

−0.16

−5.02

−1.36

−4.59

1.46

−5.15

−4.43

−2.87

−1.92

−1.13

0.00

3.96

1.82 0.65

−2.27

−5.16

−1.15

9.66

0.03 −11.61

2.03 −10.65

−44.52

1.57

−1.30 −4.00

−1.21

10.67

0.03 −7.23 −15.85

−8.89

−8.23

0.34

0.03 −13.90

2.87

1.88

−5.62

−2.14

−3.44

−2.09 −10.10

−21.91

−11.50

−11.68

1.34

−5.19

−0.72

Oilseed crops

17.98

−2.57

−8.15

27.32

5.54

−7.21

23.38

4.51

−21.19

0.00

−8.88

6.72

−2.25

−4.92

0.41

−1.51

0.00

0.00

27.70

−16.45

10.51

0.00

0.61

0.64

3.96

1.31

0.63

−1.64

−3.00

2.78

5.65

3.24

6.36

−1.42

10.62

1.01

−0.04

−2.23

0.31

−10.00

−4.39

4.16

−4.02

0.97

4.19

−7.78

−2.54

10.76

5.13

−16.01

16.53

−2.19

16.33

−0.90

−9.46

−2.67

2.97

0.00

2.42

1.82

−7.03

−1.45

7.50

−5.16

8.77

−3.01

0.00

−0.63

0.00

0.00

−5.10

−15.44

0.00

0.00

−11.80

0.00

−22.06

−8.85

−13.62

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.77

−3.37

−0.71

0.00

0.00

3.23 6.88

0.01 2.39

0.32

2.21 2.36 6.84

1.12

2.26

−7.92 −1.69

1.50 −0.15

4.15

−6.23

0.71

2.18 −0.09

−4.45

−7.81 −2.14

1.96

0.36 −0.65

−2.75

−0.83

2.91

−0.80 −1.02

−5.42 −2.00

10.23 −1.41

−3.77 −1.66

0.08 −5.81

−4.44

−4.96

−2.07 −0.81

−0.08 −2.13

Sugarcane

Cash crops

Pigeon Mustard pea and Sesamum (arhar) Groundnut rapeseeds (til) Soybean Potato

−3.64

6.43

−9.14

2.68

−5.13

−1.30

2.10

−8.79

−3.29

−4.72

−1.24

−3.37

−16.79

−4.86

−3.83

7.23

−2.03

Green gram Lentil (moong) (masoor) Pea

−6.39

−5.47

−4.86

0.18

−7.94

−9.79

−5.36

−1.18

−13.42

−3.86

Pilibhit

Pratapgarh

Rae Bareli

Rampur

Saharanpur

Shahjahanpur

6.89

−4.97

0.28

SKN

5.65

−0.94

Siddharthnagar −26.45

2.29

−0.19

1.46

−6.93

Sitapur

Shrawasti

−16.40

−6.23

9.23

0.63

−3.49

0.00

−2.31

0.00

0.00

2.12

−5.94

14.41

0.00

−0.31

−0.63

−5.84

1.56 −22.47

Muzaffarnagar

−1.84

−7.53 −10.73 −1.35

0.72

−4.45

Mirzapur

6.72

−17.38 −13.51 −0.78

−1.60

−8.30

Mau

Meerut

Moradabad

−21.91

5.41

−7.43

−4.82

−6.05

1.55

21.16

4.77

−26.87

6.58

1.31

−1.42

0.55

0.10

0.68

0.65

−0.76

0.36

5.36

3.39

0.00

−10.11

0.00

3.29

4.66

0.00

12.05

−0.69

0.00

−0.81

−4.54

−11.54

1.98

−10.00

−2.35

0.00

Mainpuri

0.00

−5.89

−4.82

Mathura

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.45

6.33

−6.28

Mahoba

2.77

−9.72

0.00

10.77

0.18

−5.11

Rice

0.79

1.24

2.01

1.09

0.39

−0.22

1.24

0.64

0.37

0.51

−0.03

−0.16

−0.81

−1.62

0.28

0.40

1.24

0.96

1.21

−0.50

0.05

4.23

−5.11

−19.18

8.60

−26.50

−13.17

−4.55

−3.06

−7.51 −9.21

−3.73

−7.56

−7.57

−1.60

−5.14

−12.31

−6.03

−14.58

−12.06

−9.42

−32.76 −16.12 −13.77

−7.29

−1.10

−9.22

−1.28

−4.21

−5.40

−7.33

−1.75

−15.33 −11.23

−7.24

2.08

−4.68

−6.88

−5.66

−3.24

−4.86

−6.77

−1.69

−7.95

−2.70

−9.34

4.75

−12.39

−1.34

−7.22

−1.16

−0.12

2.93

6.69

−6.81

−12.88

−7.08

−4.84

−14.62

−3.03

−3.59

−7.46

2.64

−6.06

−11.14

−3.46

−3.83

1.20

Oilseed crops

−7.99

−1.51

−2.16

0.27

0.16

0.28

5.87

−2.42

−2.62

0.00

−7.21

10.25

2.60

−3.37 −10.30

−13.68

1.83

−1.28

−0.99

7.39

0.00

−11.01

0.00

0.00

2.45

−13.01

−1.43

−20.40

−0.36

−1.48

−20.15

−6.02

−10.69

0.00

0.00

20.77

0.54

20.48

−0.61

−17.27

3.86

−8.60

0.67

−0.54

−8.44

−0.36

8.10

−4.07

−2.11

−0.24

0.00

−3.16

2.33

0.00

−0.38

7.41

−3.66

−3.21

−0.09

0.03

−3.97

0.37

0.71

2.75

3.62

−0.43

−2.21

2.84

3.11

−0.03

−2.90

−2.25

5.71

−6.18

1.36

20.73

0.00

−9.73

0.00

−1.57

−14.79

−0.32

23.23

−10.47

−5.04

−5.42

13.17

−11.88

−5.80

−2.95

2.75

−16.92

15.64

0.00

9.20

17.82

−10.37

0.00

0.00

−1.76

0.00

0.00

−1.47

0.00

15.56

0.00

0.00

14.94

−3.06

3.43

0.00

0.00

0.00

−2.07

0.00

0.00

−7.71

0.00

0.00

−4.80

1.31

9.90

2.37 5.48

3.18

(continued)

−3.89 −0.84

−1.92 −0.68

4.90 −3.85

−3.67 −4.99

15.31

−1.53 −3.40

0.90 −3.88

−0.68 −0.55

−2.96 −2.02

−5.35 −3.87

2.15 −4.00

0.65 −0.18

−1.66 −1.99

−3.53 −2.61

−0.50 −4.09

−3.19

−13.28

−2.02 −1.35

0.16

6.55

−5.28 −2.01

−4.00 −0.58

Sugarcane

Cash crops

Pigeon Mustard pea and Sesamum (arhar) Groundnut rapeseeds (til) Soybean Potato

−8.57 −21.89

−4.15

−12.20

−2.72

−22.02

−5.43

0.31

−4.40

−17.30

−8.02

6.80

Green gram Lentil (moong) (masoor) Pea

−11.15 −13.50

−9.44

−21.82

−2.97

11.00

−3.20

−0.23

−4.84

−5.00

−7.91

−3.67

0.15

−2.58

−12.65 −20.72

−2.02

−5.79

−1.29

0.00

−5.39

9.86

Pulse crops Black Sorghum gram (jowar) Wheat (urad) Gram

Mahrajganj

6.80

−2.76

−2.57

−4.91

−9.25

−10.04

0.00

Pearl millet (bajra)

0.00

Maize

Lucknow

5.77

Mahamaya Nagar

Barley

District

Lalitpur

Cereal crops

4.74

−2.95

5.56

2.02

−5.55

−6.65

−0.29

3.75 −10.19 −0.55

−1.25

−3.32

4.31

−0.81

−1.84

0.00

−0.43

0.90

−0.91

1.28

0.50

−0.37

0.52

−1.65

22.63

2.80

−0.10

−2.98

−2.19

−2.67

−8.79

−7.53

−3.24

−15.26

−8.00

Pulse crops Black Sorghum gram (jowar) Wheat (urad) Gram

0.19

2.24

2.66

1.43

−8.61

Rice

−1.42

−3.40

Pearl millet (bajra)

−3.48

9.49

−2.18

−0.45

−0.87

0.35

−0.79

−0.42

6.90

−1.97

−2.10

−18.08

−0.65

Oilseed crops

0.46

−1.25

−2.07

−2.20

−2.47 7.44

−1.42

10.98

0.00

0.00

0.00

−0.01

−2.36

2.21

1.42

−4.41

−13.21

5.70

0.00

−5.01

−6.00

−2.46

0.00

−8.28

0.00

−2.63

−0.81

0.00

0.00

2.12 0.76 1.97 1.21

2.16

−20.92 −2.07

−4.78

−6.07

0.09 −2.40

−5.27

Sugarcane

Cash crops

Pigeon Mustard pea and Sesamum (arhar) Groundnut rapeseeds (til) Soybean Potato

−0.65 −10.24

−1.55

1.42

−1.55

−3.77

Green gram Lentil (moong) (masoor) Pea

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

Uttar Pradesh

Varanasi

Unnao

0.51

−9.97

−2.93

SRNB

−5.65

−9.96

Sultanpur

Maize

Barley

−14.83

District

Sonbhadra

Cereal crops

Table 4.28 (continued)

4.5 Trends of Growth in Irrigated Cropped Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

127

4.5.1.2  Rice Though rice is a principal crop grown in the state during kharif season, it recorded high irrigated area during the period of 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. It was analysed from the data that, during 1995–2000, about 26 districts recorded very high irrigated area (above 90%) to the total area under the crop, and the number of districts increased to 39, 49 and 55 during 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively. Within this category, there were 15 districts to show 100% irrigation during 2010–2015. These were namely, Auraiya, Baghpat, Bulandshahr, GBN, Ghaziabad, Mahamaya Nagar, Meerut, Pratapgarh, Rampur, SRNB, Shahjahanpur, Varanasi, Mathura, Unnao and Kanpur Dehat. Within the range of 80% to 90% rice irrigated area, there were 11 districts during 1995–2000, but the number of districts decreased to 8, 4 and 3 during later periods, respectively. In the next category of 70% to 80%, there were 8 districts during 1995–2000, the number of districts further decreased to 4, 1 and 2 in the next periods. There were 2, 2, 1 and no district in the range of 60 to 70% rice irrigated area whereas, the number of districts with irrigated area below 60% was 23, 17 and 16 during 1995–2000, 2000–2005 and 2005–2010, and 13 districts namely, Jalaun, Basti, Gorakhpur, Chitrakoot, Sonbhadra, Balrampur, Bahraich, Shrawasti, Mahrajganj, Mahoba, SKN, Lalitpur and Siddharthnagar have fallen in this category during 2010–2015. From the data shown in Table 4.28, it is revealed that irrigated area under rice showed a positive growth of 2.02% per annum during 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. The districts namely, Balrampur (28.04% per annum), Gonda (23.98% per annum), SKN (21.16% per annum), Deoria (17.68% per annum), Jhansi (17.28% per annum) and Agra (16.78% per  annum) recorded a very high growth of above 14.07% per  annum. There ware 7 districts showing high growth from 6.50% to 14.07% per annum. Medium growth rate (−1.07% to 6.5% per annum) were found in 48 districts. Low growth rate (−8.64% to −1.07% per annum) was confined to 9 districts and very low growth rate (i.e., below – 8.64% per annum) in the district of Siddharthnagar (−26.87% per annum). 4.5.1.3  Barley Barley is also an important crop grown in rabi season in the state. It registered above 80% irrigated area in 21 districts during 1995–2000 and 27, 34 and 39 in 2000– 2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively. Among these, the districts of Agra, Aligarh, Baghpat, Basti, Bulandshahr, GBN, Ghaziabad, JPN, Mainpuri, Mathura, Meerut and Saharanpur experienced 100% irrigation during 2010–2015. Excluding Basti, all districts of this category belonged to the western parts of the state. There were 13, 11, 13 and 12 districts, respectively in the category of 60% to 80% of irrigated area of barley in the study periods. And the same number of districts, i.e., 12 in the next category of 40% to 60% during 1995–2000 and 2000–2005, but the number of districts decreased to 7 during the later periods. In 13, 10, 8 and 8 districts, the irrigated area for barley crop was 20% to 40% in respective periods. There

128

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

were 11, 10, 9 and 5 districts which accounted for below 20% of area irrigated under barley crop during the corresponding periods of study. For barley, 18 districts, out of 71, showed positive growth rate per  annum (Table 4.28). Very high growth rate (above 4.66% per annum) was noticed in the districts of Hamirpur, Jhansi, Banda, Mahoba, Lalitpur and Varanasi. High (−1.16% to 4.66% per annum), medium (−6.99% to −1.66% per annum) and low (−12.81% to −6.99% per annum) growth rates have been observed in 15, 33 and 13 districts during this period. Very low growth rate below −12.81% per annum was seen in 4 districts namely, Rampur, Balrampur, Sonbhadra and Siddharthnagar. 4.5.1.4  Maize For UP, maize is an important kharif season crop which secured 29.55, 30.12, 33.27 and 38.67% irrigated area to its total cropped area during 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively (Table 4.26). During the period of 1995– 2000, there were 8 districts namely, GBN, Baghpat, Ghaziabad, Meerut, Bulandshahr, Mahamaya Nagar, Aligarh and Muzaffarnagar of the western UP which accounted for more than 80% of irrigated area under maize. The number of districts in this category increased to 10, 17 and 22, respectively during the later periods. There were 4, 7, 5 and 5 districts in the category of 60% to 80% irrigated area whereas, 7, 6, 5 and 5 districts, respectively which received irrigation on 40% to 60% area under maize crop in the respective periods. In the next category of 20% to 40%, the numbers of districts were in order of 8, 6, 7 and 4, respectively. Below 20% of irrigated area was seen in 43, 41, 37 and 39 districts of the state, respectively. In terms of annual growth rate, very high growth of above 13.28% per annum for maize irrigated area was observed in three districts of Deoria, Ballia and Kaushambi during the study period whereas very low growth rate is experienced by 7 districts of the state namely, Muzaffarnagar, Bijnor, Allahabad, Meerut, GBN, Ghaziabad and Baghpat showing growth rate below −14.28% per annum (Table 4.28). In all, there were 17, 34 and 10 districts, respectively which recorded high (4.09% to 13.28% per annum), medium (−5.09% to −4.09% per annum) and low (−14.28% to −5.09% per annum) growth rates during this period. 4.5.1.5  Pearl Millet (Bajra) Bajra is a rain−fed crop, but it registered a very high annual growth rate in irrigated area (above 12.67%) in the districts of Deoria, Auraiya, Firozabad, Kannauj and Rampur during 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. In the next category of growth ranging between 3.54% and 12.67% per annum, there were 11 districts which recorded high growth rate. Medium growth rate was visible in nearly 37 districts of the state. Low growth rate (−14.72% to −5.59% per annum) was recorded in 12 districts, and very low growth rate of below – 14.72% per annum was attained by the districts namely,

4.5 Trends of Growth in Irrigated Cropped Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

129

Ghaziabad, Kanpur Dehat, Chandauli, GBN, Moradabad and Allahabad during the period of study (Table 4.28). 4.5.1.6  Sorghum (Jowar) Jowar is also an important crop grown in lower doab and Bundelkhand region of the sate. The districts namely, Kanshiram Nagar, Rampur, Kanpur Nagar, Shahjahanpur, Kannauj, Shrawasti, Jhansi, Kaushambi, Mahamaya Nagar, Banda, Hamirpur, Mau, Farrukhabad and Firozabad observed positive growth in jowar irrigated area in the state during 1995–1996 to 2014–2015.

4.5.2  Irrigated Area Under Pulse Crops As far as irrigated area of pulse crops is concerned, there were in total 11 districts during 1995–2000 falling in the category of above 80% area irrigated under these crops. The numbers of districts registered in this category were, 10, 12 and 12, respectively during later periods of study. All these districts belonged to upper and middle Ganga−Yamuna doab regions of the state (Fig. 4.15). In the ranges between 60% and 80% irrigated area, there were 1, 5, 4 and 6 districts, whereas medium irrigation (40–60%) for pulses was observed in 12, 8, 10, 8 districts of the state in respective periods of study. There were 18, 17, 14 and 15 districts showing irrigation between 20% and 40%. Less than 20% irrigated area under pulse crops was visible in about 28, 30, 31 30 districts, respectively during these periods. It is quite clear from figure that, majority of the districts in the state were having below 40% area as irrigated for pulse crops. The trends of growth in irrigated area under pulse crops can be examined from Tables 4.26 and 4.29 and Fig. 4.16. Irrigated area under pulse crops during the year 1995–1996 was 0.83 million ha., which decreased to the tune of −1.59% per annum and reached to 0.56 million ha. in 2014–2015. Very high growth rate of above 2.39% per annum was seen in 7 districts namely, Banda, Fatehpur, Chitrakoot, Kaushambi, Kanpur Nagar, Rampur and Jalaun. High (−0.97 to 2.39% per annum) and medium (−4.33 to −0.97% per annum) growth rates were recorded in 11 and 27 districts, respectively during the same period. Low growth rate ranging between −7.69% and −4.33% per  annum was seen in 23 districts, and a very low growth rate below −7.69% per annum was seen in Bara Banki, Etah and Agra districts. It is evident from Table 4.26 that all the pulse crops recorded a negative growth rate of −1.59% per  annum in irrigated area to the total cropped area during the period of 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. Very high negative growth rate in pulse irrigated area was seen for moong that was −3.48% per  annum, followed by gram (−2.67% per annum) and arhar (−2.47% per annum) during this period.

130

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Fig. 4.15  Uttar Pradesh: irrigated area under pulse crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

4.5.2.1  Pea During 1995–2000, very high irrigated area (above 80%) of pea was recorded by 29 districts and number of districts increased to 36, 44 and 43 during 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively. During 2010–2015, 100% irrigation was provided to the crop in the districts belonged to western part of the state. These districts namely were Aligarh, Baghpat, Bulandshahr, Etah, Firozabad, GBN, Ghaziabad, JPN, Mahamaya Nagar, Mainpuri, Mathura, Meerut and Muzaffarnagar.

4.5 Trends of Growth in Irrigated Cropped Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

131

Table 4.29  Growth rate per annum in irrigated area of pulse crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 Growth rate (% per annum) Very high (above 2.39) High (−0.97 to 2.39) Medium (−4.33 to −0.97)

No. Name of district 7 Banda, Fatehpur, Chitrakoot, Kaushambi, Kanpur Nagar, Rampur and Jalaun 11 Bahraich, Lalitpur, Hardoi, Jhansi, JPN, Unnao, Sultanpur, SKN, Mahoba, Ghaziabad and Pilibhit 27 Ballia, Jaunpur, Varanasi, Allahabad, Pratapgarh, Kushinagar, Kheri, Hamirpur, Ambedkar Nagar, Auraiya, Baghpat, Farrukhabad, Kanshiram Nagar, Ghazipur, SRNB, Shahjahanpur, Rae Bareli, Azamgarh, Mau, Faizabad, Bulandshahr, Saharanpur, Meerut, Kannauj, Mahrajganj, Siddharthnagar and Etawah Low (−7.69 to 23 Gorakhpur, Mainpuri, Shrawasti, Sitapur, Deoria, Bareilly, Bijnor, −4.33) Mathura, Basti, Budaun, GBN, Aligarh, Kanpur Dehat, Chandauli, Mahamaya Nagar, Muzaffarnagar, Balrampur, Firozabad, Mirzapur, Moradabad, Lucknow, Sonbhadra and Gonda Very low 3 Bara Banki, Etah and Agra (below −7.69) Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

Fig. 4.16  Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in irrigated area of pulse crops, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

132

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Within the range of 60 to 80% irrigated area under pea crop, there were 16, 13, 13 and 15 districts, respectively during respective periods. About 40% to 60% irrigated area was confined to 9, 11, 5 and 6 districts, whereas in 11, 5, 4 and 2 districts, irrigated area was in between 20% and 40%. In the lowest category of below 20%, there were only 5 districts to receive irrigation on land devoted to this crop during these periods of time. These districts were mainly belong to Bundelkhand and Purvanchal regions. During the period under consideration, the district namely, Banda had shown very high growth rate of 16.03% per annum for pea crop. A total number of 20 districts had shown growth rate in between −0.54% and 9.23% per annum. The growth rate ranging from −10.32% to −0.54% per  annum was recorded in 34 districts, whereas the growth rate of −20.10% to −10.32% per annum was seen in 10 districts, and a very low growth rate below −20.10% per annum was read in 6 districts of namely, Auraiya, Etawah, Ghaziabad, Mathura, Etah and Kanshiram Nagar (Table 4.28). 4.5.2.2  Green Gram (Moong) For moong crop, very high growth rate of above 7.35% per annum was recorded in 6 districts namely, Hamirpur, Banda, Kaushambi, Fatehpur, Varanasi and Jalaun during the period of 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. High (0.34% to 7.35% per annum), medium (−6.66% to −0.34% per annum) and low (−13.67% to −6.66% per annum) growth rate was the feature of 9, 33 and 22 districts, respectively during this period, and very low growth rate (below −13.67% per annum) was seen in only one district of Siddharthnagar (Table 4.28). 4.5.2.3  Gram In case of gram irrigated area, only 7 districts, out of total 71, recorded positive growth rate during 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. These were namely, Mahoba, Faizabad, Hamirpur, Chitrakoot, Banda, Jhansi and Kanpur Nagar (Table 4.28). 4.5.2.4  Lentil (Masoor) The districts of Farrukhabad, Unnao, Rae Bareli, Kannauj and SKN recorded very high growth (above 4.64% per annum) in masoor during this period (Table 4.28). A good number of districts (15 & 33) recorded high (−1.29% to 4.64% per annum) and medium (−7.22% to −1.29% per annum) growth rates, respectively. In 12 districts low growth rate (−13.14% to −7.22% per annum) was seen, and in 6 districts namely, Bara Banki, Mirzapur, Bareilly, GBN, Sonbhadra and Allahabad were characterized with very low growth rate (below −13.14% per annum).

4.5 Trends of Growth in Irrigated Cropped Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

133

4.5.2.5  Black Gram (Urad) and Pigeon Pea (Arhar) During the study period, 25 and 19 districts respectively showed a positive growth rate for urad and arhar crops irrigated area in the state (Table 4.28).

4.5.3  Irrigated Area Under Oilseed Crops For oilseed crops, about 50% area of the state was irrigated during the study periods (Table 4.26). There were altogether 26 districts in the state during 2010–2015 which showed above 80% irrigated area under oilseeds crops. The numbers of districts in this category during previous periods were 16, 21 and 25, respectively. It is depicted in Fig. 4.17 that, the districts belonging to the western part of the state, including few from eastern region, recorded very high irrigated area for oilseed crops. In the category of 60% to 80% irrigated area, there were 20, 13, 11 and 13 districts respectively, whereas in the medium category of irrigation (40–60%), there were 9, 12, 12 and 13 districts during these periods, respectively. The districts characterized with in between 20% and 40% irrigated area were 10, 9, 9 and 8, respectively. All the districts from Bundelkhand region, few districts from Awadh and south−eastern part of the state were characterized with less than 20% irrigation for oilseed crops. Table 4.26 showed that irrigated area under oilseed crops recorded a slight positive growth rate of 0.03% per annum from 1995–96 to 2014–2015. The districts of Lalitpur, Hamirpur and Sitapur showed very high growth rate of above 7.33% per annum. High growth rate (2.73% to 7.33% per annum) was seen in 16 districts, whereas medium growth rate (−1.88% to 2.73% per annum) was in 30 districts of the state. Low growth rate between the range of −6.49% to −1.88% per annum was the feature in 20 districts. The districts of GBN and Sonbhadra were characterized with a very low negative growth of below −6.49% per annum during this period (Table 4.30 and Fig. 4.18). Among oilseed crops, mustard and rapeseed acquired the highest irrigated area in the state with 82.93% during 2010–2015, followed by groundnut with 4.03% of irrigated area. Til and soybean accounted for only 0.52% and 0.21% irrigated area during the same period (Table 4.26). 4.5.3.1  Mustard and Rapeseeds From the analysis, it was seen that in case of mustard and rapeseeds, as many as 36, 37, 44 and 47 districts, respectively recorded 80% and above area under irrigation. In the next categories of 60% to 80% and 40% to 60% of irrigated area, there were 12, 15, 7 and 7 districts and 9, 5, 10 and 8 districts in respective periods, respectively. In the category of 20% to 40% of irrigated area, there were 7, 5, 3 and 3 districts during these periods, respectively. Whereas, within the category of below

134

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Fig. 4.17  Uttar Pradesh: irrigated area under oilseed crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

20% irrigated area under mustard and rapeseeds, there were 6, 8, 7 and 6 districts, respectively. Mustard and rapeseeds showed a declining trend of –0.01% per annum during 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 (Table 4.28). Very high growth of above 7.34% per annum was seen in three districts namely, Lalitpur, Hamirpur and Sitapur during this period. High (2.72–7.34% per annum) and medium (−1.90 to 2.72% per annum) growth rates were the feature of 16 and 30 districts, respectively. Low growth rate between

4.5 Trends of Growth in Irrigated Cropped Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

135

Table 4.30  Growth rate per annum in irrigated area of oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 Growth rate (% per annum) Very high (above 7.33) High (2.73 to 7.33)

No. Name of district 3 Lalitpur, Hamirpur and Sitapur 16

Medium (−1.88 to 2.73)

30

Low (−6.49 to −1.88)

20

Very low 2 (below −6.49)

Mau, Jalaun, Bijnor, Azamgarh, Mahoba, Bara Banki, Jhansi, Fatehpur, Budaun, Kaushambi, Baghpat, Muzaffarnagar, Jaunpur, Meerut, Pilibhit and JPN Bahraich, Ambedkar Nagar, Unnao, Bareilly, Ballia, Kanshiram Nagar, Sultanpur, Lucknow, Gorakhpur, Faizabad, Kushinagar, Pratapgarh, Kanpur Nagar, Kheri, Auraiya, Rae Bareli, Ghaziabad, Deoria, Saharanpur, Mathura, Gonda, Shahjahanpur, SKN, Moradabad, Etawah, Bulandshahr, Hardoi, Basti, Kanpur Dehat and Banda Mainpuri, Kannauj, Mirzapur, Ghazipur, Mahrajganj, Varanasi, Balrampur, Agra, Shrawasti, Chandauli, Siddharthnagar, Farrukhabad, Rampur, Allahabad, Chitrakoot, Aligarh, Firozabad, SRNB, Etah and Mahamaya Nagar GBN and Sonbhadra

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

Fig. 4.18  Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in irrigated area of oilseed crops, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

136

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

the range of −6.52 and −1.90% per annum was recorded in 20 districts, and GBN and Sonbhadra had very low growth rates (below – 6.52% per annum) for mustard and rapeseeds. 4.5.3.2  Other Oilseed Crops Among other oilseed crops, soybean recorded a negative growth rate of −8.28% per annum in its irrigated area in the state during the study period. This shows a neglected choice of farmers towards this crop. Groundnut and til recorded a positive growth of 7.44 and 5.7% per annum, respectively in irrigated area of these crops during this period (Table 4.28).

4.5.4  Irrigated Area Under Cash Crops Sugarcane and potato are the two important cash crops grown in the state. As far as irrigated area for cash crops is concerned, these recorded a very high irrigated area to the total cultivated area under these crops during all the four periods of times which ranges as 91, 91.89, 94.24 and 96.63%, respectively. It is apparent from Table 4.26 that cash crops require heavy irrigation, resultantly, 95.82% under sugarcane and 99.83% areas under potatoes were irrigated during 2010–2015. Almost all the districts, except few of north-eastern tarai districts, the area under irrigation was very high for both the crops. Out of 71 districts in the state, there were 61, 62, 67 and 67 districts which recorded above 85% irrigated area under this crop during these periods, respectively (Fig. 4.19). During 2010–2015, there were 31 districts which recorded 100% irrigation for this crop. Three districts namely, Kushinagar, Balrampur and Bahraich were at the bottom and recorded 58.42, 39.61 and 39.28% irrigated area for cash crops, respectively. The growth rate in irrigated area under cash crops was recorded as 1.40% per annum in the state during 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 (Table 4.26). During this period, out of 35 districts which have shown a positive growth rate in irrigated area, 7 districts recorded very high growth of above 5.57% per annum. These districts were namely, Mahamaya Nagar, Agra, Gonda, Shrawasti, Firozabad, Mahoba and Bahraich. Whereas, high growth rate of 2.16% to 5.57% per annum was recorded in 9 districts (Fig. 4.20). There were 29 and 24 districts, respectively which showed medium (−1.25% to 2.16% per annum) and low (−4.66% to −1.25% per annum) growth rates during this period. Very low growth rate below −4.66% per annum was seen in GBN and Etah districts (Table 4.31).

4.5 Trends of Growth in Irrigated Cropped Area: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

137

Fig. 4.19  Uttar Pradesh: irrigated area under cash crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

4.5.4.1  Sugarcane Sugarcane and potato crops respectively have shown 2.16 and 1.21% growth rates per annum in irrigated area during this period. Sugarcane shows very high growth rate (above 5.96% per annum) in the districts of Shrawasti, Gonda, Bahraich and Mahoba. High growth rate in between 0.82 and 5.96% per annum in irrigated area of sugarcane was recorded in 15 districts of the state. Medium (−4.32% to 0.82% per annum) and low growth rate (−9.45% to −4.32% per annum) was seen in 32 and

138

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

Fig. 4.20  Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per  annum in irrigated area of cash crops, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 Table 4.31  Growth rate per annum in irrigated area of cash crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 Growth rate (% per annum) Very high (above 5.57) High (2.16 to 5.57) Medium (−1.25 to 2.16)

Low (−4.66 to −1.25) Very low (below −4.66)

No. Name of district 7 Mahamaya Nagar, Agra, Gonda, Shrawasti, Firozabad, Mahoba and Bahraich 9 Kanpur Nagar, Sitapur, Aligarh, Kheri, Etawah, Balrampur, Kannauj, Hardoi and Mainpuri 29 Pilibhit, Jhansi, Basti, JPN, Auraiya, Kushinagar, Faizabad, Kanshiram Nagar, Bulandshahr, Baghpat, Saharanpur, Sonbhadra, Bijnor, Bareilly, Muzaffarnagar, Unnao, Sultanpur, Fatehpur, Ambedkar Nagar, Ghaziabad, Mahrajganj, Budaun, Jalaun, Meerut, Farrukhabad, Hamirpur, Shahjahanpur, Rampur and Bara Banki 24 Kaushambi, Mathura, Rae Bareli, Moradabad, Allahabad, SKN, Jaunpur, Chitrakoot, Banda, Azamgarh, Lucknow, Lalitpur, Kanpur Dehat, Ballia, Ghazipur, Pratapgarh, Mirzapur, Gorakhpur, Mau, Siddharthnagar, Varanasi, SRNB, Chandauli and Deoria 2 GBN and Etah

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

4.6 Irrigation Intensity

139

17 districts, respectively. Very low and negative growth in the order of −9.73, −13.28 and −20.92% was found in Etawah, Mathura and Etah, respectively (Table 4.28). 4.5.4.2  Potato From Table 4.28, it can be observed that potato crop achieved a very high growth of above 4.99% per  annum in the districts of Mahamaya Nagar, Aligarh, Agra, Firozabad, Kanpur Nagar, Mathura and Etawah in irrigated area during the period of 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. High growth rate between 1.58% and 4.99% was observed in 11 districts namely, Auraiya, Fatehpur, Shahjahanpur, Jalaun, Mainpuri, Kannauj, Kanshiram Nagar, Jhansi, Bulandshahr, Sonbhadra and Unnao. Medium growth rate (−1.84% to 1.58% per annum) was recorded in 30 districts. Low growth rate (−5.26% to −1.84% per annum) was recorded in 21 districts and a very low growth rate of below −5.26% per annum in the districts of GBN and Bareilly.

4.6  Irrigation Intensity Intensity of irrigation can be considered as a ratio of gross irrigated area to net irrigated area (Dhawan and Datta, 1992). District-wise intensity of irrigation and its growth computed for the periods of 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010– 2015 are presented in Tables 4.32 and 4.33. Average irrigation intensity in the state was 140.03% during 1995–2000, with a slight decrease of −0.07% it went to 139.93% during 2000–2005. It recorded an increase of 2.69 and 0.53% during 2000–2005 to 2005–2010 and 2005–2010 to 2010–2015 registering irrigation intensity in the state as 143.69 and 144.44% during 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively (Figs. 4.1 and 4.2). During 1995–2000 and 2000–2005, very high irrigation intensity (above 180%) was seen in Rampur district of Rohilkhand region with intensity values of 188.61 and 182.69%, respectively. During 2005–2010, the number of districts in this cateTable 4.32  Intensity of irrigation in Uttar Pradesh

Category (%) Very high (above 180) High (160–180) Medium (140–160) Low (120–140) Very low (below 120)

1995–2000 No. of districts % 1 1 7 10 26 37 18 25 18 25

2000–2005 No. of districts % 1 1 8 11 26 37 18 25 17 24

2005–2010 No. of districts 4 13 24 16 14

% 6 18 34 23 20

2010–2015 No. of districts % 2 3 13 18 28 39 14 20 14 20

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

Table 4.33  District-wise growth in intensity of irrigation in Uttar Pradesh Growth (%) Above 10

0 to 10

Growth period (1995–2000 to 2000–2005) No. Name of district 1 Balrampur

32

−10 to 0 37

Below −10

–

Azamgarh, Mau, Meerut, Gonda, Sultanpur, Bahraich, JPN, Allahabad, Bareilly, Deoria, Auraiya, Kanpur Nagar, Basti, Ambedkar Nagar, Ghazipur, Baghpat, Hardoi, Bara Banki, Budaun, Gorakhpur, Mainpuri, Kushinagar, Sitapur, Mahamaya Nagar, Jalaun, SRNB, Moradabad, Ghaziabad, Jhansi, Firozabad, Hamirpur and Siddharthnagar

Growth period (2000–2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 7 GBN, Balrampur, Deoria, Mainpuri, Varanasi, Azamgarh and Mau 40 Aligarh, Moradabad, JPN, Jaunpur, Rampur, Hardoi, Bara Banki, Chandauli, Pilibhit, Ballia, Firozabad, Shahjahanpur, Etah, Kaushambi, Gonda, Sultanpur, SKN, Kannauj, Etawah, Bareilly, Basti, Jalaun, Mathura, Gorakhpur, Mahamaya Nagar, Faizabad, SRNB, Mahoba, Rae Bareli, Farrukhabad, Budaun, Ambedkar Nagar, Agra, Bahraich, Bulandshahr, Lalitpur, Jhansi, Baghpat, Ghazipur and Unnao

21 Mahoba, Kannauj, Lalitpur, SKN, Bijnor, Chandauli, Mirzapur, Chitrakoot, Rae Bareli, Bulandshahr, Farrukhabad, Lucknow, Agra, Ballia, Etah, Banda, Saharanpur, Fatehpur, Kanpur Dehat, Kaushambi, Jaunpur, Pilibhit, Mathura, Etawah, Shahjahanpur, Aligarh, Rampur, Muzaffarnagar, Pratapgarh, Unnao, Mahrajganj, Shrawasti, GBN, Faizabad, Varanasi, Sonbhadra and Kheri – 2

Allahabad, Siddharthnagar, Muzaffarnagar, Meerut, Kushinagar, Fatehpur, Ghaziabad, Kanpur Nagar, Hamirpur, Auraiya, Lucknow, Chitrakoot, Kheri, Kanpur Dehat, Shrawasti, Mahrajganj, Saharanpur, Bijnor, Sitapur, Pratapgarh and Banda

Mirzapur and Sonbhadra

Growth period (2005–2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 5 Gonda, Gorakhpur, Pratapgarh, Siddharthnagar and Bara Banki 40 GBN, Kannauj, Shrawasti, Deoria, Sitapur, Auraiya, Rae Bareli, Etah, Kushinagar, Bahraich, Jhansi, Mahamaya Nagar, Faizabad, Fatehpur, Kaushambi, Muzaffarnagar, Agra, Mirzapur, Bulandshahr, Ballia, Unnao, Bijnor, Kanpur Nagar, Ghaziabad, Sultanpur, Banda, Saharanpur, Etawah, Kheri, Jaunpur, Allahabad, Shahjahanpur, Firozabad, Lucknow, SRNB, Chitrakoot, Jalaun, Mathura, Farrukhabad and Aligarh 23 Mahrajganj, Ghazipur, Baghpat, Ambedkar Nagar, Lalitpur, Kanpur Dehat, Meerut, Basti, Hamirpur, Chandauli, Mau, Azamgarh, Sonbhadra, Varanasi, Mahoba, Bareilly, Hardoi, Pilibhit, Mainpuri, JPN, Rampur, SKN and Kanshiram Nagar

3

Moradabad, Budaun and Balrampur

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Note: (–) denotes data not available in this category

4.6 Irrigation Intensity

141

Fig. 4.21  Uttar Pradesh: irrigation intensity, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

gory increased to 4 which were namely, Rampur, Moradabad, Mainpuri and Bara Banki. In 2010–2015, the districts of Bara Banki and Rampur were occupied place in this category (Fig. 4.21). In the next category of 160% to 180%, the number of districts increased from 7 during 1995–2000 to 8, 13 and 13 during the periods of 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively. Irrigation intensity with medium range in between 140 and 160% was concentrated in 26 districts during 1995–2000, the number of districts increased to 28 during 2010–2015. Between the

142

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

range of 120 and 140% irrigation intensity, the number of districts in 2010–2015 was 14, as against 18, 18 and 16  in 1995–2000, 2000–2005 and 2005–2010, respectively. While in very low category of irrigation intensity (below 120%), the numbers of districts were 18, 17, 14 and 14 in the corresponding periods of study. In total, about 21% districts of the state were having high and very high irrigation intensity of the state. It is evident from Table 4.33 that, high growth with the value of above 10% was noticed in a single district of Balrampur during the period of 1995–2000 to 2000– 2005 whereas, during 2000–2005 to 2005–2010 and 2005–2010 to 2010–2015, the number of districts increased to 7 and 5 in this category. Out of total, 32, 40 and 40 districts respectively formed the next category of growth, i.e., 0 to 10% in the corresponding periods. The negative growth between −10% to 0% was occupied by 37 districts during the first period, in the later periods this number fell down to 21 and 23, respectively. A negative growth below −10% was seen in Moradabad, Budaun and Balrampur districts during 2005–2010 to 2010–2015. There was no district in this category during first growth period, and in the next period there were 2 districts.

4.7  Levels of Irrigation Development In comparison to other states of India, the state of UP is well endowed with irrigation facilities. In spite of surface as well as groundwater resources available in the state, there are some disparities in irrigation development in different regions of the state. Variations do exist in terms of soil quality, amount of rainfall, receptiveness of flooding, and accessibility to groundwater (Clift 1977). The levels of irrigation development in 71 districts of the state were computed by applying the Composite z-score technique. For an assessment of irrigation development in individual districts of the state, four variables were selected, these were (i) gross irrigated area to gross cropped area (in percentage), (ii) net irrigated area to net sown area (in percentage), (iii) area irrigated more than once to net sown area (in percentage), and (iv) gross irrigated area to net irrigated area or irrigation intensity. Quinquennial averages of data pertaining to four periods of 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015 for these variables were taken into consideration, and required values of z-scores have been computed. Further, the composite standard score values were computed to determine the levels of irrigation development in the districts of the state. On the basis of composite z-score values, it is possible to categorize the districts in order of very high, high, medium, low and very low irrigation development. It is evident from Tables 4.34 and 4.35, and Fig. 4.22) that, there exists a wide range of disparity in the levels of irrigation development in the state during the periods under consideration.

4.7 Levels of Irrigation Development

143

Table 4.34  Levels of irrigation development in Uttar Pradesh

Category (Z–score) Very high (above 1.50) High (0.50–1.50) Medium (−0.50 to 0.50) Low (−1.50 to 0.50) Very low (below − 1.50)

1995–2000 No. of districts % 2 3

2000–2005 No. of districts % 2 3

2005–2010 No. of districts % 2 3

2010–2015 No. of districts % 2 3

17 31

24 44

17 31

24 44

22 25

31 35

23 27

32 38

11 9

15 13

10 10

14 14

14 8

20 11

11 8

15 11

Note: Computed by author from Table 4.35

4.7.1  Regions of Very High Irrigation Development For the periods of 1995–2000 and 2000–2005, very high irrigation development in the state designated with the z-score values of above 1.50, was seen in only 2 districts. These districts were namely, Rampur (z-scores 1.82 and 1.74) and Bulandshahr (1.75 and 1.57) forming a part of Rohilkhand plains and upper Ganga-Yamuna doab, respectively (Table 4.35 and Fig. 4.22). In this category, the number of districts remained same during 2005–2010 and 2010–2015. These districts were namely, Rampur (1.65) and Mainpuri (1.61), whereas during 2010–2015, the districts of Bara Banki (1.68) and Rampur (1.54) were occupied place in very high irrigation development. The reason to attain high level of irrigation development by these districts may be assigned to green revolution. During this period, large areas were brought under tubewells and canals irrigation. More than 95% of the gross cropped area was irrigated in these districts, whereas the extent of area irrigated more than once increased and irrigation intensity also show significant increase. The advantage of high irrigation in the western districts of the state provided benefits to areas having wheat-rice-sugarcane as dominated cropping patterns. As these crops demand more water, about 90–100% area under these crops was irrigated as a result of tremendous irrigation development.

4.7.2  Regions of High Irrigation Development The z-score values ranged from 0.50 to 1.50 to mark a high category of irrigation development. A total of 17 districts showed a high level of irrigation development during the period of 1995–2000. Out of these, 5 districts namely, Ghaziabad, Baghpat, Muzaffarnagar, Meerut and Saharanpur were concentrated mainly in upper doab, Aligarh district from middle doab and one district Mainpuri belong to

Allahabad

Ambedkar Nagar

Auraiya

Azamgarh

Baghpat

Bahraich

Ballia

Balrampur

Banda

Bara Banki

Bareilly

Basti

Bijnor

Budaun

Bulandshahr

Chandauli

Chitrakoot

Deoria

Etah

Etawah

Faizabad

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

0.60

1.25

0.72

1.28

0.09

0.34

1.27

1.00

1.26

0.46

0.14

1.10

0.89

0.59

0.00

0.80

0.11 −0.39

0.50

1.29

0.62

0.35

1.63

0.41

0.30

0.93

0.86

0.67

1.07

1.42

1.11

1.75 0.65

1.36 0.69

1.06 1.19

1.83

0.47 −0.15

0.30 −0.33

0.48

0.44

0.70

0.30

0.16 −0.86

0.68

0.42

0.62

0.90 −0.26

0.15

−0.41 −1.25 −0.15

0.42

0.24 −0.34 −0.62 −0.61 −0.22

0.76

−0.25 −0.88 −0.32

0.41

−1.27 −1.14 −0.60

1.01

0.61

0.01 −0.04

0.05

−1.10 −0.54 −1.19

1.30

0.89

0.30

−1.57 −2.11 −2.37 −2.79 −1.57

0.80

1.44

−0.46

0.62 −0.23

2.09

−0.44

0.38 −0.30

1.27

0.89

0.47

−0.80 −0.73 −0.70 −0.70 −0.69

0.51

0.91

−2.15 −2.32 −1.54

0.88

1.49

0.12

0.55

−0.65 −0.37 −0.82

0.92

1.27

−0.05 −1.27 −1.75 −2.43 −1.02

1.19

−1.54 −2.01 −0.98

0.30

−1.83 −1.72 −1.47

0.52

0.10 −0.04 −0.20 −0.06 −0.03

−1.50 −1.81 −1.98 −2.15 −1.06

−0.17 −0.07 −0.02

−1.70 −2.11 −2.08 −1.90 −1.43

1.20

0.15

−0.22

1.03

0.27

1.43

0.50 −0.05

0.45

0.97

0.74

0.40 −0.05

0.13

0.17 −1.41

ID

1.23

0.60

0.28

1.37

0.26

0.50

0.70

1.10

0.88

0.12

1.00

0.76

0.61

0.21

0.67

0.06 −0.34

0.40

1.02

1.31

0.20

1.37

0.29

0.56

0.06

0.98

1.04 0.83

0.60 0.56

0.37

0.66

0.98

1.57

0.61

1.22

0.00 −0.15

0.04

0.63

0.96

1.33

1.53

0.43 0.58

0.63

0.11 −0.37

0.11

−0.99 −0.63

0.58

0.05

0.59

0.05

0.43

0.21

0.77

0.20

0.60

0.14

0.41

0.12

1.15

0.90

0.24

0.96

0.88

0.65

0.17

0.63

1.02

1.19

0.47

1.29

0.36

0.61

0.02

0.03 −0.15

0.17

1.05

1.36

0.85

2.46

0.81

0.61

1.17

0.56

0.91

1.18

1.66

0.48 −0.37

0.53 −0.51

0.59

0.18

0.24

0.16

0.60

0.16

0.55

0.15

0.67

0.09

0.81

0.53

0.24

0.25

0.85

0.44

0.74

0.21

0.69

0.54

−1.59 −2.41 −2.44 −3.09 −1.62

1.24

1.25

0.69

0.43

0.10 −0.10 −0.55

0.84

0.72

−0.27 −0.03 −0.82

−0.69 −0.01

−0.40 −0.59

0.90

1.20

−0.70 −1.60 −1.58 −2.19 −1.13 0.92

0.48 −0.18

0.89

0.13 −0.31

0.38

0.89 −1.13 −2.11 −2.22 −1.39

0.26

0.99 0.54 −0.56

1.02

1.11

0.22

1.18

0.18

0.57

0.44 −1.27

ID

1.05

1.04

0.39

1.11

0.24

0.62

0.12

1.68 0.84 0.06

0.95

1.40

0.84

0.24

0.50

0.52

0.68

0.22

0.77

0.55

−1.64 −2.38

1.14

1.43

−1.21 −0.52

−0.63

−0.51 −0.29

0.73

2.60

−0.68 −1.51

−1.22 −1.88

0.38

−1.16 −1.66

0.81

1.10

0.57

1.22

0.70

0.40

−1.43 −0.76

During 2010–2015 GIA NIA MTOIA II

−1.29 −1.72 −1.92 −1.76 −1.30

0.85

1.23

0.25

1.26

0.63

0.42

1.74

−1.59 −2.30 −2.57 −3.04 −1.57

1.03

1.44

−0.27

−0.42

ID

−1.48 −0.79 −0.54

1.64

−0.52 −0.72 −0.49 −0.65 −0.61

0.93

1.55

−0.10 −1.47 −1.71 −2.24 −1.17

−0.43 −1.55 −1.85 −2.51 −0.64

0.07 −0.06 −0.06 −0.18

−1.40 −1.88 −1.94 −1.68 −1.35

1.01

0.49

0.51

1.42

0.83

0.00

0.41 −1.33

During 2005–2010 GIA NIA MTOIA II

−1.62 −0.95 −0.49

During 2000–2005 GIA NIA MTOIA II

−2.27 −2.04 −1.57

1.44

0.07

0.34

1.14

−0.01 −0.55 −0.04

1.17

ID

−1.58 −0.83 −0.59

Aligarh

2.

0.31 −1.33

−0.38

Agra

1.

0.76

During 1995–2000 GIA NIA MTOIA II

S.no. Districts

Table 4.35  District-wise variations in levels of irrigation development in Uttar Pradesh (Z-scores)

Kanpur Nagar

Kanshiram Nagar

Kaushambi

Kheri

Kushinagar

Lalitpur

Lucknow

Mahamaya Nagar

Mahoba

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

Jalaun

34.

Kanpur Dehat

Hardoi

33.

39.

Hamirpur

32.

Kannauj

Gorakhpur

31.

JPN

Gonda

30.

38.

Ghazipur

29.

37.

Ghaziabad

28.

Jaunpur

GBN

27.

Jhansi

Firozabad

26.

35.

Fatehpur

25.

36.

Farrukhabad

24.

S.no. Districts

0.46 −0.27

0.58

1.43 0.50

1.35 0.15

1.05 0.87

1.36

1.07 −1.03

0.85 −0.73

0.41

0.42

0.48

0.34

0.31

0.28

0.05

0.55

0.10

0.59 −0.32

0.79

–

–

0.03 −0.50

0.13

−0.02 −0.33

–

–

–

–

0.07

0.01 0.01 −0.37

0.06 −0.22 0.29

0.03

0.31

0.56 0.40

0.61

0.47

1.00 −0.16

0.49

−1.84 −1.84 −1.78 −1.96 −1.63

0.39

−0.56

0.52

−1.89 −1.28 −0.93 −0.25 −1.64

0.47

0.77

−0.55 −0.81 −0.53 −0.73 −0.78

–

1.20 −0.14

0.49

−1.58 −1.59 −1.61

0.60

0.60

−0.83 −0.30 −1.61

0.15

−0.23 −0.66

−0.67 −0.90 −0.81

–

−0.54 −0.37 −0.38 −0.53 −0.43

0.03

0.37

−0.31

−0.54

0.81 −0.25

−0.41 −0.41 −0.31 −0.42 −0.59

−0.51

1.21 −0.08

−1.89 −1.67 −1.23 −1.04 −1.63

0.34

−1.87 −1.71 −1.46 −1.59 −1.61

−0.26 −0.31 −0.51

0.09

0.71

−1.31 −1.20 −1.62

0.54

−1.33 −1.34 −1.61

0.33 −0.07

−0.35 −0.15 0.22

−1.77 −2.18 −2.17 −2.49 −1.61

0.16 −0.30

−0.06

0.01 −1.18

−2.16 −2.30 −1.60

0.09 −1.26

−1.47 −0.92 −0.69

0.71

0.89

1.36

0.00

−0.66

0.64

0.14 −0.41

−1.41 −1.46 −1.11 −0.69 −1.02

0.21

1.49

−1.11

1.33 −0.72 0.28

−1.03 −0.17

0.94 −0.71

1.29

0.12

ID 0.31

0.38 −0.35

0.71

1.31

0.03 0.46

1.22

1.22 0.18

0.96

0.96 0.70

0.99

0.28

0.75 −0.54

0.08 −1.06

0.10

0.28

0.36

0.19

0.33

0.33

0.30

0.53

0.36 0.17

0.59

0.28

0.54 −0.26

0.42

–

0.64

0.47

0.97

0.17

0.03

0.38

0.22

0.54

0.39

0.58

0.21 0.91 −0.13

0.51

−1.83 −1.99 −2.03 −2.12 −1.55

−0.45

0.44 −1.55

0.19

0.04 −0.08 0.10 −0.21

0.23

−1.88 −1.30 −0.67

0.66

0.23

−0.63 −0.74 −0.34 −0.69 −0.65

–

−0.22 −0.43 −0.41 −0.56 −0.55

−0.48 −0.50 −0.45 −0.48 −0.73

−0.50 −0.05

−0.12

−1.86 −1.59 −1.60 −1.14 −1.57

0.27

−1.81 −1.79 −1.17 −1.08 −1.48

−0.14

−1.75 −2.21 −2.10 −2.36 −1.59

−1.33 −0.88 −0.64

−1.00 −1.06 −0.49 −0.05 −0.78

1.03

1.00

−1.30

−0.98 −0.24 −0.02

ID 0.45

0.54 −0.35

0.59

1.07

0.69

0.16

0.49

1.17

1.17

0.14

0.67

1.05

0.83

0.11 −0.57

0.11

0.17

0.91

0.91

0.64 −0.57

0.28

0.31

0.37 −0.03 0.48

0.27

0.26

0.58

0.02

0.42

0.48

0.60

0.40

0.67

0.17

0.04

0.83

0.35

0.73

0.71

0.14

0.05

0.14

0.23

0.39

0.39

0.67

0.88

0.52

0.05

0.24

0.52 −1.65

0.36

0.01

−1.63 −2.01 −2.23 −2.21 −1.67

−0.35

0.19 0.19 −0.34

0.43 −1.73 −0.97 −1.21

0.44

0.00

−0.44 −0.58 −0.22 −0.65 −0.54

0.96

−0.35 −0.51 −0.48 −0.82 −0.57

−0.63 −0.63 −0.45 −0.71 −0.85

−0.37

0.24

−1.71 −1.66 −1.32 −0.46 −1.49

0.58

−1.58 −1.46 −0.95 −0.96 −1.54

0.17

−1.71 −2.13 −1.96 −2.11 −1.68

−1.15 −0.76 −0.27

−0.80 −0.58

0.82

0.72

0.04

−0.72 −0.15 −0.24

0.05

ID

0.17

0.57

1.07

0.95

0.16 0.48

0.32

0.33

0.64

0.25

0.18

(continued)

−1.83 −2.15

0.43 0.31

0.17 −0.15

−1.84 −1.14

0.71

0.05

−0.32 −0.47

0.57

−0.29 −0.58

−0.72 −0.74

0.14

−0.09

−1.62 −1.32

0.65

−1.65 −1.38

−0.07

−1.86 −2.06

−0.60 −0.36

0.22

0.80

0.83

0.61

−0.72 −0.24

0.15 −0.31

−0.47

During 2010–2015 GIA NIA MTOIA II

−0.02 −0.48 −0.28 −0.76 −0.24

−0.43 −0.02

During 2005–2010 GIA NIA MTOIA II

0.15 −0.38 −0.45 −0.87 −0.41

−0.46 −0.17

During 2000–2005 GIA NIA MTOIA II

0.21 −0.23 −0.37 −0.85 −0.29

−0.44 −0.05

ID

−1.46 −1.03 −1.34

0.52

1.49

1.52

0.18

−0.30 −0.57 −0.17

0.07

During 1995–2000 GIA NIA MTOIA II

−1.09 −1.70 −1.88 −1.42 −1.31

−1.86 −1.58 −1.43 −0.91 −1.61 0.22 −0.43 −0.03 −0.43 0.61 −1.32 −2.29 −2.81 −1.06

−1.91 −1.80 −1.31

−2.06 −2.36 −0.96

Meerut

Mirzapur

Moradabad

Muzaffarnagar

Pilibhit

Pratapgarh

Rae Bareli

Rampur

Saharanpur

SKN

SRNB

Shahjahanpur

Shrawasti

Siddharthnagar −1.38 −0.85 −1.60

−0.55 −0.88 −0.33

Mau

Sitapur

Sonbhadra

Sultanpur

Unnao

Varanasi

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

0.67

0.72

0.40

0.26

0.85

0.82

2.46

0.50

0.56

1.65

0.60

1.19

0.16 −0.16

0.27

0.32

0.49 −0.02

1.36

0.28

0.26

1.00

1.00

1.07

0.45 1.07

0.46

0.98 −0.65

0.90

0.79

1.82

0.55

0.50

1.37

1.08

0.73

0.77

1.06

0.58

0.53

0.99

1.29

0.63

1.02

0.31

−0.19 0.36

0.17

−0.05 −0.08

1.04

−0.19 −0.02

0.49

0.26

0.67

2.31

0.44

0.38

1.40

0.71

1.52

0.69

0.32

0.04

0.47 −0.23

0.24

0.03

1.06

0.06 −0.12

0.11 −1.50

0.60

0.81

0.32

0.24

0.75

1.00

0.17

0.21 −0.03

0.88

0.22

−1.73 −1.24 −1.14

0.61

2.26

0.44

0.58

1.32

0.55

1.61

0.58 −0.09 −0.62 −1.18 −0.16

0.83

0.16

0.07

0.96

0.73

1.00

1.16

0.44 1.22

0.80

0.33

1.07

2.07

0.96

0.46 0.76

1.08

0.84 −0.59

0.91

0.72

1.74

0.49

0.43

1.20

0.94

1.13

0.78

0.93

0.54

0.61

0.97

1.13

0.59

0.97

0.02

0.31

2.27

0.05 −1.34

0.60

0.53

0.40

0.64

1.09

0.20 −0.08

0.04 0.23

−0.02

0.22 −0.36

0.39

0.44

0.18

0.43

0.34 0.18

0.76

0.57 −0.30

0.07

0.24 −1.63 −2.79 −3.27 −1.45

0.27

−1.84 −1.60 −1.34 −0.35 −1.57 0.35 −0.02

0.23

2.04

0.94

0.94 1.17

0.92

0.28

0.94

0.52

1.65

0.46

0.17

1.21

0.73

1.18

0.77

0.98

0.45

0.62

1.01

1.12

0.58

1.65

0.91

0.67

0.63

1.06

0.85 −0.63

0.75

0.95

0.34

2.04

0.56

0.45

1.27

0.58

1.08

0.68

0.48

1.07

0.16 −0.20 −0.16

0.06 −1.61

0.55

0.80

0.16

0.22

0.70

0.84

0.57

0.09

0.48

0.25

0.21

0.90

−0.42

0.48

0.62

0.01

0.36

0.34

0.18

0.42

0.39 0.13

0.58

0.61 −0.22

0.00

−1.00 −2.34 −2.88 −3.55 −1.54

−0.07

−1.74 −1.37 −1.05 −0.56 −1.25

−1.33 −1.87 −1.72 −1.79 −1.21

0.99

−0.02 −0.03

−1.47 −1.08 −1.32

0.20

2.29

0.40

−0.16

0.35

1.61

ID 1.32

0.85

0.98

0.52

1.54

0.50

0.49

1.12

0.79

0.88

0.89

0.32

0.71

−0.34

0.56

0.48

0.06

0.37

−1.19 −2.48

0.24

−1.29 −1.12

−0.99 −1.55

1.07

0.00 −0.05

−1.80 −1.27

0.26

1.89

0.67

0.52

1.16

0.39

1.03

−0.16 −0.76

0.42

0.96

−0.83 −0.09

1.52

−1.57 −1.21

During 2010–2015 GIA NIA MTOIA II

−0.28 −0.82 −0.70 −1.31 −0.62

0.50

1.08

0.30 −0.14

0.20 −0.14 −0.16 0.74

1.81 −0.78 −0.05

1.41

0.44

1.65

ID

−1.48 −1.14 −1.43 −0.04 −1.43

1.46

0.58

0.86

0.01

−1.29 −1.63 −2.01 −2.04 −1.41

0.90

−0.08

−1.72 −1.18 −1.17

0.55

2.10

0.43

0.40

1.22

0.39

1.77

0.59 −0.38 −0.85 −1.18 −0.68

0.71

0.40

−0.93 −0.09

0.01 −1.35

During 2005–2010 GIA NIA MTOIA II

−1.44 −1.12 −1.32

ID

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Notes: GIA gross irrigated area, NIA net irrigated area; MTOIA-Area irrigated more than once; II- Irrigation intensity; ID- Irrigation development (–) denotes data not available

0.42

0.35

−0.14 −0.01 −0.11

0.87

0.10

−0.95 −0.30 −1.49

0.74

1.10

0.66

0.39

1.13

0.99

1.03

1.06

0.24 −0.26

1.30

0.03

−0.28 −0.64

0.10

−0.30

0.77 −0.03

0.45

0.51

−0.82

0.96

1.01 −0.47

0.93

1.51

0.15

0.55

1.07

Mathura

51.

0.93

Mainpuri

50.

−1.27 −0.97 −1.26 −0.09 −1.27

−1.05 −0.07 −1.12

Mahrajganj

During 2000–2005 GIA NIA MTOIA II

49.

ID

During 1995–2000 GIA NIA MTOIA II

S.no. Districts

Table 4.35 (continued)

4.7 Levels of Irrigation Development

147

Fig. 4.22  Uttar Pradesh: levels of irrigation development, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

lower doab. Four districts, Ambedkar Nagar, Bara Banki, Lucknow and Rae Bareli formed part of Awadh region, and 4 districts namely, Pilibhit, Shahjahanpur, Bareilly and Moradabad were from Rohilkhand plains and two districts of Chandauli and Ghazipur belonged to Purvanchal region of the state (Fig. 4.22). For the period of 2000–2005, again 17 districts formed the region of high irrigation development. During this period, 2 districts of Faizabad and Azamgarh were added in this category by replacing Aligarh and Rae Bareli. During the period of 2005–2010, there were 22 districts in this category. The districts namely, Mainpuri and Lucknow were shifted from high category to very high and medium categories, respectively

148

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

whereas at the same time to compensate this loss, 7 districts of Bulandshahr, Mau, Kanshiram Nagar, GBN, Varanasi, Aligarh and Etah were added in this category to attain a high level of irrigation development.

4.7.3  Regions of Medium Irrigation Development During the period of 1995–2000, medium category is represented by the z-score values ranging from −0.50 to 0.50. Medium irrigation development was seen in as many as31 districts of the state. The maximum number of districts represented the eastern, lower doab and the central parts of the state. Out of these, 8 districts namely, Allahabad, Auraiya, Etawah, Farrukhabad, Fatehpur, Kannauj, Kanpur Dehat, Kanpur Nagar formed the part of lower doab, 8 districts namely, Azamgarh, Ballia, Jaunpur, Kushinagar, Mau, Mirzapur, SRNB and Varanasi formed Purvanchal region, and 7 districts, Faizabad, Hardoi, Kheri, Pratapgarh, Sitapur, Sultanpur and Unnao represented Awadh plains. Remaining 4 districts of Etah, Firozabad, Mahamaya Nagar and Mathura formed the part of middle doab, three districts Bijnor, Budaun and JPN forming part of Rohilkhand plains, and GBN from upper doab also lie in this category. During the period of 2000–2005, within the medium category, two districts namely, Azamgarh and Faizabad show a shift towards high category whereas, the districts of Aligarh and Rae Bareli were added to this category. There were 25 districts in medium category of irrigation development in 2005–2010. Eight districts namely, Aligarh, Etah, GBN, Kanpur Dehat, Kanpur Nagar, Mau, Mirzapur, Varanasi took a shift from this category to the other development category. On the other hand, the districts namely, Deoria and Lucknow were added to this category (Fig. 4.22). During 2010–2015, few districts namely, Basti, Gonda, Gorakhpur, Kaushambi and Varanasi were added to this category of medium irrigation development, while three districts of Budaun, Deoria and Rae Bareli took a shift to other category.

4.7.4  Regions of Low Irrigation Development Low category of irrigation development was seen with z-score values within the range of −1.50 to 0.50. During 1995–2000, there were altogether 11 districts which formed low category of irrigation development. These districts were namely, Basti, Kaushambi, Agra, Gorakhpur, Mahrajganj, Deoria, SKN, Banda, Lalitpur, Sonbhadra and Gonda (Table 4.35). During 2000–2005, a slight change is visible within this category that out of 11 districts during the period of 1995–2000, the district Sonbhadra has shown a shift to very low category. During 2005–2010, there were 14 districts in this category of low irrigation development. Banda and Deoria were shifted from low category to very low and medium categories, respectively whereas about six districts namely, Balrampur,

References

149

Jalaun, Kanpur Dehat, Kanpur Nagar, Mirzapur and Siddharthnagar were added to this category. During 2010–2015, the number of districts in this category decreased to 11 (Table 4.34 and Fig. 4.22).

4.7.5  Regions of Very Low Irrigation Development Very low irrigation development with z-score values below −1.50 was seen in 9 districts during 1995–2000. Out of these, the districts namely, Jhansi, Jalaun, Mahoba, Chitrakoot and Hamirpur belonged to Bundelkhand region; the districts of Bahraich, Balrampur and Shrawasti represent the Awadh plains and Siddharthnagar of Purvanchal region (Fig.  4.22). There were 10 districts marked with very low irrigation development during the period of 2000–2005 with the addition of Sonbhadra to this category. During the period of 2005–2010, Balrampur, Siddharthnagar and Jalaun moved to low category and Banda of Bundelkhand was added to this category. Again, there were 8 districts in this category during 2010– 2015 (Table 4.34). Bundelkhand region is the least developed region in irrigation development, although the provision of irrigation in this region has extraordinarily been made. Only one-seventh of net cultivated area of the region during 1950–51 was irrigated. But with the efforts and monetary help provided by the government, the poor farmers in the area are now adopting the practices of irrigation (Siddiqi, 1992). In very low irrigation development districts, gross irrigated area accounted for only 40% of gross cropped area, with a very negligible area put as ‘area irrigated more than once’. The reason for very low irrigation development is due to traditional base of farming with meagre irrigation facilities. Further, in the rocky substratum, underground water resources are also meagre, therefore, the farming depends mainly on canals irrigation.

References Cantor LM (1967) A world geography of irrigation. Oliver and Boyd, London Clift C (1977) Progress of irrigation in Uttar Pradesh: East-west differences. Economic and Political Weekly 12(39):A83–A90 Dhawan BD (1977) Tubewell irrigation in the Gangetic plains. Economic and Political Weekly 12(39):A91–A104 Dhawan BD, Datta HS (1992) Impact of irrigation on multiple cropping. Economic and Political Weekly 27(13):A15–A18 Dick RM (1994) Private tubewell development and groundwater markets in Pakistan: A district-­ level analysis. The Pakistan Development Review 33(4):857–869 Dick RM, Svendsen M (eds) (1991) Future directions for Indian irrigation: Research and policy issues. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC Gurunathan A, Shanmugam CR (2006, December). Customary rights and their relevance in modern tank management: Select cases in Tamil Nadu, Paper prepared at the workshop on water,

150

4  Patterns of Water Supply, Growth Trends in Irrigation Area and Irrigation…

law and the commons organized by the International Environmental Law Research Centre, New Delhi Kumar S (2007) Development of irrigation in India. Kurukshetra 56(2):42–43 Narayanamoorthy A (2008) Tank irrigation in India: Status, trends and issues. In: Thapliyal BK, Sharma SSP, Ram PS, Kumar UH (eds) Democratisation of water. Serials Publication, New Delhi, pp 383–417 Palanisamy K, Balasubramaniyan R (1998) Common property and private prosperity: Tank vs. private wells in Tamil Nadu. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 53(4):600–613 Pant N (2005) Control of and access to groundwater in UP.  Economic and Political Weekly 40(26):2672–2680 Sakthivadivel R, Gomathinayagam P, Shah T (2004) Rejuvenating irrigation tanks through local institutions. Economic and Political Weekly 39(31):3521–3526 Shah T (2007) The groundwater economy of South Asia: An assessment of size, significance and socio-ecological impacts. In: Giordano M, Villholth KG (eds) The agricultural groundwater revolution: Opportunities and threats to development. IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka, pp 7–36 Siddiqi MF (1992) Agricultural practices and agricultural change in Bundelkhand. In: Mohammad N (ed) New dimensions in agricultural geography: Landuse and agricultural planning. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp 313–322

Chapter 5

Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Abstract  This chapter focuses on the land use statistics of the state of Uttar Pradesh in context of general land use characteristics which include different categories of land occupied to the total reporting area of the state, viz., area devoted to forests, barren land, land not available for utilization, culturable waste, pastures, miscellaneous trees, current fallow, other than current fallow and net sown area. This chapter portrays district-wise percentage distribution of the total or gross cropped area, net sown area and area sown more than once. It also depicts the changes in the cropping patterns in the state during four periods of time, i.e. 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005– 2010 and 2010–2015. The trends of growth in area, production and yields of all major crops including the individual crops were computed for the period of 1995– 1996 to 2014–2015 by applying the Least Square Growth formula. The ranking of crops as first, second and third illustrates the proportion of area under these crops in the districts of the state. Crop-combination regions were delineated for the state applying Doi’s method. At the end of the chapter, intensity of cropping in different districts presents the intensive use of land in the state during different periods of time. Keywords  Crop rankings · Crop-combinations · Cropping Intensity · Cropping patterns · Doi’s method · General land use characteristics · Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation · Simple linear regression technique

5.1  General Land Use Characteristics Among all natural resources, land is considered to be the most significant and basic resource. Since it is limited, land use and land cover patterns in a region are the prerequisites for planning and implementation of effective land use policies and schemes for sustainable regional development. Land cover is defined as the layer of soils and biomass, including natural vegetation, crops and human structures, which comprise the land surface. Whereas, land use refers to the purposes for which humans exploit the land cover. Land use/cover change is the effect of many © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 S. Lata, Irrigation Water Management for Agricultural Development in Uttar Pradesh, India, Advances in Asian Human-Environmental Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00952-6_5

151

152

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

interacting processes that are active over a wide range of scales in space and time. Three types of causes in land use changes occur at different rates and at different scales: (i) biophysical, (ii) economic and technological considerations, and (iii) institutional and political arrangements (Suthakar and Bui 2008). In India, increasing pressure of population and consequently more demand for food put a great pressure on land. This exerts a great pressure on forest lands, fallow and other vacant lands, therefore, change is evident in land use (Singh 1989). Agriculture is the dominant sector in the economy in the state which supports large population of the state. The future scope of expansion of area in favour of agriculture seems to be very limited. Whatever area which can be brought under cultivation would be marginal and ecologically fragile, which unambiguously cannot compensate for land being removed from cultivation due to urbanization and land degradation. Therefore, future agricultural supplies and growth be targeted primarily from biological crop yields and intensification of land use instead of areal expansion (GOI 2009). Table 5.1 and Fig. 5.1 show land utilization in the state of UP during the periods of 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015 and their respective growth during 1995–2000 to 2000–2005, 2000–2005 to 2005–2010 and 2005–2010 to 2010–2015 periods. The reporting area stands for which land use statistics are available. Availability of land utilization figures is based on land records, basically according to village papers. The total reporting area of the state was 25.73, 24.25, 24.25 and 24.16 million ha during the respective periods. Of the total reporting area, net sown area constituted 69.28, 69.16, 68.49 and 68.63%, registering growth rates of −0.18, −0.96 and 0.19% in three periods of growth, respectively. Area sown more than once was 48.36% of the net sown area during 1995–2000. It showed an increase of 4.97, 5.24 and 4.45% and increased to 50.76, 53.42 and 55.80% to make up the gross cropped area as 101.61, 104.26, 105.08 and 106.92%, respectively. Therefore, it is clear that there is a possibility to bring more area under double-cropping. Forested land covered 6.97, 6.94, 6.84 and 6.86% area in the respective years with a growth rate of −0.41, −1.44 and 0.27%, respectively (Table 5.1). Current fallow lands recorded an increase whereas, other than current fallow lands showed a decrease in area during these periods. Area under barren lands and culturable waste lands recorded declining trends of −12.33, −11.85 and −6.96%, and −16.50, −11.23 and −5.19% in the respective growth periods. Area not available for ­utilization includes all lands occupied by buildings, roads, railways or water, e.g. rivers and canals, and land put to uses other than agriculture, recorded positive growth rates of 6.59, 8.25 and 6.81% during these periods making a share of 9.87, 10.52, 11.39 and 12.17% to the reporting area of the state in respective periods. This has happened at the expanse of area under barren lands, culturable waste lands, pastures and other fallow lands, which showed a marked decrease during these periods. Areas under zaid crop season also showed a decrease of −6.11% during 1995– 2000 to 2000–2005, but in later periods it recorded a significant increase of 13.25 and 6.79%, respectively (Fig. 5.2).

5.1 General Land Use Characteristics

153

Table 5.1  Land utilization statistics in Uttar Pradesh Growth (percent) Growth Growth period period (1995–2000 (2000–2005 to 1995– 2000– 2005– 2010– to 2000–2005) 2005–2010) 2000 2005 2010 2015 25.73 24.25 24.25 24.16 –5.75 0.01

Land use category Reporting Area (million ha.) Forest 6.97 6.94 6.84 6.86 –0.41 Barren land 2.70 2.37 2.09 1.94 –12.33 9.87 10.52 11.39 12.17 6.59 Land not available for utilization Culturable waste 2.46 2.05 1.82 1.73 –16.50 Pasture 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.36 –1.44 Miscellaneous 1.32 1.44 1.53 1.42 9.28 trees Current fallow 4.28 4.71 5.31 4.73 9.88 2.94 2.53 2.24 2.17 –13.73 Other than current fallow Net sown area 69.28 69.16 68.49 68.63 –0.18 Area sown more 48.36 50.76 53.42 55.80 4.97 than once 101.61 104.26 105.08 106.92 2.61 Gross cropped area Cropping 147 151 153 156 2.79 intensity 46.09 46.24 46.36 46.00 0.33 Land cultivated in kharif season Land cultivated 50.16 50.33 49.90 50.21 0.34 in rabi season Land cultivated 3.21 3.01 3.41 3.64 –6.11 in zaid season

Growth period (2005–2010 to 2010–2015) –0.37

–1.44 –11.85 8.25

0.27 –6.96 6.81

–11.23 3.30 5.99

–5.19 24.28 –6.83

12.87 –11.56

–11.00 –3.25

–0.96 5.24

0.19 4.45

0.79

1.75

1.76

1.55

0.26

–0.78

–0.85

0.61

13.25

6.79

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Note: Data presented in table is in percentage of the reporting area of the state

5.1.1  Gross Cropped Area Gross cropped area refers to the total area sown once and/or sown more than once in a particular year, i.e., the area counted as many times as there are sowings in a particular year. This is considered to be an important indicator to the degree of intensity to which land is used for agricultural purposes. In terms of percentage share of gross cropped area to the total reporting area of the state, Table 5.2 depicts that, there were 19 districts namely, Rampur, Moradabad, Aligarh, Bulandshahr, Budaun, Shahjahanpur, Mahamaya Nagar, Bara Banki, Bareilly, Kanshiram Nagar, Baghpat, Deoria, Mainpuri, Firozabad, Mahrajganj, Etah, Ghazipur, Mathura and

154

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Fig. 5.1  Uttar Pradesh: Land use pattern

Fig. 5.2  Uttar Pradesh: growth in land use pattern

JPN which recorded over 120% of gross cropped area during 2010–2015. In this category, there were 13, 15 and 20 districts during 1995–2000, 2000–2005 and 2005–2010, respectively. Most of these districts lie in the western part of the state (Fig. 5.3). Within the category of 100 to 120% of gross cropped area, there were 31, 29, 24 and 30 districts, respectively. More than 40% districts of the state were

Table 5.2  Gross cropped area to the reporting area in Uttar Pradesh Category (Percent) Very high (Above 120) High (100–120) Medium (80–100) Low (60–80) Very low (Below 60)

1995–2000 No. of districts Percent 13 18

2000–2005 No. of districts Percent 15 21

2005–2010 No. of districts Percent 20 28

2010–2015 No. of districts Percent 19 27

31

44

29

41

24

34

30

42

22

31

21

30

23

32

18

25

2 2

3 3

3 2

4 3

1 3

1 4

1 3

1 4

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

Fig. 5.3  Uttar Pradesh: gross cropped area, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

156

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

included in this category. Between the range of 80 and 100%, the numbers of districts were in order of 22, 21, 23 and 18, respectively in the corresponding periods of study. The districts namely, Mirzapur and Lalitpur fall in the category of 60–80% gross cropped area during 1995–2000, GBN was added in this category during 2000–2005, and in 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, only one district in each namely, Lalitpur and GBN occupied place in this category. Below 60% of gross cropped area was recorded by Chitrakoot and Sonbhadra districts during both the previous periods, and Mirzapur district was added to this category during 2005–2010 and 2010–2015. During the period of 1995–2000 to 2000–2005, high growth in gross cropped area, i.e., above 10%, was recorded by the districts namely, Etawah, Gonda, Faizabad, Banda, Balrampur and Lalitpur (Table 5.3). During 2000–2005 to 2005– 2010, the districts of GBN, Mainpuri and Lalitpur were included in this category. During 2005–2010 to 2010–2015, Lalitpur, Jhansi and Mahoba were recorded high growth in gross cropped area. The growth of 0–10% was seen in 45, 38 and 40 districts, respectively in the corresponding periods. The growth in between −10 and 0% was occupied in 18 districts during the previous period, whereas in the later periods, there were 26 and 27 districts which fall in the category of growth, and Kanpur Nagar during previous period, and the districts of Mirzapur, Shrawasti and Sonbhadra during 2000–2005 to 2005–2010, and GBN in later period were characterized with the growth of below −10%.

5.1.2  Net Sown Area Net sown area refers to the total area sown with crops and orchards in a single year. Area sown more than once in the same year is counted only once. This area has a special significance in agriculture because the agricultural production largely depends upon this type of land use. During 1995–2000, the districts namely, Moradabad, Rampur, Mahamaya Nagar, Mathura, Bareilly, Siddharthnagar, JPN, Baghpat and Deoria recorded above 80% of net sown area in the state (Fig. 5.4). During 2000–2005, the number of districts remained 9 to be incorporated in this category by adding two districts of Aligarh and Bulandshahr in place of the districts of JPN and Deoria. During the period of 2010–2015, there were 10 districts to be included within this category. It is evident from figure that all these districts belong to the western region of the state. Within the category of 70 to 80% of net sown area, there were 33, 32, 29 and 30 districts, respectively during the periods of 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015 (Table 5.4). In the category of 60 to 70% net sown area, there were 22, 23, 25 and 21 districts to be incorporated in the respective periods. Whereas, 50 to 60% of area was recorded in 2, 4, 6 and 7 districts, respectively. Below 50% of net sown area was seen in 4 districts of Chitrakoot, Lalitpur, Mirzapur and Sonbhadra during 1995–2000. Two districts namely, Mirzapur and Sonbhadra again formed part of this category during 2000–2005 and

Table 5.3  District-wise Growth in gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh Growth (Percent) Above 10

0 to 10

–10 to 0

Growth period (1995– 2000 to 2000–2005) No. Name of district 6 Etawah, Gonda, Faizabad, Banda, Balrampur and Lalitpur 45 Meerut, Kaushambi, Moradabad, Allahabad, Sitapur, Bahraich, SKN, Shrawasti, Budaun, Bara Banki, Jhansi, Mathura, Deoria, Baghpat, Chandauli, Jalaun, Hamirpur, Firozabad, Mahoba, Auraiya, Ghazipur, Mahamaya Nagar, Kushinagar, Aligarh, Rampur, Jaunpur, Mahrajganj, Agra, Kheri, Ballia, Pilibhit, Kanpur Dehat, Bulandshahr, Chitrakoot, Bareilly, Hardoi, Siddharthnagar, Bijnor, Shahjahanpur, Ghaziabad, Ambedkar Nagar, Unnao, Azamgarh, Fatehpur and Etah 18 Mirzapur, Saharanpur, Lucknow, Gorakhpur, JPN, Sonbhadra, Basti, Rae Bareli, Mau, Sultanpur, Kannauj, Mainpuri, Muzaffarnagar, Varanasi, Farrukhabad, Pratapgarh, GBN and SRNB

Below –10 1

Kanpur Nagar

Growth period (2000– 2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 3 GBN, Mainpuri and Lalitpur

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 3 Lalitpur, Jhansi and Mahoba

38

40 Siddharthnagar, Hardoi, Shahjahanpur, Bara Banki, Jalaun, Jhansi, Faizabad, Unnao, Etah, Jaunpur, Aligarh, Budaun, Moradabad, Azamgarh, Kaushambi, Chandauli, Rampur, Firozabad, Sitapur, Bulandshahr, Auraiya, Pilibhit, SKN, Mahoba, Kushinagar, Bareilly, Sultanpur, Kanpur Dehat, Agra, Etawah, Ambedkar Nagar, Balrampur, Bahraich, Ghazipur, Mahamaya Nagar, Rae Bareli, Kheri and Mahrajganj

Hamirpur, Bara Banki, Kanshiram Nagar, Banda, Firozabad, Unnao, Sonbhadra, Budaun, Shrawasti, Aligarh, Etawah, Mahamaya Nagar, Fatehpur, Sitapur, Gonda, Bulandshahr, Kannauj, Auraiya, Pratapgarh, SRNB, Jaunpur, Sultanpur, Bahraich, Agra, Deoria, Muzaffarnagar, Kaushambi, Rae Bareli, Etah, Mathura, Chitrakoot, Saharanpur, Faizabad, Ambedkar Nagar, Shahjahanpur, Kushinagar, Mahrajganj, Bareilly, Ballia and JPN

26

27 Meerut, Baghpat, Lucknow, Fatehpur, Gorakhpur, JPN, Banda, Muzaffarnagar, Mau, Varanasi, Deoria, Ballia, Bijnor, Gonda, Kannauj, Basti, Mathura, SRNB, Farrukhabad, Ghaziabad, Chitrakoot, Kanpur Nagar, Saharanpur, Hamirpur, Allahabad and Pratapgarh

3

Mirzapur, Shrawasti and Sonbhadra

Mainpuri, Farrukhabad, Kheri, Ghazipur, Varanasi, Jalaun, Baghpat, Moradabad, Kanpur Nagar, Mau, Gorakhpur, Balrampur, SKN, Rampur, Allahabad, Mirzapur, Ghaziabad, Azamgarh, Chandauli, Pilibhit, Bijnor, Meerut, Hardoi, Lucknow, Basti, Kanpur Dehat and Siddharthnagar GBN

1

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

158

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Fig. 5.4  Uttar Pradesh: net sown area, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

2005–2010 periods, respectively. During 2010–2015, the number increased to 3 in this category by adding GBN of upper doab region. It is seen from Table 5.5 that, the growth of above 5% was secured by the districts of Gonda and Banda during 1995–2000 to 2000–2005, and during the period of 2000–2005 to 2005–2010, Lalitpur district attained this growth category. During 2005–2010 to 2010–2015, the districts namely, Lalitpur, Jhansi, Sonbhadra and Mahoba fell in this category. The growth which recorded in between 0% and 5% was seen in 33, 30 and 31 districts, respectively during the corresponding periods,

5.1 General Land Use Characteristics

159

Table 5.4  Net sown area to the reporting area in Uttar Pradesh Category (Percent) Very high (Above 80) High (70–80) Medium (60–70) Low (50–60) Very low (Below 50)

1995–2000 2000–2005 2005–2010 2010–2015 No. of No. of No. of No. of districts Percent districts Percent districts Percent districts Percent 9 13 9 13 9 13 10 14 33

46

32

45

29

41

30

42

22

31

23

32

25

35

21

30

2 4

3 6

4 2

6 3

6 2

8 3

7 3

10 4

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

whereas the growth of −5 to 0% was seen in 27, 31 and 34 districts, respectively. Very low growth lying below −5% was to record in the districts of Allahabad, Meerut, Etawah, SRNB, Faizabad, Shrawasti, SKN and Kanpur Nagar during the previous period, and in the later periods of study, there were 8 and 2 districts, respectively to show a very low negative growth.

5.1.3  Area Sown more than Once Area sown more than once refers to the area on which crops are cultivated more than once during an agricultural year. This category of land use is obtained by deducting net sown area from that of the gross cropped area. In case of area sown more than once, within the category of above 70% was represented by three districts namely, Rampur, Mahrajganj and Bulandshahr during 1995–2000. The number of districts increased to five, 12 and 12 in subsequent periods (Table 5.6 and Fig. 5.5). During 2010–2015, the districts namely, Bara Banki, Rampur, Mahrajganj, Mainpuri, Kanshiram Nagar, Aligarh, Chandauli, Moradabad, Bulandshahr, Lalitpur, Budaun and Shahjahanpur were included in this category. Excluding four districts, all lie in the western UP. In the next category of 55 to 70% area sown more than once, there were 23, 26, 22 and 26 districts in the respective periods. In between 40% and 55% of area was occupied by 31, 27, 24 and 22 districts, respectively. Whereas, in the category of 25 to 40% of area sown more than once, there were 6, 6, 8 and 7 districts, respectively in the corresponding periods. Below 25% area sown more than once was occupied by 7 districts namely, Banda, Jhansi, GBN, Mahoba, Chitrakoot, Jalaun and Hamirpur during 1995–2000. In the next periods, the districts in this category were decreased to 6, 5 and 4, respectively. It is evident from Table 5.7 that during the period of 1995–2000 to 2000–2005, high growth of above 20% was seen in 7 districts. During the later periods of growth, there were 8 and 9 districts, respectively in this category. During 2005–2010 to

Table 5.5  District-wise growth in net sown area in Uttar Pradesh Growth (Percent) Above 5

Growth period (1995– 2000 to 2000–2005) No. Name of district 2 Gonda and Banda

0 to 5

33

–5 to 0

27

Below –10 8

Growth period (2000– 2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 1 Lalitpur

30 Lalitpur, Farrukhabad, Bahraich, Kaushambi, Fatehpur, Chitrakoot, Etah, Bulandshahr, Auraiya, Aligarh, Baghpat, Bijnor, Kanpur Dehat, Sitapur, Saharanpur, Mahoba, Budaun, Sonbhadra, Kheri, Moradabad, Pilibhit, Jalaun, Mahamaya Nagar, Hardoi, Hamirpur, Ghaziabad, Mathura, Mirzapur, Firozabad, Chandauli, Unnao, Rampur and Kannauj 31 Siddharthnagar, Agra, Mahrajganj, Varanasi, Pratapgarh, Bareilly, Ballia, Shahjahanpur, Basti, Sultanpur, Deoria, Muzaffarnagar, Jaunpur, Mau, Jhansi, Bara Banki, Mainpuri, Kushinagar, Lucknow, Balrampur, Gorakhpur, Azamgarh, JPN, Ambedkar Nagar, Ghazipur, GBN and Rae Bareli Allahabad, Meerut, 8 Etawah, SRNB, Faizabad, Shrawasti, SKN and Kanpur Nagar

Kaushambi, Etah, Balrampur, Hardoi, Bara Banki, Kushinagar, Kanpur Dehat, Sultanpur, Ballia, Bulandshahr, Unnao, Lucknow, Shrawasti, Shahjahanpur, Pratapgarh, JPN, Firozabad, Kheri, Azamgarh, Sitapur, Basti, SKN, Meerut, Gonda, Mahamaya Nagar, Ambedkar Nagar, Budaun, Faizabad, Bahraich and Aligarh

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 4 Lalitpur, Jhansi, Sonbhadra and Mahoba 31 Mainpuri, Kannauj, Hamirpur, Jalaun, Unnao, Etawah, Deoria, Budaun, Faizabad, Sitapur, Mirzapur, Banda, Hardoi, Sultanpur, Ambedkar Nagar, Firozabad, Kanshiram Nagar, Shahjahanpur, Chitrakoot, Aligarh, SRNB, Moradabad, Mahamaya Nagar, Auraiya, Chandauli, Bareilly, Bulandshahr, Kanpur Nagar, Balrampur, Etah and Bahraich

34 Rampur, Mainpuri, Bareilly, Kannauj, Mahrajganj, Mathura, Pilibhit, Banda, Chitrakoot, Moradabad, Baghpat, Fatehpur, Saharanpur, SRNB, Muzaffarnagar, Ghazipur, Agra, Mau, Auraiya, Siddharthnagar, Bijnor, Chandauli, Jaunpur, Etawah, Gorakhpur, Jalaun, Rae Bareli, Deoria, Kanpur Nagar, Ghaziabad and Farrukhabad Hamirpur, Mahoba, Mirzapur, Jhansi, GBN, Allahabad, Varanasi and Sonbhadra

2

SKN, Varanasi, JPN, Ghazipur, Basti, Jaunpur, Mathura, Saharanpur, Kushinagar, Fatehpur, Mahrajganj, Farrukhabad, Bara Banki, Siddharthnagar, Azamgarh, Pilibhit, Kanpur Dehat, Kheri, Rampur, Kaushambi, Bijnor, Mau, Muzaffarnagar, Ballia, Baghpat, Gonda, Meerut, Rae Bareli, Agra, Gorakhpur, Lucknow, Shrawasti, Allahabad and Ghaziabad Pratapgarh and GBN

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

5.2 Changes in Cropping Patterns of Major Crops

161

Table 5.6  Area sown more than once to net sown area in Uttar Pradesh Category (Percent) Very high (Above 70) High (55–70) Medium (40–55) Low (25–40) Very low (Below 25)

1995–2000 2000–2005 2005–2010 No. of No. of No. of districts Percent districts Percent districts Percent 3 4 5 7 12 17

2010–2015 No. of districts Percent 12 17

23

32

26

37

22

31

26

37

31

44

27

38

24

34

22

31

6 7

8 10

6 6

8 8

8 5

11 7

7 4

10 6

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

2010–2015period, the districts namely, Lalitpur, Hamirpur, Mahoba, Pratapgarh, Jhansi, GBN, Banda, Shrawasti and Bara Banki were included within this category. The growth of 0 to 20% was recorded in 40, 35 and 35 districts of the state, respectively during these periods. There were 21, 23 and 27 districts, respectively which showed the growth in between −20 to 0% in area sown more than once. A low ­negative growth below −20% was visible in 2 and 4 districts during first two periods of growth, and in the later period no district fell in this category.

5.2  Changes in Cropping Patterns of Major Crops Cropping pattern has always been a dynamic phenomenon. It may be defined as the number of crops grown usually on a plot of land during a particular agricultural year (Verma 1993). It is a reflection of interplay of the complex physical, socio-­economic and technological factors. All these factors themselves keep on changing, except physical ones, which are comparatively static. Thus, under the influence of these factors, the cropping pattern also goes on changing, so much so that, sometimes, it is entirely replaced after a long span of time (Singh 1992). In other words, cropping pattern in an area or a region keeps on changing in consonance with change in agricultural practices, government policies and other related factors. Changes in cropping pattern can be seen within the frame of factors like agro-climatic conditions, technological, infrastructural and institutional environment and profitability derived. New technologies, such as HYV seeds, can work with relative price levels to change cropping patterns. Moreover, the role of inputs, such as investment in irrigation infrastructure like the installation of tubewells, or the use of new seeds and fertilizers make it possible to raise yields. This highlights the importance of modern inputs in raising the value productivity of crops and changes in cropping patterns (Bajpai and Volavka 2005).

162

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Fig. 5.5  Uttar Pradesh: area sown more than once, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005– 2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

Table 5.7  District-wise growth in area sown more than once in Uttar Pradesh Growth period (1995–2000 Growth to 2000–2005) (Percent) No. Name of district Above 7 SKN, Balrampur, 20 Shrawasti, Jhansi, Hamirpur, Jalaun and Lalitpur 0 to 20

40

−20 to 0 21

Below −20

2

Growth period (2000– 2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 8 GBN, Jhansi, Mahoba, Jalaun, Varanasi, Mainpuri, Siddharthnagar and Lalitpur 35 Jaunpur, Hardoi, Kaushambi, Shahjahanpur, Allahabad, Faizabad, Chandauli, Moradabad, Ghazipur, Aligarh, Moradabad, Bara Banki, Sitapur, Unnao, Bara Banki, Deoria, Mahoba, Budaun, Rae Bareli, Mathura, Kushinagar, Auraiya, Etawah, Gonda, Banda, Azamgarh, Agra, Chandauli, Budaun, Sitapur, Hamirpur, Jaunpur, Firozabad, Allahabad, Rampur, Agra, Ambedkar Firozabad, Pilibhit, Nagar, Bahraich, Bareilly, Gorakhpur, Baghpat, Azamgarh, Ghazipur, Rae Bareli, Ballia, Farrukhabad, SKN, Etawah, Mahamaya Deoria, Bulandshahr, Nagar, Mahrajganj, Etah, Fatehpur, Rampur, Bareilly, Baghpat, Siddharthnagar, Mahrajganj, Shahjahanpur, Kushinagar, Gorakhpur, JPN, Ambedkar Nagar Auraiya, Lucknow, and Bahraich Kheri, Pilibhit, Hardoi, Aligarh, Ghaziabad and Kanpur Dehat 23 Sultanpur, Unnao, Mau, Mahamaya Nagar, Bulandshahr, Meerut, Kanpur Dehat, Mau, Mirzapur, Basti, Meerut, Bijnor, Mainpuri, Muzaffarnagar, Sultanpur, Saharanpur, Kheri, Ghaziabad, Etah, SRNB, Bijnor, Lucknow, Muzaffarnagar, Kanpur Nagar, Kannauj, Chitrakoot, Banda, JPN, Sonbhadra, Faizabad, Kaushambi, Fatehpur, Varanasi, Kannauj, SKNB, Pratapgarh and Gonda, Ballia, Kanpur Nagar Balrampur, Mathura, Basti, Saharanpur and Mirzapur

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 9 Lalitpur, Hamirpur, Mahoba, Pratapgarh, Jhansi, GBN, Banda, Shrawasti, Bara Banki 35 Kanshiram Nagar, Gonda, Fatehpur, Agra, Firozabad, Kaushambi, Muzaffarnagar, Rae Bareli, Aligarh, Mahamaya Nagar, Unnao, Sitapur, SRNB, Budaun, Bulandshahr, Jaunpur, Bahraich, Auraiya, Ghaziabad, Ballia, Allahabad, Chitrakoot, Mathura, Sultanpur, Etawah, Gorakhpur, Baghpat, Saharanpur, Etah, Kushinagar, Mahrajganj, Kheri, Mau, Farrukhabad, JPN

Farrukhabad and GBN 4

–

Pratapgarh, Chitrakoot, Sonbhadra and Shrawasti

27

Bareilly, Shahjahanpur, Ghazipur, Ambedkar Nagar, Varanasi, Deoria, Rampur, Lucknow, Moradabad, Meerut, Kannauj, Azamgarh, Faizabad, Kanpur Nagar, Pilibhit, SKN, Bijnor, Balrampur, Sonbhadra, Chandauli, Mainpuri, Hardoi, Basti, Mirzapur, Jalaun, Siddharthnagar, Kanpur Dehat –

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Notes: (–) denotes data not available in this category

164

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

The geographic patterns of agricultural land-use are the outcome of concurrent interaction between the variable combinations pertaining to natural conditions and human interactions. Interestingly the human interactions are responsible mainly for dynamism in agricultural land-use and changing cropping patterns. Technological changes of mid-sixties caused significant shifts in land utilization in favour of crops like wheat and rice at the cost of area under coarse grains, pulses and oilseeds. In addition, efficient cropping pattern implies the profitable use of land, consequent upon the development of irrigation facilities and application of modern modes of farm technology (Chhaukar and Mittal 2007). Consequently, this shift has been the combined effect of differential rates of technological change among crops, irrigation bias of new technology causing shifts of land from dry crops in favour of irrigated crops, and the associated policy of price support system as well as market intervention by the government of certain crops. Nevertheless, irrigation is one of the basic inputs on which the cropping pattern, cropping intensity and agricultural output depends. It makes agriculture relatively less dependent on rainfall and encourages farmers to switch on for multiple cropping. There is skewness in land distribution system in the country. Some are big farmers and some are medium, small and marginal farmers. With the provision of irrigation facility, there is a probability that big and medium farmers may take a shift from subsistence households to surplus households because of increase in cropping intensity and hence production. The small and marginal farmers may take a shift from the deficit farm households to subsistence farm households. Thus, surplus production of food and non-foodgrains over and above the domestic consumption will come to market. Thus, irrigation has a potentiality to change cropping pattern (Verma 1993). The changes in cropping patterns are measured by establishing the proportion of total cropland occupied by individual crops in the state during four quinquennial periods. Because of the variations in crop data from year to year to enumerate cropping patterns, the proportion of croplands devoted to each crop were averaged for four sets of years: 1995–1996 to 1999–2000, 2000–2001 to 2004–2005, 2005–2006 to 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 to 2014–2015. With regard to cropping patterns which shows the percent of area cultivated to gross cropped area, there are wide variations in the percentage share of cropland of four major groups of crops: cereal crops, pulse crops, oilseed crops and cash crops. Figure  5.6 further shows that, cereal crops cover a major proportion of the gross cropped area (69%) indicating that cereal crops constitute a major share in cropland use in the state. Among all the cereal crops, wheat and rice are the dominant crops covering roughly around 61% of the total cropped area in the state. The main changes in relative importance of crops seen in the state from 1995–2000 to 2000–2005 are the decline of area under oilseed and pulse crops with a negative growth of −22.59 and −1.93%, and an increase in area under cereal and cash crops to the tune of 2.47 and 6.6%, respectively (Table 5.8 and Fig. 5.7). During the later period from 2000–2005 to 2005–

5.2 Changes in Cropping Patterns of Major Crops

165

Fig. 5.6  Uttar Pradesh: cropping patterns

2010, area under pulses declined (−10.98%). Contrary to this, cereal, cash crops and oilseed crops recorded an increase of 0.25, 5.69, and 16.89%, respectively. During the period from 2005–2010 to 2010–2015, pulse crops again has shown a declining trend of −4.97% while area under cereals, oilseeds and cash crops showed a positive growth. The patterns of change (positive and negative order) in area of individual crops indicate that the highest decline during previous period in cropland was observed in soybean (−73.56%), followed by moong, jowar, groundnut, mustard and rapeseeds, barley, arhar, pea, maize, gram and til to the tune of −38.02, −26.93, −22.88, −22.84, −21.93, −17.91, −15.06, −14.34, −11.42, −3.91%, respectively (Table 5.8). Rice, wheat and bajra among cereal crops, and pulse crops of urad and masoor showed a positive change in order of 5.41, 4.88 and 1.62, and 45.2 and 17.76%, respectively. The increase in area was also observed in cash crops (sugarcane and potato) with 7.43 and 2.71%, respectively during this period. During 2000–2005 to 2005–2010, a positive change was observed in bajra, wheat and rice crops among the cereal crops with a change of 4.02, 1.85 and 0.48%, respectively, and oilseed crops namely, mustard and rapeseeds (4.92%) and til (104.42%) also recorded a positive change. Potatoes and sugarcane also showed a positive change of 17.62 and 3.24%, respectively. Rest of the crops showed a negative change during this period. In the later period of growth during 2005–2010 to 2010–2015, eight crops showed a positive growth whereas the growth was negative for rest of the crops.

166

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Table 5.8  Percentage of area under crops to gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh Growth (percent) Growth Growth period period (1995–2000 (2000–2005 to Major 1995– 2000– 2005– 2010– to S. No. crops/crops 2000 2005 2010 2015 2000–2005) 2005–2010) I. Cereal 67.00 68.66 68.83 68.85 2.47 0.25 crops 1. Barley 1.24 0.97 0.74 0.64 –21.93 –23.39 2. Maize 4.01 3.44 3.21 2.82 –14.34 –6.69 3. Pearl millet 3.40 3.45 3.59 3.56 1.62 4.02 (bajra) 4. Rice 21.69 22.86 22.97 23.06 5.41 0.48 5. Sorghum 1.60 1.17 0.87 0.69 –26.93 –25.70 (jowar) 6. Wheat 35.05 36.76 37.44 38.07 4.88 1.85 II. Pulse crops 11.00 10.78 9.60 9.12 –1.93 –10.98 1.91 1.83 2.16 45.20 –4.04 7. Black gram 1.32 (urad) 8. Gram 3.57 3.16 2.44 2.30 –11.42 –22.72 0.28 0.30 0.32 –38.02 8.96 9. Green gram 0.45 (moong) 2.06 2.43 2.24 1.91 17.76 –7.82 10. Lentil (masoor) 11. Pea 1.75 1.49 1.36 1.25 –15.06 –8.21 1.86 1.52 1.42 1.18 –17.91 –6.71 12. Pigeon pea (arhar) III. Oilseed 3.96 3.07 3.59 4.13 –22.59 16.89 crops 13. Groundnut 0.50 0.38 0.37 0.36 –22.88 –2.77 14. Mustard & 2.91 2.24 2.35 2.38 –22.84 4.92 rapeseeds 15. Sesamum 0.42 0.40 0.83 1.23 –3.91 104.42 (til) 16. Soybean 0.14 0.04 0.03 0.15 –73.56 –10.94 IV. Cash crops 9.15 9.76 10.31 10.43 6.60 5.69 17. Potato 1.62 1.66 1.95 2.11 2.71 17.62 18. Sugarcane 7.54 8.10 8.36 8.32 7.43 3.24

Growth period (2005–2010 to 2010–2015) 0.03 –13.48 –12.02 –0.90 0.39 –20.76 1.69 –4.97 17.70 –5.62 7.38 –14.59 –8.66 –17.04 15.06 –3.98 1.22 49.27 369.61 1.14 7.95 –0.45

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

5.2.1  Cereal Crops During 1995–2000, there were 6 districts namely, Chandauli, Siddharthnagar, Jaunpur, Mau, Gorakhpur and SKN of Purvanchal region of the state which occupied more than 85% area under cereal crops to the gross cropped area. During the next period of 2000–2005, the number of districts increased to 9 by adding Deoria,

5.2 Changes in Cropping Patterns of Major Crops

167

Fig. 5.7  Uttar Pradesh: changes in cropping patterns

Azamgarh, SRN and Mahrajganj while Jaunpur district moved to other category (Fig. 5.8). During the periods of 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, the numbers of districts in this category were recorded as 11 and 13 by adding two districts in each period, namely Jaunpur and Pratapgarh, and Ghazipur and Ballia, respectively. In the next category of area in between 70% and 85%, there were 29, 29, 33 and 29 districts, respectively counted in the corresponding periods. In the category in which values of cropped area ranged in between 55% and 70% under cereal crops, the number decreased to 15 districts during 2010–2015 and this decrease in number of districts continued from 22, 20, and 13 during 1995–2000, 2000–2005 and 2005– 2010, respectively. Whereas, in the range of 40 to 55% and below 40% area under cereals, the numbers of districts were 5, 3, 6 and 7 in previous category, and the number of districts were 8, 9, 8 and 7 in the later category, respectively (Table 5.9). The proportion of area under cereals in the state increased during all periods of study (Fig. 5.6). During the previous period, the districts which recorded a growth of above 10% in area under cereal crops were namely, Faizabad, Deoria and Kanpur Nagar with 33.15, 26.12 and 24.03%, respectively. During the next period, the districts namely, Etawah and Shrawasti were included in this category. In the later period of study not even a single district falls in this category (Table 5.10). In the next category of 0 to 10% of growth, there were 39, 36 and 50 districts which were counted in this category during the respective periods of study. As much as 25, 31 and 20 districts of the state, respectively recorded a growth in between −10 and 0% whereas in the next category of below −10%, the districts namely, Shrawasti, Lalitpur and Mahoba recorded a negative growth of −12.86, −13.56 and −18.91%, respectively during the previous period and during later periods, the districts namely, Mahoba and Sonbhadra, respectively of Bundelkhand and Purvanchal regions of the state fall in this category.

168

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Fig. 5.8  Uttar Pradesh: area under cereal crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005– 2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

5.2.1.1  Wheat Wheat constitutes an important staple crop in human food consumption. The major wheat producing states in India are UP, Punjab and Haryana contributing nearly 80% of the total wheat production in the country. With the adoption of wheat and rice in India since Green Revolution, the production of cereal crops including wheat increased from a mere 8.6 million tonnes in 1960–1961 to 73.53 million tonnes in 1999–2000. The country has witnessed a substantial change in past 4–5 decades,

5.2 Changes in Cropping Patterns of Major Crops

169

Table 5.9  Area under cereal crops to gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh Category (Percent) Very high (Above 85) High (70–85) Medium (55–70) Low (40–55) Very low (Below 40)

1995–2000 2000–2005 2005–2010 No. of No. of No. of districts Percent districts Percent districts Percent 6 8 9 13 11 15

2010–2015 No. of districts Percent 13 18

29

41

29

41

33

46

29

41

22

31

20

28

13

18

15

21

5 8

7 11

3 9

4 13

6 8

8 11

7 7

10 10

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

with an overall wheat production increased at a compounded annual growth rate of 4.22% during 1960–2010. The share of wheat in the Indian foodgrain’s production has been around 35.5% and covered alone about 22% of the total area under foodgrains (The Economic Times 2012). The area under wheat cultivation has increased from 9.75 million ha. in 1950–1951 to 27.4 million ha. in 1999–2000, showing a net increase of 181% during the entire period. This gain has been made possible at the expense of coarser rabi crops (barley, gram etc.) and owing to increased irrigation facilities and profitability derived from wheat cultivation. Green revolution has been synonym to wheat revolution in India, enabling the country not only to attain self-sufficiency in foodgrains, but also to generate some surpluses to be kept in buffer-stocks and even for export. UP contributes the highest share both in area and production of wheat in the country. Most of the wheat production comes from areas of the Ganga-Yamuna doab and of the Rohilkhand plains. Out of 100 wheat producing districts of the country, 43 belong to UP and 19 of them to the western part of the state. In these districts, canals and tubewells irrigation, greater use of HYV seeds, fertilizers and new farm techniques have provided incentives to the farmers for the cultivation of this cereal crop (Raja 2012a). From the analysis, it was estimated that in terms of the proportion of area to the gross cropped area of individual crops in the state during the study periods of 1995– 2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, wheat occupied an area of 35.05, 36.76, 37.44 and 38.07%, respectively (Table 5.8). During 1995–2000, above 40% of area was devoted to wheat cultivation in 16 districts namely, Gorakhpur, Unnao, GBN, Mathura, Jaunpur, SRNB, Mau, Hardoi, Mainpuri, Azamgarh, Budaun, Shahjahanpur, Pratapgarh, Rae Bareli, SKN and Ambedkar Nagar. The number of districts in this category increased to 24, 26 and 31 during the later periods of 2000– 2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively. Between the ranges of 35–40%, the numbers of districts were 19, 20, 20 and 16 in the corresponding periods, respectively. During 1995–2000, the districts which had 30–35% of area under wheat crop were 21, the number of districts decreased from 21 to 13, 13 and 15, respectively in

Table 5.10  District-wise growth in area under cereal crops in Uttar Pradesh Growth (Percent) Above 10 0 to 10

Growth period (1995– 2000 to 2000–2005) No. Name of district 3 Faizabad, Deoria and Kanpur Nagar 39 Kanpur Dehat, SRNB, Mathura, Moradabad, Rampur, Mahamaya Nagar, Shahjahanpur, Aligarh, Varanasi, Hardoi, Agra, Jalaun, Etah, Sonbhadra, Firozabad, Ghazipur, Mainpuri, Gorakhpur, Allahabad, Kaushambi, Kushinagar, Ballia, Siddharthnagar, SKN, Bareilly, Pilibhit, Azamgarh, Ambedkar Nagar, Mau, Bahraich, Pratapgarh, Mahrajganj, Auraiya, Budaun, Rae Bareli, Mirzapur, Sultanpur, Kannauj and Baghpat

Growth period (2000– 2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 2 Etawah and Shrawasti 36 Sonbhadra, Jalaun, Siddharthnagar, Bara Banki, Deoria, Jaunpur, Faizabad, Ghazipur, Pratapgarh, GBN, Mahrajganj, Auraiya, Agra, Bahraich, Mau, Chandauli, Varanasi, Azamgarh, Kanpur Nagar, Jhansi, Gorakhpur, Mainpuri, Kushinagar, Ballia, Rampur, SRNB, Rae Bareli, Kanpur Dehat, Sultanpur, SKN, Mirzapur, Hamirpur, Hardoi, Bareilly, Ghaziabad and Bulandshahr

−10 to 0 25

31 Unnao, Gonda, Etawah, Lucknow, Fatehpur, Chandauli, JPN, Bijnor, Farrukhabad, GBN, Kheri, Bara Banki, Bulandshahr, Basti, Jaunpur, Balrampur, Banda, Ghaziabad, Sitapur, Meerut, Chitrakoot, Hamirpur, Muzaffarnagar, Saharanpur and Jhansi

Below −10

Shrawasti, Lalitpur and Mahoba

3

1

Growth period (2005–2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district – – 50

20 Allahabad, Basti, Budaun, Farrukhabad, Bijnor, Aligarh, Shahjahanpur, Mathura, Ambedkar Nagar, Kheri, Kaushambi, JPN, Kannauj, Pilibhit, Unnao, Moradabad, Sitapur, Muzaffarnagar, Lucknow, Banda, Balrampur, Meerut, Gonda, Lalitpur, Etah, Fatehpur, Baghpat, Firozabad, Mahamaya Nagar, Saharanpur and Chitrakoot Mahoba 1

Etah, Saharanpur, Muzaffarnagar, Bijnor, Lalitpur, Bulandshahr, Ghaziabad, Jhansi, Hamirpur, Chitrakoot, Jalaun, Kaushambi, Fatehpur, Sultanpur, Agra, GBN, Kannauj, Baghpat, Ballia, Deoria, Ghazipur, Aligarh, Chandauli, Mahoba, Auraiya, Siddharthnagar, Banda, Gorakhpur, Balrampur, Mirzapur, Meerut, Mathura, Pratapgarh, Azamgarh, Mahrajganj, Lucknow, Allahabad, Bareilly, Kanpur Dehat, Basti, Mau, Shrawasti, Kanpur Nagar, SRNB, Ambedkar Nagar, Jaunpur, SKN, Kanshiram Nagar, Moradabad and Rampur Mainpuri, Kushinagar, Varanasi, Rae Bareli, Hardoi, Sitapur, Etawah, Shahjahanpur, Unnao, Pilibhit, Bara Banki, JPN, Bahraich, Faizabad, Budaun, Mahamaya Nagar, Gonda, Farrukhabad, Kheri and Firozabad

Sonbhadra

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Notes: (–) denotes data not available in this category

5.2 Changes in Cropping Patterns of Major Crops

171

the later periods. Within the category of 25–30% area under wheat, the numbers of districts were in order of 12, nine, 10 and eight, respectively. Very small area under wheat (below 25%) during the respective periods was seen in Hamirpur and Sonbhadra districts of Bundelkhand during 1995–2000. During 2000–2005, the districts namely, Bijnor and Mahoba were added in this category whereas, in 2005– 2010, the districts of Lalitpur and Mahoba belonged to this category. During 2010–2015, only Mahoba district lies in this category. 5.2.1.2  Rice Rice is also an important cereal food crop in India, which occupies about 24% of gross cropped area of the country, and contributes 43% to the total foodgrains production of the country. Rice is not only a rich source of carbohydrate and protein but also provides vitamins, minerals and fibres. It is cultivated in the humid tropical and subtropical climate characterized by high temperature and high relative humidity, resulting in changes in genetic integrity (Kapoor et al. 2011). The northern region of India comprising the states of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand contributes significantly the country’s rice production due to higher productivity (Balasubramaniam and Kumar 2010). Rice is the second largest crop grown in the state next to wheat. It occupied 21.65, 22.86, 22.97 and 23.06% of total cultivated area in the state during the periods of 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively (Table 5.8). During the period of 1995–2000, the districts which had above 40% area under rice cultivation were namely, Siddharthnagar, Mahrajganj, Chandauli, SKN, Mau and Ambedkar Nagar. During the next periods of 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, there were about 7, 8 and 10 districts were seen in this category, respectively. In the next category of 30–40% area under rice, the numbers of districts were 16, 21, 22 and 18, respectively during these periods. As much as 12, 10, 15 and 13 districts were found in the category of 20–30% during the corresponding periods, respectively. In the category of 10–20% of area under rice cultivation, 12, 10, 15 and 13 districts, respectively were recorded, and the area cultivated below 10% was occupied by 19 districts during 1995–2000. In the later periods, about 20, 16 and 17 districts were visible in this category. During 2010–2015, these districts were namely, JPN, Kannauj, Mahamaya Nagar, Muzaffarnagar, Etah, Firozabad, Kanshiram Nagar, Farrukhabad, Chitrakoot, Meerut, Baghpat, Jhansi, Agra, Lalitpur, Jalaun, Hamirpur and Mahoba. 5.2.1.3  Pearl Millet (Bajra) Bajra shared only about 4% of total cropped area in the state during the periods of study. Above 20% area for bajra was occupied by the districts of Agra and Firozabad during 1995–2000 and 2000–2005, and district of Budaun was added within this category during 2005–2010. During 2010–2015, Agra and Budaun districts were

172

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

included in this category. In the next category of 15–20%, the numbers of districts included were 2, 3, 3 and 6, respectively during the corresponding periods. The districts covering 10–15% area was represented by 5, 4, 4 and 6, respectively during these periods. The districts with 5–10% of area under bajra were in numbers were 6, 5, 6 and 6, respectively whereas below 5% of area was seen in 55, 56, 55 and 55 districts, respectively. 5.2.1.4  Maize Maize occupied 4%, 3.44%, 3.21% and 2.82% area to the gross cultivated area in the state during 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively (Table 5.8). The district Kannauj secured the highest acreage of above 20% under maize crop during all the periods. In the next category of area devoted 15–20%, there were 4, 2, 2 and 1 districts, respectively in the corresponding periods. There were 4, 5, 5 and 3 districts in which maize acquired 10–15% area, respectively. There were 11, 10, 10 and 10 districts during 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively in which maize was cultivated on 5–10% of cropped land. Below 5% of area cultivated under maize in the districts in numbering were 50, 52, 54 and 56, respectively during the periods under consideration. 5.2.1.5  Sorghum (Jowar) Jowar covers less than 1% area of the state during 2010–2015. The only district Chitrakoot shared highest area (8.28%) under jowar cultivation to the total cropped area in the state followed by Banda, Hamirpur, Kanpur Nagar and Kanpur Dehat districts which covered area between 4% and 6% during the same period. Two districts namely, Kaushambi and Fatehpur fall in the category of 2–4% whereas less than 2% area was occupied by 43 districts of the state. In the remaining districts of the state, this crop was not grown. 5.2.1.6  Barley Barley is popularly known as “jau” in Hindi and is one of the important cereal crops grown in the state. Barley is a short growing season crop and has good drought tolerance. It covers 0.64% area to the total cropped area of the state during 2010–2015. The districts in which barley is sown in more than 2% area are Sonbhadra, Etah, Chitrakoot, Firozabad and Kanpur Nagar during this period. Out of 71, about 45 districts cover less than 1% area under barley.

5.2 Changes in Cropping Patterns of Major Crops

173

5.2.2  Pulse Crops Pulses constitute an important component in human diet in India. They are the major source of protein for vegetarians. In comparison to cereals (wheat and rice), the percentage of protein in most pulses such as gram, urad and masoor is much higher that contains 17.1, 24.0 and 25.1% respectively, whereas, wheat and rice have only 11.8 and 8.5% respectively (Kachroo 1970). Besides their nutritive value, pulse crops contain an unique property of maintaining and restoring soil fertility through biological nitrogen from the atmosphere as well as of conserving and improving physical properties of soil by virtue of their deep and well spread root system (Khanna and Gupta 1988). In spite of these peculiarities, the area sown under pulses shows a declining trend in pulse crop producing regions of India. The reasons for such decline in area under pulses are many. First, pulses are cultivated generally in rain-fed area and on poor quality land are devoted for cultivation to them. Second, the crops have not received any breakthrough with respect to highyielding varieties of seeds. Whatsoever varieties available they have narrow adaptability and highly susceptible to diseases. Third, inadequate availability of certified seeds is a major obstacle in their wide spread adoption (Sundaram 2010; Shakeel and Hashmi 2012). Fourth, when irrigation becomes available, farmers shift the choice of cultivation to other more remunerative crops (Sathe and Agarwal 2004). On an average pulse crops occupied 11% to the gross cropped area in the state during 1995–2000 which showed a decrease to 10.78, 9.6 and 9.12% during 2000– 2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015 accounting for a negative growth of −1.93 and −10.98 and −4.97%, respectively during the corresponding growth periods (Table  5.8). It is evident from Table  5.11 that, there were 5, 7, 6 and 4 districts, respectively which were having above 40% of area under pulse crops. During 2010– 2015, the districts namely, Mahoba, Lalitpur, Hamirpur and Chitrakoot of Bundelkhand region were included in this category (Fig. 5.9). In the next category of 30–40% of area under pulse crops, there were 3 districts of Jhansi, Banda and Jalaun to be counted in this category during 2010–2015. The district of Chitrakoot acquired 20–30% of area under pulses during 1995–2000 whereas, during 2005– 2010, there was another set of districts namely, Fatehpur and Sonbhadra to be included in this category. In 2010–2015, only Sonbhadra district falls in this category. There were 15 districts to be included within the category of 10–20% of area under pulses cultivation during 1995–2000, the number of districts decreased to 13, 8 and 9 during later periods, respectively. Below 10% area sown under pulses was seen in 48, 50, 54 and 54 districts, respectively during the corresponding periods of study. More than 75% districts of the state were having below 10% area devoted for these crops. With respect to growth in area under pulse crops, the districts namely, Moradabad, JPN, Budaun, Chitrakoot and Lalitpur were marked by high growth of above 20% during the previous period, while during the later periods 2 and 3 districts, respectively were recorded in this category of growth. The growth of 0 to 20% was experienced by 10, 9 and 12 districts, respectively in the respective periods. The negative

174

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Table 5.11  Area under pulse crops to gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh Category (Percent) Very high (Above 40) High (30–40) Medium (20–30) Low (10–20) Very low (Below 10)

1995–2000 2000–2005 2005–2010 2010–2015 No. of No. of No. of No. of districts Percent districts Percent districts Percent districts Percent 5 7 7 10 6 8 4 6 1

1

–

0

1

1

3

4

1

1

–

0

2

3

1

1

15 48

21 68

18 70

8 54

11 76

9 54

13 76

13 50

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Notes: (–) denotes data not available in this category

growth between −20 and 0% was seen in 31, 34 and 42 districts, respectively whereas negative growth of below −20% was recorded by 24, 25 and 14 districts, respectively during corresponding periods (Table 5.12). 5.2.2.1  Gram Gram recorded a decrease in area from 3.57 to 3.16% and further to 2.44 and 2.3% in the state with a negative growth of −11.42, −22.72 and −5.62%, respectively during the periods of study (Table 5.8). During 1995–2000, the districts of Hamirpur and Banda recorded area sown above 20% under gram. Two districts of Chitrakoot and Mahoba were added in this category during the later periods. During 2010– 2015, Chitrakoot, Banda and Hamirpur were included in this category. In the next category of 15–20% area sown under gram, there were 4 and 2 districts, respectively during the previous periods. During 2010–2015, only Mahoba district has been recorded in this category. In the category of 10–15% area sown under gram, there were 3, 2, 2 and 2 districts in the respective order, and in the next category of 5–10% of area, 5, 4, 7 and 5 districts were included in the corresponding periods, respectively. Below 5% of area under gram, there were 56, 58, 58 and 60 districts, respectively in the periods under consideration. 5.2.2.2  Black Gram (Urad) Urad occupied nearly 2% area in cultivation in the state (Table 5.8). The district of Lalitpur recorded the highest area of 11.09, 20.85, 22.89 and 20.27%, respectively during the periods of 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015. There were 41, 42, 44 and 43 districts, respectively which had less than 1% of area under this crop. In a range of 1–2% area under urad, there were 14, 12, 10 and 13 districts,

5.2 Changes in Cropping Patterns of Major Crops

175

Fig. 5.9  Uttar Pradesh: area under pulse crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005– 2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

Table 5.12  District-wise growth in area under pulse crops in Uttar Pradesh Growth period (1995– Growth 2000 to 2000–2005) (Percent) No. Name of district Above 5 Moradabad, JPN, 20 Budaun, Chitrakoot and Lalitpur 0 to 20 10 Jhansi, Chandauli, Mahoba, Kanpur Nagar, Faizabad, Bara Banki, Hamirpur, Banda, Sonbhadra and Jalaun −20 to 0 31 Fatehpur, Bareilly, Unnao, Mirzapur, GBN, Deoria, Sultanpur, Ballia, Auraiya, Rampur, Varanasi, Sitapur, Rae Bareli, Kanpur Dehat, Shrawasti, Kaushambi, SKN, Bulandshahr, Pratapgarh, Ghaziabad, Baghpat, Lucknow, Jaunpur, Ghazipur, Basti, Ambedkar Nagar, Azamgarh, Kushinagar, Bahraich, Meerut and Mahrajganj

Below −20

24

Growth period (2000– 2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 2 Shahjahanpur and Sonbhadra

Growth period (2005–2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 3 Budaun, Meerut and Rampur

9

12 Shrawasti, Chitrakoot, Fatehpur, Unnao, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, Mirzapur, Allahabad and Banda

34

42 Lalitpur, Mahoba, Baghpat, Sultanpur, Kanpur Dehat, Varanasi, Ballia, Moradabad, Kanpur Nagar, SRNB, Hamirpur, Bahraich, Bulandshahr, Chandauli, Rae Bareli, Balrampur, Jaunpur, SKN, JPN, Kushinagar, Basti, GBN, Pratapgarh, Farrukhabad, Ghazipur, Azamgarh, Sitapur, Rampur, Ambedkar Nagar, Etawah, Bara Banki, Kheri, Mau and Auraiya

25 Mau, Allahabad, Kannauj, Kheri, Saharanpur, Hardoi, Muzaffarnagar, SRNB, Balrampur, Siddharthnagar, Bijnor, Shahjahanpur, Farrukhabad, Pilibhit, Gorakhpur, Agra, Aligarh, Etawah, Mahamaya Nagar, Gonda, Mainpuri, Firozabad, Mathura, Etah

Hardoi, Saharanpur, Lucknow, Etah, Kannauj, Gonda, Jalaun, Mathura, Aligarh, Faizabad, Meerut, Mainpuri, Mahrajganj, Jhansi, Deoria, Budaun, Gorakhpur, Muzaffarnagar, Firozabad, Bareilly, Bijnor, Mahamaya Nagar, Siddharthnagar, Pilibhit and Agra

14

Farrukhabad, Balrampur, Ghaziabad, Bareilly, GBN, Shahjahanpur, Moradabad, Mathura, Unnao, JPN, Varanasi and Sonbhadra Hardoi, Sultanpur, SKN, Jaunpur, Allahabad, Kanpur Nagar, SRNB, Pratapgarh, Faizabad, Chitrakoot, Mainpuri, Bahraich, Mau, Gonda, Etawah, Kushinagar, Jhansi, Mirzapur, Ballia, Etah, Kanpur Dehat, Ambedkar Nagar, Jalaun, Mahrajganj, Banda, Mahoba, Kanshiram Nagar, Azamgarh, Lalitpur, Kheri, Rae Bareli, Kaushambi, Fatehpur, Lucknow, Baghpat, Mahamaya Nagar, Ghazipur, Firozabad, Hamirpur, Chandauli, Saharanpur and Auraiya Shrawasti, Siddharthnagar, Aligarh, Sitapur, Kannauj, Pilibhit, Bulandshahr, Muzaffarnagar, Gorakhpur, Deoria, Bijnor, Basti, Bara Banki and Agra

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

5.2 Changes in Cropping Patterns of Major Crops

177

respectively. In between 2% and 3% of area, there were 8, 5, 6 and 5 districts, respectively. Whereas, in 4, 6, 7 and 6 districts, this crop acquired 3–4% of area sown, and above 4% of area was recorded in 5, 6, 6 and 7 districts, respectively. 5.2.2.3  Lentil (Masoor) Masoor is a pulse crop which shared 1.91% area in cultivation to the total cultivated area of the state during 2010–2015, as compared to 2.06, 2.43 and 2.24% during 1995–2000, 2000–2005 and 2005–2010, respectively, recording a positive growth of 17.76% during 1995–2000 to 2000–2005 but a negative growth to the tune of −7.82 and −14.59% during the later periods, respectively (Table 5.8). The districts in which masoor occupied above 10% of area during 1995–2000 were namely, Shrawasti, Bahraich, Jalaun and Hamirpur. During 2000–2005, the district of Banda was added within this category replacing Bahraich, and during the period of 2005– 2010, the district of Chitrakoot replaced Banda and Jalaun. During 2010–2015, not even a single district falls in this category. In the next category of 8–10% of area, there were 2, 4, 5 and 6 districts, respectively. An area of 6–8% under this crop was seen in 3, 2, 2 and 2 districts in the respective periods. There were 2, 4, 5 and 3 districts, respectively to show 4–6% of area, whereas 59, 56, 56 and 60 districts recorded below 4% of area under the cultivation of masoor, respectively during the periods under consideration. 5.2.2.4  Pea Pea crop in the state occupied less than 2% area in the state during all the periods of study. It recorded decrease in area under the crop from 1.75% in 1995–2000 up to 1.25% in 2010–2015 (Table 5.8). During 2010–2015, the districts which recorded a significant area under pea crop were namely, Jalaun (16.01%), Lalitpur (11.23), Jhansi (9.23), Mahoba (7.75) and Hamirpur (3.21) of Bundelkhand region, and Sultanpur (2.17%) of Awadh region. The remaining 65 districts of the state showed less than 1% area under this crop. 5.2.2.5  Pigeon Pea (Arhar) The cultivation of arhar was dominant in the districts namely, Chitrakoot, Sonbhadra, Kaushambi, Mirzapur, Hamirpur, Fatehpur and Banda during 2010– 2015. During the previous periods, the numbers of districts were counted as 6, 6 and 7, respectively. These districts covered above 4% area under arhar. In the next category of 3–4% of area, the numbers of districts were counted as 8, 5, 1 and 2, and in the next lower category, there were 19, 13, 12 and 6 districts in the corresponding periods, respectively. In the other categories of 1–2% and below 1% of area, the

178

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

numbers of districts were 18, 24, 17 and 17, and 19, 22, 23 and 39 in the respective periods. 5.2.2.6  Green Gram (Moong) Moong has emerged as the most neglected pulse crop in the state which acquired less than 0.5% of area to the gross cropped area during all the periods of study. The districts of Mahoba, Etawah, Fatehpur, Hamirpur, Jhansi, Auraiya and Etah were some districts to show area sown in order of 2.55, 2.20, 1.34, 1.28, 1.06, 1.02 and 1.01% during 2010–2015.

5.2.3  Oilseed Crops Oilseed crops covered a very small proportion of area i.e., 3.96, 3.07, 3.59 and 4.13% to the gross cropped area in the state during 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005– 2010 and 2010–2015, respectively (Table 5.8). During 1995–2000, the districts of Agra (24.56%), Mathura (14.16), Jhansi (13.11), Mahamaya Nagar (10.87) and Kanpur Dehat (10.16) acquired above 10% of area under oilseeds, and during 2000– 2005, single district Agra with 19.78% area was included within this category whereas during 2005–2010, the districts of Jhansi, Agra and Mathura were incorporated within this category with 17.33, 15.92 and 11.37% of area under oilseeds, respectively. During the period 2010–2015, 7 districts namely, Jhansi, Hamirpur, Mahoba, Agra, Lalitpur, Jalaun and Mathura were included in this category (Fig. 5.10). The districts with 7 to 10% area under oilseeds cultivation were counted in numbers as 6, 4, 4 and 1 districts in the respective periods. Within the range of 4–7% of area, there were 13, 17, 18 and 16 districts respectively during 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015. In the category of 1–4% and below 1% of area, there were 28, 29, 31 and 30, and 18, 19, 15 and 17 districts, respectively of the state (Table 5.13). With regard to the growth in area under oilseed crops in the state, there were 17 districts to record a high growth of above 20% during the later period of 2010–2015. In the previous periods, there were two and 21 districts included in this category, respectively. The growth of 0–20% was recorded by 10, 24 and 25 districts, respectively. Negative growth of –20 to 0% was recorded by 24, 23 and 22 districts in the respective period of study. Whereas, high negative growth (below −20%) was seen in 34, two and seven districts of the state in the respective periods (Table 5.14).

5.2 Changes in Cropping Patterns of Major Crops

179

Fig. 5.10  Uttar Pradesh: area under oilseed crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005– 2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

180

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Table 5.13  Area under oilseed crops to gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh Category (Percent) Very high (Above 10) High (7–10) Medium (4–7) Low (1–4) Very low (Below 1)

1995–2000 2000–2005 2005–2010 2010–2015 No. of No. of No. of No. of districts Pecent districts Percent districts Percent districts Percent 5 7 1 1 3 4 7 10 6 13

8 18

4 17

6 24

4 18

6 25

1 16

1 23

28 18

39 25

29 19

41 27

31 15

44 21

30 17

42 24

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Table 5.14  District-wise growth in area under oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh Growth period (1995–2000 Growth to 2000–2005) (Percent) No. Name of district Above 20 2 Faizabad and Deoria

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 17 Banda, Hamirpur, Chitrakoot, Bara Banki, Lalitpur, Muzaffarnagar, Jaunpur, Mahoba, Meerut, Baghpat, Azamgarh, Jhansi, Ghaziabad, Allahabad, Unnao, Hardoi and Jalaun

0 to 20

25

10

Growth period (2000– 2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 21 Hamirpur, Jalaun, Jhansi, Banda, Budaun, Mahoba, Varanasi, Kaushambi, Bareilly, Lalitpur, JPN, Pilibhit, Azamgarh, Etawah, Chitrakoot, Meerut, Mathura, Etah, Bara Banki, Baghpat and Ballia 24 Ambedkar Nagar, JPN, Mirzapur, Ghaziabad, Gorakhpur, Sonbhadra, Kaushambi, Ambedkar Gorakhpur, Nagar, Sultanpur, Fatehpur, Kanpur Nagar, Meerut, Muzaffarnagar, Azamgarh and Pratapgarh, Varanasi Moradabad, Faizabad, SKN, Unnao, Jaunpur, Saharanpur, Sultanpur, Bulandshahr, Auraiya, Deoria, Sitapur, Aligarh, Bijnor, Mirzapur, Rampur, Gonda and Kheri

Lucknow, Sitapur, Sonbhadra, Mau, Fatehpur, Sultanpur, Kanpur Dehat, Farrukhabad, Shrawasti, Ambedkar Nagar, Bulandshahr, Pilibhit, Balrampur, JPN, Budaun, Varanasi, Mirzapur, Kanpur Nagar, Rae Bareli, Moradabad, Bahraich, Gonda, Shahjahanpur, SKN and Basti

(continued)

5.2 Changes in Cropping Patterns of Major Crops

181

Table 5.14 (continued) Growth period (1995–2000 Growth to 2000–2005) (Percent) No. Name of district −20 to 0 24 Ballia, Balrampur, Muzaffarnagar, Sonbhadra, Siddharthnagar, Kushinagar, Jaunpur, Rae Bareli, Basti and Fatehpur, Pratapgarh, Hamirpur, Lucknow, Sitapur, Baghpat, Kheri, Unnao, Mahrajganj, Kannauj, Pilibhit, Mau, Moradabad, Gonda and Agra Below −20

34

Bijnor, Lalitpur, Bara Banki, Chitrakoot, Bahraich, Etawah, Kanpur Dehat, Auraiya, Mahoba, Shrawasti, Ghaziabad, SKN, Bareilly, Chandauli, Ghazipur, Saharanpur, Budaun, Bulandshahr, Mainpuri, Farrukhabad, Shahjahanpur, GBN, Hardoi, Mathura, Etah, Jhansi, Jalaun, SRNB, Allahabad, Banda, Aligarh, Mahamaya Nagar, Firozabad and Rampur

Growth period (2000– 2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 23 Kushinagar, Kanpur Dehat, Firozabad, Balrampur, Shahjahanpur, Mau, Rae Bareli, SRNB, Chandauli, Hardoi, Mainpuri, Farrukhabad, Kannauj, Lucknow, Basti, Kanpur Nagar, Mahrajganj, Allahabad, Bahraich, Shrawasti, Ghazipur, GBN and Agra 2 Mahamaya Nagar and Siddharthnagar

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 22 Kanshiram Nagar, Ghazipur, Etawah, Saharanpur, Etah, Faizabad, Kushinagar, Pratapgarh, Mathura, SRNB, Kannauj, Rampur, Gorakhpur, Auraiya, Kheri, Mainpuri, Bareilly, Mahrajganj, Chandauli, Ballia, Firozabad and Siddharthnagar 7

Bijnor, Aligarh, Mahamaya Nagar, Kaushambi, Agra, Deoria and GBN

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

5.2.3.1  Mustard and Rapeseeds Mustard and rapeseeds are important oilseed crops grown in the state and covered a significant area with proportions being 2.91, 2.24, 2.35 and 2.38% during 1995– 2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively (Table  5.8). The districts of Agra and Mathura recorded the highest area under these crops during the corresponding periods. Other districts which showed significant area during 2010– 2015 under these crops were namely, Kanpur Dehat, Etawah, Auraiya, Balrampur and Kanpur Nagar. The lowest area was seen in the districts of Mau and Ghazipur during all the periods.

182

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

5.2.3.2  Sesamum (Til) Til covered only 0.42% of area to the gross cropped area in the state during 1995– 2000. The area under til increased to 1.23% during 2010–2015. This crop recorded the highest positive growth of 104.42% during 2000–2005 to 2005–2010 (Table 5.8). Out of 71, in all 14 districts namely, Jhansi, Hamirpur, Mahoba, Jalaun, Banda, Hardoi, Sonbhadra, Unnao, Fatehpur, Lalitpur, Chitrakoot, Shahjahanpur, Sitapur and Farrukhabad were recorded above 1% area in the state during 2010–2015. The numbers of districts were 9, 10 and 13 to be included in this category in the previous periods, respectively. 5.2.3.3  Groundnut Groundnut occupied only 0.36% area in the state during 2010–2015. It showed highest negative growth of −22.88% during the previous period of 1995–2000 to 2000–2005 (Table  5.8). Very few districts have significant area under this crop. These were namely, Jhansi (4.45%), Mahoba (2.51%), Lalitpur (2.02%), Hardoi (1.21%) and Kheri (1.04%), the remaining districts showed less than 1% area to the gross cropped area under this crop. 5.2.3.4  Soybean Soybean is the least preferred crop in the state among oilseeds and is sown on only 0.15% of gross cultivated area. Lalitpur is the only district which covers 6.9% area under the crop during the period 2010–2015.

5.2.4  Cash Crops Sugarcane and potatoes constitute the important cash crops in the state. Sugar is probably an indigenous crop to India. In terms of raw cane, India is the largest producer in the world, but the low saccharine content of the cane due to poor technique of extraction brings its output in terms of sugar at third place, after the countries of Cuba and Brazil (Spate and Learmonth 1967). Sugarcane occupies about 8% of the total cultivated area in the state and it is one of the most important cash crops contributing about 7.5% of the gross value of agricultural production in the country. Potatoes are the world’s fourth important food crop after wheat, rice and maize because of their yield potentials and high nutritive value. Potatoes constitute nearly

5.2 Changes in Cropping Patterns of Major Crops

183

Table 5.15  Area under cash crops to gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh Category (Percent) Very high (Above 20) High (15–20) Medium (10–15) Low (5–10) Very low (Below 5)

1995–2000 2000–2005 2005–2010 No. of No. of No. of districts Percent districts Percent districts Percent 9 13 9 13 10 14

2010–2015 No. of districts Percent 10 14

3

4

4

6

5

7

8

11

4

6

6

8

7

10

4

6

19 35

27 49

14 37

20 52

10 39

14 55

11 38

15 54

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

half of the world’s annual output of all root and tuber crops. With an annual global production of about 300 million tonnes, potatoes are economically important staple crop in developed and developing countries. India ranks fourth in area and third largest country in the world in production of potatoes after China and Russian Federation. About 90% of the potato crops in India are cultivated in the Ganga plain, the period of cultivation spans over the months of October until February-March. It is seen from Table 5.15 that, during 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, there were 9, 9, 10 and 10 districts, respectively which devoted above 20% area under cash crops to the gross cropped area. During 2010–2015, area devoted more than 20% under the cash crops in the districts namely, Bijnor, Muzaffarnagar, Meerut, Baghpat, Kheri, Saharanpur, JPN, Ghaziabad, Kushinagar and Sitapur (Fig. 5.11). In the next category of area under cash crops as 15–20%, there were 3, 4, 5 and 8 districts in the corresponding periods of time. In between 10% and 15% area under cash crops, it was seen in 4, 6, 7 and 4 districts, respectively. Whereas, 5–10% area under cash crops was devoted to 19, 14, 10 and 11 districts of the state during the periods under consideration, respectively. Below 5% of area under cash crops was seen in 35, 37, 39 and 38 districts during these periods, respectively. The lowest area under cash crops occurred in the districts of Bundelkhand, the southern districts of Awadh and most of the districts of Purvanchal region of the state. In terms of growth in area under cash crops, there were 11, 10 and 5 districts, respectively which have registered a high growth of more than 20% during the periods of study (Table  5.16). During the period 2005–2010 to 2010–2015, the districts showing high growth were namely, Shrawasti, Etawah, Agra, Mahamaya Nagar and Hamirpur. The growth in between 0% and 20% in area under cash crops

184

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Fig. 5.11  Uttar Pradesh: area under cash crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005– 2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

Table 5.16  District-wise growth in area under cash crops in Uttar Pradesh Growth period (1995– Growth 2000 to 2000–2005) (Percent) No. Name of district Above 11 Balrampur, Gonda, 20 Faizabad, Agra, Mahamaya Nagar, Basti, Firozabad, Kanpur Nagar, Bahraich, Bulandshahr and Etawah 0 to 20 26 Sitapur, Hamirpur, Ghaziabad, Aligarh, GBN, Farrukhabad, Kannauj, Saharanpur, Kheri, Chitrakoot, Shrawasti, Mahoba, Sonbhadra, Mainpuri, Meerut, Muzaffarnagar, Bijnor, Hardoi, Jalaun, Baghpat, Rae Bareli, Bareilly, Fatehpur, JPN, Sultanpur and Etah

Growth period (2000–2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 10 Mahamaya Nagar, Shrawasti, Agra, Etawah, Mahoba, Firozabad, Aligarh, Gonda, Balrampur and Sonbhadra

29

−20 to 0 22

26 Siddharthnagar, Mahrajganj, Pilibhit, Pratapgarh, Varanasi, Kaushambi, Kushinagar, Bara Banki, Budaun, Auraiya, Jaunpur, Banda, Jhansi, Shahjahanpur, Mathura, Unnao, Deoria, Azamgarh, Mirzapur, Ambedkar Nagar, Allahabad and Lucknow

Below −20

5 Ballia, SKN, Moradabad, Mau, Rampur, Ghazipur, Chandauli, Gorakhpur, SRNB, Lalitpur and Kanpur Dehat

11

Growth period (2005–2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 5 Shrawasti, Etawah, Agra, Mahamaya Nagar and Hamirpur

31 Banda, Hardoi, Kannauj, Pilibhit, Jhansi, Ambedkar Nagar, Kanpur Dehat, Basti, Baghpat, Saharanpur, Unnao, Auraiya, Kanpur Nagar, Sitapur, Mainpuri, Meerut, Mathura, Muzaffarnagar, JPN, Bulandshahr, Kheri, Allahabad, Farrukhabad, Bahraich, Sultanpur, Bijnor, Ghaziabad, Bareilly and Jalaun Rampur, Moradabad, 31 Rae Bareli, Fatehpur, Faizabad, Budaun, Kushinagar, Mahrajganj, Lucknow, Mirzapur, SKN, Gorakhpur, Ballia, Lalitpur, Azamgarh, SRNB, Hamirpur, Bara Banki, Ghazipur, Kaushambi, Shahjahanpur, Pratapgarh, Etah, Deoria, Mau and Varanasi

Jaunpur, Chandauli, 4 GBN, Chitrakoot and Siddharthnagar

Sonbhadra, Bahraich, Firozabad, Aligarh, Auraiya, Shahjahanpur, Gonda, Kheri, Basti, Mahoba, Pilibhit, Farrukhabad, Allahabad, Rampur, Jhansi, Kannauj, Mainpuri, Sitapur, Kanpur Dehat, JPN, Bareilly, Fatehpur, SRNB, Kanpur Nagar, Kushinagar, Ambedkar Nagar, Hardoi, Baghpat, Moradabad, Unnao and Kanshiram Nagar Varanasi, Sultanpur, Budaun, Bijnor, Faizabad, Meerut, Kaushambi, Ghazipur, GBN, Muzaffarnagar, SKN, Jaunpur, Mirzapur, Chitrakoot, Saharanpur, Pratapgarh, Azamgarh, Ghaziabad, Bulandshahr, Mau, Lucknow, Mahrajganj, Gorakhpur, Balrampur, Ballia, Mathura, Chandauli, Siddharthnagar, Jalaun, Deoria and Bara Banki Rae Bareli, Etah, Banda and Lalitpur

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

186

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

was recorded in 26, 29 and 31 districts, respectively and negative growth (−20 to 0%) was seen in 22, 26 and 31 districts, respectively during these periods of study. High negative growth (below −20%) was recorded by 11, 5 and 4 districts, respectively. 5.2.4.1  Sugarcane The state of Uttar Pradesh occupied first place both in area and production of sugarcane in the country, followed by the state of Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. It accounted for 42.47% of total area and 41.31% of total production of sugarcane in the country. The maximum concentration of sugarcane cultivation is seen in the upper Ganga-Yamuna doab, Rohilkhand and the Trans-­ Saryu plain which together account for 70% of the state’s production. Amongst 100 leading sugarcane producing districts of the country, 33 belong to the state of Uttar Pradesh (Raja 2012b). Within the state, the western region is considered to be the dominant producer of sugarcane. In 1995–1996, it produced over 80 million tonnes of sugarcane, while the eastern region less than 13 million tonnes. This has been due to that, the western region devoted an area under sugarcane almost 5 times the area under this crop in the eastern region (1.2 million ha. vs. 0.25 million ha.), and about 97% of this area in the west was irrigated, whereas less than 90% was irrigated in the east (Bajpai and Volavka 2005; Asawa 2005). Sugarcane occupied about 8% area among the total cultivated area in the state during the study periods (Table 5.8). Very high concentration of the crop, i.e., above 10% of cultivated area, was seen in 13, 17, 17 and 16 districts, respectively of the state during 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015. Very high concentration of the crop during 2010–2015 was observed in Bijnor followed by Muzaffarnagar, Meerut, Baghpat, Kheri, Saharanpur, JPN, Ghaziabad, Kushinagar, Sitapur, Pilibhit, Gonda, Bareilly, Balrampur, Basti and Moradabad. In the category of 8–10% of area under sugarcane cultivation, there were 2, 1, 0 and 1 districts which were recorded in the respective periods. Within the category of area 4–6%, the number of districts were in order of 5, 7, 4 and 3 in the corresponding periods, respectively, whereas below 4% of area was seen in 48, 44, 48 and 48 districts, respectively. 5.2.4.2  Potato Potato crop occupied more about 3% area to the total cropped area in the state during 2010–2015 (Table 5.8). The districts namely, Kannauj, Mahamaya Nagar, Firozabad, Farrukhabad and Agra recorded very high concentration of potatoes (between 10% and 20%) during all the periods. All of these districts belong to

5.3 Trends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Crops: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

187

the most fertile Ganga-Yamuna doab region of the state. Comparatively, the lowest area under potatoes was seen in the districts belong to Bundelkhand region of the state.

5.3  T  rends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Crops: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 India has registered a considerable increase in area and production of crops and in yield of the crops per hectare during the last three-four decades. The entire credit goes to new agricultural technology incorporated in Indian farming in the form of green revolution which played vital role in heralding new era of transformation agricultural arena (Misra and Kumar 2007). The gains in agricultural production that went along with the introduction of new technology lifted India from the status of a food deficient country to a self sufficient one. The modern methods of irrigation and seed-fertilizer technology that came through agricultural research and development made it possible to increase crop yields enabling the farmers to use existing land more efficiently. The increase in yields and agricultural productivity in rural areas have translated into development gains for the rural poor (Bajpai and Volavka 2005). The growth rates per annum in area, production and yield of major crops, viz., cereal, pulse, oilseed and cash crops were computed applying the least square growth rate formula for a period of twenty years, i.e., from 1995–1996 to 2014– 2015. Table 5.17 gives the values of growth rates of the crops considered in the state during the study period.

5.3.1  T  rends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Cereal Crops Area The total area devoted to cereal crops during 1995–1996 was 16.77 million ha. It increased to 18.16  million ha. during 2014–2015. The area under cereal crops showed a positive growth rate of 0.33% per annum during this period (Table 5.17). During this period, there were 40 districts which recorded positive growth, while the remaining districts showed a negative growth. Two districts namely, Kanpur Nagar and Lalitpur were characterized with very high growth rate (above 1.58 percent/ annum). On the other hand, 5 districts namely, Meerut, Farrukhabad, Sonbhadra, GBN and Etah recorded a very low negative growth rate of less than −1.71%

188

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Table 5.17  Growth rate per annum in area, production and yield of crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995– 1996 to 2014–2015

Major crops/ S. No. crops I. Cereal crops 1. Barley 2. Maize 3. Pearl millet (bajra) 4. Rice 5. Sorghum (jowar) 6. Wheat II. Pulse crops 7. Black gram (urad) 8. Gram 9. Green gram (moong) 10. Lentil (masoor) 11. Pea 12. Pigeon pea (arhar) III. Oilseed crops 13. Groundnut 14. Mustard & rapeseeds 15. Sesamum (til) 16. Soybean IV. Cash crops 17. Potato 18. Sugarcane

Area (Million ha.) 1995– 2014– 1996 2015 16.77 18.16

Production (Million metric tonnes) 1995– 2014– 1996 2015 35.02 44.01

Yield (Quintals/ha.) 1995– 2014– 1996 2015 20.88 24.23

Growth rate (percent/ annum)

0.34 1.06 0.84

0.18 0.67 0.97

0.67 1.46 1.06

0.44 1.24 1.77

19.44 13.81 12.60

24.98 18.45 18.19

–3.84 –2.99 –1.88 –0.48 0.53 2.83

0.89 1.43 2.29

5.38 0.44

6.13 0.16

9.98 0.42

13.67 0.16

18.53 9.49

22.30 9.61

0.51 1.22 –4.89 –3.74

0.71 1.21

8.70 2.91

10.04 21.43 2.23 2.25

26.73 1.98

24.63 7.76

26.61 8.88

0.68 1.50 –1.09 –0.95

0.82 0.14

0.29

0.57

0.13

0.31

4.62

5.35

2.89

1.96

1.06 0.11

0.57 0.09

0.73 0.07

0.63 0.04

6.90 5.99

11.18 4.92

–2.76 –1.71 –1.45 –0.71

1.08 0.75

0.46

0.39

0.30

0.25

6.50

6.37

–0.40 –0.19

0.21

0.48 0.50

0.33 0.27

0.51 0.51

0.47 0.27

10.66 10.21

14.13 9.99

–1.82 –0.95 –2.42 –3.65

0.88 –1.26

1.05

1.08

0.93

0.68

8.90

6.27

0.68

–0.26

0.13 0.76

0.10 0.60

0.09 0.80

0.09 0.49

7.34 10.56

9.20 8.20

–1.87 –1.36 –0.77 0.23

0.52 1.01

0.13

0.34

0.02

0.06

1.21

1.89

7.34

1.36

0.03 2.26

0.05 2.77

0.02 0.04 6.51 7.31 –0.23 2.27 122.03 152.20 540.83 549.66 0.99 0.95

2.50 –0.04

0.36 1.89

0.58 2.19

7.24 12.90 199.93 223.91 2.14 114.79 139.30 606.02 635.22 0.73

0.64 0.08

Area Production Yield 0.33 1.30 0.97

4.90

0.41

8.80

2.79 0.81

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

5.3 Trends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Crops: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

189

per annum (Table 5.18 and Fig. 5.12). A total of 22 districts recorded high growth rate per annum which ranged between 0.48% and 1.58%. In all, 28 districts recorded medium growth between −0.61 and 0.48% whereas 14 districts registered a low growth between −1.71 and −0.61 percent/annum. Production The production of cereal crops in the state increased from 35.02  million metric tonnes during 1995–1996 to 44.01 million metric tonnes during 2014–2015, thus giving a growth rate of 1.3% per annum (Table 5.17). During this period, there were 55 districts which recorded a positive growth and the remaining districts were characterized with a negative growth. To classify the districts into different category of growth, there emerged five grades. The highest growth in production of cereal crops was recorded in Kanshiram Nagar being 4.92% per  annum, while the lowest in Muzaffarnagar with −2.24% per annum, followed by the districts of GBN, Sultanpur and Farrukhabad. Very high growth of above 3.04% per annum was occurred in 4 districts. High growth in between 1.63 and 3.04% per annum was recorded by 18 districts. The medium growth in between 0.23 and 1.63% per annum was seen in 28 districts, and 16 districts were characterized with low growth that ranged in between −1.18 and 0.23% per annum. Very low growth rate (below −1.18 percent/annum) was featured in 5 districts of the state during this period (Table 5.18 and Fig. 5.12). Yield In the state of UP, the yield of cereal crops during this period was recorded as 0.97% annual growth rate (Table 5.17). During this period, very high growth was recorded by the districts of Kanshiram Nagar, Hamirpur and Siddharthnagar in order of 3.56, 2.76 and 2.57%, respectively. High growth in between 1.43% and 2.30% was attained by 16 districts whereas 31 districts recorded medium growth in between 0.56% and 1.43%. Low growth rate within the range of −0.31 to 0.56% per annum in yield of cereal crops was visible in 19 districts. The districts of Muzaffarnagar and Sultanpur were characterized with very low growth in yield of cereal crops (Table  5.18 and Fig. 5.12). 5.3.1.1  Wheat Area Tables 5.17 and 5.19 showed the growth rate per annum in area under individual crops during the period from 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. Among them wheat showed an increase in area from 8.7  million ha. to 10.04  million ha. during this period recording a growth rate of 0.68% per  annum. Three districts namely, Lalitpur, Kanpur Nagar and Jalaun with 3.18, 2.64 and 2.22% annum recorded very high growth (above 1.83 percent/annum) in area, whereas very low growth below −1.26% per annum was attained by the districts of Meerut, Farrukhabad, Etah and GBN. High

0.48 to 1.58

Medium −0.61 to 0.48

High

Area Growth rate (percent/ Category annum) Very Above high 1.58

28

22

Jhansi, Jalaun, Kanshiram Nagar, Mainpuri, Auraiya, Agra, Jaunpur, Bara Banki, Hardoi, Rampur, Ghazipur, Budaun, Shahjahanpur, Kushinagar, Deoria, Siddharthnagar, Bahraich, Kaushambi, Chandauli, Azamgarh, Bareilly and Pilibhit 0.23 to SKN, Unnao, Mahrajganj, 1.63 Ballia, Ambedkar Nagar, Aligarh, Sultanpur, Mathura, Sitapur, Gorakhpur, Bulandshahr, Firozabad, Rae Bareli, Balrampur, Mau, Mahamaya Nagar, Fatehpur, Bijnor, Kannauj, Moradabad, Muzaffarnagar, Baghpat, Pratapgarh, Faizabad, Kheri, Lucknow, Mahoba and SRNB

No. Name of district 2 Kanpur Nagar and Lalitpur

28

1.43 to 2.30

Yield Growth rate (percent/ annum) Above 2.30

0.56 to Shahjahanpur, Azamgarh, Agra, Ballia, Mau, Ambedkar 1.43 Nagar, Pilibhit, Mahrajganj, Deoria, Chandauli, Mathura, Pratapgarh, Lucknow, Budaun, Rae Bareli, Kushinagar, Kannauj, Kheri, Banda, Baghpat, Shrawasti, Aligarh, Rampur, Bulandshahr, Bareilly, Kanpur Dehat, Ghaziabad and Faizabad

Production Growth rate (percent/ annum) No. Name of district Above 4 Kanshiram Nagar, Lalitpur, 3.04 Kanpur Nagar and Siddharthnagar 1.63 to 18 Mainpuri, Bara Banki, 3.04 Jalaun, Firozabad, Hardoi, Kaushambi, Sitapur, Unnao, Auraiya, Hamirpur, Fatehpur, Bahraich, Jaunpur, Gorakhpur, Ghazipur, SKN, Jhansi and Balrampur

31

16

Pratapgarh, SKN, Gonda, Kheri, Bahraich, Kanpur Dehat, Basti, Mau, Auraiya, Kanpur Nagar, Baghpat, Etawah, Ballia, Kannauj, GBN, Ghazipur, Azamgarh, Ghaziabad, Meerut, Jalaun, Jaunpur, Allahabad, Rae Bareli, Shahjahanpur, Ambedkar Nagar, Mahrajganj, Mathura, Chitrakoot, Farrukhabad, Pilibhit, Faizabad

Shrawasti, Firozabad, Fatehpur, Banda, Sitapur, Lalitpur, Unnao, Etah, Bara Banki, Kaushambi, Gorakhpur, Balrampur, Sonbhadra, Hardoi, Mainpuri and Lucknow

No. Name of district 3 Kanshiram Nagar, Hamirpur and Siddharthnagar

Table 5.18  District-wise growth rate per annum in area, production and yield of cereal crops in Uttar Pradesh: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

190 5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

−1.71 to −0.61

5

14

Meerut, Farrukhabad, Sonbhadra, GBN and Etah

Ghaziabad, Kanpur Dehat, Hamirpur, Chitrakoot, JPN, Saharanpur, Mirzapur, Allahabad, Etawah, Banda, Varanasi, Shrawasti, Gonda and Basti

Below −1.18

−1.18 to 0.23

5

16

Sonbhadra, Etah, Farrukhabad, Sultanpur, GBN and Muzaffarnagar

Below −0.31

−0.31 to Moradabad, Bijnor, Allahabad, Mahamaya Nagar, 0.56 Etawah, Chitrakoot, Gonda, JPN, Basti, Mahoba, SRNB, Saharanpur, Mirzapur, Varanasi and Meerut

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

Very low Below −1.71

Low

2

19

Agra, Chandauli, Bulandshahr, JPN, Deoria, Aligarh, Saharanpur, Mirzapur, Varanasi, Moradabad, Kushinagar, Budaun, Jhansi, Bijnor, Bareilly, Mahoba, SRNB, Mahamaya Nagar and Rampur Muzaffarnagar and Sultanpur

5.3 Trends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Crops: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 191

192

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Fig. 5.12  Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per  annum in area, production and yield of cereal crops, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

(0.80 to 1.83%), medium (−0.23 to 0.80%) and low (−1.26 to −0.23%) growth rate per annum was recorded by 15, 37 and 12 districts, respectively. Production The production of wheat crop jumped from 21.43 to 26.73 million metric tonnes, with an increase of 1.5% per annum during the same period (Tables 5.17). In terms of growth rate of production of wheat, the districts of Lalitpur, Kanpur Nagar and Siddharthnagar recorded a very high growth of above 3.26% per  annum. High growth rate between 1.84% and 3.26% were characterized with as many as 20 districts, whereas 26 districts showed medium growth of 0.41 to 1.84% per annum. Low growth (−1.01 to 0.41 percent/annum) and very low negative growth (below −1.01 percent/annum) in production of wheat was viewed in 17 and 5 districts, respectively (Table 5.20). Yield Average yield per hectare of wheat shows an increase of 0.82% per annum during the period of 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. A very high growth rate of above 2.21% per annum was recorded in Sonbhadra, Kheri and Hamirpur districts of the state. High growth of 1.30 to 2.21% was seen in 18 districts. Whereas, during the same period, medium (0.30 to1.30 percent/annum) and low growth (−0.53 to 0.30 percent/annum) rates in yield/ha were attained by 32 and 15 districts, respectively. Very low growth (below −0.53 percent/annum) was recorded by Bahraich, Muzaffarnagar and Sultanpur districts (Table 5.21).

5.3 Trends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Crops: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

193

5.3.1.2  Rice Area During the period of 1995–1996 to 2014–2015, there has been a marginal increase of 0.51% per annum in area under rice. The districts of Agra, Bulandshahr, Aligarh and Jhansi recorded very high growth of above 6.57% per annum in area (Table 5.19). This was followed by high growth in between 2.19 and 6.57% per annum in the districts of Mahamaya Nagar, Ghaziabad, Mathura, GBN and Kaushambi. Whereas, medium growth rate (−2.19 to 2.19 percent/annum) in area under rice was seen in 55 districts. Low and very low growth were recorded in 4 and 3 districts, respectively during this period. These were namely, in order of Chitrakoot, Etah, Jalaun, Sonbhadra, Lalitpur, Mahoba and Hamirpur. Production Production of rice has recorded an increase of 1.22% per annum during 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 (Table  5.20). The districts namely, Jhansi, Agra, Aligarh and Bulandshahr have recorded a very high growth (above 7.93 percent/annum) in production of rice during this period. High growth between 3.26 and 7.93% per annum for rice was recorded in the districts namely, Mahamaya Nagar, Firozabad, Ghaziabad, Mathura, Kaushambi, Kanpur Nagar, GBN and Bahraich whereas, medium (between −1.41 and 3.26 percent/annum) and low growth rates (−6.06 to −1.41 percent/annum) during the same period were seen in 47 and 9 districts, respectively. Very low annual growth in negative order (below −6.06%) was recorded by the districts namely, Lalitpur, Mahoba and Hamirpur. Yield The growth rate in average yield of rice in the state was 0.71% per annum during this period. It recorded a very high growth of above 2.75% in the districts namely, Jhansi, Jalaun, Firozabad and Siddharthnagar. This was followed by 16 districts which were characterized with high growth (1.54 to 2.75 percent/annum). Medium (0.32 to 1.54 percent/annum) and low growth (−0.90 to 0.32 percent/annum) was recorded in 30 and 18 districts, respectively. Whereas, 3 districts of Bijnor, Muzaffarnagar and Sultanpur showed a very low growth (below −0.90%) per annum during this period. 5.3.1.3  Pearl Millet (Bajra) Area Bajra showed a positive growth of 0.53, 2.83, and 2.29% per annum in area, production and yield during 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 (Table 5.17). During this period, very high growth (above 6.29% per annum) in area was seen in a single district of Kanpur Nagar with 8.63% per annum. Very low negative growth of below −17.24% per  annum in area under bajra was seen in Bahraich, Bijnor, Siddharthnagar, Pilibhit, Basti, Gorakhpur, GBN, Saharanpur and Gonda districts (Table 5.19).

−3.38

−1.95

−4.54

−1.25

−4.61

−3.19

−11.25 −32.10

−9.20

Allahabad

Ambedkar Nagar

Auraiya

Azamgarh

Baghpat

Bahraich

−0.57

−13.15 −25.27 −17.61

0.03

1.16

−7.78

−2.97

−0.79

−3.91

−4.58

−8.35

−9.00

1.51

−5.76

−6.17

0.24

−0.97

−7.69

−3.90 −10.13

−9.04

Bijnor

Budaun

Bulandshahr

Chandauli

Chitrakoot

Deoria

Etah

Etawah

−5.08

−1.89

−4.83 −19.98

−14.03

2.01

1.75

1.05

−0.71

−4.01

0.42

−2.76

0.38

9.17

0.39

0.27

Basti

−2.83

−1.24

−3.52

−6.59

−15.22

−12.66

Bareilly

−1.38

1.03

0.11

1.28

0.74

0.45

0.92

0.33

−1.06

8.60

12.60

Rice

Bara Banki

−2.25

−4.38

−8.38

Banda

0.47

−4.21 −11.15

−16.54

1.94

−1.59 −17.46

2.07

−2.37

0.42

Balrampur

−4.93

−4.41

−7.58

Aligarh

Ballia

−2.54

−5.24

−7.57 −11.74

−8.27

−2.24

−3.27

Agra

1.32

Maize

Pearl millet (bajra)

Barley

District

Cereal crops

−12.75

−27.75

−10.88

−4.00

−2.60

−13.95

−14.91

−6.62

−8.54

−20.61

−8.38

−4.28

−1.61

−1.17

−15.54

−11.98

−7.21

−6.11

−5.23

−7.16

−20.50

−12.87

−0.61

−2.52

0.87

0.36

0.74

0.30

0.76

0.15

−1.08

0.98

1.15

−0.02

−0.51

0.55

1.25

−0.06

0.73

1.46

0.56

−0.02

0.16

0.72

Sorghum (jowar) Wheat

−4.70

−2.97

−10.53

0.83

−1.34

2.84

8.81

−3.83

−0.31

7.92

0.65

−0.77

−2.82

−4.15

−0.68

0.71

−4.13

−2.70

−3.91

−0.83

−0.69

−6.29

−10.11

−15.26

−13.64

3.34

−3.64

−21.43

−18.23

−19.19

−10.44

−20.34

−12.07

−1.16

−11.45

−8.88

−21.98

−22.30

−5.14

−3.39

−4.75

−5.88

−27.17

−14.50

Pulse crops Black gram (urad) Gram

5.86

−11.41

−10.99

3.89

−2.13

−3.82

−1.37

−12.02

−2.43

−12.97

−10.75

5.44

−17.61

−5.04

−5.81

−7.27

−8.55

6.09

−6.05

−0.34

−6.56

−1.75

Green gram (moong)

−12.12

0.57

−8.00

7.10

−0.98

−4.79

−4.05

−8.60

−0.07

−6.91

−1.61

−1.08

−0.27

1.55

−0.55

−11.30

−5.81

−2.34

1.12

5.05

−3.30

−3.80

−21.25

−40.05

−2.86

4.87

−0.64

−9.08

−9.89

−15.39

−3.99

−1.89

−1.66

7.83

−2.33

1.42

−0.50

−17.00

−2.31

−20.95

−0.35

−3.43

−18.43

−18.74

Lentil (masoor) Pea

−7.17

−7.40

−5.41

0.96

1.00

−1.88

−8.48

−17.61

−7.65

−18.17

−7.96

0.54

−1.96

−2.23

−4.42

0.71

−1.83

−3.07

−2.56

0.45

−3.97

−12.76

Pigeon pea (arhar)

−3.45

−0.58

−5.46

1.33

−22.50

−10.91

−7.14

−12.80

−22.28

−7.76

−4.58

−5.73

−14.03

−1.36

−2.60

0.00

−3.22

−8.22

−19.60

−11.77

10.86

−15.78

Groundnut

Oilseed crops

Table 5.19  District-wise growth rate per annum in area under different crops in uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

−2.19

−5.04

−0.19

1.29

−1.46

−1.19

3.49

4.56

−1.59

1.51

4.64

0.17

0.67

0.22

−1.82

3.37

5.21

−0.83

2.39

−2.72

−4.18

−4.09

9.02

−4.63

−8.90

11.34

−6.54

−6.48

2.03

−16.90

−4.77

2.57

−5.10

16.80

−6.48

5.16

−1.02

−2.57

−4.06

32.93

−4.50

−5.12

1.13

0.45

Mustard and Sesamum rapeseeds (til)

−1.90

0.00

−0.93

−0.59

0.00

0.00

−10.68

−14.87

−1.70

7.95

−2.27

−19.14

0.00

0.00

16.24

0.00

−0.23

−0.85

0.00

−19.13

0.00

−4.87

Soybean

5.31

−2.25

−2.78

0.17

−1.61

2.16

−1.75

−3.31

−3.88

−5.93

−0.21

0.76

−1.03

−0.10

−0.55

−4.58

−1.21

3.62

−1.08

−0.83

9.50

9.46

Potato

−9.74

−22.18

−4.37

−4.05

−5.75

1.00

0.78

0.16

2.42

0.73

−3.28

−2.72

6.43

−4.85

3.36

1.08

−2.20

−5.99

0.62

−7.38

−2.17

−8.74

Sugarcane

Cash crops

−3.52

−0.69

−0.04

−5.65

−5.84

−3.92

Farrukhabad

Fatehpur

Firozabad

0.14

−2.76

5.08

2.32

8.37

−3.77

−4.76

0.42

−6.27

−6.52

−6.13

Kanpur Nagar

Kanshiram Nagar

Kaushambi

Kheri

−5.26

JPN

−4.67

−7.24

4.48

Kannauj

−0.35

−1.76

−4.36

Jaunpur

Jhansi

Kanpur Dehat

0.88

4.66

−1.96

−0.15

Jalaun

−0.37

−2.60

3.64

8.63

2.40

−7.54

−3.89

0.88

−0.27

2.82

1.36

1.76

−1.67

0.50

−1.05

8.08

1.30

−4.69

1.94

−18.62

−2.24

−1.88

0.10

−2.02

2.57

−9.30

Hamirpur

Hardoi

0.12

−3.37 −27.03

−2.41 −20.73

−9.38

−3.63

Gonda

Gorakhpur

−0.94

0.68

−4.30

−0.59

Ghazipur

1.82

3.11

4.08

−9.88 −18.59 −20.89

−8.39 −22.06 −15.61

GBN

Ghaziabad

1.39

−0.49

−1.38

−0.68

Rice

−2.25

−0.29

−4.10

−6.15 −14.37

−2.10

Faizabad

Maize

Barley

Pearl millet (bajra)

District

Cereal crops

−9.05

−5.56

43.90

1.43

−1.11

−9.00

−21.94

−10.41

−2.36

−4.79

−6.99

−5.19

−23.85

−28.36

−2.21

−21.87

−24.04

−8.76

−7.14

−8.33

−3.16

−0.21

1.17

0.32

2.64

−0.14

−0.09

−0.32

1.58

1.03

2.22

1.17

0.51

0.41

−1.10

0.86

−0.63

−3.18

0.33

1.20

−1.99

0.20

Sorghum (jowar) Wheat

−4.08

2.11

6.64

4.69

−2.94

−2.57

5.28

4.44

1.37

−1.81

−0.14

−0.97

−10.51

−1.05

−0.22

6.91

−2.86

−0.94

−0.96

−1.56

−1.32

−11.38

−2.48

−9.38

2.61

−1.95

−7.25

−7.58

−1.97

−3.99

−4.12

−16.77

−1.75

−10.27

−19.91

−6.88

−20.67

−27.66

−12.41

−0.67

−10.49

−8.51

Pulse crops Black gram (urad) Gram

−3.15

11.46

0.63

2.89

0.74

−3.60

−6.44

−0.29

−2.25

3.31

−3.95

3.89

−8.28

−0.12

−2.56

0.26

−4.42

−4.49

8.16

−2.64

0.03

Green gram (moong)

−3.01

8.09

−4.14

18.18

3.93

1.43

−10.43

−0.16

1.50

−2.46

1.53

−1.30

−7.13

−2.05

−2.48

−3.46

−16.79

−5.22

4.32

2.18

1.24

−3.33

−2.31

−44.61

0.04

−8.10

−9.05

−8.30

−1.84

−1.45

0.39

−4.70

−6.70

−2.82

−5.17

−3.28

−21.91

−11.50

−11.74

−1.56

−5.83

−3.88

Lentil (masoor) Pea

1.73 −8.32

0.60

−3.36

24.53

7.80

−0.06 −3.60

−21.95

4.01

2.80

−1.86

−3.79

−15.46

−4.90

−8.82

2.01

−21.70

−4.73

0.00

0.00

25.86

−5.85

−1.38

−15.46

Groundnut

Oilseed crops

−2.84

−5.33

−3.33

−4.71

−0.22

−1.68

−10.79

1.24

−7.56

−5.27

−0.39

−0.19

−5.02

−3.54

1.49

−6.28

−4.52

Pigeon pea (arhar)

−1.11

2.85

1.30

0.57

−2.32

−3.68

2.70

3.67

3.42

1.14

−3.27

6.75

0.64

−1.10

−2.04

0.24

−10.00

−4.76

1.08

−5.21

0.78

−3.80

2.91

13.97

3.40

−0.41

1.95

−1.01

22.38

1.68

10.65

4.25

15.86

−1.17

1.43

−5.91

−7.03

−1.45

6.99

3.44

−0.67

1.19

Mustard and Sesamum rapeseeds (til)

−7.00

0.00

0.00

−12.86

0.14

−3.00

0.00

−10.84

−0.63

−27.48

−21.15

−25.44

−1.95

−17.73

0.00

0.00

0.77

−3.37

−8.75

0.00

0.00

Soybean

1.77

−6.23

0.30

2.19

−4.45

−8.02

0.26

0.85

−2.75

−0.94

2.68

−0.85

−5.58

8.09

−3.77

0.02

−4.44

−4.98

−2.07

−0.55

2.10

Sugarcane

(continued)

−0.84

1.12

2.26

6.84

−0.09

2.35

−2.14

2.19

−0.65

2.34

0.31

0.14

−1.03

−2.21

−1.40

−1.66

−5.81

6.88

3.23

−0.82

−2.16

Potato

Cash crops

6.76

3.61

0.02

−0.83

−1.17

−4.19 −10.58

−1.90

−8.38 −17.39 −13.65

Mau

Meerut

−7.12

−4.10

Rae Bareli

−6.82

Saharanpur

−1.03 −25.16

−5.88

−2.91

−9.34

−20.48 −11.30

Rampur

−2.72

−4.56 −18.83

−7.53

−15.66

−1.48

0.54

0.05

−0.49

0.56

−6.40 −16.90 −10.78

Muzaffar nagar

Pilibhit

−0.58

−0.63

−3.31

Pratapgarh

0.32

−1.32

−4.01

−2.22

−4.93

Mirzapur

Moradabad

1.09

3.31

0.53

−1.09

2.35

−8.73

−4.86

−6.22

Mainpuri

Mathura

0.12

−17.80

−3.10

−7.32

Mahrajganj

6.50

−0.06

0.83

−5.54

−1.60 −15.88

−9.73

Mahoba

−6.42

−5.08

−12.22

−9.36

1.32 −11.24

Lucknow

5.14

Rice

0.55

4.09

−4.84

Pearl millet (bajra)

−6.52

Maize

Barley

Mahamaya Nagar

Lalitpur

Kushinagar

District

Cereal crops

Table 5.19 (continued)

−2.21

−10.26

−5.05

−4.41

−25.94

−5.74

−16.49

−1.77

−21.98

−16.19

−16.67

−7.58

−2.51

−7.33

−8.57

−6.90

−22.12

−11.61

−0.43

1.23

0.63

0.36

0.47

−0.07

−0.16

−0.43

−1.63

0.22

0.40

1.24

0.72

0.04

−0.50

−0.01

3.18

0.61

Sorghum (jowar) Wheat

−3.03

11.89

−0.56

−0.18

−6.73

−5.03

10.26

−1.80

0.14

−6.68

−6.36

−2.29

−6.07

9.26

−1.78

−1.05

9.03

−7.19

−15.16

−17.42

−2.46

−5.29

−19.29

−17.29

−13.14

−2.11

−21.18

−4.41

−21.92

−5.75

−14.62

1.41

−24.72

−7.74

−6.34

−10.57

Pulse crops Black gram (urad) Gram

−7.72

−5.38

−0.46

−5.35

−11.54

−11.31

−1.92

−6.30

−6.88

−5.86

−3.38

−4.82

−6.89

5.01

−7.98

−3.46

1.25

−4.70

Green gram (moong)

−5.88

−7.30

8.26

3.08

−6.86

−7.92

−5.45

−0.65

−3.33

−0.40

−11.13

1.46

−3.60

3.36

−4.44

5.59

−0.73

−0.82

−15.29

−2.38

−3.21

−1.59

6.26

−11.16

−8.91

−2.05

−12.22

−3.25

−23.41

−5.44

−0.91

−3.79

−17.35

−9.45

6.21

−1.63

Lentil (masoor) Pea

−20.07

−20.36

−5.47

−4.55

−27.42

−6.90

−5.12

−0.73

−0.39

−3.06

−5.19

−7.07

−10.56

0.26

−3.49

−10.78

−12.57

−4.37

Pigeon pea (arhar)

−2.08

2.63

−4.55

−1.87

0.79

−21.15

−1.85

1.24

0.00

−1.21

−2.57

8.87

1.15

−1.09

3.86

−8.80

4.61

7.38

Groundnut

Oilseed crops

−0.16

−4.38

−0.31

0.68

2.24

3.25

−0.39

−0.59

2.66

2.55

−0.77

−2.95

−3.55

3.69

−6.31

0.36

14.47

−0.40

−5.21

−3.52

2.72

−2.64

0.23

12.56

2.41

−0.93

−2.95

−4.06

−4.95

0.17

0.83

11.93

5.97

−2.26

6.93

3.76

Mustard and Sesamum rapeseeds (til)

−1.84

14.15

−0.36

0.00

32.77

−3.06

3.43

−7.23

0.00

−1.43

−2.07

0.00

2.55

−6.17

0.00

−3.21

5.84

0.00

Soybean

−3.46

−3.88

−0.55

−2.02

−3.88

−4.02

−0.18

−1.98

−2.61

−4.09

5.48

2.37

−1.56

0.89

9.90

−2.03

−0.67

−2.26

Potato

0.78

−0.70

−2.96

−5.35

1.81

0.65

−1.67

−3.56

−0.50

−3.46

−13.28

−2.06

−0.79

6.48

−5.29

−5.53

−7.98

−0.38

Sugarcane

Cash crops

−3.83

−0.73

−12.88

−4.90

Sitapur

Sonbhadra

1.12

−0.38

−1.69

−4.17

−1.88

−9.14

3.00

−3.84

Unnao

Varanasi

Uttar Pradesh

−0.48

0.51

−1.40

0.11

0.28

−0.39

−5.54

0.83

0.07

0.46

1.27

0.17

Rice

−4.89

−1.38

−6.64

−1.56

−2.04

−1.19

−7.39

−12.69

−8.45

−6.62

−5.29

0.68

−0.91

1.24

0.47

−0.38

−0.21

0.65

1.44

−1.04

0.38

0.76

Sorghum (jowar) Wheat

2.89

−1.39

6.15

0.16

−4.32

−1.62

−0.22

−7.54

0.02

−2.04

−13.53

−2.76

−3.58

−5.09

−4.09

−7.77

−1.86

−12.16

−35.80

−17.92

−17.55

−7.68

Pulse crops Black gram (urad) Gram

−1.45

−3.73

3.80

−0.58

−3.20

−7.64

−10.98

−17.42

−16.51

−1.06

−13.16

Green gram (moong)

−0.40

−7.62

1.36

3.86

−8.21

0.99

−0.57

−2.99

−2.33

3.97

0.20

−1.82

−0.45

−7.63

−0.07

−3.62

0.65

1.02

−4.24

−2.10

−4.20

−0.48

Lentil (masoor) Pea

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

0.53

−3.51

−6.85

−1.25

−5.68

−1.35

SRNB

Sultanpur

−1.04

0.06

−6.36 −18.76

−29.32

Siddharth nagar

−1.83

−4.55

−9.01 −13.49

−0.11

−6.62

Shahjahanpur

0.99 −15.26

Maize

Pearl millet (bajra)

Shrawasti

−1.05

Barley

Sant Kabir Nagar

District

Cereal crops

−2.42

−2.28

−8.35

−1.60

−1.78

−0.22

−9.31

−5.30

−5.88

−12.14

−1.26

Pigeon pea (arhar)

−1.87

−7.48

−3.47

7.61

0.00

4.78

−6.46

−12.98

1.96

−3.33

1.12

Groundnut

Oilseed crops

−0.77

0.30

0.15

1.45

−3.71

0.54

2.40

−4.85

−4.60

−1.01

−0.44

7.34

10.20

8.57

1.49

−4.75

−0.91

2.58

−7.25

−0.28

−2.09

1.14

Mustard and Sesamum rapeseeds (til)

−0.23

−1.28

−14.55

−0.81

0.00

0.00

−11.28

−1.54

0.00

−12.32

0.00

Soybean

2.14

−2.07

1.95

0.76

−2.40

1.62

−0.82

−4.14

−5.41

3.17

−0.85

Potato

0.73

−4.79

−6.11

0.08

−5.27

−4.34

2.59

−3.17

7.96

−1.54

−2.00

Sugarcane

Cash crops

−6.11

3.00

Bulandshahr

Chandauli

Chitrakoot

2.88

−17.88

−6.02

6.02

−2.43

3.61

−6.06

−2.48

Deoria

Etah

0.54

−6.96

3.82

−0.15

−6.86

2.84

−25.98

−12.43

Bijnor

Budaun

−0.42

−22.80

2.46

−4.12

−0.39

−11.27

−14.65

Bareilly

Basti

−3.12

−3.47

−5.93

−14.79

Bara Banki

0.89

−12.27

2.55

−15.72

0.14

−5.61

4.92

2.98

−4.32

−1.94

Ballia

−6.54

−8.60

Banda

1.11

−10.54

Baghpat

Bahraich

2.02

−30.36

−3.24

−0.05

Auraiya

Azamgarh

−0.68

−1.18

−0.39

0.13

−1.94

−5.49

−1.30

−2.49

Allahabad

Ambedkar Nagar

−16.51

−3.43

−7.84

Aligarh

Balrampur

−2.90

−11.73

−0.74

−2.81

Agra

3.66

Maize

Pearl millet (bajra)

Barley

District

Cereal crops

−2.08

0.73

−2.81

0.39

9.47

1.30

−1.70

−0.25

−0.13

2.63

0.28

2.32

1.28

3.30

1.31

1.44

2.63

1.12

0.85

10.28

14.10

Rice

−25.47

−10.68

−2.46

−1.20

−13.17

−14.51

−8.31

−9.21

−19.83

−6.93

−2.00

−1.96

0.69

−15.32

−11.26

−5.78

−5.29

−3.97

−6.59

−17.59

−10.14

−2.19

1.37

−0.01

1.92

0.54

0.58

1.03

−0.33

1.37

2.64

1.54

1.31

1.58

−0.14

0.96

1.68

1.92

1.39

−0.01

0.20

0.65

Sorghum (jowar) Wheat

−0.28

−10.10

4.29

−0.97

4.32

12.05

−1.06

0.46

11.34

2.78

−0.13

1.67

−3.53

2.67

2.41

−3.42

−1.12

−4.07

2.30

1.65

−4.54

−15.15

−12.54

4.40

−2.09

−21.07

−16.65

−18.13

−10.36

−18.55

−12.54

−0.04

−9.76

−5.69

−20.95

−23.21

−2.93

−4.50

−5.41

−6.41

−29.14

−12.97

Pulse crops Black gram (urad) Gram

−11.12

−9.29

4.01

1.13

−3.07

−2.22

−9.87

−0.31

−9.43

−12.01

5.59

−14.25

−3.44

−2.98

−5.22

−7.05

8.83

−7.90

0.87

−4.83

−0.72

5.08

−8.95

0.21

1.07

−4.81

−0.80

−6.88

−1.32

−4.47

−2.81

−0.84

1.08

4.03

1.19

−11.37

−3.55

−2.11

−0.65

3.40

0.26

−0.86

−41.96

−3.91

3.62

0.68

−8.78

−8.44

−16.40

−2.45

−0.18

−0.23

5.77

0.09

3.01

2.05

−16.95

−1.09

−21.45

0.74

−3.22

−19.50

−18.09

Green gram Lentil (moong) (masoor) Pea

−4.20

−6.47

−2.33

−0.59

0.02

−8.90

−18.62

−6.65

−17.36

−7.75

−3.74

−2.00

−0.83

−6.59

1.83

−1.66

−4.21

−2.66

−4.72

−1.42

−15.45

Pigeon pea (arhar)

7.38

2.04

4.36

−20.65

−9.20

−2.65

−7.68

−21.20

−3.73

−5.69

−5.02

−11.92

3.36

−2.58

0.00

0.12

−8.24

−19.00

−11.09

13.27

−14.02

Groundnut

−2.09

−0.54

1.66

0.70

0.61

6.10

6.64

0.77

1.45

3.58

−1.28

2.21

1.57

−0.66

5.07

6.82

0.83

2.21

−1.69

−2.47

−2.50

−5.74

−7.83

12.82

−6.44

−6.00

1.67

−14.62

−3.72

−0.04

−0.72

2.07

0.00

0.00

−6.12

−13.22

−0.90

8.47

−1.63

−3.15 2.70

−16.96

0.00

0.00

18.88

0.00

0.46

−0.85

0.00

−17.41

0.00

−3.61

18.90

−4.23

0.00

0.56

−2.18

−2.91

27.71

−1.81

−6.99

0.34

−1.97

0.14

−0.64

0.93

−2.53

1.54

−1.72

−2.38

−0.06

−4.23

−1.12

1.42

0.84

0.74

1.16

−5.39

0.67

5.89

−0.02

−2.38

9.85

7.96

−21.91

−4.07

−4.48

−3.76

0.90

−0.50

−0.21

2.62

0.64

−2.70

−1.81

5.86

−4.23

4.28

1.86

−1.41

−5.92

1.37

−5.90

−2.28

−9.35

Sugarcane

Cash crops

Mustard and Sesamum rapeseeds (til) Soybean Potato

Oilseed crops

Table 5.20  District-wise growth rate per annum in production of different crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

1.24

−20.04

0.90

−2.41

−2.02

Gorakhpur

Hamirpur

4.79

0.32

−2.80

−3.54

1.69

Kanpur Dehat

Kanpur Nagar

4.99

−7.52

−4.62

9.85

6.31

−4.26

−3.34

5.73

−3.46

2.16

4.44

−0.30

−2.40

−2.27

Jaunpur

Jhansi

JPN

−0.36

−1.37

1.41

Jalaun

Kannauj

0.09

−1.68

−1.10

4.63

−7.94

Hardoi

−28.23

−2.47

−1.99

1.74

−8.07

Ghazipur

Gonda

−20.78

−13.74

4.76

−17.27

4.37

−19.89

−3.21

−3.69

−2.98

Fatehpur

Firozabad

−2.96

−9.15

−2.96

−4.43

Farrukhabad

−14.22

−6.13

−0.78

−0.97

Faizabad

1.86

GBN

−3.33

−7.83

Etawah

Pearl millet (bajra)

Ghaziabad

Maize

Barley

District

Cereal crops

3.53

−0.46

2.68

−1.82

14.13

1.76

−0.61

2.76

−17.34

1.70

0.25

1.21

4.74

3.50

4.96

0.99

−0.22

−0.09

0.55

Rice

2.44

−1.03

−8.30

−21.33

−7.79

−0.56

−3.27

−5.73

−5.51

−24.54

−28.49

0.94

−21.36

−23.73

−2.87

−4.73

−7.42

−1.27

−11.89

3.84

1.01

0.97

0.22

1.54

2.32

2.77

2.67

2.75

2.03

−0.04

2.17

0.17

−2.24

1.71

2.84

−1.60

0.51

−0.19

Sorghum (jowar) Wheat

4.31

−2.20

−0.72

8.62

6.10

1.00

0.79

3.17

−0.52

−9.62

2.87

0.83

5.73

−0.52

4.44

0.30

−0.05

0.08

−3.71

3.77

−0.29

−6.02

−9.81

−0.31

−2.44

−3.11

5.34

2.98

−3.79

−5.54

2.78

0.01

5.20

4.00 −3.97

−2.42

−5.94

2.39

−0.37

−0.65

−1.45

−0.56

10.20

−0.89

−1.94

8.82

18.62

4.55

1.71

−9.12

−2.47

3.00

−2.07

1.78

−2.82

−8.15

−1.80

−1.20

−11.75

−16.13

−2.30

3.20

2.77

−0.29

−10.64

0.05

−8.69

−9.61

−8.89

−0.20

0.06

2.25

−4.29

−6.89

−3.87

−2.84

−1.47

−32.17

−10.84

−10.93

−1.56

−6.36

−3.01

−21.70

Green gram Lentil (moong) (masoor) Pea

−16.90

−9.66

−19.09

−5.53

−22.29

−28.04

−10.35

0.80

−9.16

−6.49

−8.85

Pulse crops Black gram (urad) Gram

1.48

−4.62

−5.56

−4.71

−7.48

−1.36

−3.92

−10.43

−1.50

−8.51

−6.59

0.09

−3.47

−4.33

−1.46

−4.08

−6.31

−5.88

−6.69

Pigeon pea (arhar)

7.29

−20.49

3.65

2.83

−2.97

−3.26

−14.58

−1.61

−10.01

3.89

−21.60

−4.17

0.00

0.00

28.54

−0.87

−1.68

−14.94

−0.27

Groundnut

1.75

−2.13

−2.98

3.88

3.23

5.14

1.18

−2.81

8.05

0.29

−0.06

2.76

−3.97

−9.36

−2.26

0.92

−3.66

0.57

0.15

0.66

−3.06

−1.92

−1.49

26.39

2.79

12.10

6.98

17.08

−0.04

2.66

−4.06

−2.95

−0.61

6.25

2.10

−3.31

2.73

6.11

4.20

−10.30

2.11

−3.40

−7.35

0.69

−0.49

−1.77

−2.43

3.39

−1.20

−5.51

8.58

−3.11

−5.30

−3.97

−4.56

−0.86

−0.02

2.87

−9.21

(continued)

−0.28

2.50

−2.32

2.91

−1.61

3.12

1.97

0.79

1.13

−0.36

0.01

−0.73

−6.61

7.19

3.93

−1.09

−0.75

5.75

2.93

−2.49

0.00

−7.98

0.00

−23.43

−18.88

−22.63

−1.66

−16.11

0.00

0.00

0.77

−1.93

−6.62

0.00

0.00

−0.81

Sugarcane

Cash crops

Mustard and Sesamum rapeseeds (til) Soybean Potato

Oilseed crops

−2.59

−17.16

−0.94

−9.84

−6.68

−10.92

−8.08

−8.47

−14.33

−4.55

−2.46

−22.51

Moradabad

Muzaffar nagar

Pilibhit

Pratapgarh

Rae Bareli

Rampur

−4.61

−2.86

−5.14

−17.84

−10.86

0.38

−1.48

−6.02

−1.75

Mirzapur

−0.06

1.60

0.78

0.30

−1.85

0.26

−1.03

−0.10

0.62

−8.71

−10.84

−3.20

−15.72

1.14

Mau

2.71

4.39

4.72

−7.95

−12.70

−6.69

−3.16

−24.53

−4.50

−14.32

−1.06

−20.38

−14.76

−13.04

−3.61

−2.51

−16.54

−0.06

−5.43

−5.53

−20.27

−11.11

−8.63

−2.18

39.04

1.41

0.84

1.59

2.02

−2.29

0.17

0.23

−0.84

1.74

1.13

2.45

2.49

−0.36

−0.46

1.19

4.53

1.65

2.02

2.30

2.18

Sorghum (jowar) Wheat

6.83

−0.52

−7.50

4.50

−5.62

−3.47

−5.87

Mainpuri

Mathura

−18.72

0.37

2.28

1.35

−9.31

−12.01

−4.88

0.01

−0.43

4.29

3.12

Rice

−5.68

0.32

−2.27

12.34

Pearl millet (bajra)

Meerut

8.52

0.32

6.45

−5.05

Mahoba

−2.64

−9.48

Mahamaya Nagar

Mahrajganj

1.49

−3.68

8.18

−10.95

Lalitpur

8.53

−3.25

Kushinagar

Lucknow

7.47

−1.44

−4.03

−4.79

Kaushambi

9.06

−5.26

Kanshiram Nagar

Kheri

Maize

Barley

District

Cereal crops

Table 5.20 (continued)

15.01

−2.32

0.58

−4.13

−7.64

14.48

0.06

0.96

−4.94

−4.82

2.22

−5.17

9.23

2.14

1.51

12.02

−6.59

0.13

3.49

10.80

−16.65

−0.77

−5.72

−17.40

−18.78

−13.85

−1.28

−20.38

−1.61

−19.78

−3.16

−13.57

2.81

−24.91

−6.35

−4.43

−8.95

−10.03

−0.96

−8.38

Pulse crops Black gram (urad) Gram

−5.57

−1.65

−5.62

−9.65

−11.99

−4.09

−5.98

−5.48

−4.28

1.79

−1.05

−4.19

4.71

−3.86

−4.00

3.14

−2.68

−3.50

13.36

2.00

−6.21

−0.80

1.47

−5.48

−9.41

−5.95

−0.14

−3.34

1.69

−8.40

6.45

−5.03

−0.13

0.31

4.83

−0.40

−2.64

−1.91

6.28

9.87

−3.59

−4.80

−1.59

8.12

−12.04

−11.78

−1.39

−13.21

−1.88

−22.89

−4.67

−3.75

−5.11

−19.47

−8.99

9.11

−4.16

−2.81

−2.51

−45.90

Green gram Lentil (moong) (masoor) Pea

−21.28

−8.73

−5.30

−27.15

−6.21

−7.81

−1.88

1.40

−3.44

−3.65

−5.12

−11.35

−3.53

−2.00

−10.89

−15.57

−5.46

−8.09

−5.16

3.82

Pigeon pea (arhar)

2.78

−8.93

−1.63

3.86

−21.83

−5.60

5.59

0.00

−0.86

−2.39

10.43

1.56

−2.74

5.26

−10.33

6.59

9.41

−0.12

−2.20

15.56

Groundnut

−4.30

−0.42

0.97

4.34

2.25

−4.05

2.10

3.77

4.11

2.38

0.88

−3.87

1.15

−4.47

1.92

17.08

−0.09

1.10

3.93

2.40

−0.74

4.26

−4.56

−0.55

1.97

5.70

0.45

0.00

−2.95

−7.22

−2.26

1.56

11.41

3.96

−0.41

9.06

4.65

−2.02

1.09

18.36

17.09

0.00

0.00

33.42

−2.23

0.00

−5.25

0.00

−1.43

−1.78

0.00

1.55

−1.89

0.00

−1.84

7.48

0.00

−4.78

0.00

0.00

−4.06

−1.91

−1.81

−3.71

−1.98

−1.64

−0.55

−3.02

−3.79

6.18

3.43

0.64

1.91

9.67

−1.94

0.04

−0.10

0.98

0.77

1.61

−0.87

−3.81

−3.51

2.02

0.54

−2.53

−2.11

−0.04

−3.08

−14.42

−3.29

−0.30

6.49

−5.03

−4.64

−9.36

0.00

2.60

−2.68

2.60

Sugarcane

Cash crops

Mustard and Sesamum rapeseeds (til) Soybean Potato

Oilseed crops

−14.97

−1.83

−1.59

6.48

−1.58

−8.73

−1.95

−2.40

−0.08

−6.50

−0.62

1.52

−5.33

−28.88

−11.59

−2.38

Sahara npur

Sant Kabir Nagar

Shahjaha npur

Shrawasti

Siddharth nagar

Sitapur

Sonbhadra

0.47

2.83

1.22

−2.22

1.53

−2.20

−0.40

−5.14

2.10

3.01

2.39

1.65

1.27

−1.79

Rice

−3.74

1.62

−6.10

−5.30

−1.65

1.50

−6.32

−13.00

−8.04

−5.26

−5.73

−0.90

1.50

−0.11

2.82

−1.93

−0.10

3.12

2.63

3.60

0.52

1.54

2.16

0.24

Sorghum (jowar) Wheat

4.90

−1.20

9.66

−2.59

−2.52

0.11

3.85

−7.33

4.48

1.25

−12.96

−2.29

−1.71

−2.89

−2.39

−4.93

−6.80

0.74

−10.09

−34.13

−13.46

−16.48

−4.84

−14.39

Pulse crops Black gram (urad) Gram

−0.71

−3.15

6.05

−5.13

−0.62

−6.87

−11.14

−13.19

−10.47

−0.52

−9.02

−6.32

−0.19

−6.16

0.75

0.81

−8.77

1.21

−0.16

−4.25

−2.29

5.13

−1.08

−6.17

−0.95

−0.51

−7.14

−2.37

−4.44

−1.16

1.56

−4.39

−1.42

−2.72

−0.01

−15.94

Green gram Lentil (moong) (masoor) Pea

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

−1.99

−0.48

5.41

−2.99

Varanasi

Uttar Pradesh

1.85

−1.63

−7.49

Unnao

−1.67

−7.99

−8.26

−2.15

−5.02

−3.28

SRNB

Sultanpur

−0.96

−0.37

−22.18

−13.28

−24.19

Maize

Barley

Pearl millet (bajra)

District

Cereal crops

−3.65

−3.36

−9.72

−6.28

−0.84

0.27

−9.33

−3.94

−7.28

−11.79

−0.13

−17.64

Pigeon pea (arhar)

−1.36

−4.10

−1.86

6.47

0.00

8.57

−7.35

−12.64

1.29

−0.24

1.85

−1.73

Groundnut

0.23

4.72

0.66

−1.71

−0.80

5.02

4.38

−3.04

−4.87

−0.80

1.04

0.07

8.80

12.52

7.45

0.58

−1.14

4.07

6.37

−1.61

0.48

−0.82

1.63

−5.84

2.27

−0.81

−12.37

−0.81

0.00

0.00

−8.59

−1.40

0.00

−10.19

0.00

−1.84

2.79

−2.11

3.11

0.78

−0.98

3.10

1.45

−0.32

−3.69

4.15

2.69

−4.18

0.81

−3.31

−4.15

0.26

−2.52

−2.52

3.38

−2.85

8.30

−1.25

−1.83

0.60

Sugarcane

Cash crops

Mustard and Sesamum rapeseeds (til) Soybean Potato

Oilseed crops

Agra Aligarh Allahabad Ambedkar Nagar Auraiya Azamgarh Baghpat Bahraich Ballia Balrampur Banda Bara Banki Bareilly Basti Bijnor Budaun Buland shahr Chandauli Chitrakoot Deoria

District

4.67

−9.71

1.59

−3.65

0.83

4.44

2.64

0.51

1.76

2.55

−2.49

2.01

3.27

3.68

−3.54

4.39

0.08

3.14

4.63

2.74

0.66

2.75

2.57

0.80

3.91

−9.15

1.59

3.24

1.16

0.83

−15.67

2.28

1.44

0.06

3.22

−0.30

6.78

1.40

−1.17

−0.54

−1.13

2.16

0.88

1.78

1.29

2.81

1.11

−6.68

2.07

2.12

2.75

2.90

2.79

0.01

2.55

1.90

−0.28

2.31

1.54

Maize

Pearl millet (bajra)

0.47

Barley

Cereal crops

0.98

0.23

1.61

0.30

1.45

0.01

0.91

0.47

0.57

−0.05

0.27

0.91

−1.13

−6.22

−0.40

1.67

1.58

2.38

9.35

0.50

−0.37

1.18

0.24

−0.18

0.88

0.76

0.39

1.47

1.56

1.83

0.49

3.43

0.37

1.43

2.98

2.89

0.77

3.17

2.12

0.64

4.61

0.65

3.37

1.03

−1.37

1.88

0.26

1.69

1.01

−1.60

1.27

1.02

1.61

0.46

1.93

1.32

0.09

2.24

−0.53

1.14

1.90

3.50

1.32

−1.18

1.92

0.12

3.33

0.77

−0.87

2.45

2.17

−0.20

−1.41

0.15

−6.15

1.69

3.00

2.21

1.64

2.59

2.33

−1.14

0.74

1.62

1.21 −1.97

−0.57 −0.70

1.85

1.05

3.16

−2.70

1.79

−1.20 −1.08

−6.44 −1.03

1.33

0.33 2.07

1.61

3.38

−1.20

1.59

1.75

−1.04

−1.13

−0.20

−1.54

−1.42

−1.58 −3.25

−2.38

4.84

−1.50

−0.42

4.37

−1.17

−0.35

0.36

2.20

1.82

2.53

1.99

2.39

−0.06

−1.02

−1.44

1.52

1.36

−2.38

1.18

0.02 −1.50

1.64

1.52

0.00

1.67

−1.14

−0.18

1.07

1.78

1.66

−2.02

−11.93

−7.88

2.52

−7.62

Mustard and Groundnut rapeseeds

Oilseed crops

1.93

−0.46

−1.23

1.08

1.00

0.23

−4.25

−1.91 1.46

−0.05

1.44

−2.27

1.11

0.17

−1.17

−0.11

−5.15

2.66

−3.07

Pigeon pea (arhar)

2.48

1.57

2.56

−0.35

1.25

−0.64

1.09

0.21

−1.31

0.80

−0.02

1.88

−1.26

2.62

−1.22

0.25

1.36

2.45

1.75

−0.07

2.40

0.24

−1.75

−1.57

3.68

3.05

Green gram Lentil (moong) (masoor) Pea

−0.17

2.36

1.87

0.94

0.45

0.83

0.01

0.05

−0.07

0.33

0.87

1.33

0.61

−7.20

3.14

Sorghum (jowar)

1.56

1.68

1.27

1.17

2.00

0.57

0.99

1.68

0.79

1.93

1.55

1.33

Rice

Pulse crops Black gram Wheat (urad) Gram

Table 5.21  District-wise growth rate per annum in yield of different crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

1.17

1.33

0.11

0.51

−0.35

2.74

1.09

0.13

2.05

1.80

−1.25

5.06

1.60

0.33

1.19

−3.93

1.59

−1.98

−0.78

−2.41

Sesamum (til)

−5.32

0.62

0.00

0.00

−2.22

−9.80

−7.01

1.08

0.95

2.71

0.00

0.00

8.90

0.00

−5.16

−5.88

0.00

−11.79

−2.07

−10.36

Soybean

2.21

0.75

−0.93

−0.61

0.03

0.96

3.98

1.81

−0.91

0.65

1.89

0.84

1.72

−0.85

1.90

2.19

1.08

−1.56

0.32

−1.37

Potato

0.31

−0.45

2.11

−0.10

−1.27

−0.36

0.20

−0.08

0.60

0.94

−0.54

0.65

0.89

0.77

0.81

0.07

0.75

1.60

−0.12

−0.67

Sugarcane

Cash crops

Etah Etawah Faizabad Farrukhabad Fatehpur Firozabad GBN Ghaziabad Ghazipur Gonda Gorakhpur Hamirpur Hardoi Jalaun Jaunpur Jhansi JPN Kannauj Kanpur Dehat Kanpur Nagar

District

0.86

3.21

2.79

1.91

1.43

0.00

−9.39

0.94

0.59

2.48

2.35

1.45

1.67

2.01

1.50

1.56

1.21

−14.03

1.26

−0.21

0.57

3.55

3.83

1.12

0.06

−0.66

−0.30

0.18

−0.05

−0.09

2.18

1.19

0.67

1.36

1.18

1.27

1.74

1.24

2.17

−0.78

5.59

0.45

0.81

4.28

2.01

−1.24

1.57

1.58

0.53

0.64

2.92

2.22

0.39

1.62

0.81

−3.43

4.41

0.98

1.49

1.18

3.52

1.53

7.18

1.18

0.57

0.59

−5.64

−2.54

5.72

1.15

1.28

2.02

Rice

2.67

2.29

1.83

1.33

3.61

Pearl millet (bajra)

1.29

2.92

Maize

1.48

Barley

Cereal crops

0.81

1.35

0.99

0.07

0.76

−13.21

2.92

1.84

1.60

1.17

1.15

1.06

0.54

−0.04

1.27

0.53

1.49

2.23

1.61

−9.41

−0.34

1.07

−11.17

1.30

−3.19

3.22

0.96

1.38

1.63

0.40

0.32

0.42

0.34

−5.50

6.46

2.60

0.99

1.94

0.99

−6.27

Sorghum (jowar)

−0.36

0.76

1.91

3.17

1.14

1.70

1.33

−7.78

1.69

1.62

1.60

−0.37

0.59

2.38

0.37

0.60

0.28

2.22

1.46

0.96

−2.32

1.48

0.40

0.25

−1.54

−1.09

0.25

1.31

−8.58

−2.82

3.08

−1.07

−0.03

0.01

−0.64

−0.62

−0.65

1.67

1.53

1.85

0.43

−0.20

−1.08

2.46

1.87

−13.53

0.74

0.91

1.53

−1.83

−0.24

−1.42

−2.91

−1.14

−2.28

0.40

−2.70

−1.03

−1.40

0.48

−3.29

0.73

2.16

−5.49

−0.57 0.00

−1.43

0.52

3.46

Pigeon pea (arhar)

0.90

−0.57

−2.78 −1.52

−13.83

4.48

−0.20

3.08

2.31

1.83

−0.02

−0.16 1.05

0.11

2.55

2.51

2.25

−0.91

3.11

4.11

1.89

1.80

−1.97

2.80

0.32

Green gram Lentil (moong) (masoor) Pea

−0.69

0.67

1.02

1.45

−2.05

−4.08

2.36

1.47

1.48

2.21

1.40

0.13

2.64

3.31

0.45

1.00

3.97

1.06

−1.10

2.41

5.44

1.27

1.54

1.42

1.05

2.78

Pulse crops Black gram Wheat (urad) Gram

−0.47

−9.31

−0.35

3.73

−1.13

−3.87

1.04

3.46

−1.31

1.85

1.17

0.19

0.73

1.14

−0.42

1.67

0.04

0.48

1.22

−0.35

1.05

4.90

−7.13

−4.20

−1.19

0.71

2.62

−0.15

1.64

−0.21

2.39

3.11

−2.66

0.00

2.13

−1.04

−0.30

−8.29

−1.88

−1.29

Mustard and Groundnut rapeseeds

Oilseed crops

−2.65

−2.66

−3.80

1.55

3.28

1.10

1.31

2.62

1.05

1.14

1.21

1.96

−0.16

0.50

2.78

−3.07

0.00

3.21

−0.27

5.58

−6.23

3.76

−6.09

−10.86

0.00

2.73

1.63

−5.54

−0.69 1.64

−8.65

0.00

0.00

−3.32

−0.63

Soybean

−1.29

−2.66

2.75

−2.67

−1.17

Sesamum (til)

−0.08

1.10

0.73

0.43

−1.33

1.00

−1.50

0.69

−0.35

0.07

0.46

0.69

−5.32

0.50

0.45

1.23

0.54

0.76

0.59

0.35

Sugarcane

(continued)

−2.47

−0.19

0.14

−0.18

0.71

−0.97

0.76

1.66

0.65

2.18

1.90

1.43

0.94

−0.85

0.29

0.68

−0.27

1.44

0.42

2.44

Potato

Cash crops

Kanshiram Nagar Kaushambi Kheri Kushinagar Lalitpur Lucknow Mahamaya Nagar Mahoba Mahrajganj Mainpuri Mathura Mau Meerut Mirzapur Moradabad Muzaffar nagar Pilibhit Pratapgarh Rae Bareli Rampur

District

3.25

−0.16

2.94

2.57

7.91

1.95

2.10

3.40

1.03

2.03

−2.09

0.75

−0.32

1.44

0.27

2.74

2.45

1.46

0.37

3.09

0.96

0.48

−3.31

−2.21

2.94

0.42

1.71

−9.84

−1.75

3.21

−2.48

2.76

−0.59

1.56

1.28

−0.26

−5.23

3.80

−2.50

1.57

−1.27

−0.06

0.14

0.74

0.60

1.05

1.61

−8.94

1.02

2.09

0.57

4.17

1.53

−0.18

0.83

0.31

1.40

−18.78

1.44

0.70

0.18

0.21

−1.72

−2.72

1.23

1.54

−2.22

0.33

1.31

−11.46

−9.84

2.60

0.66

0.81

−10.80

0.72

1.52

0.73

1.19

1.70

4.35

4.30

1.76

−0.40

−0.67

−7.01

0.04

1.20

1.31

1.03

2.23

1.12

1.85

2.80

−1.77

0.77

2.79

−2.75

3.83

1.89

0.82

1.87

1.64

4.62

0.96

−0.03

3.99

2.59

2.75

0.65

4.39

1.35

3.82

−2.03

1.73

−0.45

−1.56

−1.80

−0.82

0.85

1.00

2.92

2.74

2.74

1.23

1.38

−0.20

−1.19

−0.29

2.14

−0.76

−2.21

0.34

1.51

1.68

5.35

3.96

2.90

−0.29

4.47

1.18

−8.36

−1.56

1.48

−1.62

−0.53

0.51

−0.01

2.10

3.07

4.91

−1.48

−3.38

4.97

−0.72

−0.55

1.50 −0.24

−1.84

1.13

−1.68

14.61

0.33

2.12

−0.37

1.70

0.93

−1.24

−1.64

0.00

1.75

−0.99

−3.14

0.67

−1.12

1.42

0.67

0.81

−2.86

−1.37

−2.57

0.52

2.73

−2.57

0.53

−0.21

−33.57

Green gram Lentil (moong) (masoor) Pea

1.86

2.04

1.81

1.52

1.55

1.05

Pulse crops Black gram Wheat (urad) Gram

1.37

1.48

2.37

0.06

−12.82

0.17

2.89

0.56

−0.54

0.89

4.26

1.67

0.46

0.69

3.58

2.42

1.43

12.80

Sorghum (jowar)

1.43

0.34

−0.83

2.67

1.73

Rice

−0.16

8.40

6.59

Maize

Pearl millet (bajra)

1.07

Barley

Cereal crops

Table 5.21 (continued)

−1.15

−3.45

−0.78

−2.29

0.74

−2.83

−1.15

1.79

0.15

−4.59

−5.57

3.05

−8.01

−7.72

4.30

0.60

3.17 0.35

0.08

−0.11

0.29

2.05

−0.97

−3.67

2.71

1.08

1.52

−11.90

1.63 −0.39

−0.32

−2.45

1.96

1.55

2.28

0.31

2.24

1.05

1.09

3.94

0.40

−1.67

10.32

−1.68

1.89

1.89

−0.71

1.20

10.26

Mustard and Groundnut rapeseeds

Oilseed crops

1.44

2.09

−0.87

−3.78

1.54

−0.12

−3.43

−1.13

0.26

−6.77

7.69

Pigeon pea (arhar)

2.88

1.50

−1.97

−0.78

−0.40

3.21

1.39

−0.65

1.16

5.37

−3.75

−2.95

9.92

−8.62

−0.75

−6.91

0.00

−2.36

−3.24

0.00

−2.43 −2.39

2.28

4.56

0.00

−8.39

1.55

0.00

−6.12

0.00

0.00

Soybean

0.72

−0.46

−1.89

1.90

1.99

0.85

1.85

−1.77

3.90

Sesamum (til)

−0.19

−1.36

0.21

0.18

2.13

−1.46

1.46

−0.42

0.32

0.66

1.04

2.23

1.01

−0.20

0.09

0.71

2.21

1.83

−0.35

−0.64

Potato

−0.17

−0.87

1.94

0.21

−0.11

−0.88

1.50

0.46

0.39

−1.32

−1.26

0.49

0.01

0.28

0.94

−1.50

0.38

0.81

3.79

2.30

Sugarcane

Cash crops

0.06

2.27

1.43

1.82

2.33

0.89

2.29

0.85

0.73

−4.64

−0.91

−1.96

1.21

3.04

0.71

0.58

1.42

−3.79

0.40

2.71

0.82

0.81

1.57

−2.39

0.28

3.34

1.97 1.39

1.15

2.14

1.58

1.16

0.68

1.96

0.19

3.30

−2.75

1.88

1.76

1.07

4.08

0.22

4.46

3.36

0.77

−6.90

0.54

1.52

2.37

1.08

0.71

2.85

−0.88

1.06

2.65

3.08

−1.36

0.75

0.61

2.17

−4.57

2.67

0.83

−5.68

0.53

0.21

0.88

−0.06

−0.60 1.57

−2.30 11.36 0.52

−1.26

1.66

−1.06

0.00

3.63

0.71

−0.95

0.39

−0.66

3.20

0.37

1.01

4.40

0.51

−3.12

3.02

4.46

1.48

1.94

1.91

−0.28

0.22

0.23

Mustard and Groundnut rapeseeds

Oilseed crops

−1.10

−1.50

−4.75

0.95

0.49

−1.79 −0.85

1.15

−0.01

1.44

−1.48

0.39

−2.94

Pigeon pea (arhar)

0.47

0.53

−0.16

0.70

1.55

−0.77

−2.94

−8.91

0.22

−1.28

0.41

−1.30

0.04

1.12

−0.31

Green gram Lentil (moong) (masoor) Pea

−3.07 −10.55

5.44

1.30

0.91

Pulse crops Black gram Wheat (urad) Gram

−14.63

−13.16

0.45

1.46

−4.25

Sorghum (jowar)

−0.83

−2.47

−0.01

0.42

1.09

1.26

0.34

−0.44

0.09

5.43

0.43

2.94

−1.20

1.48

1.48

1.92

−0.96

−18.73

0.66

4.71

0.62

−1.51

0.30

1.37

0.37

−0.31

Rice

0.00

0.70

3.12

1.64

−5.15

2.66

−0.57

Maize

0.34

Barley

Pearl millet (bajra)

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

Saharanpur Shahjaha npur Shrawasti Siddharth nagar Sitapur SKN Sonbhadra SRNB Sultanpur Unnao Varanasi Uttar Pradesh

District

Cereal crops

1.36

2.10

−1.03

−0.90

3.79

5.02

0.49

3.69

−3.11

0.76

1.29

−0.67

Sesamum (til)

2.50

−5.07

−7.91

−5.52

0.00

0.00

0.00

−4.39

−1.04

0.81

2.43

−2.36

Soybean

0.64

−0.04

1.13

0.03

1.46

1.45

3.57

2.29

3.98

1.82

0.96

−0.75

Potato

0.08

1.55

2.08

0.18

2.90

1.90

0.17

0.77

0.33

0.31

0.30

−0.18

Sugarcane

Cash crops

206

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Production In terms of production of bajra, the districts of Kanshiram Nagar and Kanpur Nagar were listed on top. Very low negative growth of below −17.63% per annum in production of bajra was seen in the districts of Pilibhit Bijnor, Mahrajganj, Gorakhpur, GBN, Siddharthnagar, Basti, Saharanpur and Gonda (Table 5.20). Yield From Table 5.21, it can be observed that the only district of Kanshiram Nagar had very high growth in terms of yield of bajra. There were in total 21 districts attaining a high growth in between 2.06 and 7.34% per annum during 1995–1996 to 2014– 2015. Very low negative growth below −8.51% per  annum was recorded in the districts of Muzaffarnagar, Bijnor, Lalitpur, Gonda, Basti, Siddharthnagar and Mahrajganj during this period. 5.3.1.4  Maize Area Maize crop recorded a decrease of −1.88% per annum in area from 1.06 million ha. during 1995–1996 to 0.67 million ha. during 2014–2015 (Table 5.17). The districts namely, Kaushambi and Mahoba recorded very high growth of 8.37 and 6.76%, respectively whereas high growth in between −1.36 and 5.33% per  annum was noticed in total of 16 districts. Medium growth between the range of −8.05 and −1.36% per annum was visible in 40 districts. Low growth rate to the tune of −14.74 to −8.05% per  annum was seen in 7 districts. There were 6 districts namely, Muzaffarnagar, Meerut, GBN, Ghaziabad, Bijnor and Baghpat marked with very low negative growth of below −14.74% per annum (Table 5.19). Production In the state, it showed a negative growth per annum to the tune of −0.48% during 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 (Table 5.20). Very high growth of above 7.35% per annum was recorded in the districts of Kanshiram Nagar, Kushinagar, Mahoba and Kaushambi during this period. Whereas, high (0.37 to 7.35 percent/annum), medium (−6.61 to 0.37 percent/annum), and low (−13.59 to −6.61 percent/annum) growth rates were seen in 8, 47 and 6 districts, respectively. Very low growth rate to the tune of below −13.59% per  annum was recorded in the districts namely, Meerut, Muzaffarnagar, GBN, Ghaziabad, Bijnor and Baghpat. Yield Average yield of maize showed a positive growth of 1.43% per annum in the state. The districts namely, Mahoba, Ambedkar Nagar and Kanshiram Nagar with the growth values of 7.91, 6.78 and 6.59%, respectively showed very high growth whereas, 2 districts namely, Hamirpur (−9.39%) and Bijnor (−9.71%) recorded very low negative growth per annum during this period. There were as many as 17, 34 and 15 districts which were characterized with high, medium and low growth, respectively (Table 5.21).

5.3 Trends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Crops: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

207

5.3.1.5  Sorghum (Jowar) Other cereal crops (jowar and barley) recorded a negative growth in area and production whereas, the growth in yield of barley was positive (0.89 percent/annum) during this period (Table 5.17). Very high growth in area and production of jowar was achieved by Kanshiram Nagar district with growth values of 43.90 and 39.04% per annum, respectively (Tables 5.19 and 5.20). The districts namely, Kanshiram Nagar (12.80%) and Balrampur (9.35%) recorded a very high growth per annum in yield of jowar during this period (Table  5.21). Comparatively, very low negative growth (below −23.40%) in area of jowar was seen in the districts of Gorakhpur, GBN, Pilibhit, Etah and Gonda. In the districts namely, GBN, Pilibhit, Gorakhpur, Etah and Gonda, growth in production of jowar was recorded as lowest. The districts of Gorakhpur, Muzaffarnagar, Meerut, Gonda, Pilibhit, Siddharthnagar, JPN and SKN with −9.41, −9.84, −10.80, −11.17, −11.46, −13.16, −13.21 and −14.63% per annum showed a negative and very low growth in yield during this period. 5.3.1.6  Barley The districts of Lalitpur, Jhansi, Mahoba, Varanasi and Hamirpur with 5.14, 4.48, 3.61, 3.00 and 2.57% per annum showed a very high growth in area under barley, whereas the districts of Lalitpur, Mahoba, Jhansi, Varanasi and Hamirpur recorded a very high growth (above 4.49%) per annum in terms of production of barley. The growth in yield of barley was highest in the district of Chitrakoot (4.63 percent/ annum), and the districts namely, Sultanpur, Muzaffarnagar, Moradabad, Balrampur, Basti and Rampur recorded a very low growth below −1.92% per annum in yield during the corresponding period (Tables 5.19, 5.20 and 5.21).

5.3.2  T  rends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Pulse Crops Area The growth in area and production of pulse crops in the state showed a declining trend being −1.09 and −0.95% per annum during the period from 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 whereas the growth in yield of pulse crops was positive to the tune of 0.14% per annum (Table 5.17). Table 5.22 and Fig. 5.13 reveals that the districts which showed very high growth rate (above 1.67 percent/annum) in area under pulse crops were namely, Moradabad, Lalitpur, Chitrakoot, Kanpur Nagar, JPN, Mahoba and Budaun. High growth (−1.28 to 1.67 percent/annum) in area was recorded by 13 districts whereas medium (−4.23 to −1.28 percent/annum) and low (−7.18 to −4.23 percent/annum) growth rates were seen in 31 and 18 districts

−1.28 to 1.67

Medium −4.23 to −1.28

High

Area Growth rate (percent/ Category annum) Very Above high 1.67

31

Balrampur, Ballia, Mirzapur, SKN, Bahraich, Hamirpur, Jalaun, Baghpat, Rae Bareli, Kushinagar, Allahabad, Bara Banki, Ambedkar Nagar, Varanasi, Sitapur, Hardoi, Kanpur Dehat, Azamgarh, Bareilly, Pratapgarh, Bulandshahr, Shrawasti, Auraiya, Meerut, Ghazipur, Mau, SRNB, Lucknow, Kheri, Faizabad and Mahrajganj

−4.13 to −0.83 31

1.09 to 2.69

Growth rate (percent/ annum) Above 2.69

Yield

−0.51 to Banda, Jaunpur, SKN, 1.09 Bareilly, Mirzapur, Azamgarh, Ambedkar Nagar, Baghpat, Hardoi, Ghazipur, Mau, Kheri, Mainpuri, Bulandshahr, Kanpur Dehat, Sitapur, Kaushambi, Varanasi, Shrawasti, SRNB, Hamirpur, Bara Banki, Sultanpur, Pratapgarh, Meerut, Lucknow, Kushinagar, Rae Bareli, Faizabad, Aligarh and Mathura

Production Growth rate (percent/ annum) No. Name of district No. Name of district Above 6 Moradabad, Kanshiram 7 Moradabad, Lalitpur, 2.48 Nagar, Lalitpur, JPN, Budaun Chitrakoot, Kanpur Nagar, and Kanpur Nagar JPN, Mahoba and Budaun −0.83 to 13 Shahjahanpur, Chitrakoot, 13 Unnao, Shahjahanpur, 2.48 Ballia, Sonbhadra, Mahoba, Fatehpur, Rampur, Jhansi, Unnao, Jhansi, Chandauli, Sonbhadra, Sultanpur, Banda, Balrampur, Bahraich, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, Rampur, Jalaun and Fatehpur Chandauli, Jaunpur and Kanshiram Nagar

29

21

Ballia, Mainpuri, Pilibhit, Mathura, Shahjahanpur, Aligarh, Bahraich, Bareilly, Jalaun, Mahamaya Nagar, Balrampur, Bijnor, Basti, Etah, Moradabad, Kheri, Mau, Lalitpur, Chandauli, JPN and Sonbhadra Azamgarh, Ghazipur, Budaun, Gonda, Firozabad, Ambedkar Nagar, Hardoi, GBN, SKN, SRNB, Bulandshahr, Kanpur Nagar, Jhansi, Kanpur Dehat, Siddharthnagar, Baghpat, Jaunpur, Shrawasti, Sitapur, Mirzapur, Rampur, Banda, Saharanpur, Varanasi, Lucknow, Faizabad, Farrukhabad, Gorakhpur and Kannauj

No. Name of district 1 Kanshiram Nagar

Table 5.22  District-wise growth rate per annum in area, production and yield of pulse crops in Uttar Pradesh, 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

208 5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

−7.18 to −4.23

2

18

Etah and Agra

Farrukhabad, Saharanpur, Mainpuri, Kannauj, GBN, Deoria, Aligarh, Basti, Gonda, Mathura, Mahamaya Nagar, Siddharthnagar, Muzaffarnagar, Etawah, Firozabad, Pilibhit, Gorakhpur and Bijnor Below −7.43

−7.43 to −4.13

3

18

Allahabad, Pilibhit, Auraiya, Basti, Mahamaya Nagar, Saharanpur, Farrukhabad, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Gonda, Mahrajganj, Firozabad, Ghaziabad, Bijnor, Kannauj, Siddharthnagar, Deoria, Gorakhpur and Etawah Etah, Muzaffarnagar and Agra

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

Very low Below −7.18

Low

17

Below−2.11 3

−2.11 to −0.51

Muzaffarnagar, Sultanpur and Ghaziabad

Bara Banki, Deoria, Fatehpur, Meerut, Unnao, Pratapgarh, Agra, Hamirpur, Etawah, Auraiya, Chitrakoot, Mahoba, Kushinagar, Mahrajganj, Rae Bareli, Kaushambi and Allahabad

5.3 Trends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Crops: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 209

210

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Fig. 5.13  Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in area, production and yield of pulse crops, 1995-­ 96 to 2014–2015

during this period. Very low negative growth below −7.18% per annum was visible in two districts namely, Etah and Agra. Production In terms of production of pulse crops, very high growth (above 2.48 percent/annum) was seen in the districts of Moradabad, Kanshiram Nagar, Lalitpur, Jyotiba Phule Nagar, Budaun and Kanpur Nagar. High growth between −0.83 and 2.48% per  annum was recorded in 13 districts whereas 31 districts recorded moderate growth (−4.13 to −0.83 percent/annum). Low negative growth between the range of −7.43 to −4.13% per annum in production of pulses was registered by 18 districts. The districts namely, Etah, Muzaffarnagar and Agra were at the bottom to show a very low growth during this period (Table 5.22 and Fig. 5.13). Yield Out of 71, about 60% districts of the state recorded a positive growth in yield of pulse crops during 1995–1996 to 2014–2015. Very high growth was seen in Kanshiram Nagar district. High, medium and low growth rates were visibly seen in 21, 29 and 17 districts, respectively (Table 5.22 and Fig. 5.13). Very low growth below −2.11% per  annum was observed in the districts namely, Muzaffarnagar, Sultanpur and Ghaziabad.

5.3 Trends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Crops: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

211

5.3.2.1  Gram Area The growth in area cultivated under gram crop in the state during 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 was negative at the rate of −2.76% per annum (Table 5.17). There were only 3 districts to record positive growth in area under gram. These were namely, Chitrakoot (3.34%), Kanpur Nagar (2.61%) and Mahoba (1.41%). Rest of the districts recorded a negative growth (Table 5.19). Production Similarly, there were very few districts namely, Chitrakoot, Kanpur Nagar, Mahoba, Fatehpur and Sonbhadra, which recorded a positive growth in production of gram during this period (Table 5.20). Yield In terms of growth in yield of gram during the same period, as many as 52 districts showed a positive growth (Table 5.21). 5.3.2.2  Urad Area Urad recorded a positive growth per annum in area (2.89%), production (4.90%) and yield (1.96%) during 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 (Tables 5.19, 5.20 and 5.21). The districts namely, Rampur, Moradabad, Mahoba, Lalitpur, Budaun, Bareilly, Ghaziabad and Kanshiram Nagar achieved a very high growth of above 6.47% per annum in area under urad crop during this period. High growth in between 1.58 and 6.47% per annum was recorded by 6 districts. There were 39 and 15 districts, respectively to show medium (−3.32 to 1.58 percent/annum) and low (−8.21 to −3.32 percent/annum) growth rates. The districts belonging to Purvanchal region namely, Gorakhpur, Deoria, SKN recorded a very low negative growth of below −8.21% per annum during this period. Production The growth in production of urad was highest in Rampur district (15.01 percent/ annum), followed by the districts of Moradabad, Budaun, Lalitpur, Bareilly, Kanshiram Nagar, Unnao and Mahoba, whereas high growth in between 3.68 and 9.21% per annum during this period was achieved by 9 districts and medium growth (−1.85 to 3.68 percent/annum) was seen in 34 districts. There were 16 districts which attained a low negative growth of −7.38 to −1.85% per annum, and the districts namely, Muzaffarnagar (−7.64%), Gorakhpur (−9.62%), Deoria (−10.10%) and SKN (−12.96%) recorded a very low negative growth (Table 5.20). Yield Yield of urad was the highest in Firozabad district (5.44 percent/annum), followed by Mainpuri (4.62), Balrampur (4.61), Shrawasti (4.46) and Kheri (4.39) during this period (Table 5.21). There were 20, 23 and 19 districts which recorded high, medium

212

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

and low negative growth between 2.63 to 4.31, 0.96 to 2.63, and −0.72 to 0.96% per annum, respectively. Very low negative growth below −0.72% per annum was seen in 4 districts namely, Ghaziabad, Rae Bareli, Sultanpur and Muzaffarnagar. 5.3.2.3  Lentil (Masoor) Area Masoor recorded a negative growth rates in area (−0.40 percent/annum) and production (−0.19 percent/annum), while the yield of masoor was positive with 0.21% during 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 (Table 5.17). In terms of growth in area, very high growth was recorded by the districts of Kanpur Nagar, Rae Bareli, Kaushambi and Chitrakoot with 18.18, 8.26, 8.09 and 7.10% per annum, respectively. High growth in between 0.98 and 6.45% per  annum was seen in 18 districts. Medium growth (−4.49 to 0.98 percent/annum) and low growth (−9.95 to −4.49 percent/annum) were visible in 30 and 14 districts, respectively. The districts which recorded very low negative growth below −9.95% per  annum were namely, JPN, Mathura, Baghpat, Etawah and GBN (Table 5.19). Production The districts namely, Kanpur Nagar and Kanshiram Nagar with 18.62 and 9.87% per annum recorded a very high growth (above 6.61 percent/annum) in production of masoor crop during 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 (Table 5.20). There were 16, 33 and 16 districts, respectively which were characterized with high (1.21 to 6.61 percent/annum), medium (−4.20 to 1.21% per annum) and low (−9.60 to −4.20 percent/annum) growth rates during this period. Very low negative growth being below −9.60% per annum was seen in the districts of Etawah, Baghpat, Ghaziabad and GBN with −10.64, −11.37, −11.75 and −16.13%, respectively. Yield Very high growth per annum of above 4.92% during 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 in yield of masoor was seen in the districts namely, Kanshiram Nagar and Mahamaya Nagar. There were 14 districts which achieved high growth in between 1.69 and 4.92% per annum during this period. Medium (−1.53 to 1.69 percent/annum) and low (−4.76 to −1.53 percent/annum) growth rates were recorded in 39 and 12 districts, respectively. The districts namely, Chitrakoot, Rae Bareli, Ghaziabad and SRNB showed a very low negative growth (−4.76 percent/annum) in yield of masoor to the tune of −6.44, −8.36, −8.58 and −8.91%, respectively (Table 5.21). 5.3.2.4  Pea Very high growth rate in area and production of pea was recorded in the district of Banda and Lalitpur with 7.83 and 9.11% per annum, respectively during this period, whereas no district showed very high growth (above 6.41 percent/annum) in respect of yield of pea crop during this period (Tables 5.19, 5.20 and 5.21). Very low growth

5.3 Trends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Crops: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

213

per annum (below −20.35 percent/annum) in area of pea was observed in Auraiya, Etawah, Ghaziabad, Mathura, Etah and Kanshiram Nagar districts. In terms of production it was lowest in Etawah (−21.70 percent/annum), Mathura (−22.89 percent/ annum), Ghaziabad (−32.17 percent/annum), Etah (−41.96 percent/annum) and Kanshiram Nagar (−45.90 percent/annum). Whereas, the growth in yield of pea was recorded the lowest in the districts namely, Ghaziabad, Etah and Kanshiram Nagar to the tune of −13.53, −13.83 and −33.57%, respectively during this period. 5.3.2.5  Pigeon Pea (Arhar) During 1995–1996 to 2014–2015, the district of Kaushambi showed highest growth of 1.73 percent/annum in area under arhar crop, whereas very high growth in production was recorded in the district of Kanshiram Nagar with 3.82%. Yield of arhar crop recorded very high growth in the districts of Kanshiram Nagar (7.69%) and Etah (3.46%). Contrary to this, very low negative growth in area below −13.80% per  annum was seen in the districts of Bijnor, Bareilly, Saharanpur, Rampur and Pilibhit. In production, there were 7 districts namely, Agra, Lalitpur, Bareilly, Saharanpur, Bijnor, Rampur and Pilibhit, and in yield, the districts of Banda, Sultanpur, Allahabad, Fatehpur and Kaushambi showed very low negative growth during this period. 5.3.2.6  Green Gram (Moong) The districts showed a very high growth of above 5.02% per annum in area under moong were namely, Kaushambi, Fatehpur, Auraiya, Etawah and Banda. Very low growth per  annum in area was seen in the districts of Bareilly, SKN, Shrawasti, Siddharthnagar and Balrampur with growth values of −12.97, −13.16, −16.51, −17.42 and −17.61% (Table 5.19). Very high growth in production of moong was recorded by the districts namely, Kaushambi, Fatehpur, Auraiya and Etawah, and the district of Mathura with 5.35% per annum showed very high growth in yield of moong (Tables 5.20 and 5.21).

5.3.3  T  rends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Oilseed Crops Area Area under oilseed crops in the state recorded a positive growth of 0.68% per annum during the period of 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 (Table  5.17). Nearly 32 districts showed a positive growth in area during this period and the remaining districts recorded negative growth (Fig. 5.14). During this period, very high growth (above

214

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Fig. 5.14  Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in area, production and yield of oilseed Crops, 1995–96 to 2014–2015

5.13 percent/annum) was observed in 5 districts namely, Hamirpur, Banda, Lalitpur, Mahoba and Jhansi of Bundelkhand region. High (1.68 to 5.13 percent/annum) and medium (−1.77 to 1.68 percent/annum) growth rates were recorded in 17 and 26 districts, whereas 21 districts showed low negative growth (−5.22 to −1.77 percent/ annum). Very low negative growth of below −5.22% per annum was registered in the districts namely, Mahamaya Nagar and GBN (Table 5.23). Production Production of oilseed crops in the state was also characterized with a positive growth rate of 0.41% per annum during the period of 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 (Table 5.17). Out of a total of 71, 45 districts registered a positive growth. Very high growth of above 5.28% per annum was found in the districts of Lalitpur, Hamirpur, Azamgarh and Budaun (Table 5.13 and Fig. 5.14)). High growth characterized with the values ranging between 2.17 and 5.28% per  annum was recorded in 15 districts, and medium growth of −0.95 to 2.17% per annum was recorded in 30 districts. Low negative growth (−4.07 to −0.95 percent/annum) and very low negative (less than −4.07 percent/annum) growth were seen in 18 and 7 districts, respectively. Yield During the period of study, yield of oilseed crops registered a slight negative growth rate of −0.26% per annum in the state (Table 5.17). As many as 52 districts were characterized with positive growth, and the remaining districts showed a negative growth during this period. Very high growth (above 3.89 percent/annum) was seen in Sonbhadra, Ghazipur and Mirzapur districts. High growth rate in between 1.75

5.3 Trends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Crops: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

215

and 3.89% was recorded in 20 districts, and 34 districts were having medium growth of −0.39 to 1.75% per annum. Low (−2.53 to −0.39 percent/annum) and very low (below −2.53 percent/annum) growth rates in yield of oilseed crops were recorded in 6 and 8 districts, respectively. The districts showing very low negative growth were namely, Hamirpur, Sultanpur, Moradabad, Jalaun, Ghaziabad, Jhansi, Mahoba and Banda (Table 5.23). 5.3.3.1  Mustard and Rapeseeds Area Mustard and rapeseeds are the most important oilseed crops grown in the state. With respect to them, the state showed a negative growth in area with −0.77% per annum (Table 5.19). Very high growth in area of mustard and rapeseeds was seen in the districts of Lalitpur (14.47 percent/annum), Hamirpur (6.75 percent/annum) and Azamgarh (5.21 percent/annum). There were 15 districts which belonged to the next category of high growth (1.68 to 5.19 percent/annum). Medium growth in between −1.84 and 1.68% per annum was seen in 34 districts. Low negative growth was occupied by 17 districts, and the districts namely, Mahamaya Nagar (−6.31%) and GBN (−10%) were characterized with very low negative growth during this period. Production Very high growth in production of mustard and rapeseeds which was reported to be higher than 6.54% per annum was attained by the districts of Lalitpur, Hamirpur, Azamgarh and Bijnor. High growth between 2.80 and 6.54% per  annum, and medium in between −0.95 and 2.80% per annum was attained by 13 and 35 districts, respectively. There were 17 districts within the category of low negative growth (−4.69 to −0.95 percent/annum). The districts namely, Shrawasti (−4.87%) and GBN (−9.36%) experienced a very low negative growth per annum (Table 5.20). Yield The growth in yield of mustard and rapeseeds was positive (1.01 percent/annum) in the state during this period (Table 5.21). Out of 71, 54 districts have shown a positive growth. Very high growth (above 3.55 percent/annum) in yield of these crops was recorded in Ghazipur (4.90 percent/annum), Sonbhadra (4.46 percent/annum), Varanasi (4.40 percent/annum) and Mainpuri (3.94 percent/annum) districts. Very low negative growth (below −1.52 percent/annum) during this period was recorded by the districts namely, Mahoba (−2.45 percent/annum), Sultanpur (−3.12 percent/ annum), Moradabad (−3.67 percent/annum) and Ghaziabad (−4.20 percent/annum). High (1.86 to 3.55 percent/annum), medium (0.17 to 1.86 percent/annum) and low (−1.52 to 0.17 percent/annum) growth rates were seen in 16, 32 and 15 districts, respectively.

30

Medium −1.77 to 1.68

No. Name of district 5 Hamirpur, Banda, Lalitpur, Mahoba and Jhansi 17 Jalaun, Chitrakoot, Azamgarh, Bara Banki, Baghpat, Jaunpur, Muzaffarnagar, Budaun, Kaushambi, JPN, Meerut, Ambedkar Nagar, Pilibhit, Kanshiram Nagar, Varanasi, Fatehpur and Unna −0.95 to 26 Sultanpur, Gorakhpur, 2.17 Sitapur, Bareilly, Kanpur Nagar, Faizabad, Balrampur, Ballia, Ghaziabad, SKN, Mirzapur, Kushinagar, Moradabad, Pratapgarh, Rae Bareli, Auraiya, Lucknow, Mau, Sonbhadra, Mathura, Deoria, Kheri, Bulandshahr, Gonda, Hardoi and Saharanpur

Production Growth rate (percent/ annum) No. Above 4 5.28 2.17 to 15 5.28

Area Growth rate (percent/ Category annum) Very Above high 5.13 High 1.68 to 5.13

Balrampur, Ambedkar Nagar, −0.39 to 1.75 Muzaffarnagar, Ballia, Kanpur Nagar, Ghazipur, Banda, SKN, Mainpuri, Deoria, Bareilly, Jhansi, Fatehpur, Mahoba, Auraiya, Lucknow, Kheri, Jalaun, Bulandshahr, Unnao, Faizabad, Pratapgarh, Kushinagar, Mau, Etawah, Basti, Bijnor, Gonda, Chandauli and Shahjahanpur

Yield Growth rate (percent/ annum) Name of district Lalitpur, Hamirpur, Azamgarh Above and Budaun 3.89 1.75 to Baghpat, Jaunpur, Varanasi, 3.89 Sonbhadra, Pilibhit, Mirzapur, JPN, Meerut, Kaushambi, Bara Banki, Chitrakoot, Kanshiram Nagar, Gorakhpur, Sitapur and Mathura 34

20

Baghpat, Lalitpur, Agra, Balrampur, Ballia, Auraiya, Gorakhpur, Sitapur, SKN, Lucknow, JPN, Allahabad, Shahjahanpur, Meerut, Gonda, Mau, Bahraich, Kanpur Nagar, Farrukhabad, GBN, Pratapgarh, Kanshiram Nagar, Kushinagar, Kaushambi, Saharanpur, Mahrajganj, Rampur, Kanpur Dehat, Bareilly, Kannauj, Ambedkar Nagar, Faizabad, Shrawasti and Hardoi

Mainpuri, SRNB, Mathura, Etah, Varanasi, Budaun, Bijnor, Basti, Chandauli, Pilibhit, Etawah, Azamgarh, Deoria, Firozabad, Mahamaya Nagar, Siddharthnagar, Jaunpur, Kheri, Bulandshahr and Aligarh

No. Name of district 3 Sonbhadra, Ghazipur, Mirzapur

Table 5.23  District-wise growth rate per annum in area, production and yield of oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

216 5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

−5.22 to −1.77

2

21

−4.07 to Etawah, Shahjahanpur, −0.95 Bahraich, Kanpur Dehat, Kannauj, Basti, Mainpuri, Mahrajganj, Bijnor, Ghazipur, Chandauli, Allahabad, Firozabad, Agra, Aligarh, Shrawasti, Rampur, Farrukhabad, SRNB, Etah and Siddharthnagar Mahamaya Nagar and GBN Below −4.07 4

18

Rampur, Shrawasti, Mahamaya Nagar and GBN

Below −2.53

SRNB, Bahraich, Saharanpur, −2.53 to Sultanpur, Hardoi, Etah, Rae −0.39 Bareli, Firozabad, Kanpur Dehat, Kannauj, Mahrajganj, Aligarh, Agra, Allahabad, Siddharthnagar, Farrukhabad, Moradabad and Ghaziabad

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

Very low Below −5.22

Low

8

6

Hamirpur, Sultanpur, Moradabad, Jalaun, Ghaziabad, Jhansi, Mahoba and Banda

Fatehpur, Bara Banki, Muzaffarnagar, Unnao, Chitrakoot and Rae Bareli

5.3 Trends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Crops: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 217

218

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

5.3.3.2  Sesamum (Til) Area Among oilseed crops, til recorded positive growth rate of 7.34, 8.80 and 1.36% per annum in area, production and yield during this period, respectively (Table 5.17). There were 5 districts namely, Auraiya, Jhansi, Banda, Hamirpur and Kanshiram Nagar which recorded very high growth (above 13.0 percent/annum) in area. High growth between 5.30 and 13.0% per  annum was seen in 10 districts, whereas medium growth of −2.41 to 5.30% per annum was recorded by 33 districts. Low negative growth between −10.11 and −2.41% per annum was seen 22 districts during this period. The only district Bijnor (−16.90 percent/annum) showed very low negative growth (Table 5.19). Production The growth in production of til has seen very high (above 13.10 percent/annum) in the districts of Auraiya, Jhansi, Banda, Kanshiram Nagar and Hamirpur with growth rates of 27.71, 26.39, 18.90, 18.36 and 17.08% per annum (Table 5.20). Having high growth between 5.60 and 13.10 percent/annum, there were 11 districts included within this range, whereas medium (−1.91 to 5.60 percent/annum) and low (−9.41 to −1.91 percent/annum) growth rates were visible in 32 and 22 districts, respectively during this period. The district of Bijnor was characterized with very low negative growth of −14.62% per annum. Yield During the period of 1995–1996 to 2014–2015, very high growth (above 3.55 percent/annum) in yield of til was recorded in the districts namely, Ballia, Sonbhadra, Kanshiram Nagar, SRNB and Sitapur (Table  5.21). High (1.48 to 3.55 percent/ annum), medium (−0.58 to 1.48 percent/annum) and low (−2.65 to −0.58 percent/ annum) growth rates were seen in 18, 24 and 18 districts, whereas the districts of Kanpur Dehat, Farrukhabad, Etawah, Siddharthnagar, Kannauj and Auraiya attained very low negative growth to the tune of −2.66, −2.66, −2.67, −3.11, −3.80 and −3.93, respectively during this period.

5.3.4  T  rends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Cash Crops Area During the period of 1995–1996 to 2014–2015, area under cash crops in the state recorded a positive growth rate of 0.99% per annum (Table 5.17). Very high growth (above 5.01 percent/annum) in area was seen in 8 districts namely, Mahamaya Nagar, Agra, Gonda, Firozabad, Mahoba, Balrampur, Kanpur Nagar and Shrawasti (Table 5.24). High growth between 1.79 and 5.01% per annum was recorded in 9 districts namely, Aligarh, Etawah, Bahraich, Sitapur, Kannauj, Mainpuri, Jhansi,

1.79 to 5.01

Medium −1.43 to 1.79

High

Area Growth rate (percent/ Category annum) Above Very high 5.01

29

Kheri, Pilibhit, Auraiya, Faizabad, Bulandshahr, Baghpat, Kanshiram Nagar, Saharanpur, Muzaffarnagar, Unnao, Bareilly, Sultanpur, Fatehpur, Sonbhadra, JPN, Bijnor, Ambedkar Nagar, Ghaziabad, Budaun, Jalaun, Kushinagar, Meerut, Hamirpur, Farrukhabad, Mahrajganj, Shahjahanpur, Rampur, Kaushambi and Mathura

−1.58 to 1.82 24

0.51 to 1.65

Yield Growth rate (percent/ annum) Above 1.65

Auraiya, Ambedkar Nagar, −0.63 to 0.51 Bulandshahr, Sonbhadra, JPN, Saharanpur, Bareilly, Muzaffarnagar, Unnao, Sultanpur, Fatehpur, Kushinagar, Meerut, Bijnor, Mahrajganj, Budaun, Farrukhabad, Rampur, Shahjahanpur, Kaushambi, Hamirpur, Azamgarh, SKN and Banda

Production Growth rate (percent/ annum) No. Name of district No. Name of district Above 7 Mahamaya Nagar, Gonda, 8 Mahamaya Nagar, Agra, 5.21 Agra, Shrawasti, Gonda, Firozabad, Mahoba, Firozabad, Mahoba and Balrampur, Kanpur Nagar and Balrampur Shrawasti 1.82 to 15 Bahraich, Sitapur, Hardoi, 9 Aligarh, Etawah, Bahraich, 5.21 Kanpur Nagar, Mainpuri, Sitapur, Kannauj, Mainpuri, Kheri, Etawah, Faizabad, Jhansi, Hardoi and Basti Basti, Kanshiram Nagar, Kannauj, Jhansi, Pilibhit, Aligarh and Baghpat 36

19

Faizabad, Kanshiram Nagar, Hardoi, Siddharthnagar, Bahraich, Gonda, Mirzapur, Ambedkar Nagar, Sitapur, Kheri, Azamgarh, Baghpat, Basti, Varanasi, Mainpuri, GBN, Mahrajganj, Banda and Meerut Sonbhadra, JPN, Mau, Ghazipur, Kushinagar, Chandauli, SKN, Deoria, Pilibhit, Firozabad, Mahoba, Pratapgarh, Bareilly, Kaushambi, Jaunpur, Kannauj, Rampur, Farrukhabad, Sultanpur, Jhansi, Fatehpur, Shahjahanpur, Muzaffarnagar, Ballia, Unnao, Kanpur Dehat, Saharanpur, Balrampur, Auraiya, Bulandshahr, Lucknow, Bijnor, Hamirpur, Mahamaya Nagar, Budaun and Bara Banki (continued)

No. Name of district 2 Shrawasti and SRNB

Table 5.24  District-wise growth rate per annum in area, production and yield of cash crops in Uttar Pradesh: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

5.3 Trends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Crops: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015 219

No. Name of district 23 Rae Bareli, Allahabad, Moradabad, Bara Banki, SKN, Jaunpur, Banda, Chitrakoot, Azamgarh, Lucknow, Lalitpur, Kanpur Dehat, Ballia, Ghazipur, Pratapgarh, Mirzapur, Gorakhpur, Siddharthnagar, Mau, Varanasi, SRNB, Chandauli and Deoria 2 GBN and Etah

Production Growth rate (percent/ annum) No. Name of district −4.97 to 23 Mirzapur, Jalaun, Jaunpur, −1.58 SRNB, Bara Banki, Ghazipur, Siddharthnagar, Lucknow, Moradabad, Pratapgarh, Chitrakoot, Kanpur Dehat, Ballia, Varanasi, Mau, Allahabad, Rae Bareli, Chandauli, Lalitpur, Deoria, GBN, Gorakhpur and Mathura Below 2 Ghaziabad and Etah −4.97

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

Very low Below −4.65

Area Growth rate (percent/ Category annum) Low −4.65 to −1.43

Table 5.24 (continued)

Below −1.77

Yield Growth rate (percent/ annum) −1.77 to −0.63

5

Etah, Kanpur Nagar, Aligarh, Mathura and Ghaziabad

No. Name of district 9 Chitrakoot, Gorakhpur, Moradabad, Etawah, Lalitpur, Jalaun, Agra, Allahabad and Rae Bareli

220 5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

5.3 Trends of Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Crops: 1995–1996 to 2014–2015

221

Hardoi and Basti. As many as 29 districts achieved a medium growth (−1.43 to 1.79 percent/annum) and low negative growth of −4.65 to −1.43 percent/annum was seen in 23 districts. The districts of GBN and Etah recorded a very low negative growth per annum during this period (Fig. 5.15). Production During 1995–1996, the production of cash crops has been 122.03 million metric tonnes which increased to 152.2 million tonnes during 2014–2015 with a positive growth rate of 0.95% per  annum (Table  5.17). There were 7 districts namely, Mahamaya Nagar, Gonda, Agra, Shrawasti, Firozabad, Mahoba and Balrampur showing a very high growth (above 5.21% per annum). High growth between 1.82 and 5.21% per annum was seen in 15 districts. There were 24 districts which were characterized with moderate growth of −1.58 to 1.82% per  annum, whereas the remaining 23 districts attained a low negative growth in between −4.97 and −1.58% per  annum. Very low negative growth below −4.97% per  annum was seen in Ghaziabad and Etah districts (Table 5.24). Yield During 1995–1996, the average yield of cash crops was 540.83 quintals per hectare which increased to 549.66 quintals per hectare during 2014–2015 but attained a negative growth rate of −0.04% per annum (Table 5.17). Very high growth (above 1.65 percent/annum) in cash crops during this period was seen in the districts namely, Shrawasti and SRNB. High growth in between 0.51 and 1.65% per annum was seen in 19 districts. A total of 36 districts were having medium growth ranging

Fig. 5.15  Uttar Pradesh: growth rate per annum in area, production and yield of cash crops, 1995–­96 to 2014–2015

222

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

from −0.63 to 0.51% per annum. Low negative growth (−1.77 to −0.63 percent/ annum) was observed in 9 districts, and 5 districts namely, Etah, Kanpur Nagar, Aligarh, Mathura and Ghaziabad had a very low negative growth during this period (Table 5.24). 5.3.4.1  Sugarcane Area During 1995–1996, area under sugarcane was 1.89 million ha. which increased to 2.19 million ha. registering a growth rate of 0.73% per annum. The growth in production of sugarcane was 0.81% per annum. Compared to this, during this period, yield recorded a growth of 0.08% per annum (Table 5.17). Very high annual growth of above 4.84% in area of sugarcane was noticed in the districts of Gonda, Shrawasti, Mahoba and Balrampur. High growth in between 0.19 and 4.84% per annum was seen in 18 districts, and 30 districts in the state recorded medium growth in between −4.50 and 0.19% per annum. There were 16 districts to record low growth of −9.16 to −4.50% per annum, whereas very low growth per annum (below −4.50%) was shown in the districts namely, Etawah, Mathura and Etah (Table 5.19). Production As regards to the growth in production of sugarcane, again the districts of Gonda, Shrawasti, Mahoba and Balrampur recorded very high growth of above 5.16% per annum during this period. Very low negative growth (less than −8.82%) was seen in the districts of Etawah, Agra, Lalitpur, Mathura and Etah (Table 5.20). Yield Very high growth greater than 2.15% per annum in yield of sugarcane was noticed in the districts of Kaushambi, SRNB and Kanshiram Nagar, whereas the districts namely, Lalitpur, Jalaun and Ghaziabad were included in the category of districts showing very low growth (below −1.45 percent/annum). High (0.95 to 2.15 percent/ annum), medium (−0.25 to 0.95 percent/annum) and low (−1.45 to −0.25 percent/ annum) growth rates were seen in 7, 47 and 11 districts, respectively (Table 5.21). 5.3.4.2  Potato Area The growth rates in area, production and yield of potatoes in the state were in order of 2.14, 2.79 and 0.64% per annum, respectively (Tables 5.19, 5.20 and 5.21). Very high growth rate of above 4.95% per annum in area under potato crop was recorded in the districts namely, Mahamaya Nagar, Aligarh, Agra, Firozabad, Kanpur Nagar, Mathura and Etawah. High and medium growth rates of 1.52 to 4.95 and −1.91 to 1.52% per annum were recorded by 11 and 29 districts, respectively. Low growth (−1.91 to −5.34 percent/annum) was seen in 21 districts, and the districts of Shrawasti (−5.41 percent/annum), GBN (−5.81 percent/annum) and Bareilly (−5.93 percent/annum) were characterized with very low negative growth.

5.4 Crop Rankings and Crop-Combination Regions

223

Production Growth in production of potato was seen highest in the district of Aligarh with 9.85% per annum, followed by the districts of Mahamaya Nagar, Agra, Firozabad, Mathura, Auraiya and Etawah (Table 5.20). There were 10 districts which attained high growth in between 2.15 and 5.45% per annum. Medium growth of −1.16 and 2.15 percent/annum was recorded by 33 districts, and low negative growth (−4.46 to −1.16 percent/annum) in production of potatoes was seen in 19 districts. The districts namely, Baghpat and GBN were characterized with very low negative growth (below −4.46%) per annum during this period. Yield Very high growth in yield of potatoes was recorded in the districts of Basti, Siddharthnagar and SKN which was recorded as greater than 2.66% per  annum (Table 5.21). High growth in between 1.36 and 2.66 percent/annum was seen in 21 districts, and medium growth (0.06 to 1.36 percent/annum) was attained by 24 districts. Low negative growth (−1.25 to 0.06 percent/annum) was noticed in 18 districts, and the districts namely, Rae Bareli (−1.36 percent/annum), Agra (−1.37 percent/annum), Moradabad (−1.46 percent/annum), Allahabad (−1.56 percent/ annum) and Kanpur Nagar (–2.47 percent/annum) recorded very low negative growth.

5.4  Crop Rankings and Crop-Combination Regions Generally, crops are grown in association with other crops. It is a rare phenomenon that a single crop occupies the position in complete isolation in an agricultural landscape. Ranking of crops and their spatial distribution bring out the regional dominance of crops at a glance (Bhatia 1965). The areal strength of crops grown determines the cropping patterns and spatial variations in crops cultivated present an overview of agricultural landscape in any region. With the delineation of crop-­ combination regions, agricultural planning can be suggested for better performance of farming. In order to increase productivity and to save soils from fertility depletion, careful and judicious utilization of land by selecting an appropriate crop-­ combination is essential. It is therefore, advisable to identify, for each agricultural set-up, a crop-combination which would give optimum agricultural returns and provide employment to farmers and their dependents. By paying more attention to the major constituent crops in a region, farmers can increase the production of food and raw materials. While doing so, less important crops can be excluded from the combination and land can be put to other remunerative crops which perform well with less input (Thakur 2007). New agricultural technology incorporated within the frame of green revolution in India during 1960’s had played a very important role in changing the cropping patterns and increasing productivity of land. The trio of green revolution-high yielding verities of seeds (HYVs), irrigation water and chemical fertilizers has played an

224

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

important role. Moreover, substantial emphasis was given to increase the quantum if irrigation water through surface and underground sources, and bring more areas under irrigation. Consequently, the cropping patterns have completely changed with the adoption of new farming technologies. Farmers are now in a position to grow more remunerative crops with bringing a change in cropping pattern. As a result of the diffusion of high-yielding varieties of rice and wheat in many parts of the country, traditional subsistence agriculture has been transformed into a market oriented economy. Now in most of the agro-climatic regions, the farmers are concentrating their choice on a few crops with the intension of increasing income from agriculture. The strength of monoculture has increased in the post-green revolution period, while the increase in two-and-three-crop-combination has also recorded. Thus, after the adoption of high-yielding varieties of rice and wheat the farmers are increasingly concentrating on a smaller number of crops. On the other hand, there has been a significant decrease in the number of areal units with multi crop-combinations. This proves that, Indian farming is moving towards a market oriented economy (Husain 1989). This section deals with the delineation of crop-combination regions in the state for the periods of 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015. It has further been attempted to put the individual crop on ranks to demarcate area acquired by a particular crop in order to arrange these crops as first, second and third ranks (Table 5.25). The crop-combination regions delineated for 71 districts of the state were based on Doi’s method for determining the crop-combinations. To delineate crop-combination regions in the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the entire exercise of crop-combinations has been based on applying the Doi’s method instead of Weaver’s. Doi’s method incorporates a slight improvement in respect of computation of values in the combination analysis. His method substitutes the variance (Σ d2/n) or least standard deviation) as it is contained in Weaver’s method, with the sum of square deviations (Σd2). The computed value of individual crop concentration characterized with lowest Σd2 will form the combination in the analysis. Doi’s One Sheet Table (Table 5.26) of critical values which he has provided in the study was used. Use of the table requires only the summing up of actual percentages of area for the crops, which are considered instead of finding the differences between actual percentages and theoretical distribution, and then consult the table for the critical value of next element at that accumulated percentage level. If the critical value is higher than that of the actual percentage of crop area, the crop is not considered, but if otherwise the value is lower than the crop percentage, crop will be included in the combination. The pioneering work for determining crop-combination was initiated by Weaver (1954a, b) in his study of Middle West of U.S.A. Since then this method was adopted to delineate crop-combination regions in a number of studies pertaining to developed and developing countries of the world. Some attempts were also made to modify the Weaver’s method on the pretext to remove the inherent weakness of the method. One of the early attempts was made to determine crop association regions by Johnson (1958) in East Pakistan considering three major crops of wheat, barley and maize, three oilseed crops, six pulse crops and eight other field crops, and in

Crops Arhar Bajra Barley Gram Groundnut Jowar Maize Masoor Moong Mustard and rapeseeds Pea Potato Rice Soybean Sugarcane Til Urad Wheat

– – 13 – 4 – – 53

– – 12 – 6 – – 50

– – 11 – 6 – – 53

– – 9 – 6 – – 56

2010– 2015 – – – – – – – – – – 2 – 33 – 3 – – 17

– – 33 – 2 – 1 20

1 – 35 – 2 – 2 18

Second ranking crops (nos.) 1995– 2000– 2005– 2000 2005 2010 – – – 5 7 7 – – – 5 4 3 – – – – – – 3 3 2 – – – – – – 2 – 1 1 1 38 – 2 1 1 15

2010– 2015 – 7 – 4 – – 1 – – – 1 2 9 – 19 – 3 –

4 4 10 – 17 – 3 –

2 4 12 – 18 – 3 –

Third ranking crops (nos.) 1995– 2000– 2005– 2000 2005 2010 1 1 1 7 6 9 1 – – 9 5 5 – – – 1 1 – 10 12 10 4 4 6 – – – 3 3 1

2 5 11 – 18 1 5 –

2010– 2015 – 7 – 5 – – 11 4 – 2

Source: Computed by the researcher from data obtained from Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Notes: (–) denotes data not available in this category

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

First ranking crops (nos.) 1995– 2000– 2005– 2000 2005 2010 – – – – – – – – – – 2 1 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Table 5.25  Ranking of crops in Uttar Pradesh

5.4 Crop Rankings and Crop-Combination Regions 225

226

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Table 5.26  An abridged part of deviation analysis table (one sheet table) Rank of element 1 2 3 4 Critical value Cumulative percentage of higher ranking elements

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

95 6.98 6.27 5.68 90 8.84 7.60 6.67 5.94 5.35 4.49 85 12.93 10.00 8.17 6.91 5.99 5.29 4.73 4.29 3.91 80 13.83 10.00 7.85 6.46 5.49 4.76 4.23 3.79 3.33 3.14 75 16.67 10.57 7.75 6.13 5.06 4.32 3.76 3.33 2.99 2.71 2.49 70 27.64 12.25 7.93 5.96 4.65 3.85 3.29 2.87 2.55 2.29 2.08 1.90 65 18.38 8.66 5.63 4.19 3.14 2.77 2.37 2.07 1.84 1.65 1.50 1.37 60 11.27 5.46 3.59 2.68 2.14 1.78 1.52 1.33 1.18 1.06 0.97 0.88 55 5.38 2.68 1.73 1.29 1.04 0.86 0.74 0.64 0.57 0.52 0.47 0.43 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Source: Doi (1957)

addition six ‘orchard’ crops were also considered. For the determination of crop-­ association regions, a five-fold scale of relative importance was calculated for each crop, using mean point in the scale as the percentage of total cultivated land occupied by the crop in East Pakistan as a whole. Intensity of cultivation was calculated to show the degree of correspondence between cropping intensity and crop-­ association in the region. Rafiullah (1965) examined the functional classification of towns in the districts of Bulandshahr, Meerut, Muzaffarnagar and Saharanpur of upper Ganga-Yamuna doab of Uttar Pradesh. He evolved a new formula by modifying the Weaver’s minimum deviation method for the determination of primary functional combinations in selected towns of upper Ganga-Yamuna doab. Singh (1965) studied the crop-combination regions in the Malwa tract of Punjab using Weaver’s method of crop-combination regions. He added two modifications in Weaver’s method by selecting two sequential regions: Region I and Region II for four crops: wheat, wheat-gram, gram and cotton. He delineated 22 crop-combinations which were grouped into nine units belonging to second order regions. Ahmad and Siddiqi (1967) attempted to analyse the crop-association patterns in Luni Basin of Rajasthan for the year 1960–1961 by using Doi’s method for the determination of crop-­ combination regions. They identified six crop-combination regions on the basis of crops grown in that area. Siddiqi (1967) attempted to review the crop-combination methods and applied the methods of Johnson (1958), Pownall (1953), Nelson (1955), Weaver (1954a, b), Rafiullah (1965) and Doi (1957) for determining the crop-combinations in Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh. Tripathi and Agarwal (1968) using Weaver’s method analysed the changing patterns of crop land use and crop-combination regions in lower Ganga-Yamuna doab for four decades from 1925–1926 to 1965–1966. Khan (1982) examined spatio-temporal changes in crop-­ combination regions for a period of 50 years from 1911–1961 in 149 parganas of 14 districts of Ganga-Yamuna doab by applying Doi’s method. Ahmad and Khan (1984) attempted to find out decadal variations in the cropping pattern in Punjab

5.4 Crop Rankings and Crop-Combination Regions

227

plains during 1966–1967 and 1976–1977 considering four major categories of crops: wet-food crops, rain-fed crops, pulses and cash crops. He evaluated typology of cropping by applying Rafiullah’s method (1965), and levels of crop specialisation were determined on the basis of Gini’s method of coefficient of concentration. Shafi (1984) identified crop-combination regions in 48 districts of Uttar Pradesh based on Doi’s formula for the period 1996–1967 to 1975–1976 and noticed two to five crop-­ combinations that emerged in the districts of the state. Ghodke (2009) in his study on crop-combination regions in Daund tehsil of Pune district in Maharashtra state attempted to examine agricultural regionalization at village level. Vyalij (2009) used Weaver’s method for the determination of crop-combinations in Nasik district of Maharashtra state during two periods of time i.e.1990–1991 and 2000–2001. Rathod and Naik (2009) in his study of agricultural land use and cropping pattern applied Doi’s method to identify crop-combinations in Yavatmal district of Andhra Pradesh state. Todkari et al. (2010) in their study of agriculture land use pattern in Solapur district of Maharashtra and determined 10 crop-combinations by applying Weaver’s method for the year 2004–2005. All of the 18 major crops grown in the districts of the state were considered and grouped as: cereal crops (wheat, rice, maize, bajra, barley, and jowar), pulse crops (urad, moong, arhar, gram, pea, and masoor), oilseed crops (groundnut, soybean, til, mustard and rapeseed) and cash crops (sugarcane and potatoes) were considered in the entire exercise for the determination of crop-combinations. Out of total 18 crops, 16 crops formed combinations (moong and soybean were excluded from the analysis because of these crops constituted a negligible area in cultivation). The crops considered for the study were given in Table 5.25 according to their ranking categories.

5.4.1  Crop Rankings 5.4.1.1  First Ranking Crops From Fig. 5.16 and Table 5.25, it is evident that, during the period of 1995–2000 only three crops namely, rice, wheat and sugarcane emerged as the first ranking crops in different districts of the state. Wheat acquired a significant area in 53 districts; rice occupied a prominent position in 13 districts. Sugarcane appeared as third crop to have a predominant position in 4 districts. The number of crops increased to 4 in this category during the period of 2000–2005. Gram, as a fourth crop, was added to become the first ranking crop. Wheat again dominated in 50 districts, rice and sugarcane occupied important positions in 12 and 6 districts, respectively. The cultivation of gram was confined to only 2 districts of the state. During 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, wheat again occupied a dominant position in 53 and 56 districts, respectively to emerge as a first ranking crop. During 2005–2010, rice and sugarcane covered the largest area in 11 and 6 districts, respectively and gram was dominant in cultivation in Mahoba district. During the period of

228

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Fig. 5.16  Uttar Pradesh: first ranking crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

2010–2015, rice and sugarcane occupied the dominant place in 9 and 6 districts, respectively and gram was excluded from this category. A change that was noticed between the periods of 1995–2000 and 2000–2005 has been that, in the districts of Ambedkar Nagar, Faizabad and Pilibhit, rice crop was replaced by wheat (Fig. 5.16). In contrast to this, in the districts of Balrampur and Shrawasti, wheat was replaced with rice. Whereas, in the districts of Kheri and Saharanpur, cropped area under wheat was replaced with that of sugarcane. In addition, in the districts of Hamirpur and Mahoba, gram replaced the wheat crop. During the period of 2005–2010, a change in crop ranking of 2000–2005 period has been

5.4 Crop Rankings and Crop-Combination Regions

229

observed in 4 districts namely, Basti, Hamirpur, Pilibhit Saharanpur, among them rice replaced wheat in Pilibhit district whereas, in other 3 districts wheat emerged as a dominant crop replacing rice, gram and rice, respectively. Between the periods of 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, three districts of the state namely, Mahoba, SKN and Sonbhadra observed change as first ranking crops in which wheat has replaced the other crops. 5.4.1.2  Second Ranking Crops During the period of 1995–2000, among second ranking crops, eight crops namely, bajra, gram, maize mustard and rapeseeds, pea, rice, sugarcane and wheat acquired an important area in the state (Table  5.25). Rice cultivation was important in 33 districts. Wheat occupied an important area in 17 districts. Out of 5 districts, three belonged to middle doab, the district Budaun formed part of Rohilkhand plains and Lucknow belong to Awadh region where bajra has been the dominant crop. Gram occupied a prominent position in 5 districts, whereas maize cultivation was important in 3 districts. In 2 districts, pea crop dominates and in other 2 districts mustard and rapeseeds were dominant. Sugarcane cultivation was seen important in three districts (Fig. 5.17). During the period of 2000–2005, mustard and rapeseeds were excluded from this category. Rice was dominant in cultivation as compared to other crops, which covered an important area in 33 districts. Next in importance was wheat which was seen dominant in 20 districts. Bajra, gram, maize, sugarcane and urad were important in cultivation in 7, 4, 3, 2 and one district of the state, respectively. During the period of 2005–2010, in second ranking category, rice achieved a dominant place in 35 districts instead of 33 districts in the previous period. Wheat occupied an important place in 18 districts as compared to 20 during 2000–2005. Bajra was dominated in 7 districts. Gram occupied a significant place in 3 districts and the crops namely, maize, sugarcane and urad had a significant place in 2 districts each (Fig. 5.17). In the remaining 2 districts, mustard and rapeseeds and pea, respectively had an important place. During 2010–2015, rice had been a dominant place in 38 districts. Wheat came at second place occupying 15 districts of the state. Bajra, gram and sugarcane were dominated in 7, 4 and 2 districts, respectively. Potato and til are added in this category being dominant in Farrukhabad and Jhansi districts, respectively. Maize, pea and urad secured their position as second ranking crop in one district each. During the period of 1995–2000 to 2000–2005, a change was identified in 13 districts among second ranking crops. In 3 districts namely, Ambedkar Nagar, Faizabad and Pilibhit, wheat was replaced by rice crop in cultivation. Contrary to this, in two districts rice was replaced by wheat. In the districts of Hamirpur and Mahoba, wheat replaced gram. In Saharanpur, sugarcane was replaced by wheat, and in the district of Agra and Mathura, the cultivation of bajra replaced the Mustard and rapeseed crops. Further, in the districts of Jalaun and Jhansi, pea cultivation

230

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Fig. 5.17  Uttar Pradesh: second ranking crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005– 2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

replaced gram, and in Lalitpur, the cultivation of gram was replaced by urad (Fig. 5.17). During the period of 2000–2005 to 2005–2010, eight districts experienced change in second ranking crops. In 3 districts namely, Basti, Bulandshahr and Rampur, rice replaced wheat, maize and wheat crops, respectively. In the district of Pilibhit, wheat was recognised as second crop replacing rice crop. In the districts of Jalaun and Jhansi, the crops namely, pea and urad replaced gram, respectively

5.4 Crop Rankings and Crop-Combination Regions

231

while, gram and Mustard and rapeseeds replaced wheat and bajra crops, respectively in the districts of Hamirpur and Mathura. During the periods from 2005–2010 to 2010–2015, the change in second ranking crops was visibly seen in 6 districts, in which rice replaced wheat crop in SKN and Sonbhadra, whereas in the districts of Farrukhabad, Jhansi, Mahoba and Mathura, the crops namely, maize, urad, wheat and mustard and rapeseeds were replaced by potato, til, gram and rice, respectively. 5.4.1.3  Third Ranking Crops As third ranking crops, there were 14 crops recognized as dominant in the state. Among 19 districts, sugarcane was the dominant crop. Next to sugarcane was maize occupied an important position in 10 districts. The cultivation of rice was dominant in 9 districts. Among cereal crops, next in importance were millets (bajra and jowar) which dominated in 8 districts as the third ranking crops whereas barley was seen in single district of Sonbhadra. Out of 18 districts, in 9 districts, gram was a dominant crop and in rest of 10 districts other pulses such as masoor, urad, arhar and pea were dominated. Among oilseed crops, mustard and rapeseeds were dominated in 3 districts and in 2 districts potato has been a third ranking crop (Fig. 5.18). During the period of 2000–2005, one crop of barley was excluded from this category. Sugarcane was the dominant crop which acquired an important position in 17 districts. The cultivation of maize was important in 12 districts. Rice cultivation dominated in 10 districts. Millets were dominated in 7 districts whereas pulse crops such as gram, masoor, pea, urad and arhar acquired a significant area in 5, 4, 4, 3 and one districts, respectively (Table 5.25). During the period of 2005–2010, sugarcane was a dominant crop to cover a significant area in 18 districts of the state. Next to sugarcane, rice, maize and bajra were significant crops in 12, 10 and 9 districts, respectively. Among pulse crops, masoor and gram were dominant in 6 and 5 districts, respectively, and potato was an important crop in 4 districts, among oilseed crops, mustard and rapeseeds found significant area in Agra district. During 2010–2015, one crop til was added to this category. Sugarcane, rice and maize again were dominant in 18, 11 and 11 districts, respectively (Fig. 5.18). During 1995–2000 to 2000–2005, out of 17 districts which experience change, in 6 of them namely, Allahabad, Jalaun, Jhansi, Kanpur Nagar, Siddharthnagar and Sultanpur, the cultivation of gram was replaced by bajra, pea, urad, maize, mustard and rapeseeds and pea, respectively. Further, in the districts of Bara Banki, Kheri and SKN, sugarcane was replaced by masoor, rice and pea crops, respectively. In the districts of Agra and Mathura, bajra was replaced by mustard and rapeseeds, and in Firozabad, Kanpur Dehat and Mahamaya Nagar districts, mustard and rapeseeds were replaced by potato, gram and potato, respectively. The cultivation of masoor was replaced by sugarcane in Balrampur district. In Lalitpur district, gram replaced urad and barley was replaced by maize crop in Sonbhadra district (Fig. 5.18).

232

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Fig. 5.18  Uttar Pradesh: third ranking crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

During the period of 2000–2005 to 2005–2010, a prominent change was noticed in the state. In the districts of Ghazipur, Mathura and Varanasi, bajra replaced masoor, Mustard and rapeseeds and sugarcane, respectively whereas, in Gonad, SKN and Sultanpur districts, sugarcane replaced maize and pea crops, respectively. Masoor replaced jowar, maize and Mustard and rapeseed in the districts of Chitrakoot, Shrawasti and Siddharthnagar, respectively. In the districts of Aligarh and Etah, rice replaced maize whereas, in Jhansi and Lalitpur, urad and gram was replaced by rice crop, respectively. In Bulandshahr, Jalaun and Mahoba districts,

5.4 Crop Rankings and Crop-Combination Regions

233

crops namely, sugarcane and pea were replaced by maize, gram and urad crops, respectively. During 2005–2010 and 2010–2015 period, the change was observed in 11 districts. Mustard and rapeseed replaced masoor and bajra in Bara Banki and Mathura districts, respectively, whereas maize brought change in Etah and Farrukhabad by replacing rice and potato crops, respectively. Potato replaced Mustard and rapeseed and arhar in Agra and Gorakhpur, respectively. Urad replaced pea and bajra in Jhansi and Pratapgarh, respectively and in the districts Bulandshahr, Hamirpur and SKN, crops namely sugarcane, til and pea replaced maize, masoor and sugarcane, respectively,

5.4.2  Crop-Combination Regions Crop-combination regions based on Doi’s method were delineated for the periods of 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015 are shown in Figs. 5.19, 5.20, 5.21 and 5.22. Crop-combination regions in the districts of the state were ranged in numbers from one to six (Table 5.27). The combination regions identified during the study periods are as follows: 5.4.2.1  One Crop-Combination/Monoculture During 1995–2000, the districts namely, Baghpat, GBN, Mathura, Meerut and Muzaffarnagar from the Ganga-Yamuna doab, Bijnor belonging to Rohilkhand plains and Siddharthnagar from Purvanchal region were characterized with single crop-combination. In the districts Baghpat, Bijnor, Meerut and Muzaffarnagar, sugarcane was identified as the dominant crop, in GBN and Mathura districts, wheat occupied the dominant position while rice was an important crop in Siddharthnagar district (Fig. 5.19). During the period of 2000–2005, a single crop-combination was visible in 11 districts as 4 new districts namely, Gorakhpur, Hardoi, Lucknow and Unnao were added in this category in which wheat noticed as dominant crop (Fig.  5.20). During 2005–2010, three new districts namely, Etah, Pratapgarh and SRN where wheat is a dominant crop, thereby, there has been an increase in number of districts from 11 to 14 in monoculture combination (Fig. 5.21). During 2010– 2015, Deoria and Rae Bareli having wheat as main crop were included making a total of 16 crops in this one crop-combination region. In this category, there were 23% districts during this period (Fig. 5.22).

234

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Fig. 5.19  Uttar Pradesh: crop combination regions, 1995–2000

5.4.2.2  Two Crop-Combinations Two crop-combinations were dominated in 32 districts of the state during 1995– 2000 (Table 5.28). Among these districts, two belonged to upper doab, two from lower doab and 5 from Rohilkhand plains. A total of 9 districts formed two crop-­ combinations in the Awadh plains, and the remaining 14 districts belonged to Purvanchal region of the state (Fig.  5.19). In the districts of upper doab, wheat formed a common crop component with sugarcane and maize. In 4 districts of

5.4 Crop Rankings and Crop-Combination Regions

235

Fig. 5.20  Uttar Pradesh: crop combination regions, 2000–2005

Rohilkhand plains namely, Bareilly, Pilibhit, Rampur and Shahjahanpur, wheat and rice were the common components, whereas in the district of JPN, sugarcane and wheat were the main crops. The district of Allahabad and Mainpuri of lower doab registered wheat and rice as the common crops. In all the districts belonging to Awadh and Purvanchal regions, wheat and rice remained as dominant crops during this period. During the period of 2000–2005, a total of 31 districts showed two crop-­ combinations (Fig. 5.20). Five new districts namely, Aligarh, Firozabad, Mahamaya

236

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Fig. 5.21  Uttar Pradesh: crop combination regions, 2005–2010

Nagar, Saharanpur and Sonbhadra were added in this combination, and 6 districts of Balrampur, Bulandshahr, Gorakhpur, Lucknow, Mainpuri and Unnao showed a shift from this combination to other category. Wheat and bajra were dominant in Aligarh, Firozabad and Mahamaya Nagar districts of middle doab region, whereas in Saharanpur main crops were wheat and sugarcane. The remaining districts of the state along with Sonbhadra have wheat and rice as an important combination crops. During the period of 2005–2010, in this category of crop-combination there remained 26 districts at the expense of a shift of 6 districts namely, Bareilly,

5.4 Crop Rankings and Crop-Combination Regions

237

Fig. 5.22  Uttar Pradesh: crop combination regions, 2010–2015

Firozabad, Mahamaya Nagar, Pratapgarh, SRNB and Sonbhadra districts from this category to elsewhere to form a part of other crop-combinations, but at the same time 2 districts namely, Kaushambi of lower doab, and Shrawasti of Awadh region were added to this combination. In the districts of Kaushambi and Shrawasti, rice and wheat were two important crops to form this combination (Fig. 5.21). There were 24 districts to form two crop-combinations in the state during 2010– 2015. The districts of JPN and Saharanpur were having wheat and sugarcane as common crop component to form two crop-combinations while the remaining districts had wheat and rice as the dominant crops (Fig. 5.22).

238

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Table 5.27  Key of symbols used for crop-combination regions in Uttar Pradesh Crop-combinations I crop-combination II crop-combination III crop-combination

IV crop-combination

V crop-combination

VI crop-combination

Symbols a-R, b-S, c-W a-RW, b-SW, c-WB, d-WM, e-WR, f-WS a-RWBy, b-RWM, c-RWS, d-SWR, e-WBM, f-WBMd, g-WBP, h-WBR, i-WGMr, j-WGPs, k-WGR, l-WMdB, m-WMP, n-WPM, o-WRB, p-WRG, q-WRM, r-WRS, s-WSR, t-WUPs a-WBMMd, b-WBMR, c-WGJR, d-WGMrJ, e-WGRJ, f-WGRMd, g-WGRMr, h-WGTMr, i-WGUPs,j-WMSR, k-WPsGMr, l-WRBMd, m-WRGB, n-WRGMd, o-WRMG, p-WRMS a-GWMrJU, b-GWPsUMr, c-GWUPsMr, d-WGJRMr, e-WGMrJA, f-GMrJPs, g-WGPsMrU, h-WPGGtU, i-WPsGMrT, j-WPsGTMr, k-WRGMdM, l-WRMdGM, m-WRMGA, n-WRMGMd, o-WTUGPs, p-WUPsMMr, q-WUPsTG a-WGUPsMMr, b-WGUTMrPs, c-WUGPsMrM

Note: Symbols used for crops denote: Ar-arhar, B-bajra, By-barley, G-gram, Gt-groundnut, J-jowar, M-maize, Mr-masoor, Mg-moong, Md-mustard & rapeseed, Ps-peas, P-potato, R-rice, S-soybean, S-sugarcane, T-til, U-urad, W-wheat Table 5.28  Crop-combination regions in Uttar Pradesh Crop-­ combination regions One crop-­ combination Two crop-­ combination Three crop-­ combination Four crop-­ combination Five crop-­ combination Six crop-­ combination

1995–2000 No. of districts Percent 7 10

2000–2005 No. of districts Percent 11 15

2005–2010 No. of districts Percent 14 20

2010–2015 No. of districts Percent 16 23

32

45

31

44

26

37

24

34

18

25

18

25

23

32

23

32

8

11

4

6

3

4

4

6

4

6

5

7

5

7

3

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

–

–

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

5.4 Crop Rankings and Crop-Combination Regions

239

5.4.2.3  Three Crop-Combinations Three crop-combinations during 1995–2000 were seen in 18 districts of the state. The district Shahjahanpur of upper doab, 3 districts of middle doab, 3 of lower doab, 2 of Rohilkhand, 6 of Awadh, and a single district Mahoba of Bundelkhand region formed this category (Fig. 5.19). In the districts namely, Kheri, Kushinagar, Moradabad, Saharanpur and Sitapur, wheat, rice and sugarcane were the dominant crops. The districts of Farrukhabad and Kannauj showed wheat, maize and potatoes as the common crops in this combination whereas in the districts of Bahraich, Gonda, Hardoi and Shrawasti of Awadh region, wheat, rice and maize were dominant and in Fatehpur, wheat, rice and gram formed a common component. The districts of middle doab namely, Agra, Firozabad and Mahamaya Nagar showed wheat, bajra and mustard and rapeseeds as common crop components. Budaun of Rohilkhand had wheat, bajra and rice as common component and in Sonbhadra district rice, wheat and barley make dominance as three crop-combinations. In Mahoba of Bundelkhand region, wheat, gram and pea were important crops in this combination. During the period of 2000–2005, the number of districts having three crop-­ combinations remained same. A sum of six districts was added to this combination, and six districts were shifted to other combinations. The only district Etah of middle doab, four districts of Auraiya, Etawah, Kaushambi and Mainpuri from lower doab, and Balrampur from Awadh region of the state were added to this combination. The districts shifted from this combination were namely, Firozabad, Hardoi, Mahamaya Nagar, Mahoba, Saharanpur and Sonbhadra (Fig. 5.20). During 2005–2010, three crop-combinations were identified in 23 districts of the state. The districts namely, Etah, Kaushambi and Shrawasti were shifted from this combination to other combinations, and the districts of Aligarh, Banda, Bareilly, Firozabad, Hamirpur, Kanshiram Nagar, Mahamaya Nagar and Sonbhadra were added to this category of three crop-combinations. In Kanshiram Nagar, Firozabad, Mahamaya Nagar and Aligarh, wheat and bajra together with maize, potato and rice, respectively were dominant crops, and wheat and gram dominate in Banda and Hamirpur districts along with rice and masoor, respectively. In Bareilly district of Rohilkhand region, wheat, rice and sugarcane were dominated. The districts of Sonbhadra showed rice, wheat and maize as dominant crop-combination (Fig. 5.21). Three crop-combinations were reflected in about 23 districts of the state during 2010–2015 with the addition of three districts to this category and the same numbers of districts were moved from this combination during this period (Fig. 5.22). In Bulandshahr and Ghaziabad districts of upper doab, wheat, rice and sugarcane and in Lalitpur of Bundelkhand, wheat, urad and pea were important combination crops.

240

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

5.4.2.4  Four Crop-Combinations During 1995–2000, there were 8 districts belonged to the category of four crop-­ combinations. The districts of Aligarh and Etah from middle doab, three districts Auraiya, Etawah and Kaushambi from lower doab, and Banda, Chitrakoot and Jalaun from Bundelkhand region formed this category of combination. In the districts of middle doab, wheat, bajra and maize formed the common crops along with mustard and rapeseeds and rice, respectively. In the districts of lower doab, wheat, rice and bajra were the common components together with mustard and rapeseeds and gram, respectively. The districts of Banda and Chitrakoot followed the same combination, except the district of Jalaun wherein wheat, pea, gram and masoor were the dominant crops (Fig. 5.19). During the period of 2000–2005, only 4 districts emerged having four crop-­ combinations. Within this category of four crop-combinations, three more districts namely, Bulandshahr, Jhansi and Kanpur Dehat were added forming a part of upper doab, Bundelkhand and lower doab, respectively, and some 7 districts namely, Aligarh, Auraiya, Chitrakoot, Etah, Etawah, Jalaun, and Kaushambi took a shift from this category to another category of combinations. In Bulandshahr, wheat maize, sugarcane and rice were important crops, in Kanpur Dehat, significant crops were wheat, rice, gram and mustard and rapeseeds. In Banda, wheat, gram, rice and masoor are dominant crops whereas in Jhansi, main crops in order of significance were wheat, gram, and urad and pea (Fig. 5.20). During 2005–2010, four crop-combinations were seen in three districts, in them the district of Kanpur Nagar was added to that of the previous period of 2000–2005. The other districts having this combination were namely, Bulandshahr of upper doab and Kanpur Dehat of lower doab. Kanpur Nagar had wheat, rice, maize and gram as dominant crops in this combination (Fig. 5.21). In the period of 2010–2015, four districts appeared to have this crop-­combination by adding Chitrakoot and Hamirpur of Bundelkhand region of the state. The district Bulandshahr took a shift to other combination category. In Chitrakoot and Hamirpur, wheat, gram and masoor were common crops, fourth crops forming this combination were jowar and til, respectively. In Kanpur Dehat and Kanpur Nagar, the significant crops were wheat, rice and gram along with mustard and rapeseeds and maize, respectively as fourth crop forming this crop-combination (Fig. 5.22). 5.4.2.5  Five Crop-Combinations During 1995–2000, five crop-combinations were confined to only four districts namely, Hamirpur and Jhansi from Bundelkhand, and Kanpur Dehat and Kanpur Nagar forming lower doab region (Table  5.28 and Fig.  5.19). In the districts of lower doab, wheat, rice, gram, Mustard and rapeseed and maize were the common crops. In Hamirpur, wheat, gram masoor, jowar and pea were the major crops, and wheat, potato, gram, groundnut and urad formed an important combination in district of Jhansi.

5.5 Cropping Intensity

241

During the period of 2000–2005, five crop-combinations were seen in 5 districts. The districts of Chitrakoot, Jalaun and Mahoba of Bundelkhand region were added to this category of combination. The districts of Jhansi and Kanpur Dehat were shifted to other crop-combinations category (Fig. 5.20). During 2005–2010, again in 5 districts belonging to Bundelkhand, this combination was seen. The districts namely, Jhansi and Lalitpur were added to this combination, and two districts namely, Hamirpur and Kanpur Nagar formed a part of other combination regions (Fig.  5.21). During 2010–2015, this crop-combination was occupied by three districts namely, Jalaun, Jhansi and Sonbhadra. Sonbhadra was added to be a new district with wheat, rice, maize, gram and arhar as major crops forming this combination (Fig. 5.22). 5.4.2.6  Six Crop-Combinations Only Lalitpur district of Bundelkhand region was having six crop-combinations in both the periods of 1995–2000 and 2000–2005. During 2005–2010, not even a single district had this combination while in 2010–2015, only Mahoba district formed this combination. In Lalitpur, wheat, gram, urad, pea, maize and masoor formed this combination, and in Mahoba, wheat, gram, urad, til, masoor and pea were the dominant crops (Figs. 5.19, 5.20, 5.21 and 5.22).

5.5  Cropping Intensity Crop intensity is a major source of productivity increase and agriculture growth in the country (Chand et al. 2011).Cropping intensity in agriculture refers to the ratio of gross cropped area (i.e. sum of area under all the crops in a given agricultural year) to net sown area, usually expressed in percentages. It is proportion of area sown more than once (Sharma 2000). Since time immemorial irrigation has been regarded as an essential part of sound agricultural infrastructure. It encourages farmers to adopt scientific techniques and go in for more intensive cropping hence creating new opportunities for gainful employment. Cropping intensity is one of the main attributes of agricultural productivity because it is implicitly related to the expansion and intensification processes of agricultural land use (Singh 1994). Intensity of cropping implies the degree of cropping or number of crops grown in the same plot during one agricultural year. It is an indication of the total cropped area as distinguished from the net sown area. The expansion of irrigation contributes an increase in cropping intensity in the coming years. The increasing demand of food and fibre for ever increasing population is realized as one of the demographic causes of agricultural intensification. The availability of adequate irrigation facilities transforms the subsistence agriculture landscape gradually into commercial one, making agrarian economy as market oriented (Pawar and Pujari 2007). An increase in irrigation intensity contributes to the

242

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

growth in overall cropping intensity. Consequently, India has moved from the spectre of food imports and periodic famines to self-sufficiency, since the early 1970s, food exports and progressively more diversified production (GOI 1999). District-wise variations in cropping intensity during the periods of 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015 are given in Fig. 5.23. For the state of UP, cropping intensity during 1995–2000 was 147%. Attaining a positive growth of 2.79, 1.76 and 1.55%, it increased to 151, 153 and 156%, respectively during the periods of 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015 (Table 5.1). Very high cropping intensity (above 170%) during 1995–2000 was observed in the districts namely, Rampur, Mahrajganj and Bulandshahr. The districts included within this category during 2000–2005 were namely, Rampur, Mahrajganj, Bara Banki, Chandauli and Moradabad. During the period of 2000–2010, the number of districts in this category increased to 12 with the addition of Mainpuri, Aligarh, Shahjahanpur, Bulandshahr, SKN, Azamgarh, Pilibhit districts. During the period of 2010–2015, again 12 districts experience very high cropping intensity in the state (Table 5.29). There were 20 districts in the category of high cropping intensity (155 to 170%) during the period 1995–2000, the number of districts increased in order of 26, 22 and 26 during 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, respectively. Very high and high intensity of cropping was confined to the areas belonging to western and eastern parts of the state where irrigation is well developed with high share of gross cropped area. In the category of medium cropping intensity in between 140% and 155%, the number of districts decreased from 30 to 27, 24 and 22, respectively in the later periods of study. There were altogether 18 districts to represent low and very low categories of cropping intensity during 1995–2000 whereas during 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, the number of districts decreased to 12, 13 and 11, respectively (Fig.  5.23). During 2010–2015, these were namely, Basti, Mahoba, Kaushambi, Mirzapur, Kanpur Dehat, Bijnor, Banda, Sonbhadra, Hamirpur, Jalaun and Chitrakoot.

5.5.1  Growth in Cropping Intensity During 1995–2000 to 2000–2005, there were 7 districts which attained high growth of above 10% in intensity of cropping (Table 5.30). The number of districts showing the same growth decreased to 5 and 3, respectively in the later growth periods. There were 42, 38 and 41 districts, respectively which recorded growth between 0% and 10% during these periods, respectively. The negative growth ranging between –10 and 0 in cropping intensity was recorded in 21, 25 and 27 districts, respectively whereas very low negative growth was seen in 2 districts namely, Sonbhadra and Shrawasti districts during period 2000–2005 to 2005–2010.

5.6 Cropping Intensity vs. Irrigated Area: A Correlative Assessment

243

Fig. 5.23  Uttar Pradesh: cropping intensity, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

5.6  C  ropping Intensity vs. Irrigated Area: A Correlative Assessment Karl Pearson’s correlation of coefficient (r) technique was used and t-test was performed to test the significance level between the components of irrigation and cropping intensity. Simple linear regression technique was also applied to evaluate the impact of irrigation (independent variable) on cropping intensity (dependent

244

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Table 5.29  Cropping intensity in Uttar Pradesh Category (Percent) Very high (Above 170) High (155–170) Medium (140–155) Low (125–140) Very low (Below 125)

1995–2000 2000–2005 2005–2010 No. of No. of No. of districts Percent districts Percent districts Percent 3 4 5 7 12 17

2010–2015 No. of districts Percent 12 17

20

28

26

37

22

31

26

37

30

42

27

38

24

34

22

31

10

14

6

8

8

11

7

10

7

10

6

8

5

7

4

6

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Notes: (–) denotes data not available in this category Table 5.30  District-wise growth in cropping intensity of Uttar Pradesh Growth (Percent) Above 10

0 to 10

Growth period (1995–2000 to 2000–2005) No. Name of district 7 Etawah, Faizabad, SKN, Meerut, Shrawasti, Balrampur and Allahabad 42 Bara Banki, Moradabad, Jhansi, Lalitpur, Ghazipur, Deoria, Mathura, Kaushambi, Sitapur, Kushinagar, Gonda, Chandauli, Budaun, Hamirpur, Jaunpur, Jalaun, Firozabad, Ambedkar Nagar, Azamgarh, Baghpat, Mahrajganj, Bahraich, Ballia, Agra, Mahamaya Nagar, Rampur, Rae Bareli, Mahoba, Banda, Bareilly, Shahjahanpur, Siddharthnagar, Gorakhpur, JPN, Auraiya, Lucknow, Pilibhit, Kheri, Hardoi, Aligarh, Ghaziabad and Kanpur Dehat

Growth period (2000– 2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 5 GBN, Mainpuri, Varanasi, Jhansi and Siddharthnagar 38

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 3 Lalitpur, Pratapgarh and Jhansi

41 Mahoba, Jalaun, Lalitpur, Jaunpur, Shahjahanpur, Hardoi, Chandauli, Faizabad, Moradabad, Aligarh, Bara Banki, Budaun, Unnao, Auraiya, Azamgarh, Rampur, Rae Bareli, Etawah, Allahabad, Sitapur, Agra, Pilibhit, Firozabad, Bareilly, SKN, Ghazipur, Gorakhpur, Deoria, Bulandshahr, Farrukhabad, Hamirpur, Etah, Baghpat, Fatehpur, Mahrajganj, Ambedkar Nagar, Kushinagar and Bahraich

GBN, Bara Banki, Mahoba, Hamirpur, Shrawasti, Kanshiram Nagar, Banda, Gonda, Firozabad, Fatehpur, Agra, Aligarh, Rae Bareli, Mahamaya Nagar, Muzaffarnagar, Budaun, Bulandshahr, Unnao, Kaushambi, Jaunpur, Sitapur, Auraiya, Bahraich, SRNB, Ghaziabad, Ballia, Allahabad, Etawah, Sultanpur, Mathura, Gorakhpur, Baghpat, Mahrajganj, Etah, Saharanpur, Kushinagar, Kheri, Mau, Farrukhabad, Chitrakoot and JPN (continued)

5.6 Cropping Intensity vs. Irrigated Area: A Correlative Assessment

245

Table 5.30 (continued) Growth (Percent) –10 to 0

Growth period (1995–2000 to 2000–2005) No. Name of district 21 Unnao, Mau, Bulandshahr, Chitrakoot, Mirzapur, Bijnor, Basti, Mainpuri, Sultanpur, Saharanpur, SRNB, Muzaffarnagar, Etah, Sonbhadra, Fatehpur, Kannauj, Varanasi, GBN, Pratapgarh, Kanpur Nagar and Farrukhabad

Below –10 –

–

Growth period (2000– 2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 25 Sultanpur, Mahamaya Nagar, Kanpur Dehat, Mau, Meerut, Muzaffarnagar, Kheri, Ghaziabad, Bijnor, Banda, Lucknow, Kaushambi, Kanpur Nagar, JPN, Kannauj, SRNB, Gonda, Balrampur, Mathura, Ballia, Basti, Chitrakoot, Saharanpur, Mirzapur and Pratapgarh 2 Sonbhadra and Shrawasti

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 27 Bareilly, Shahjahanpur, Ghazipur, Ambedkar Nagar, Varanasi, Deoria, Lucknow, Rampur, Meerut, Kanpur Nagar, Kannauj, Moradabad, Sonbhadra, Bijnor, Faizabad, Azamgarh, Pilibhit, SKN, Balrampur, Chandauli, Jalaun, Mirzapur, Basti, Hardoi, Mainpuri, Kanpur Dehat and Siddharthnagar –

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Notes: (–) denotes data not available in this category

variable). Table 5.31 shows coefficient values of the variables of cropping intensity, net irrigated area, area irrigated more than once and different sources of irrigation for the period 2010–2015. Cropping intensity presents a high positive correlation with net irrigated area and area irrigated more than once during this period, and marked with coefficient values of 0.685 for net irrigated area, and 0.663 for more than once irrigated area, respectively at 1% significance level. Area irrigated more than once has indicated a high positive correlation with net irrigated area with coefficient value of 0.679 with 1% significance level. It has been illustrated in Table 5.31 that, high cropping intensity in the districts of Bara Banki, Rampur, Mahrajganj, Mainpuri, Kanshiram Nagar, Aligarh, Chandauli, Moradabad, Bulandshahr, Lalitpur, Budaun and Shahjahanpur during 2010–2015 was because of high net irrigated area in these districts. Excluding, Budaun (29.73%), Lalitpur (1.15%) and Mahrajganj (6.14%), all the districts were having above 50% more than once irrigated area in the state. Whereas, the districts of Hamirpur, Jalaun and Chitrakoot of Bundelkhand and Sonbhadra of Purvanchal recorded very lo cropping intensity (less than 125%) due to low percentage of net irrigated area and area irrigated more than once. With respect to source-wise irrigated area, tubewell irrigated area (private and total) showed a positive correlation with cropping intensity with the magnitude of 0.151 for private tubewells and 0.112 for total tubewells. A significant and low ­positive correlation of tubewell irrigated area was also found with net irrigated area (Table 5.31). A close look of table highlights the fact that canal irrigated area in the state shows a low but negative relationship with cropping intensity with the coeffi-

246

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

Table 5.31  Correlation matrix of variables of cropping intensity and irrigated area in Uttar Pradesh, 2010–2015 Variables X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10

X1 1 .685** .663** −.162 −.178 .151 .112 .053 −.323** .134

X2

X3

X4

X5

X6

X7

X8

X9

X10

1 .679** −.268* −.134 .360** .333** −.099 −.579** .000

1 −.084 −.038 .190 .184 −.087 −.545** −.016

1 .064 −.745** −.740** −.111 .290* .013

1 −.169 .061 −.162 −.050 −.064

1 .973** −.514** −.598** −.204

1 −.558** 1 −.617** .439** 1 −.222 .065 .124 1

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Note: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * . Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) X1-Cropping intensity (Percent); X2-Net irrigated area to net sown area (Percent); X3-More than once irrigated area to net sown area (Percent); X4-Canal irrigated area to net irrigated area (Percent); X5-Irrigated area through government tubewells to net irrigated area (Percent); X6-Irrigated area through private tubewells to net irrigated area (Percent); X7-Total tubewell irrigated area to net irrigated area (Percent); X8-Other wells irrigated area to net irrigated area (Percent); X9-Tanks irrigated area to net irrigated area (Percent); X10-Other means irrigated area to net irrigated area (Percent)

cient value of −0.162. A negative correlation of canal irrigated area was also observed with net irrigated area and area irrigated more than once. This shows that high tubewell irrigated area has played a powerful role in increasing the net irrigated area in the districts that lead to high cropping intensity by putting more land under irrigated cropping, in comparison to the districts which have high irrigated area under canals because tubewells provide adequate and timely irrigation and enhance the possibilities of double, triple or multiple cropping, and thus ease in increasing the area under cultivation (Narayana et al. 1982). Irrigated area by tanks presents a negative correlation with cropping intensity. It may be concluded that high cropping intensity in most of the districts of the state is an outcome of adequate and reliable supply of irrigation with modern means of irrigation (tubewells). Figure 5.24a–i show the linear regression considering the variables of irrigation and cropping intensity for the period of 2010–2015. Figure 5.24a, b, e and f show low but a positive relationship of cropping intensity with net irrigated area, area irrigated more than once, private tubewells and total tubewells irrigated area, irrigated area by other wells and other means at 47%, 44%, 2.3%, 1.2%, 0.2% and 1.8% coefficient of determination (R2), respectively. It is depicted that the variances presented in the figures for the variables of cropping intensity are explained by the corresponding indicators of irrigation. Similarly, Fig.  5.24c, d, g, h and i manifest a negative and inverse relationship among the indicators of canal irrigated area, irrigated area by government tubewells and tanks irrigated area with cropping intensity by way of variances in order of 2.6, 3.1 and 10.6%. These figures clearly explain the major role played by different methods of irrigation on cropping intensity in the districts of the state.

5.6 Cropping Intensity vs. Irrigated Area: A Correlative Assessment

247

UTTAR PRADESH Cropping intensity (%)

Cropping Intensity vs. Net Irrigation Area (2010-15) 250 200 150 100 y = 0.672x + 99.50 R2 = 0.47

50 0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Net irrigated area (%) (a) Cropping intensity vs. Net irrigation area UTTAR PRADESH Cropping intensity (%)

Cropping Intensity vs. Area Irrigated More Than Once (2010-15) 250 200 150 100

y = 0.503x + 136.6 R2 = 0.440

50 0 0

20

40

60

80

100

Area Irrigated more than once (%) (b) Cropping intensity vs. Area irrigated more than once UTTAR PRADESH Cropping intensity (%)

Cropping Intensity vs. Area Irrigated by Canals (2010-15) 250 200 150 100 y = -0.155x + 159.0 R2 = 0.026

50 0 0

20

40

60

80

100

Canal irrigated area (%) (c) Cropping intensity vs. Area irrigated by canals

Fig. 5.24  Uttar Pradesh: relationship between cropping intensity and irrigated area by different sources, 2010–2015

248

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

UTTAR PRADESH Cropping intensity (%)

Cropping Intensity vs. Area Irrigated by Total Tubewells (2010-15) 250 200 150 100 y = 0.083x + 150.1 R2 = 0.012

50 0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Total tubewells irrigated area (%) (d) Cropping intensity vs. Area irrigated by total tubewells

Cropping intensity (%)

UTTAR PRADESH Cropping Intensity vs. Area Irrigated by Government Tubewells (2010-15) 250 200 150 100

y = -0.557x + 158.2 R2 = 0.031

50 0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Governmenr tubewells irrgated area (%) (e) Cropping intensity vs. Area irrigated by government tubewells UTTAR PRADESH Cropping intensity (%)

Cropping Intensity vs. Area Irrigated by Private Tubewells (2010-15) 250 200 150 100 y = 0.110x + 148.6 R2 = 0.023

50 0 0

20

40

60

80

100

Private tubewells irrigated area (%)

(f) Cropping intensity vs. Area irrigated by private tubewells

Fig. 5.24 (continued)

249

5.6 Cropping Intensity vs. Irrigated Area: A Correlative Assessment

UTTAR PRADESH Cropping intensity (%)

Cropping Intensity vs. Area Irrigated by Other Wells (2010-15) 250 200 150 100

y = 0.063x + 155.5 R2 = 0.002

50 0 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Irrigated area by other wells (%) (g) Cropping intensity vs. Area irrigated by other wells UTTAR PRADESH Cropping intensity (%)

Cropping Intensity vs. Area Irrigated by Tanks (2010-15) 250 200 150 100 y = -1.975x + 158.2 R2 = 0.106

50 0 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Irrigated area by tanks (%) (h) Cropping intensity vs. Area irrigated by tanks UTTAR PRADESH

Cropping intensity (%)

Cropping Intensity vs. Area Irrigated by Other Means (2010-15) 250 200 150 y = 0.625x + 155.4 R2 = 0.018

100 50 0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Irrigated area by other means (%) (i) Cropping intensity vs. Area irrigated by other means

Fig. 5.24 (continued)

35

250

5  Agricultural Land Use Patterns

References Ahmad QM, Khan MF (1984) Changes in the cropping patterns of the Punjab plains. The Geographer 31(1):14–31 Ahmad A, Siddiqi MF (1967) Crop association patterns in the Luni basin. Geogr 14:69–80 Asawa GL (2005) Irrigation and water resources engineering. New Age International Publishers, New Delhi Bajpai N, Volavka N (2005) Agricultural performance in Uttar Pradesh: a historical account, Working paper no. 23. The Earth Institute, Centre on Globalization and Sustainable Development, Columbia Balasubramaniam I, Kumar KSK (2010) Climate variability and agricultural productivity case study of rice yields in northern India. J Indian Assoc Soc Sci Inst 29(3 & 4):123–147 Bhatia SS (1965) Patterns of crop concentration and diversification in India. Econ Geogr 41(1):39–56 Chand R, Prasanna PAL, Singh A (2011) Farm size and productivity: Understanding the Strengths of smallholders and improving their livelihoods. Econ Polit Wkly xlvi(26 & 27):1–11 Chhaukar AK, Mittal YK (2007) Changing pattern of crop land-use in Dadri tahsil (Haryana) 1966-93. In: Mohammad A, Munir A, Siddiqui SH (eds) Fifty years on Indian agriculture: determinants of production. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp 175–189 Doi K (1957) The industrial structure of Japanese prefractures. Proceedings of IGU regional conference in Japan, Tokyo. Ghodke BD (2009) A study of crop-combination in Daund tahsil in Pune district. Shod Samiksha aur Mulyankan (Hindi) (Int Res J) 1(9):28–31 Government of India (1999) Integrated water resource development: a plan for action. Report of the national commission on integrated water resources development, vol I. Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi Government of India (2009) Uttar Pradesh: state development report, vol I and II.  Planning Commission, New Delhi Husain M (1989) Diffusion of high yielding varieties of rice and wheat in India and social tension. In: Shafi M, Aziz A (eds) Food systems of the world. Rawat Publications, Jaipur, pp 53–54 Johnson BLC (1958) Crop association regions in East Pakistan. Geography 42:86–103 Kachroo P (1970) Pulse crops of India. ICAR, New Delhi Kapoor N, Arya A, Siddiqui MA, Kumar H, Amir A (2011) Physiological and biochemical changes during seed deterioration in aged seeds of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Am J Plant Physiol 6(1):28–35 Khan SA (1982) Spatio-temporal changes in crop regions in Ganga-Yamuna Doab. The Geographer 29(1):57–69 Khanna SS, Gupta RC (1988) Raising production of pulses. Yojna 32(17):4–8 Mathur N (2012) Huge stocks may keep wheat prices in check. The Economic Times, July 30. Retrieved from http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-07-30/ news/32942530_1_wheat-production-wheat-prices-wheat-acreage Misra HN, Kumar R (2007) Land-use changes and food crop productivity in India: A spatio-­ temporal analysis. In: Mohammad A, Munir A, Siddiqui SH (eds) Fifty years on Indian agriculture: determinants of production. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp 266–282 Narayana D, Ratnam VCV, Nair KN (1982) An approach to study of irrigation: Case of Kanyakumari district. Econ Polit Wkly 17(39):A85–A102 Nelson HJ (1955) A service classification of American cities. Econ Geogr 31:189–210 Pawar CT, Pujari AA (2007) Impact of irrigation on agricultural productivity: A micro level analysis. In: Mohammad A, Munir A, Siddiqui SH (eds) Fifty years on Indian agriculture: determinants of production. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp 165–174 Pownall LL (1953) The functions of New Zealand towns. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 43(4):332–350 Rafiullah SM (1965) A new approach to functional classification of towns. Geogr 12:40–53

References

251

Raja K (2012a) Complete information on area and production of wheat in India. Retrieved from http://www.preservearticles.com/2012020422629/completeinformation-on-area and-production-of-wheat-in-india.html Raja K (2012b) Complete information on the area and production of sugarcane in India. Retrieved from http://www.preservearticles.com/2012020422702/completeinformation-on-the-area-and productionof-sugarcane-in-india.html Rathod HB, Naik VT (2009) Agricultural land use cropping pattern in Yavatmal district. Shod Samiksha aur Mulyankan (Int Res J) 2(6):780–782 Sathe D, Agarwal S (2004) Liberalisation of pulses sector: production, prices and imports. Econ Polit Wkly 39(30):3391–3397 Shafi M (1984) Agricultural productivity and regional imbalances. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi Shakeel A, Hashmi NI (2012) Changing spatial pattern, trend and regional imbalances in pulse production in eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. J Agric Ext Rural Dev 4(7):129–140 Sharma KR (2000) Groundwater management for sustainable agriculture. Indian Farming 49(11):42–46 Siddiqi MF (1967) Combinational analysis: A review of methodology. The Geographer 14:81–99 Singh H (1965) Crop-combination regions in the Malwa tract of Punjab. Deccan Geogr 3:21–30 Singh VR (1989) Land-use change in the Tarai region of Uttar Pradesh, India. In: Hill RD (ed) Land-use change proceedings of the Asahikawa-Sapporo international symposium. University Press, Hong Kong, pp 63–76 Singh S (1992) Dynamics of cropping pattern in Northern India. In: Mohammad N (ed) Spatial dimensions of agriculture. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi Singh S (1994) Agricultural development in India: a regional analysis. Kaushal Publications, Shillong Spate OHK, Learmonth ATA (1967) India, Pakistan and Ceylon: the regions. Methuen and Co., London Sundaram IS (2010, December) India needs a pulse revolution. Facts for you. Retrieved from http://www.efymag.com/admin/issuepdf/pulses_dec10.pdf Suthakar K, Bui EN (2008) Land use/cover changes in the War-ravaged Jaffna Peninsula, Sri Lanka, 1984-early 2004. Singap J Trop Geogr 29(2):205–220 Thakur R (2007) Crop-combination regions in South Bihar Plain. In: Mohammad A, Munir A, Rehman H (eds) Fifty years of Indian agriculture: production and self-sufficiency. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp 310–322 Todkari GU, Suryawanshi SP, Suryawanshi MV, Patil BD (2010) Agriculture land use pattern in Solapur district of Maharashtra. Int J Agric Sci 2(2):1–8 Tripathi VB, Agarwal U (1968) Changing patterns of crop land use in the lower Ganga-Yamuna doab. Geogr 15:128–140 Verma NMP (1993) Irrigation in India: themes on development, planning, performance and management. M.D. Publications, Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Vyalij PY (2009) A spatio-temporal analysis of crop-combination in Nasik district of Maharashtra. Int Res J 2(6):775–777 Weaver JC (1954a) Crop-combination regions in the Middle West. Geogr Rev 44(2):175–200 Weaver JC (1954b) Crop-combination regions for 1919 and 1929 in the Middle West. Geogr Rev 44(4):560–572

Chapter 6

Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

Abstract  This chapter deals with the measurement of agricultural productivity and water productivity of major crops which plays a significant role in the agricultural development of the state. Agricultural productivity and demarcation of productivity regions have been considered by taking into account four major groups of cropscereal crops, pulse crops, oilseed crops and cash crops by applying Yang’s ‘crop yield index’ method (1965). Further, crop water requirements, i.e., the evapotranspiration, during the crop growing seasons were calculated applying a statistical formula devised for this purpose and water productivity for four major crops, viz., wheat, rice, maize and sugarcane, were measured for each district of the state. As there are substantial variations in water productivity, some measures have also been put forward for increasing water productivity in the crops considered. Keywords  Agricultural productivity · Agricultural productivity regions · Consumptive water use · Crop coefficient approach · Karl pearson’s coefficient of correlation · Simple linear regression technique · Water productivity · Yang’s crop yield index method

6.1  M  easurement of Agricultural Productivity and Productivity Regions 6.1.1  The Concept of Agricultural Productivity Agricultural productivity refers to the output produced by a given level of input(s) in the agricultural sector of a given economy (Fulginiti and Perrin 1998). It can be defined as the ratio of the index of total agricultural output to the index of total input used in farm production (Olayide and Heady 1982; Shafi 1984). It is, therefore, a measure of the efficiency with which inputs are utilised in production, other things being equal. It is physical rather than a value concept that describes the relationship between output and the major inputs utilized in production (Zaman and Rahman 2009).

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 S. Lata, Irrigation Water Management for Agricultural Development in Uttar Pradesh, India, Advances in Asian Human-Environmental Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00952-6_6

253

254

6  Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

Measurement of crop productivity is one of the important concepts to examine the performance of agriculture and its transformation. It includes ascertaining the impact of technological advancement, effective management of available water resources and organizational set up for the agricultural production. These factors, in turn, affect the relative productivity in a region. In order to mark out variations in agricultural productivity, the attention of many of the researchers and planners has been focused in India as well as in other countries of the world. The productivity of the crop is judged not only from the view of quantity but also variety and quality of crop produce. Irrigation water and its adequate availability not only enhance productivity per hectare but also promotes adoption of new agricultural technology embodied in the form of use of HYVs, fertilizers and plant protection measures along with the practices of improved water management. Accelerated development of irrigation may substantially boost the prospects for raising agricultural production provided it is accompanied by appropriate technological developments and more efficient water management. Another desirable influence of irrigation is that it induces a higher degree of stability in yields per hectare and thereby, reduces fluctuations in production levels. Thus, irrigation together with new technology package raises substantially the productive capacity of the land. Agricultural productivity in India in terms of output per unit area and per worker is low in comparison to the world averages and has attained the same status for many decades. The most significant development in agricultural productivity in India has been in recent years in the form of a shift from traditional based agriculture to modern methods. Modern agriculture has ushered a change in techniques and use of production inputs that were unknown to farmers a few decades ago. This change has increased considerably the yield per hectare of several crops and thereby average productivity. However, the average yields of many crops are still below the world averages and far behind the developed countries of Europe, Anglo America, and even some Asian countries (Doorenbos and Pruitt 1977). The unimpressive change in average productivity in India is due to unequal diffusion of new agricultural technology from one area and crop to another. In some regions, where the new agriculture has taken a firm hold, productivity has recorded a remarkable increase, whereas in other regions it has changed a little (Dayal 1984).

6.1.2  A  gricultural Productivity and Methods of Its Measurement Definition and measurement of productivity in agriculture have always been debatable. Analysis of agricultural productivity has attracted the attention of a large number of geographers and economists working in this discipline. Many attempts have been made to measure it and marked out the variations in food crop productivity in India as well as in other countries of the world. In an earlier attempt, Thompson (1926) measured productivity of British and Danish farming by taking into consideration seven aspects related to farming: the yield per acre of crops; the number of livestock per 100 acres; the gross production or output per 100 acres; the production of arable land; the number of persons employed; the cost of production expressed in

6.1 Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Productivity Regions

255

terms of wages and labour costs, rent or interest on capital; and prices, relative profitability and general economic conditions. Ganguli (1938) presented a theoretical discussion for computing productivity in agriculture in the Ganga Valley (India). Firstly, he took into account the area under any crops ‘A’ in a particular unit area belonging to a certain region. This area is expressed as a proportion of the total cropped area under all the selected crops. Secondly, Ganguli tried to obtain the index number of yield. This is found by dividing the yield per hectare for the entire region as the standard. This yield may be expressed as a percentage and the percentage may be regarded as the index number of yield. Thirdly, the proportion of area under A and the corresponding index number of yield were multiplied. There are two apparent advantages of this method, i.e. (a) the relative importance of the crop A in that unit of study, and (b) the yield of crop A in comparison to the regional standard. The product thus obtained indicates actually an index of the contribution of crop A to the productivity of the unit considered. Kendall (1939) treated it as a mathematical problem and initiated a system of four coefficients (a) productivity coefficient, (b) ranking coefficient, (c) money value coefficient and (d) starch equivalent or energy coefficient. Kendall pointed out that the productivity coefficient and the ranking coefficient are concerned only with the yield per acre, but are not in any way weighted according to the volume of production. He, therefore, evolved a measure of crop productivity by using index number technique. In this technique, the yield of different crops is expressed in terms of some common units. Kendall pointed out that, there are two common units which can be taken note of: first, the money value ‘as expressed in price’ and second, energy ‘as expressed in starch value equivalent.’ Hirsch (1943) has suggested, ‘Crop Yield Index’ as the basis of productivity measurement. According to him, it expresses the average of yields of various crops on a farm or in a locality relative to the yield of the same crops on another farm in a second locality. Zobel (1950) has attempted to examine the labour productivity. He considered the productivity of labour as the ratio of total crop output to the total man-hours consumed in the production of that output, resulting in an estimate of output per manhour. Stamp (1952) applied Kendall’s ranking coefficient technique on an international level to determine agricultural efficiency considering a number of countries as well as some major crops. Huntington and Valkenburg (1952) considered land productivity on the basis of acre yields of eight crops raised very widely in Europe as a whole, and assumed as an index per 100 for it, and thus calculated the specific yield index of each country. Stamp (1958) suggested a method for measuring the agricultural productivity, i.e., to convert total agricultural production in calories. The calorie intake is a measure of the general health of a person because it determines the amount of heat and energy needed by the human body. Shafi (1960) applied the technique ‘ranking coefficient’ of Kendall for measuring the agricultural efficiency in the state of Uttar Pradesh taking into account eight food crops grown in each of forty-eight districts of the state for two quinquennial years ending 1952 and 1957. Loomis and Barton (1961) have measured United States agricultural input and productivity in aggregate. To them, aggregate productivity depends upon conceptually consistent measures of agricultural output and input. The measures of inputs include all the production factors that depend directly on the decisions of farmers. Meiburg and Brandt (1962) have surveyed the earlier indices relating to agricultural

256

6  Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

output, e.g., output estimates of total productivity of the United States. Mackenzie (1962) has measured the efficiency of production in Canadian agriculture by using the coefficient of output relative to input. He mentioned that the concept of productivity measurement in agriculture is difficult to define and even more difficult to quantify. Oommen (1962) while working out the trends of productivity in agriculture of the state of Kerala (India) has measured productivity on the basis of yield per acre. Enyedi (1964), while describing geographical types of agriculture in Hungary refers to a formula for determining agriculture productivity. Horring (1964) has suggested that the concept of productivity is based not only on the single relationship between output and input but rather on the differences between two or more relationships, i.e., differences in the same agricultural region or sub-region as between successive periods (in time), and between similar agricultural regions in different countries or regions during the same period (in space). Sapre and Deshpande (1964) have attempted to refine further the Kendall’a ‘ranking coefficient method’. For this, they used ‘weighted average of ranks’ instead of the simple average of ranks. Thus, it incorporates the proportion of crop area to the total cropped area of the district. Khusro (1965) has linked assessment of productivity with the output per unit of a single input and output per unit of cost of all inputs in the agricultural production. Saran (1965) has applied Cobb-Douglas ‘Production Function’ approach for the measurement of productivity. The common purpose of this function is to express input/output relationship between several inputs and one output in the agricultural systems. Shafi (1965) has assessed the productivity on the basis of labour population engaged in agriculture. According to him, it can be computed by dividing the gross production in any unit area by the number of man-hours or less precisely by the numbers employed in agriculture. Agarwal (1965) has suggested ‘Factorial Approach’ while measuring agricultural efficiency in Bastar district of Madhya Pradesh. A number of human-controlled factors relating to agricultural production as crop superiority, crop commercialization, crop security, land use intensity and power input have been selected, excluding the environmental factors. Dovring (1967) has measured the productivity of labour in the United States agriculture in aggregate since 1919–1954 for the entire period, as well as commoditywise. Bhatia (1967) while assessing the changes and trends in agricultural efficiency in Uttar Pradesh during 1953–1963 adopted Ganguli’s method of productivity measurement. Shafi (1967 and 1969) applied Stamp’s ‘Standard Nutrition Unit’ technique for measuring the efficiency of agriculture in India. He considered the district as the areal unit and has selected all the food crops grown in the country. Sinha (1968) has adopted a standard deviation formula to determine agricultural efficiency in India. For this purpose he selected all the twenty-five major crops grown in the country these were grouped into as: cereals, pulses, oilseeds and cash crops and specific yields per hectare of cereals, pulses and oilseeds were taken into account. Shafi (1970) attempted to compute the index of productivity coefficient following the formula initiated by Enyedi for each district of India with regard to twelve food crops. In another study Shafi (1972), while commenting on the formula presented by Enyedi in determining productivity index of an area with reference to the

6.2 Agricultural Productivity Regions: Based on Crop Yield Index Method

257

national scale pointed out that there are certain cases where the results obtained by the formula are influenced by the magnitude of the area under a particular crop when the yield of the district is either the same or is less than the national yield. Rehman (1976) while examining the impact of mechanization on food crop productivity in the districts of Uttar Pradesh applied Kendall’s ranking coefficient method. Bhalla (1978) considered output per person on a constant average price for measuring the productivity of labour in Indian agriculture on the basis of nineteen crops grown during the triennials 1962–1965 and 1970–1973 for each district of the country. Singh (1979) devised a method for presenting a two-dimensional picture of agricultural productivity comprising two components, viz., intensity and spread considering three variables (i) yield, (ii) grain equivalent, and (iii) cropping system in the districts of Andhra Pradesh state. Accordingly, a relative share of intensity and spread for each micro unit (district) has been computed to the macro unit (state) separately for the above three variables with the help of equations that have been derived. Bhalla and Tyagi (1989) followed a method of production aggregation (in terms of money) which can be considered a method noticeable for showing diversification in agricultural production patterns in India. However, there is still a question among scholars whether total production of crops achieved on a piece of land is considered, which a product of many factors like agro-ecological conditions of land, technological enhancement and labour employed for agriculture. If it is a result of a combination of all such geographical factors, the question of isolating effects of such different production factors is still debatable (Sharma 2012). Rehman and Hussain (2003) in their study of North Bihar Plain used Kendall’s method of ranking coefficient for measuring agricultural efficiency considering nine major crops grown for two periods of 1990–1995 and 1995–2000. Zaman and Rahman (2009), and Umar and Rehman (2011) while determining productivity regions in the Ganga-Yamuna doab and in the state of UP, respectively applied Yang’s Crop Yield Index method.

6.2  A  gricultural Productivity Regions: Based on Crop Yield Index Method For the present study, productivity indices were calculated following Yang’s Crop Yield Index method (1965) for four consecutive periods of time, i.e. 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015. Computation of crop yield index (CYI) involved the yield of all crops grown in the district compared with the average crop yield of the entire region. Before calculating the crop yield index for a particular farm, the average yield of each of the crops grown in the region must be determined. Then, by dividing the yield per hectare of a crop on a particular farm by the average yield of the crop in the region, a percentage figure is obtained which when multiplied by 100, gives the index number, as shown in column 5 (Table 6.1). By using the area devoted to each crop as a weight to multiply this percentage index, the products are obtained as listed in column 6 of table. By adding the products and dividing the sum of the products by the total crop area (in ha.) of the farm (the sum

258

6  Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

Table 6.1  Method of calculating crop yield index of a farm

Crops 1 Wheat Rice Barley Maize Total

Yield in quintals per hectare Average in Farm the region X 2 3 20 22 18 17 22 20 30 36 – –

Hectares of crop on farm X 4 10 10 5 15 40

Crop yield on farm X as a percentage of the region (Col. 3/Col.2)*100 5 110 94 91 120 –

Percentage multiplied by hectares (Col.4*Col.5) 6 1100 940 455 1800 4295

Source: Yang (1965) Note: Crop index on farm X = 4295/40 = 107

of column 4), the average index is the desired crop index for the particular farm, using crop area as a weight. All of the major 18 crops grown in the state were taken into account for computing crop yield index. For the sake of convenience, all crops were categorized into four major groups: cereal crops (bajra, barley, jowar, maize, rice and wheat); pulse crops (arhar, gram, masoor, moong, pea and urad); oilseed crops (groundnut, mustard and rapeseeds, soybean and til); and cash crops (potato and sugarcane), and a composite index for all the groups of crops were also computed applying the same method.

6.2.1  Crop Productivity Regions: Cereal Crops Cereal crops constitute an important item in the diet of a large chunk of the population in the state because they are comparatively a cheap source of calories. The importance of cereals is increasing day by day because of increasing demand of the growing population. Cereal crops do not fix atmospheric nitrogen in soils for enrichment as the pulses do, but the residues of cereals return the more organic matter to the soils than do the pulse crops. The main cereal crops: wheat, rice, maize, barley, jowar and bajra, provide about 75% of calories needed in human diet at a cheaper rate as compared to other crops. Protein content in cereals ranges in between 6 and 12%. Rice contains 7.5%, maize 9.5%, and barley 11%. Besides protein, cereal crops also contain fats, calcium and iron. With regard to caloric content, 100 gram of wheat contains 330 calories, rice 357, maize 356 and barley 330 calories (Aykroyd and Doughty 1970). The crop yield indices were computed on the basis of Yang’s method for cereal, pulse, oilseed and cash crops during the periods of 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005– 2010 and 2010–2015. During the period of 1995–2000, very high productivity (index value of above 120) of cereal crops was seen in the districts of GangaYamuna doab namely, Bulandshahr, Meerut, Baghpat, Kannauj, Mahamaya Nagar, Farrukhabad, Ghaziabad, Muzaffarnagar, Agra and Aligarh, and two districts of Rohilkhand plains namely, Pilibhit and Rampur also belonged to this category.

6.2 Agricultural Productivity Regions: Based on Crop Yield Index Method

259

Following these, there were 20 districts which lie in the Ganga-Yamuna doab and Rohilkhand plains of the state including some eastern districts namely, Chandauli, Kushinagar, Mahrajganj, Varanasi and SRNB which recorded high productivity with crop yield index values between 105 and 120, whereas 14 districts had medium productivity with index values in between 90 and 105, these did not form a contiguous belt and scattered in all parts of the state, except the districts of upper and middle doab (Table 6.2 and Fig. 6.1). Low productivity (index values 75–90) was marked in 18 districts, and 6 districts namely, Mahoba, Shrawasti, Lalitpur, Chitrakoot, Sonbhadra and Banda were characterized with very low productivity (index values below 75). During the period of 2000–2005, there were 8 districts which showed very high productivity of cereal crops and the highest productivity was recorded by Bulandshahr district (133.53) of upper doab while the lowest in Mahoba (57.81) district of Bundelkhand region. During this period, the number of districts in the category of high productivity (105–120) increased from 20 in 1995–2000 to 24 during 2000–2005. It is evident from Fig.  6.1 that the districts extending from Saharanpur in the north up to Kanpur Nagar in the Ganga-Yamuna doab, almost all the districts of Rohilkhand plains, the districts Kheri and Bara Banki of Awadh plains along with 3 districts of Purvanchal region of the state attained very high and high productivity during this period. Medium productivity was seen in 14 districts, most of these were lying in Awadh and Purvanchal regions. Low productivity was marked in 19 districts, and 4 districts of Bundelkhand and Sonbhadra of Purvanchal formed a region of very low productivity of cereal crops. It is shown in Fig. 6.1 that during 2005–2010, the very high productivity of cereal crops was recorded in 8 districts which belonged entirely to doab and Rohilkhand plains. The district of Ghaziabad recorded the highest productivity with an index value of 130.52. The number of districts marked with high productivity decreased from 24 to 18. There were 24 districts within the category of medium productivity. Low productivity was recorded in 14 districts which belonged to Awadh and Purvanchal regions including Jhansi of Bundelkhand, and 7 other districts were Table 6.2  Productivity regions of cereal crops in Uttar Pradesh Crop yield index Very high (Above 120) High (105–120) Medium (90–105) Low (75–90) Very low (Below 75)

1995–2000 2000–2005 2005–2010 2010–2015 No. of No. of No. of No. of districts Percent districts Percent districts Percent districts Percent 12 17 8 11 8 11 9 13 20

28

24

34

18

25

18

25

14

20

14

20

24

34

30

42

18 6

25 8

19 5

27 7

14 7

20 10

9 5

13 7

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

260

6  Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

Fig. 6.1  Uttar Pradesh: agricultural productivity regions of cereal crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

marked with having very low productivity in cereal crop, these were namely, Mirzapur, Hamirpur, Lalitpur, Sonbhadra, Banda, Chitrakoot and Mahoba. During the period of 2010–2015, there were in total 27 districts in the category of very high and high productivity of cereal crops lying mainly in doab and Rohilkhand regions together with 5 five districts from Awadh and Purvanchal regions of the state. Medium productivity between the index values of 90 and 105 was recorded by 30 districts. In the low and very low category, the numbers of districts were 9 and 5, respectively (Fig. 6.1).

6.2 Agricultural Productivity Regions: Based on Crop Yield Index Method

261

During the period of 1995–2000 to 2000–2005, there were 35 districts which recorded a positive growth in productivity of cereal crops, whereas during 2000–2005 to 2005–2010 and 2005–2010 to 2010–2015, there were 32 and 40 districts, respectively showed a positive growth. For the sake of convenience, growth in productivity indices was grouped into four grades in order of high (above 10%), medium (0% and 10%), low (−10% and 0%) and very low (below −10%). During the former period, high growth in cereal crops was recorded in 3 districts namely, Bahraich, Shrawasti and Bara Banki. During the later periods, there were 4 and 14 districts, respectively belonged to this category (Table 6.3). Medium growth (0–10%) was noticed in 32, 28 and 26 districts, respectively, and there were 29, 29 and 28 districts belonging to the low category in respective periods. Very low growth was seen in 6, 9 and 3 districts, respectively.

6.2.2  Crop Productivity Regions: Pulse Crops The productivity of pulse crops during 1995–2000 ranged highest with an index value of 144.95 for the district of Kaushambi and lowest with the index value of 69.16 for GBN, both of these belong to the Ganga-Yamuna doab region of the state. Very high productivity characterized with index value 140 and above was recorded in 3 districts of lower doab namely, Kaushambi, Auraiya and Kanpur Dehat. Some adjoining districts of middle and lower doab and Muzaffarnagar of upper doab belong to high productivity regions (Fig.  6.2). A total of 18 districts recorded medium productivity with index value in between 100 and 120, whereas 34 districts were having low productivity in between the index values of 80 and 100, and 6 districts namely, Mathura, Mahamaya Nagar, Balrampur, Lucknow, Deoria and GBN recorded very low productivity indices of 80 and below during this period (Table 6.4). During the period of 2000–2005, the districts namely, Moradabad, JPN, Rampur and Bijnor of Rohilkhand plains got shifted from medium to very high productivity category. Another set of 3 districts namely, Kanpur Dehat, Etawah and Kannauj of lower doab also fell in very high same category. Conversely, very low productivity in pulse crops was seen in 7 districts namely, Mahoba, Siddharthnagar, SKN, Gorakhpur, Basti, Chandauli and Deoria of Bundelkhand and Purvanchal regions, respectively (Fig. 6.2). Medium and low productivity were recorded by 17 and 30 districts, respectively. The districts namely, JPN, Moradabad, Rampur, Budaun and Bijnor of Rohilkhand, and Kanpur Dehat, Auraiya, Etawah, Kannauj and Mainpuri of lower doab recorded very high productivity of pulse crops during 2005–2010. During this period, 4 adjoining districts belonging to doab region and Ballia of Purvanchal attained high productivity in pulse crops. There were in total 32 districts which recorded medium productivity, and low productivity was confined to 20 districts to form a part of Awadh and Purvanchal regions of the state, along with the districts of Saharanpur and Aligarh of doab and Jhansi of Bundelkhand. Very low productivity was seen in 4 districts namely, Chitrakoot, Hamirpur, Banda and Mahoba of Bundelkhand region (Fig. 6.2). During 2010–2015, the number of districts was 9 in very high (above 140) category of productivity of pulse crops. Four districts namely, Etah, Kanshiram Nagar,

Table 6.3  District-wise growth in productivity of cereal crops in Uttar Pradesh Growth period (1995–2000 Growth to 2000–2005) (Percent) No. Name of district Above 3 Bahraich, Shrawasti 10 and Bara Banki

0 to 10

32

−10 to 0 28

Below −10

6

Growth period (2000–2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 4 Balrampur, Siddharthnagar, Firozabad, Ghazipur

28 Kaushambi, Jalaun, Jhansi, Faizabad, Kushinagar, Sultanpur, Budaun, Rae Bareli, Kheri, Unnao, Sonbhadra, Lucknow, Hamirpur, Muzaffarnagar, Fatehpur, Mau, Pilibhit, Mainpuri, Mahrajganj, Banda, GBN, Deoria, Moradabad, Ghaziabad, Gorakhpur, Gonda, Bulandshahr, Meerut, Baghpat, Basti, SKN and Bijnor Aligarh, Pratapgarh, 29 Shahjahanpur, Hardoi, Balrampur, Allahabad, Mathura, Kanpur Dehat, Etawah, JPN, Etah, Chitrakoot, Ambedkar Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, Rampur, Firozabad, Jaunpur, Bareilly, Sitapur, Auraiya, Lalitpur, Saharanpur, Ghazipur, Agra, Azamgarh, Farrukhabad, Mahamaya Nagar, Siddharthnagar and Mirzapur Kannauj, Chandauli, 9 Varanasi, Ballia, SRNB and Mahoba

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 14 Hamirpur, Banda, Siddharthnagar, Chitrakoot, Mahoba, Sonbhadra, SRNB, Mirzapur, Mau, Sitapur, Ballia, Bara Banki, Lalitpur, Fatehpur 26 Agra, Varanasi, Ballia, Unnao, Kanshiram Nagar, Mainpuri, Auraiya, Basti, Gorakhpur, Lucknow, Sitapur, Kheri, Kanpur Nagar, Etawah, Allahabad, SKN, Etah, Jalaun, Ambedkar Nagar, Baghpat, Kanpur Azamgarh, Dehat, Meerut, Shrawasti, Hardoi, Deoria, Kaushambi, Gorakhpur, Pratapgarh, GBN, Shahjahanpur, Etah, Gonda, Chandauli, Kannauj, Ghaziabad, Azamgarh, Gonda, Lalitpur, Shrawasti, Jaunpur, Pratapgarh, Mahamaya Nagar, Budaun, Rae Bareli, Kannauj, Jaunpur, Bahraich, Fatehpur, Hardoi, Mainpuri Farrukhabad, Chandauli, Basti

28 Kanpur Dehat, Mathura, Pilibhit, SKN, Baghpat, Kanpur Nagar, JPN, Saharanpur, Meerut, Bara Banki, Bareilly, Bulandshahr, Bijnor, Aligarh, Kaushambi, Faizabad, Kheri, Varanasi, Moradabad, SRNB, Deoria, Mau, Rampur, Kushinagar, Mahrajganj, Muzaffarnagar, GBN, Mirzapur, Agra

Jhansi, Sultanpur, Mahamaya Nagar, Hamirpur, Banda, Sonbhadra, Mahoba, Jalaun, Chitrakoot

3

Saharanpur, Jhansi, Mahrajganj, Firozabad, Bareilly, Aligarh, Mathura, Faizabad, Auraiya, Ghazipur, Farrukhabad, Shahjahanpur, Etawah, Pilibhit, Lucknow, Moradabad, JPN, Ambedkar Nagar, Bulandshahr, Unnao, Ghaziabad, Kushinagar, Rampur, Allahabad, Bijnor, Balrampur, Bahraich, Rae Bareli Budaun, Muzaffarnagar, Sultanpur

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

6.2 Agricultural Productivity Regions: Based on Crop Yield Index Method

263

Fig. 6.2  Uttar Pradesh: agricultural productivity regions of pulse crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

Ballia and Agra were added to this category whereas 5 districts namely, JPN, Rampur, Auraiya, Etawah and Kannauj took a shift from this category to others. There were 10 and 16 districts, respectively belonging to high and medium productivity category. Low productivity in pulse crops was seen in 27 districts of the state and the districts namely, Lucknow, Hamirpur, Mahoba, Gorakhpur, Deoria, Rae Bareli, Muzaffarnagar, Sultanpur and Ghaziabad were characterized with very low productivity in pulse crops during this period (Fig. 6.2). Table 6.5 shows that during 1995–2000 to 2000–2005, high growth in pulse crops productivity, i.e. above 10%, was recorded by 20 districts of the state, and

264

6  Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

Table 6.4  Productivity regions of pulse crops in Uttar Pradesh Crop yield index Very high (Above 140) High (120–140) Medium (100–120) Low (80–100) Very low (Below 80)

1995–2000 2000–2005 2005–2010 2010–2015 No. of No. of No. of No. of districts Percent districts Percent districts Percent districts Percent 3 4 7 10 10 14 9 13 9

13

9

13

5

7

10

14

18

25

17

24

32

45

16

23

34

48

30

42

20

28

27

38

6

8

7

10

4

6

9

13

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

during later periods of growth, there were 25 and 15 districts, respectively which belonged to this category. The growth between the range of 0 and 10% was seen in 23, 21 and 11 districts during the respective periods. There were 14, 12 and 17 districts, respectively which were characterized with growth of −10% to 0%, and growth of below −10% was seen in 13, 12 and 28 districts of the state in the respective periods of growth.

6.2.3  Crop Productivity Regions: Oilseed Crops With respect to productivity in oilseed crops, an interesting picture has emerged out from Fig.  6.3 that during 1995–2000, all the districts of Ganga-Yamuna doab extending from Saharanpur (in the north) up to Allahabad along with the districts of Jhansi and Lalitpur, Bijnor and Rampur, and Pratapgarh and SKN which represented Bundelkhand, Rohilkhand, Awadh and Purvanchal regions, respectively were characterized with very high and high productivity with the index values of above 115 (Table 6.6). It is evident from table that, the number of districts increased from 8 to 14 during 2000–2005 within very high category, whereas within high category, their number decreased from 21 to 15. Medium productivity with index values of 85–100 was recorded in 17 districts during the previous period. During 2000–2005, there were 19 districts to be included to the category of medium productivity. There were 17 districts which had low productivity and 7 districts namely, Mirzapur, Ghazipur, Balrampur, Varanasi, SRNB, Chitrakoot and Sonbhadra recorded very low productivity of oilseed crops during 1995–2000, and 15 and 7 districts during 2000–2005 had low and very low productivity, respectively (Fig. 6.3). During 2005–2010, the number of districts was same as in the previous period in the category of very high productivity. Among these the districts namely, Mathura, Kanshiram Nagar, Etah, Agra, Firozabad and Aligarh belong to middle doab,

6.2 Agricultural Productivity Regions: Based on Crop Yield Index Method

265

Table 6.5  District-wise growth in productivity of pulse crops in Uttar Pradesh Growth period (1995– Growth 2000 to 2000–2005) (Percent) No. Name of district Above 20 Moradabad, JPN, 10 Rampur, Budaun, GBN, Lucknow, Bijnor, Hardoi, Ballia, Bara Banki, Unnao, Shahjahanpur, Bareilly, Jalaun, Mainpuri, Ghazipur, Sultanpur, Ghaziabad, Mahamaya Nagar and Farrukhabad

Growth period (2005–2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 15 Kanshiram Nagar, Agra, Aligarh, Banda, Ballia, Mainpuri, Pilibhit, SRNB, Chitrakoot, Jhansi, Sonbhadra, Azamgarh, Mahoba, Mau and Etah

0 to 10

11

Shrawasti, Jalaun, Saharanpur, Bareilly, Firozabad, Bijnor, Bahraich, Kanpur Nagar, Fatehpur, Sitapur and Mirzapur

17

Hamirpur, Mahamaya Nagar, Kheri, Budaun, Chandauli, Moradabad, Gonda, Mathura, Kaushambi, Pratapgarh, Lalitpur, Basti, Kanpur Dehat, Farrukhabad, Etawah, Ghazipur and Kushinagar

23

−10 to 0 14

Growth period (2000–2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 25 Mathura, Balrampur, Chandauli, Basti, SKN, GBN, Lalitpur, Siddharthnagar, Mahamaya Nagar, Etah, Deoria, Gonda, Bahraich, Bulandshahr, Gorakhpur, Firozabad, Ambedkar Nagar, Kheri, Shahjahanpur, Ghaziabad, Auraiya, Aligarh, Baghpat, Mainpuri and Ghazipur Kannauj, Firozabad, 21 Unnao, Bareilly, Varanasi, Pilibhit, Baghpat, Faizabad, Ballia, Budaun, Kheri, Sitapur, Meerut, Kanpur Balrampur, Kanpur Nagar, Jaunpur, Dehat, Mau, Faizabad, JPN, Bulandshahr, Etawah, Hardoi, Bahraich, Jaunpur, Rampur, Sitapur, SRNB, Azamgarh, Sonbhadra, Kannauj, Rae Bareli, Lucknow, Mau, Fatehpur, Shrawasti, Mirzapur and Kanpur Varanasi, Dehat Pratapgarh, Pilibhit, Etawah, Mathura and Aligarh 12 Azamgarh, Meerut, Gonda, Farrukhabad, Saharanpur, Moradabad, Mirzapur, Banda, Mahrajganj, Jhansi, Sonbhadra, Allahabad, SRNB, Kanpur Nagar, Bijnor, Kushinagar, Muzaffarnagar, Rae Bareli, Kaushambi, Agra, Sultanpur, Shrawasti Mahrajganj, and Jhansi Kushinagar and Auraiya

(continued)

266

6  Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

Table 6.5 (continued) Growth period (1995– Growth 2000 to 2000–2005) (Percent) No. Name of district Below 13 Hamirpur, Deoria, −10 Ambedkar Nagar, Etah, Allahabad, Basti, Gorakhpur, SKN, Lalitpur, Mahoba, Siddharthnagar, Chitrakoot and Chandauli

Growth period (2000–2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 12 Muzaffarnagar, Bara Banki, Jalaun, Pratapgarh, Hamirpur, Agra, Kaushambi, Fatehpur, Mahoba, Saharanpur, Banda and Chitrakoot

Growth period (2005–2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 28 Allahabad, Mahrajganj, Hardoi, Meerut, Siddharthnagar, Jaunpur, Rampur, Bara Banki, Shahjahanpur, SKN, Bulandshahr, Kannauj, Ambedkar Nagar, Gorakhpur, Baghpat, Faizabad, Deoria, Varanasi, JPN, Auraiya, Lucknow, GBN, Balrampur, Unnao, Rae Bareli, Muzaffarnagar, Sultanpur and Ghaziabad

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

Saharanpur, Mainpuri, Etawah, Farrukhabad and Auraiya of upper and lower doab , respectively, and Bijnor, Unnao and Jalaun of Rohilkhand, Awadh and Bundelkhand, respectively fall in this category. Out of 19 districts of high productivity, 9 lie in upper and lower doab, 6  in Purvanchal, remaining 4 districts fall in Rohilkhand region of the state along with Hardoi and Lalitpur of Awadh and Bundelkhand regions, respectively. Medium productivity of oilseed crops was observed in 21 districts and low productivity was occupied by 12 districts of the state. There were 5 districts namely, SRNB, Sonbhadra, Hamirpur, Mahoba and Chitrakoot which had very low productivity indices (Fig. 6.3). For oilseed crops, very high productivity (index value above 115) during 2010– 2015 was observed in 16 districts. Out of total 19 districts in the category of high productivity, 11 of them belonged to Purvanchal region of the state. In the categories of medium and low productivity of oilseed crops, the numbers of districts were 11 and 14, respectively during this period, and the districts namely, Unnao, Chitrakoot, Faizabad, Ambedkar Nagar, Bara Banki, Jalaun, Shrawasti, Mahoba, Moradabad, Sultanpur and Ghaziabad were included in very low category (Fig. 6.3). With respect to growth in productivity of oilseed crops, it is clear from Table 6.7 that the growth of above 10% was seen in 15, 16 and 20 districts during the periods under consideration, respectively. The growth in between the values of 0 and 10% was recorded in 26, 22 and 21 districts, respectively, and the growth of −10% to 0% was observed in 20, 20 and 14 districts of the state in respective periods. There were 9, 12 and 16 districts, respectively which recorded growth of less than −10% during these periods.

6.2 Agricultural Productivity Regions: Based on Crop Yield Index Method

267

Fig. 6.3  Uttar Pradesh: agricultural productivity regions of oilseed crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

6.2.4  Crop Productivity Regions: Cash Crops It is depicted in Fig. 6.4 that during the period of 1995–2000, only 2 districts namely, Agra and Firozabad of middle doab occupied very high productivity in cash crops with yield indices of 146.09 and 125.46, respectively. The districts marked with high productivity between 110 and 125 were namely, Mahamaya Nagar, Muzaffarnagar, Farrukhabad and Baghpat during the same period. During 2000– 2005, 2 districts again belonged to the category of very high productivity (Table 6.8).

268

6  Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

Table 6.6  Productivity regions of oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh Crop yield index Very high (Above 115) High (100–115) Medium (85–100) Low (70–85) Very low (Below 70)

1995–2000 No. of districts Percent 8 11

2000–2005 No. of districts Percent 14 20

2005–2010 No. of districts Percent 14 20

2010–2015 No. of districts Percent 16 23

21

30

15

21

19

27

19

27

17

24

19

27

21

30

11

15

17 7

24 10

15 7

21 10

12 5

17 7

14 11

20 15

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

The highest index was recorded by the district of Mahamaya Nagar (137.27) replacing Agra to second place with index value of 131.20. Medium productivity regions with indices values ranging from 95 to 110 during both the periods were marked with 23 and 19 districts, respectively these were confined mainly to the western part of the state. All districts belonging to Awadh plains, Purvanchal and Bundelkhand were having low (80–95) and very low (below 80) productivity of cash crops. During the period of 2005–2010, not even a single district belonged to very high category of productivity. There were 6 districts namely, Auraiya, Baghpat, Firozabad, Mahamaya Nagar, Meerut and Muzaffarnagar which recorded high productivity in cash crops. Medium productivity with indices in between 95 and 110 were recorded in 25 districts, whereas low productivity was seen in 31 districts of the state. The districts namely, Sultanpur, Azamgarh, Mau, Banda, Kaushambi, Mahoba, Hamirpur, Rae Bareli and Jalaun were characterized with very low productivity in cash crops (Fig. 6.4). For the productivity of cash crops during 2010–2015, there was not a single district recorded in the category of very high productivity. The number of districts in high category was increased from 6 in the previous period to 11 during this period. These were again fall in the western part of the state. Medium and low productivity were recorded in 28 and 12 districts of the state, respectively, whereas very low productivity of cash crops was seen in 10 districts namely, Sultanpur, Pratapgarh, Mahoba, Jalaun, Allahabad, Lucknow, Hamirpur, Kanpur Nagar, Rae Bareli and Ghaziabad during this period (Fig. 6.4). With respect to growth in productivity of cash crops, it is shown in Table 6.9 that high growth of above 10% during 1995–2000 to 2000–2005 was recorded by 7 districts namely, Mirzapur, Banda, Mahamaya Nagar, Mahoba, Bahraich, Ghazipur and Shrawasti, whereas in later period of 2000–2005 to 2005–2010 high growth was attained by the districts of Unnao, Auraiya, SRNB, Pratapgarh, Chandauli, Lucknow and Etah. During the period of 2005–2010 to 2010–2015, the number of districts in this category increased to 15. The growth between 0 and 10% was recorded in 30, 31 and 29 districts in the respective periods. There were 29, 23 and 20 districts, respectively which recorded growth of −10% to 0% during these periods. The dis-

6.2 Agricultural Productivity Regions: Based on Crop Yield Index Method

269

Table 6.7  District-wise growth in productivity of oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh Growth period (1995–2000 Growth to 2000–2005) (Percent) No. Name of district Above 15 Varanasi, Ghazipur, 10 Mirzapur, Chandauli, Shahjahanpur, Mathura, Jalaun, Mainpuri, SRNB, Mahamaya Nagar, Moradabad, Hardoi, Sonbhadra, GBN and Ballia

Growth period (2000– 2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 16 Jalaun, Banda, Sitapur, Unnao, Siddharthnagar, Basti, Gonda, Mirzapur, Mathura, Ambedkar Nagar, Lalitpur, Lucknow, Gorakhpur, SKN, Faizabad and Bahraich

0 to 10

22

Hardoi, Mainpuri, Budaun, Shrawasti, Etah, Bijnor, Balrampur, Etawah, Sonbhadra, Pilibhit, Moradabad, Firozabad, Bara Banki, Kheri, Sultanpur, Farrukhabad, Varanasi, Ghazipur, Azamgarh, Ballia, Jaunpur and Auraiya

20

14 Muzaffarnagar, Kannauj, Mau, Chandauli, Mahoba, Rae Bareli, Bareilly, Jhansi, SRNB, Aligarh, Agra, Kushinagar, Bulandshahr, Saharanpur, Meerut, Baghpat, Ghaziabad, Mahrajganj, Deoria and Kaushambi

26

−10 to 0 20

Etah, Azamgarh, Jaunpur, Budaun, Unnao, Saharanpur, Faizabad, Auraiya, Kanpur Dehat, Sultanpur, JPN, Ambedkar Nagar, Rampur, Deoria, Kaushambi, Bijnor, Aligarh, Balrampur, Bulandshahr, Kannauj, Baghpat, Ghaziabad, Farrukhabad, Meerut, Gorakhpur and Mau Shrawasti, Bara Banki, Agra, Bahraich, Hamirpur, Muzaffarnagar, Firozabad, Lucknow, Kheri, Kushinagar, Etawah, Kanpur Nagar, Gonda, Pilibhit, Mahrajganj, Chitrakoot, Pratapgarh, Fatehpur, Rae Bareli and Bareilly

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 20 Sonbhadra, Chitrakoot, Jhansi, Mahamaya Nagar, Hamirpur, SRNB, Lalitpur, Kanpur Nagar, Bulandshahr, Baghpat, Agra, JPN, Mainpuri, Etah, Etawah, Firozabad, Kanshiram Nagar, Aligarh, GBN and Meerut 21 Pilibhit, Mahrajganj, Ghazipur, Fatehpur, Allahabad, Basti, Kushinagar, Chandauli, Mahoba, Kheri, Jaunpur, Budaun, Varanasi, Sitapur, Pratapgarh, Auraiya, Banda, Siddharthnagar, SKN, Mau and Balrampur

Azamgarh, Mathura, Deoria, Kanpur Dehat, Mirzapur, Rampur, Saharanpur, Ballia, Farrukhabad, Gorakhpur, Bareilly, Shahjahanpur, Bijnor and Hardoi

(continued)

270

6  Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

Table 6.7 (continued) Growth period (1995–2000 Growth to 2000–2005) (Percent) No. Name of district Below 9 Basti, Siddharthnagar, −10 Jhansi, SKN, Allahabad, Lalitpur, Sitapur, Banda and Mahoba

Growth period (2000– 2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 12 Shahjahanpur, Kanpur Nagar, Rampur, Kanpur Dehat, Hamirpur, JPN, Fatehpur, Allahabad, GBN, Chitrakoot, Mahamaya Nagar and Pratapgarh

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 16 Kaushambi, Gonda, Kannauj, Bahraich, Lucknow, Rae Bareli, Shrawasti, Muzaffarnagar, Faizabad, Ambedkar Nagar, Bara Banki, Unnao, Sultanpur, Jalaun, Moradabad and Ghaziabad

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

tricts of Agra, Firozabad, Fatehpur and Pratapgarh had shown a growth of below −10% during the previous period and in the later periods of growth, there were 9 and 7 districts to be incorporated in this growth category.

6.2.5  Composite Productivity Regions: Composite Yield Index It can be seen from Fig.  6.5 that the composite productivity index considering all major crops-cereals, pulses, oilseeds and cash crops has shown very high productivity in the Ganga-Yamuna doab and Rohilkhand regions of the state during 1995– 2000. Very high composite yield indices (110 and above) were observed in 22 districts (Table 6.10). High productivity was seen in 11 districts with the productivity indices in between 100 and 110 and these belonged to both the western and the eastern regions of the state. Medium and low productivity was found in 18 and 15 districts, respectively, whereas only four districts namely, Bahraich, Shrawasti, Banda and Sonbhadra were characterized with very low productivity (index values below 80). During the period of 2000–2005, very high productivity was recorded by 22 districts, and very low productivity in 5 districts namely, Chitrakoot, Siddharthnagar, Banda, Mahoba and Sonbhadra. There were 14 districts which attained high productivity, and medium and low productivity were seen in 11 and 18 districts, respectively during this period (Fig. 6.5). During the period of 2005–2010, there were 21 districts to record very high productivity having index values above 110. High productivity was confined in 14 districts. There were 19 and 11 districts, respectively to show medium and low productivity, and 6 districts namely, Mirzapur, Hamirpur, Chitrakoot, Sonbhadra, Banda and Mahoba recorded very low productivity during this period (Fig. 6.5). Figure 6.5 illustrates that the composite productivity was seen very high in the whole doab and Rohilkhand regions of the state during 2010–2015. Also, few districts from the regions such as Awadh, Purvanchal and Bundelkhand were included

6.2 Agricultural Productivity Regions: Based on Crop Yield Index Method

271

Fig. 6.4 Uttar Pradesh: agricultural productivity regions of cash crops, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

in the high category of productivity. Low and very low productivity regions were mainly belong to the Awadh, Bundelkhand and south-eastern districts of the state. During the period of 1995–2000 to 2000–2005, the positive growth in composite productivity was observed in 39 districts and the growth of above 10% in 3 districts namely, Bahraich, Jalaun and Bara Banki. During 2000–2005 to 2005–2010, the districts namely, Lalitpur, Siddharthnagar, Balrampur and Firozabad occupied a place within this category.

272

6  Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

Table 6.8  Productivity regions of cash crops in Uttar Pradesh Crop yield index Very high (Above 125) High (110–125) Medium (95–110) Low (80–95) Very low (Below 80)

1995–2000 2000–2005 2005–2010 2010–2015 No. of No. of No. of No. of districts Percent districts Percent districts Percent districts Percent 2 3 2 3 – 0 – 0 4

6

6

8

6

8

11

15

23

32

19

27

25

35

28

39

26 15

37 21

31 12

44 17

31 9

44 13

22 10

31 14

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

There were 11 districts to be included in this category during the later period of 2005–2010 to 2010–2015 (Table 6.11). The growth in between 0% and 10% in productivity was seen in 36, 25 and 29 districts in the respective periods. There were 27, 36 and 26 districts which were characterized with growth of −10% to 0%, respectively during this period, and the growth which is below −10% was recorded by 4, 5 and 5 districts, respectively.

6.2.6  R  elationship Between Irrigated Area and Crop Productivity The impact of irrigation on productivity of crops was computed by applying the Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation technique and the magnitude of the relationship was judged by the regression analysis. Table  6.12 shows a correlation matrix of irrigated area under major crops and the crop yield indices during the period of 2010–2015. Percentage of irrigated area under cereals (X1) and total irrigated cropped area (X5) showed a positive correlation with their respective crop yield indices (X6 and X10) and the coefficient values emerged were in order of 0.261 and 0.432, respectively at 5% and 1% significance level, respectively. This shows that in the districts which were having high irrigated area under the crops, productivity index values of the crops were also high. Irrigated area of pulses (X2), oilseeds (X3) and cash crops (X4) with their respective yield indices (X7, X8 and X9) showed positive but insignificant correlation and the coefficient values were in order of 0.025, 0.219 and 0.078, respectively. Linear relationship as depicted in Fig. 6.6a–e shows that there is a positive linear relationship between irrigated area and the yield index of all the major crops, but the

Table 6.9  District-wise growth in productivity of cash crops in Uttar Pradesh Growth period (1995–2000 Growth to 2000–2005) (Percent) No. Name of district Above 7 Mirzapur, Banda, 10 Mahamaya Nagar, Mahoba, Bahraich, Ghazipur and Shrawasti

0 to 10

30

−10 to 0 29

Below −10

4

Growth period (2000–2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 7 Unnao, Auraiya, SRNB, Pratapgarh, Chandauli, Lucknow and Etah

31 SKN, Hamirpur, Siddharthnagar, Jalaun, Sonbhadra, Mau, Gorakhpur, Faizabad, Rampur, Hardoi, Mahrajganj, Ballia, Sitapur, SRNB, Meerut, Ambedkar Nagar, Kheri, Ghaziabad, Etawah, Bijnor, Chitrakoot, Muzaffarnagar, Farrukhabad, Kushinagar, Budaun, Lalitpur, JPN, Aligarh, GBN and Baghpat Sultanpur, Mathura, 23 Deoria, Balrampur, Etah, Mainpuri, Jhansi, Basti, Bareilly, Bulandshahr, Azamgarh, Kanpur Dehat, Kaushambi, Gonda, Kanpur Nagar, Rae Bareli, Pilibhit, Kannauj, Varanasi, Saharanpur, Jaunpur, Auraiya, Shahjahanpur, Chandauli, Moradabad, Bara Banki, Unnao, Lucknow and Allahabad 9 Agra, Firozabad, Fatehpur and Pratapgarh

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 15 Jalaun, Kaushambi, Mainpuri, Faizabad, Azamgarh, Ambedkar Nagar, Fatehpur, Mahoba, Gonda, Etah, Banda, Lalitpur, Hamirpur, Bara Banki and Sitapur 29 SRNB, Mirzapur, Siddharthnagar, Ballia, Chitrakoot, Jaunpur, Kanpur Hardoi, Mathura, Dehat, Ghazipur, Basti, Varanasi, Mau, Baghpat, Varanasi, Aligarh, JPN, Kheri, Sonbhadra, Sonbhadra, SKN, Firozabad, Kanpur Deoria, Shrawasti, Nagar, Fatehpur, Shahjahanpur, Gorakhpur, Ballia, Kannauj, Bahraich, Mathura, Siddharthnagar, Shahjahanpur, Kheri, Bareilly, Pilibhit, Moradabad, Mahrajganj, Mahrajganj, Meerut, Kushinagar, Agra, Saharanpur, Pilibhit, Bulandshahr, Basti, Jhansi, Deoria, Sultanpur, Bahraich, Azamgarh, Kanshiram Nagar SKN, Kushinagar, and GBN Hardoi, GBN, Gonda and Muzaffarnagar 20 Auraiya, Meerut, Sitapur, Sultanpur, Baghpat, Mahamaya JPN, Etawah, Nagar, Rampur, Budaun, Bareilly, Etawah, Balrampur, Bulandshahr, Firozabad, Jhansi, Balrampur, Mirzapur, Pratapgarh, Rae Aligarh, Shrawasti, Bareli, Bijnor, Mau, Bijnor, Ghazipur, Ambedkar Nagar, Saharanpur, Kannauj, Farrukhabad, Farrukhabad, Muzaffarnagar, Chitrakoot, Lalitpur, Chandauli, Kanpur Rampur, Faizabad, Dehat, Gorakhpur Allahabad, and Jaunpur Kaushambi and Mainpuri

Bara Banki, Ghaziabad, Banda, Mahamaya Nagar, Rae Bareli, Agra, Mahoba, Hamirpur and Jalaun

7

Unnao, Allahabad, Budaun, Moradabad, Lucknow, Kanpur Nagar and Ghaziabad

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

274

6  Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

Fig. 6.5  Uttar Pradesh: agricultural productivity regions based on composite yield index, (a) (1995–2000), (b) (2000–2005), (c) (2005–2010), and (d) (2010–2015)

relationship emerged for pulses and cash crops was very weak. This shows that productivity of pulses and sugarcane has not always high in those districts where irrigated area under these crops is high. This indicates that there are some other factors also along with irrigation which influence the agricultural productivity in these regions. These factors can be the size of land holding, the fertility of the soil, climatic factors, HYV of seeds, use of fertilizers, farm mechanization etc. which contribute to increase the yield of crops and also the productivity in the state.

6.2 Agricultural Productivity Regions: Based on Crop Yield Index Method

275

Table 6.10  Composite productivity regions in Uttar Pradesh Crop yield index Very high (Above 110) High (100–110) Medium (90–100) Low (80–90) Very low (Below 80)

1995–2000 No. of districts Percent 22 31

2000–2005 No. of districts Percent 22 31

2005–2010 No. of districts Percent 21 30

2010–2015 No. of districts Percent 21 30

11

15

14

20

14

20

12

17

18

25

11

15

19

27

24

34

15 4

21 6

18 5

25 7

11 6

15 8

8 6

11 8

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Table 6.11  District-wise growth in composite productivity of crops in Uttar Pradesh Growth period (1995–2000 Growth to 2000–2005) (Percent) No. Name of district Above 3 Bahraich, Jalaun and 10 Bara Banki

Growth period (2000–2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 4 Lalitpur, Siddharthnagar, Balrampur and Firozabad

0 to 10

25

36

Shrawasti, Budaun, Lucknow, Faizabad, Unnao, Sultanpur, Kushinagar, Rae Bareli, Kheri, Mau, Mainpuri, Kaushambi, Sonbhadra, GBN, Hardoi, Pilibhit, Mahrajganj, Fatehpur, Mathura, Moradabad, Muzaffarnagar, Shahjahanpur, Balrampur, Deoria, Meerut, Bijnor, Banda, Aligarh, Ghaziabad, Kanpur Dehat, Gorakhpur, JPN, Bulandshahr, Baghpat, Gonda and Rampur

Ghazipur, Unnao, Ballia, Auraiya, Mainpuri, Lucknow, Ambedkar Nagar, Etah, Gorakhpur, Sitapur, Azamgarh, Etawah, Hardoi, Allahabad, Shahjahanpur, Bahraich, Chandauli, Gonda, Shrawasti, Mathura, Basti, Baghpat, Jaunpur, Kannauj and Budaun

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 11 Banda, Siddharthnagar, Sonbhadra, Chitrakoot, Jhansi, SRNB, Hamirpur, Mau, Ballia, Mahoba and Sitapur 29 Mirzapur, Kanshiram Nagar, Agra, Basti, Gorakhpur, Fatehpur, Varanasi, Bara Banki, Kheri, Etah, SKN, Kanpur Nagar, Gonda, Deoria, Azamgarh, Shrawasti, Mahamaya Nagar, Pratapgarh, GBN, Chandauli, Mainpuri, Baghpat, Kaushambi, Meerut, Lalitpur, Kanpur Dehat, Kannauj, Hardoi and Jaunpur

(continued)

Table 6.11 (continued) Growth period (1995–2000 Growth to 2000–2005) (Percent) No. Name of district −10 to 0 27 SKN, Basti, Pratapgarh, Mahamaya Nagar, Jhansi, Sitapur, Ambedkar Nagar, Etawah, Etah, Bareilly, Ghazipur, Jaunpur, Kanpur Nagar, Firozabad, Farrukhabad, Auraiya, Allahabad, Azamgarh, Saharanpur, Agra, Hamirpur, Chitrakoot, Mirzapur, Kannauj, Ballia, Siddharthnagar and Lalitpur

Below −10

4

Varanasi, Chandauli, SRNB and Mahoba

Growth period (2000–2005 to 2005–2010) No. Name of district 36 Meerut, Rae Bareli, SKN, Pratapgarh, Farrukhabad, Saharanpur, Kanpur Dehat, Pilibhit, Kheri, Kanpur Nagar, Ghaziabad, JPN, Muzaffarnagar, Varanasi, Fatehpur, Bulandshahr, Bareilly, Moradabad, Aligarh, Deoria, Faizabad, Bara Banki, Kushinagar, Bijnor, SRNB, Mirzapur, Mau, Mahrajganj, Rampur, GBN, Kaushambi, Jhansi, Jalaun, Sonbhadra, Mahamaya Nagar and Sultanpur 5 Agra, Hamirpur, Mahoba, Banda and Chitrakoot

Growth period (2005– 2010 to 2010–2015) No. Name of district 26 Aligarh, Bareilly, Mahrajganj, JPN, Firozabad, Saharanpur, Faizabad, Mathura, Pilibhit, Etawah, Jalaun, Bulandshahr, Kushinagar, Shahjahanpur, Ghazipur, Farrukhabad, Auraiya, Ambedkar Nagar, Bijnor, Rampur, Bahraich, Lucknow, Allahabad, Moradabad, Balrampur and Unnao

5

Rae Bareli, Budaun, Muzaffarnagar, Ghaziabad and Sultanpur

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow

Table 6.12  Correlation matrix of irrigated area and crop yield index, 2010–2015 Variables X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 1 .242* 1 .292* .624** 1 .424** .161 .178 1 .825** .427** .639** .388** 1 .261* .534** .586** .110 .504** 1 .024 .025 .218 .147 .159 .369** 1 −.024 .507** .219 .189 .130 .470** .522** 1 ** ** −.024 .434 .407 .078 .225 .444** .412** .581** 1 ** ** ** .210 .552 .544 .143 .432 .921** .531** .658** .634** 1

Source: Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics (various issues), Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow Notes: (i) *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) (ii) X1-Irrigated area of cereals to total cropped area under cereals (%); X2-Irrigated area of pulses to total cropped area under pulses(%);X3-Irrigated area of oilseeds to total cropped area under oilseeds (%); X4-Irrigated area of cash crops to total cropped area under cash crops (%); X5-Total irrigated cropped area to total cropped area (%);X6-Crop yield index of cereals; X7- Crop yield index of pulses; X8- Crop yield index of oilseeds; X9- Crop yield index of cash crops; X10Composite yield index of crops

6.3 Measurement of Water Productivity in Crop Cultivation

277

6.3  Measurement of Water Productivity in Crop Cultivation Water is a crucial factor in plant growth. It is an essential wealth and property of any country that largely depends on efficient use of water for agricultural production. Recently, the attention of researchers and scientists working in different disciplines has been shifted from measuring the irrigation efficiency to measuring the water productivity or ‘more crop per drop’. The patterns of water productivity in four major crops of wheat, rice, maize and sugarcane grown in 71 districts of the state of Uttar Pradesh has been statistically examined by adopting and applying the methods described in Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and International Water Management Institute (IWMI) studies, because the experimental data of elements of weather and other related parameters cannot be gathered for such a vast state. For the analysis, at first, district-wise total consumptive water use (CWU) for each crop was computed taking into consideration the climatic parameters of evaporation and transpiration along with the information of irrigation and crop-coefficient, then water productivity (kg/m3) of four selected crops, which altogether constitute nearly 75% of total cropped area of the state, were worked out in the districts for triennium ending years 2001 and 2011. It was also tried to evaluate the scope to improve water productivity in water-scarce and water-rich regions of the state.

6.3.1  The Concept of Water Productivity (WP) With increasing population and changing consumption pattern, the demand of water is rapidly increasing, and there has been an increasing pressure on available water resources. The demand of water in agriculture always remains high to grow food and non-food crops to feed the country’s millions and for other agro-based needs. Globally, 70% of fresh water diverted for human use goes to agriculture and irrigation water demand is still increasing because the area irrigated continues to expand (FAO 2002). Irrigation accounts for over 90% of water consumption in India itself, as in many South Asian countries (Rosegrant et al. 2002; FAO 2003). At present, India’s population is 1.12 billion, and is expected to reach 1.35 billion by 2025 (Hira 2009). To produce more food using less water for such a large population is one of the great challenges of twenty-first century. Since the beginning of the green revolution in India, irrigated agriculture has become a major contributor to foodgrains production. It is expected that in coming future, irrigation will play a major role in increasing the yield of crops and the amount of food needed to support the country’s growing population (Dehghanisanij et al. 2006). Moreover, crop production can be increased many folds (4–10 times) if irrigation is provided to areas lying in semiarid tropics, where rainfall is inadequate, erratic, ill-distributed and often leads to drought conditions. Water productivity is a new concept in agricultural water management studies. World over, agriculture has very low water productivity when compared to manufacturing and the situation is not different in India. Agriculture continues to be the largest user of diverted water in the country (GOI 1999). Moreover, productivity of

278

6  Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

UTTAR PRADESH

Crop yield index

Productivity of Cereal Crops vs. Irrigated Area (2010-15) 160.00 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00

y = 0.266x + 77.83 R2 = 0.068

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

Irrigated area of cereal crops (per cent)

(a) Crop yield index vs. Irrigated area of cereal crops UTTAR PRADESH

Crop yield index

Productivity of Pulse Crops vs. Irrigated Area (2010-15) 180.00 160.00 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00

y = 0.019x + 104.1 R2 = 0.000

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

Irrigated area of pulse crops (per cent)

(b) Crop yield index vs. Irrigated area of pulse crops UTTAR PRADESH

Crop yield index

Productivity of Oilseed Crops vs. Irrigated Area (2010-15) 160.00 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 0.00

y = 0.177x + 85.26 R2 = 0.047 20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

Irrigated area of oilseed crops (per cent)

(c) Crop yield index vs. Irrigated area of oilseed crops

Fig. 6.6  Uttar Pradesh: relationship between irrigated area and agricultural productivity of crops, 2010–2015

279

6.3 Measurement of Water Productivity in Crop Cultivation

UTTAR PRADESH

Crop yield index

Productivity of Cash Crops vs. Irrigated Area (2010-15) 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 0.00

y = 0.094x + 85.10 R2 = 0.006 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00

Irrigated area of cash crops (per cent)

(d) Crop yield index vs. Irrigated area of cash crops UTTAR PRADESH Composite yield index

Composite Productivity Index vs. Total Irrigated Area (2010-15) 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00

y = 0.305x + 76.65 R2 = 0.186

20.00 0.00 0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

Total irrigated cropped area (per cent)

(e) Composite yield index vs. Total irrigated cropped area

Fig. 6.6 (continued)

water in India is very low for major crops in terms of the amount of biomass produced per unit of water depleted (Amarasinghe et al. 2008). Low yields in tropical agro-ecosystem of India are explained and manifested by on-farm blue water (irrigation) losses in terms of both surface runoff, limiting infiltration to the root zone and percolation to groundwater, and on non-productive vapour flow component (evaporation), reducing the productive vapour flow (plant transpiration). If all amount of water accessible in the root zone could be used productively, i.e., without non-productive vapour losses and nutrient deficiency, the potential yield in crops would reach to its maximum (Rockstrom et al. 2007). It can be inferred that future crop production under irrigated conditions depends solely on efficient and judicious use of water to realize the cherished gains from irrigation (Goud 1989). In some regions of the country, the expansion of surface water use appears to be approaching the physical limit, and groundwater abstractions are increasingly exceeding rates of replenishment. Meanwhile, industrial and domestic water demand has been increasing rapidly as a result of development and urbanization (Rosegrant and Hazell 2000). Only one-third of agricultural production in India comes from rain-fed areas that account for two-third of croplands. It is, therefore, needed to grow more crops by using less water with high efficiency in these regions.

280

6  Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

Water productivity has been defined as ‘crop production’ per unit ‘amount of water used’ (Molden 1997). Concept of water productivity in agricultural production systems is focused on ‘producing more food with the same water resources’ or ‘producing the same amount of food with less water resources’. Initially, irrigation efficiency or water use efficiency was used to describe the performance of irrigation systems. In agronomic terms, ‘water use efficiency’ is defined as ‘the amount of organic matter produced by a plant divided by the amount of water used by the plant in producing it’ (De Wit 1958). However, in terminology used ‘water use efficiency’ does not follow the classical concept of ‘efficiency’, which uses the same units for input and output. Therefore, IWMI has proposed a change of the nomenclature from ‘water use efficiency’ to ‘water productivity’. Water productivity can further be defined in several ways according to the purpose, scale and domain of analysis (Molden et al. 2001; Bastiaanssen et al. 2003). In general term ‘Water Productivity’ refers to the ratio of crop output to water either diverted or consumed. In other words, it may be defined as, the ratio between the actual yield achieved (Ya) and water use, expressed in kg/m3, but the denominator may refer to the total water use (TWU), including rainfall (Pereira and Pires 2011). The major crop water productivity parameters used in literature are the physical productivity of water expressed in kilogram of crop per cubic metre of water diverted or depleted (kg/m3); net or gross present value of the crop produced per cubic metre of water (Rs/m3) known either as economic efficiency of water use or combined physical and economic productivity of water and net or gross present value of the crop produced against the value of the water diverted or depleted (Kijne et  al. 2003). However, this term is used with different meanings. According to Molden et al. (2003) water productivity is scale dependent which can be analysed at the plant, field, farm, system and basin level, and its value would change with the changing scale of analysis. Historically, three and a half century ago, the Flemish pharmacist van Helmont found that water is essential input for plants to reach at a certain weight. Later, another scientist Woodward was the first to relate the water loss during plant growth to the gain in plant’s dry weight1. In the middle of the twentieth century, a meteorologist named Penman gave this a new conceptual name of ‘water productivity’ or ‘crop per drop’. He introduced the concept of potential transpiration, defined as water loss from an extended surface of a short green crop, actively growing, completely shading the soil and never short of water. The ecologist De Wit (1958) reasoned that, Penman’s conditional “never short of water” meant that the concept is of little value where water is limiting, as in dry-farming and often for shorter or longer periods in rain-fed agriculture. His approach was welcomed by many dry farming researchers, but found little acceptance within the world of the irrigation engineers. Later, Thornthwaite (1944) complained about irrigation engineers not distinguishing between actual and so called potential evapotranspiration, a term he introduced at that time. This difference became less important from the 1960’s onwards, after Penman’s formula became the “standard” to aim at in the calculation of crop water 1  The weight of any plant (or other organism) part after all its water content has been removed by drying.

6.3 Measurement of Water Productivity in Crop Cultivation

281

requirements under irrigation engineers worldwide. Since then, crop water requirements under irrigation were defined as the water crops need to reach their final yields under unrestricted growth conditions, not only of nutrients, pests and competition from weeds, also of the water for transpiration and evaporation (Zoebl 2006).

6.3.2  Factors Affecting Water Productivity Water Productivity varies from field to field and even region to region depending upon the factors which influence crop-water requirements. These are climate (sunshine and temperature, precipitation, humidity and wind speed), crop water needs, type and soil texture etc. Crops grown in sunny and hot climate needs more water per day than the crops grown in cloudy and moderately cool climate. Thus, the highest crop water needs occur in areas characterized with hot, dry, windy and sunny weather. The lowest water requirement occurs when it is cool, humid and cloudy with little or without wind. Crop type has an influence on the duration of total growing season (i.e., short duration crops like, peas which is matured within 90–100 days, and sugarcane which needs more than a year for its maturity), and on total crop water requirements. The other factors influencing WP of crops are irrigation, field water management, infrastructure and inputs including labour, fertilizers etc.

6.3.3  Consumptive Water Use (CWU) Every crop has its own agronomic requirements and water needs for successful cultivation and gives maximum yield. The term ‘consumptive water use’ or ‘water requirements of crop’ means the total quantity and the way in which a crop requires water, from the time, it is sown to the time it is harvested. In general, CWU is the water required to meet the demand of evapotranspiration and metabolic activities. Since water requirements in metabolic activities are insignificant (about 1%). Therefore, water requirement of plant is considered to be equal to Evapotranspiration (ET) (Mahmood and Ahmad 2005). Moreover, evapotranspiration of water is the amount of water which crop transpires in course of its growth, and which evaporates from the bare soil surface in the fields (Vaidyanathan and Sivasubramaniyan 2004). As regards the demand for water or crop evapotranspiration mainly determines the requirement of water for agriculture (Kumar et al. 2011). Every crop requires a certain amount of water with a specific interval throughout its growth period. If the rain water is sufficient and timely so as to fulfil the requirements, no irrigation is required to raise that crop. But in a tropical country like India, the rainfall is either insufficient or the water does not reaches with a fixed interval as required by the crop, certain crop may require irrigation. About 70–90% of rainfall in India is received during the rainy season from July to September. The onset of monsoon each year, however, remains uncertain and the rainfall received is erratic in nature.

282

6  Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

Sometimes, failure of monsoon even causes drought conditions that very badly affect large areas in the country. So, it becomes necessary to provide water through other means of irrigation in areas where deficiency occurs (Garg 1995).

6.3.4  Methods of Measurement of CWU and WP At the first instance, CWU for each crop was calculated by using reference evapotranspiration2 (EtP) and rainfall data. Crop coefficient approach3 to the specific crops was used along with the values of EtP for computing the total CWU at different crop growth stages (i.e., the initial stage, crop development stage, mid-season stage and late-season stage). For irrigated areas, reference evapotranspiration was used to compute CWU, and for rain-fed areas evapotranspiration or effective rainfall4, whichever minimum was taken into account. District-wise CWU and WP of the crops were computed by adopting the formula referred by Amarasinghe and Sharma (2009). (i) The consumptive water use in irrigated areas for the jth crop in the ith season:

IR P CWU IR ij = Area ij × ( Σ Kc jk × ( Σ Et ikl ))



where, Kc is the crop coefficient varying over four growth periods EtP is monthly reference evapotranspiration. (ii) The consumptive water use in rain-fed areas is the only effective rainfall during the season, and can be estimated as:

(

RF P CWU RF ij = Area ij × min Kc ik Et jkl , ERFjkl

)

where, ERFjkl is the effective rainfall of lth month in the kth growth period.

2  The evaporation rate from a reference surface, not short of water, is called the reference crop evapotranspiration or reference evapotranspiration and is denoted as EtP. The reference surface is a hypothetical grass reference crop with specific characteristics (FAO, 1998). 3  Crop coefficient (Kc) is dynamic in nature and varies in accordance with crop characteristics, dates of planting, stages of growth and climatic conditions. 4  The portion of rainfall that contributes to the crop production including that used for special purposes such as land preparation, leaching etc. is called effective rainfall. About 80 per cent of the rainfall occurs during the growing period of crop.

6.3 Measurement of Water Productivity in Crop Cultivation

283

(iii) Total annual CWU of a district can be estimated as:

(

RF CWU = Σ Σ CWU IR ij + CWU ij



)

(iv) Total WP of a district can be estimated as: WP =



(

Σ average yield j × Area iIR + Area RF j

)

CWU



Applying the formula, for computing CWU for wheat crop in Saharanpur district: 1. CWU for irrigated wheat (IR) Area irrigated under wheat = 1,12,206 (in ha) Crop coefficient (Kc) for wheat = 0.85 Reference Evapotranspiration (EtP) = 283 (mm.) (i)

CWU IR = 1,12, 206 × 283 = 2, 70, 25, 569 ( ha.mm. ) s

2. CWU for rain-fed wheat (RF) Rain-fed area under wheat= 8508 (in ha.) Effective rainfall (ERF) = 31(mm.) (ii) CWU RF = 8, 508 × 31 = 26, 6181 ( ha.mm ) s Total Consumptive Water use ( TCWU ) = i + ii = 2, 70, 25, 569 + 2, 66,181 = 2, 72, 91, 750 ( ha.mm. ) 3. Water Productivity (WP) for wheat WP = =

yield ( kg / ha ) × ( irrigated area + rain − fed area ) TCWU

( 2,989 ) × (1,12,206 + 8,508 ) 2, 72, 91, 750

= 1.32 kg / m 3

Therefore, the district of Saharanpur with WP value of 1.32 kg/m3 is more efficient in water consumption in the state. The z-score values of the crops were computed from the original WP values for

284

6  Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

the years 2001 and 2011, so that the data can be put on a common scale for comparison by applying composite z-score technique. Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation technique was applied to find out the strength of relationship between the indicators and the linear regression technique was used to establish the statistical relationship. The statistical information pertaining to area and yield of each crop considered in the analysis were obtained for each district from office of the State Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow for three consecutive years and averaged for two periods of time, i.e., 1999–2001 and 2009–2011. The averages were done to minimize short term variations in the data. The statistics related to reference evapotranspiration and monthly rainfall for the corresponding years were obtained from the Meteorological Department of India, Pune. The crop-coefficient values pertaining to growth period of individual crops used in the analysis were obtained from two studies carried out in 1979 and 1998 by Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).

6.4  Water Productivity of Crops 6.4.1  Water Productivity of Wheat Wheat (Triticum sativum) is the most dominant crop in the state. It is generally sown in all of the 71 districts as first, second and third ranking crops (Lata and Rahman 2011) from second fortnight of October to early November during the rabi season, and harvested in the months of March to May (Table 6.13). The most ideal conditions for cultivation of wheat are cool and moist weather during the vegetative growth period and dry weather during the grain formation period. After the harvest of kharif season the field is irrigated and with optimum workable moisture content in the soil, land is generally ploughed once or twice. In rain-fed areas, collection and Table 6.13  Sowing and harvesting seasons, number of watering and the most critical stages crops in Uttar Pradesh Crops Wheat Rice

Maize

Sowing period Oct. to Dec. June to Aug.

Jun. to July Sugarcane Sept. to Apr.

Harvesting period Mar. to May

No. of watering 4–6

Nov. to Dec. 10–15

Aug. to Oct.

2

Oct. to June

8–10

CWU (mm.) 450– 650 800– 1200 500– 800 1500– 2500

Most critical stages of crop Crown-root initiation, flowering, jointing and milk Max. tillering and grain filling, tiller initiation, primordial initiation and flowering Tasselling and silking Tillering and peak growth phase

Source: Prasad (2002), Doorenbos and Kassam (1979) FAO (1998), and FAO, Land and Water Development Division; http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/

6.4 Water Productivity of Crops

285

Table 6.14  Water productivity of wheat and rice crops in India- cited from different studies Crop/ Location Wheat Pantnagar Uttar Pradesh Bhakra Karnal Pantnagar

Min.–Max. (kg/m3)

Median (kg/m3)

Experimental year(s)

0.86–1.31 0.48–0.71 1.23–1.49 0.27–0.82 1.06–1.23

1.11 0.64 1.36 0.67 1.11

1983–1985 1993–1994 2000–2001 1986–1988 1979–1985

Mishra et al.(1995) Sharma et al. (2001) Hussain et al. (2003) Sharma et al. (1990) Singh and Chauhan (1996)

Rice Pantnagar New Delhi Punjab

0.80–0.99 0.55–0.67 0.87–1.46

0.89 0.67 1.15

1983–1984 2001 1996–1997

Mishra et al. (1990) Singh et al. (2002) Singh et al. (2001)

References

Source: Dehghanisanij et al. (2006)

conservation of soil moisture and timely cultivation is most beneficial. From a number of studies, it has been established that, early wheat sowing in October-November results in higher yields as compared to sowing in December-January, and each day of delay in wheat sowing after mid- November could reduce yield by 30  kg/ha (Hussain et al. 2003; Nagaranjan 1998). Some of the studies conducted in India on Water Productivity of wheat and rice crops at different periods of time were given in Table 6.14. Wheat covered the largest cultivated area in UP state and occupied 9.20 and 9.46 million ha. of land during 2001 and 2011, respectively of which 96.09 and 97.44% was irrigated. The district of Mathura in 2001 and Gorakhpur in 2011 cultivated the largest area under wheat that shared about 50% to the gross cropped area, followed by other districts namely, Unnao, Hardoi, GBN, SRNB, Budaun, Shahjahanpur, Deoria and Mainpuri. The districts of Sonbhadra, Hamirpur, Bijnor, Mahoba, Meerut, Muzaffarnagar, Faizabad, Chitrakoot, Etawah and Saharanpur had the lowest cultivated area under wheat. As far as CWU of wheat is concerned in the state, it varies from the lowest value of 272 mm to the highest of 326 mm in 2001, and 256 mm–349 mm in 2011, respectively, and the yield of the crop ranged in between 1401 and 3815 kg/ha, and 1466 and 3747 kg/ha in respective periods (Table 6.15). It is seen from Figs. 6.7 and 6.8 that the districts of upper doab starting from Muzaffarnagar in the north to Bulandshahr in the south showed a very high WP of wheat (z-scores above 1.50) in 2001, including Rampur district of Rohilkhand plains. WP in this region ranged from 1.38 to 1.52  kg/m3. In 2011, excluding Muzaffarnagar and Rampur, the respective districts also lie in the category of very high WP with values ranging between 1.47 and 1.51 kg/m3. The district of Balrampur attained the highest WP of 1.52 kg/m3 in 2011 leaving behind Ghaziabad and Meerut districts on second and third ranks, respectively. This has been due to decrease of CWU (the denominator) of Balrampur district from 306 mm (in 2001) to 284 mm (in 2011), though irrigated area of the crop has increased from 64.4% to 73.4% that led to achieve high yield (the numerator) of the crop from 2277 to 3096 kg/ha (Tables

283

283

324

313

Agra

Aligarh

Allahabad

Ambedkar

294

315

286

301

311

306

307

303

283

308

284

281

287

318

326

307

281

290

Auraiya

Azamgarh

Baghpat

Bahraich

Ballia

Balrampur

Banda

Bara Banki

Bareilly

Basti

Bijnor

Budaun

Bulandshahr

Chandauli

Chitrakoot

Deoria

Etah

Etawah

Nagar

CWU

Districts

2939

3064

2689

1861

2069

3815

2992

2828

2543

2731

2809

1590

2277

2480

2417

3541

2364

3293

2616

2239

3223

3331

1.07 300

1.15 286

0.95 290

0.79 332

0.73 291

1.50 274

1.14 292

1.21 270

0.92 296

1.04 289

1.04 292

0.83 310

1.21 284

0.91 288

1.15 283

1.45 256

0.83 298

1.18 292

0.92 294

0.81 304

1.25 291

3089

3008

2666

1598

2219

3747

3171

2927

2547

2865

3043

1512

3096

2613

2727

3600

2634

3192

3227

2279

3269

3208

Yield

Wheat 2011

CWU

1.23 296

Yield WP

Wheat 2001

1.12 1546

1.13 1469

0.94 1430

0.65 1613

0.78 1445

1.48 1365

1.21 1433

1.23 1357

0.91 1423

1.09 1424

1.11 1433

0.71 1648

1.51 1474

0.94 1400

1.06 1430

1.47 1291

0.92 1402

1.15 1552

1.14 1413

0.84 1556

1.26 1403

2241

1675

2218

1029

2636

2188

1651

2860

2179

2043

2015

1246

1780

1870

1865

2518

2036

2238

2580

1977

1891

1846

Rice 2011 CWU

0.234 1341

0.195 1316

0.397 1406

0.136 1241

0.297 1241

0.230 1427

0.178 1500

0.330 1649

0.401 1579

0.217 1838

0.233 1638

0.138 1485

0.312 1550

0.244 1289

0.356 1657

0.266 1466

0.296 1579

0.235 1398

0.281 1512

0.228 1411

0.200 1352

0.232 1245

Yield WP

Rice 2001

CWU

1.18 1502

WP

2642

2212

1860

592

2427

2291

1853

2500

2002

1818

1954

916

2113

1943

1943

2564

1885

2883

2619

2295

1960

2000

CWU

0.275 852

0.233 805

0.249 778

0.132 920

0.273 791

0.240 760

0.194 782

0.268 759

0.270 765

0.192 774

0.213 758

0.104 952

0.304 807

0.239 765

0.257 769

0.271 718

0.209 752

0.302 851

0.284 757

0.264 855

0.205 781

2029

1811

1107

1210

1406

2172

1477

1450

861

1599

1339

1210

906

1497

1028

1896

1519

2083

1304

2027

2033

1786

Yield

Maize 2001 0.214 855

Yield WP

CWU

0.491 685

0.446 662

0.287 744

0.321 646

0.368 676

0.527 755

1978

2139

1108

1564

1806

2037

1966

3650

0.399 943 0.401 831

1541

2744

545

989

993

973

1113

2045

1540

2193

1682

1626

2122

0.235 823

0.438 1077

0.375 900

0.306 819

0.229 903

0.399 668

0.279 971

0.461 735

0.424 856

0.507 764

0.359 824

0.528 731

0.495 702

5031

CWU

0.504 2195

0.526 2099

0.307 2103

0.551 2314

0.614 2139

0.493 1982

0.473 2060

0.850 1967

0.365 2096

0.437 2055

0.109 2096

0.234 2313

0.196 2141

0.344 2085

0.195 2088

0.498 1893

0.341 2088

0.549 2209

0.400 2095

0.468 2255

0.528 2022

49907

51892

48875

48237

38745

59597

66715

58901

51643

57872

53345

40289

54363

41701

51225

63516

42803

56504

53258

49651

62541

50685

Yield

Sugarcane 2001 1.765 2133

Yield WP

Maize 2011 0.433 602

WP

Table 6.15  Consumptive water use, yield and WP of wheat, rice, maize and sugarcane in Uttar Pradesh, 2001 and 2011

3.14

3.88

3.17

3.16

2.52

3.90

4.32

4.17

3.38

3.80

3.93

2.63

5.27

2.77

6.53

4.24

2.77

3.55

3.39

3.21

4.25

3.23

WP

1995

1954

2095

1935

1895

2034

2152

2264

2258

2488

2329

2163

2210

1955

2368

2067

2270

2055

2186

2100

1981

1893

CWU

49793

51085

46457

36035

47747

57652

60353

56975

49665

55405

52681

30039

45465

35653

48903

69385

42397

49793

50969

48076

56201

46646

Yield

Sugarcane 2011

3.13

3.35

3.01

2.36

3.15

3.77

3.90

3.87

3.22

3.58

3.65

1.97

4.26

2.41

4.82

4.63

2.74

3.12

3.25

3.11

3.76

2.98

WP

317

282

289

291

316

306

309

313

295

302

318

307

290

294

302

Fatehpur

Firozabad

GBN

Ghaziabad

Ghazipur

Gonda

Gorakhpur

Hamirpur

Hardoi

Jalaun

Jaunpur

Jhansi

JPN

Kannauj

Kanpur

324

297

304

315

304

Kheri

Kushinagar

Lalitpur

Lucknow

–

Kaushambi

Nagar

Kanshiram

Nagar

Kanpur

305

289

Farrukhabad

Dehat

309

Faizabad

2543

1818

2757

2810

2390

–

3049

3383

3347

3094

2573

2450

3145

2701

2197

2485

2616

2284

3552

3474

2964

2460

3359

2458

–

0.91 334

0.69 349

1.02 296

1.14 287

0.84 310

–

1.09 299

1.20 301

1.21 300

1.23 267

0.97 315

0.85 290

1.13 319

0.99 286

0.89 314

0.89 292

1.01 288

0.80 300

1.44 256

1.38 263

1.10 294

0.87 311

1.24 292

2678

2028

2847

3170

2353

–

2862

3505

3475

3011

2389

2741

2555

3059

2308

2741

2801

2614

3711

3402

3364

2747

3355

2587

Yield

Wheat 2011

CWU

0.89 291

Yield WP

Wheat 2001

CWU

Districts

–

0.96 1469

0.69 1687

1.03 1498

1.24 1428

0.82 1594

–

1.02 1567

1.24 1570

1.26 1519

1.20 1356

0.88 1642

0.95 1455

0.91 1596

1.11 1454

0.84 1632

0.97 1438

1.01 1412

0.91 1388

1.50 1312

1.35 1346

1.25 1504

0.96 1607

1.23 1482

1565

834

2605

2558

2117

–

1764

2159

1900

2202

835

2175

835

1806

1138

1812

2011

2134

2162

2260

1670

1903

2093

2196

Rice 2011 CWU

–

0.169 1640

0.105 1606

0.316 1458

0.305 1793

0.253 1239

–

0.190 1380

0.231 1456

0.216 1482

0.235 1698

0.108 1434

0.248 1356

0.106 1429

0.200 1456

0.158 1461

0.319 1722

0.401 1677

0.244 1519

0.230 1307

0.238 1314

0.189 1294

0.208 1331

0.245 1531

0.252 1658

Yield WP

Rice 2001

CWU

0.96 1411

WP

2055

544

2418

1943

1843

–

2158

1910

2669

2090

1550

2019

921

2099

912

1884

2113

2084

2539

2261

2988

2126

2331

2082

CWU

–

0.221 776

0.077 1037

0.280 832

0.210 765

0.214 888

–

0.230 853

0.202 862

0.282 822

0.220 753

0.233 969

0.221 779

0.116 902

0.222 771

0.128 930

0.226 781

0.250 753

0.231 755

0.269 732

0.238 753

0.324 837

0.231 891

0.244 801

856

1246

1461

908

2027

–

1658

1684

2217

1450

747

1479

747

1559

1210

1461

1077

1406

1805

1750

1958

2027

2126

1304

Yield

Maize 2001 0.228 751

Yield WP

CWU

–

0.228 975

0.330 952

0.374 818

0.253 1047

0.525 645

–

0.411 723

0.414 778

0.542 748

0.371 971

0.189 787

0.386 689

0.184 744

0.431 770

0.305 765

0.379 987

0.305 952

0.384 883

0.441 666

0.426 670

0.470 664

0.512 681

0.546 854

1406

1174

2002

996

2609

–

1611

1200

–

0.245 2139

0.204 2370

0.486 2164

0.157 2081

0.903 2295

–

0.501 2244

0.319 2241

0.483 2176

0.348 1976

1556 1742

0.117 2313

0.474 2149

0.275 2264

0.406 2111

0.271 2319

0.114 2112

0.168 2079

0.313 2079

0.546 1926

0.492 1962

0.703 2134

0.519 2301

0.496 2130

0.449 2085

CWU

53345

43760

51359

53716

36726

–

43145

48965

49907

57844

43760

47268

43760

53539

49985

55756

48357

42610

61677

60730

50547

54623

52760

55900

Yield

Sugarcane 2001

457

1389

977

1465

1000

671

919

1535

2237

2017

2710

1549

2116

2284

Yield WP

Maize 2011 0.369 920

WP

3.99

2.84

5.10

4.31

2.36

–

2.71

3.07

3.19

3.82

3.02

3.00

2.78

3.44

3.16

3.68

3.91

2.73

4.12

4.00

3.22

3.45

3.49

3.94

WP

2319

2303

2117

2478

1913

–

2057

2130

2142

2301

2113

2017

2104

2127

2155

2423

2375

2193

1878

1899

1936

2013

2257

2332

CWU

3.83

1.60

4.83

3.70

3.09

–

2.53

2.83

3.13

3.75

1.21

3.42

1.56

3.10

2.54

3.28

3.18

2.63

3.82

4.20

2.96

3.03

3.38

3.40

WP

(continued)

52681

24720

51005

54292

48076

–

40284

45108

49793

57075

17371

53863

24718

49005

36035

50289

46033

41117

57456

63840

46643

48076

53560

50944

Yield

Sugarcane 2011

280

Mahamaya

306

286

281

312

287

322

284

281

Mahrajganj

Mainpuri

Mathura

Mau

Meerut

Mirzapur

Moradabad

Muzaffar

3248

2387

314

280

272

309

321

Rae Bareli

Rampur

Saharanpur

SKN

SRNB

Shahjahanpur 290

Shrawasti

303

2425

320

2654

2989

3567

2243

2260

289

Pratapgarh

3256

3570

3139

2027

3730

2361

3305

3151

2798

1785

3370

1.13 274

1.21 283

0.85 289

0.95 295

1.32 266

1.39 278

0.79 297

0.79 310

1.24 278

1.48 260

1.23 272

0.79 298

1.52 261

0.83 291

1.26 291

1.16 291

1.01 284

0.85 298

2434

3599

2352

2662

2963

3372

2461

2472

3570

3338

3056

1926

3651

2570

3568

3252

2887

1466

2910

Yield

Wheat 2011

CWU

1.28 299

Yield WP

Pilibhit

nagar

317

Mahoba

Nagar

CWU

Districts

Wheat 2001

Table 6.15 (continued)

0.95 1440

1.34 1430

0.83 1522

0.95 1441

1.30 1330

1.31 1419

0.86 1543

0.86 1521

1.36 1422

1.38 1317

1.20 1391

0.84 1514

1.48 1321

1.27 1398

1.36 1410

1.19 1511

1.04 1535

0.68 1660

1804

2368

2220

2166

2336

2317

1830

1867

2790

2469

2256

2196

2297

1956

2068

2046

2501

1137

1763

Rice 2011 CWU

0.331 1766

0.249 1626

0.260 1370

0.411 1483

0.246 1619

0.245 1404

0.198 1219

0.214 1451

0.298 1696

0.262 1253

0.238 1797

0.263 1388

0.243 1315

0.283 1273

0.217 1351

0.215 1369

0.390 1344

0.152 1257

0.217 1366

Yield WP

Rice 2001

CWU

1.11 1436

WP

2062

2435

1882

1916

2258

2154

2192

2079

2622

2488

2286

1677

2419

1755

2407

2423

2321

911

1899

CWU

0.241 778

0.256 765

0.212 830

0.332 782

0.237 742

0.228 783

0.236 831

0.229 820

0.279 771

0.262 734

0.241 771

0.209 836

0.256 737

0.204 756

0.252 797

0.251 827

0.518 862

0.259 976

CWU

876

1535

1050

0.230 1072

0.436 886

0.275 698

0.224 781

0.483 884

1581 861

0.389 741

0.282 612

0.517 771

0.442 960

0.404 635

0.378 1036

0.278 697

0.461 698

0.386 672

0.441 694

0.477 713

0.371 751

0.313 620

476

1911

688

1508

1234

1671

1370

1534

2435

1397

2497

721

2762

1744

2286

2134

5587

1515

1987

CWU

0.071 2102

0.411 2076

0.218 2217

0.393 2115

0.264 1918

0.489 2039

0.632 2231

0.405 2217

0.448 2061

0.338 1914

0.517 2010

0.226 2210

0.672 1928

0.569 2082

0.582 2026

0.514 2153

1.547 2203

0.651 2351

52628

53085

32878

56133

58435

60108

49059

47633

59529

63609

53467

51513

61105

44974

51453

54813

53859

48237

54813

Yield

Sugarcane 2001 0.479 2057

Yield WP

Maize 2011 0.414 735

WP

1450

1127

2027

1599

1650

1450

1050

1896

1403

1786

1979

1461

1210

1712

Yield

Maize 2001 0.198 804

Yield WP

4.90

3.38

2.13

3.63

3.96

3.92

3.10

3.04

3.94

4.27

3.49

3.38

4.07

2.91

3.33

3.46

4.04

3.08

3.52

WP

2415

2273

2025

2161

2232

2029

1893

2150

2361

1837

2435

2051

1893

1942

1979

2016

2002

1923

2007

CWU

46305

54223

53659

49665

60208

55171

34453

48076

57912

65164

55627

53658

66228

40861

45196

46645

53161

36036

53431

Yield

Sugarcane 2011

3.07

3.45

3.48

3.19

4.03

3.60

2.18

3.07

3.75

4.38

3.63

3.52

4.41

2.62

2.92

2.93

3.86

2.29

3.43

WP

314

305

319

21083 2743

Sultanpur

Unnao

Varanasi

Uttar

2595

2410

2625

1.06 20443

0.91 301

0.86 299

0.93 300

1.07 299

0.90 282

1.03 287

2829

2625

2786

2783

1654

2782

2360

Yield

Wheat 2011

CWU

1.08 102776

0.92 1463

0.99 1517

0.98 1463

1.26 1479

1.02 1420

1989

2543

1401

2140

1847

1731

1852

Rice 2011 CWU

0.25

102932

0.291 1456

0.150 1472

0.278 1465

0.246 1493

0.219 1692

0.316 1648

Yield WP

Rice 2001

CWU

0.85 1497

WP

2029

1780

1932

2176

1194

1775

2184

CWU

0.24

56597

0.199 793

0.207 811

0.237 780

0.168 838

0.192 747

1459

1382

1402

1272

710

896

861

Yield

Maize 2001 0.296 827

Yield WP

(CWU=mm, Yield=kg/ha and WP=kg/m3) Sources: Computed by the author from data obtained from: 1. Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics, State Directorate of Agriculture, Lucknow 2. FAO (1998) 3. Meteorological Department of India, Pune 4. Doorenbos and Kassam (1979) Notes: (–) denotes data not available for this district

Pradesh

315

1401

299

Sonbhadra

2369

2702

Sitapur

nagar

308

Siddharth

Yield WP

Wheat 2001

CWU

Districts

CWU

0.38

55644

0.359 762

0.348 773

0.336 763

0.195 768

0.262 939

1715

1395

1716

1329

688

712

1773

CWU

0.44

148889

0.369 2155

0.462 2191

0.366 2149

0.171 2165

0.134 2075

51358

38551

41860

45407

44230

54683

50703

Yield

Sugarcane 2001 0.306 2167

Yield WP

Maize 2011 0.217 975

WP

3.53

2.49

2.65

2.88

3.22

4.06

3.87

WP

149118

2142

2147

2151

2150

2368

2309

CWU

48926

44861

52263

49129

53657

50232

49665

Yield

Sugarcane 2011

3.26

2.90

3.31

3.11

3.71

3.26

3.27

WP

290

6  Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

Fig. 6.7  Uttar Pradesh: water productivity of crops in 2001, (a) water productivity of wheat, (b) water productivity of rice, (c) water productivity of maize, and (d) water productivity of sugarcane

6.15 and 6.16). High WP from 1.18 to 1.32 kg/m3 (z-score ranged from 0.50 to 1.50) in 2001 was noticed in the districts that surround the former region of very high WP starting with Saharanpur in the extreme north to Kanpur Nagar in doab, 5 districts of Rohilkhand region, and a single district of Balrampur of Awadh plains during 2001, and in 2011, eight more districts namely, Muzaffarnagar, GBN, Rampur, Mau, Sonbhadra, Kheri, Budaun and Mainpuri were added in this category. It is clear from Figures 6.7 and 6.8 that, most of the districts of high WP are concentrated mainly in the western region of the state as we move eastward and southward, WP of wheat starts declining, and this trend of decline continues up to Deoria in extreme east and

6.4 Water Productivity of Crops

291

Fig. 6.8  Uttar Pradesh: water productivity of crops in 2011, (a) water productivity of wheat, (b) water productivity of rice, (c) water productivity of maize, and (d) water productivity of sugarcane

southward up to Lalitpur district, respectively. Very low WP (z-scores below −1.50) of wheat occurred in Chandauli (−1.57 kg/m3) and Lalitpur (1.76 kg/m3) districts in the previous period, and three more districts of Banda, Mahoba and Chitrakoot of Bundelkhand region were added in this category during 2011 and Chandauli shifted to low productivity region. Low WP with values in between 0.79 and 0.95 kg/m3 (in 2001), and 0.78 and 0.96 kg/m3 (in 2011) were observed in 27 and 23 districts of the state, respectively. Medium WP areas, as appeared in figures, fall in between high and low water productivity regions of the state.

292

6  Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

Table 6.16  Water productivity of wheat in Uttar Pradesh, 2001 and 2011 Water productivity Category z-score Very >1.50 high High 0.50 to 1.50 Medium −0.50 to 0.50 Low −1.50 to 0.50 Very low 1.50 high High 0.50– 1.50 Medium −0.50 to 0.50 Low −1.50 to −0.50 Very low < −1.50

2001 WP Kg/m3 0.356– 0.411 0.291– 0.331 0.215– 0.283 0.150– 0.214 0.105– 0.138

CWU No. of districts 6 11 35 13 5

mm 1412– 1535 1357– 1498 1291– 1594 1403– 1660 1596– 1687

Source: Computed by the author from Table 6.15

Yield Kg/ha 1865– 2501 1780– 2860 1731– 2580 1137– 1903 834– 1246

2011 WP Kg/m3 0.332– 0.518 0.270– 0.324 0.210– 0.269 0.168– 0.209 0.077– 0.132

No. of districts 2 12 39 12 5

CWU

Yield

mm 1344– 1483 1241– 1696 1219– 1797 1273– 1838 1241– 1606

Kg/ha 1916– 2321 2002– 2988 911– 2539 1194– 1960 544– 921

294

6  Measurement of Agricultural Productivity and Water Productivity of Crops

Surrounding the region of very high WP, the districts of Shrawasti, Balrampur and Siddharthnagar in the north, the districts namely, Kushinagar, Gorakhpur, Azamgarh, Varanasi and Chandauli of extreme south, and Kheri and Pilibhit in west of Bahraich were marked with high WP (0.291–0.331 kg/m3). The district of Bijnor forming part of Rohilkhand plains was also placed in this region. This region coincides with the districts of very high and high concentration of rice cropped area which is found in high rainfall regions. The concentration of rice cultivation in the state decreases as one move from the east and north-east to west and south-west (Hussain 1970). In 2011, there were only two districts namely, Mahrajganj and SKN of tarai region with rice yield of 2321 and 1916 kg/ha, and CWU of 1344 and 1483 mm respectively, occupied their place in very high category of WP. High WP (0.270–0.324 kg/m3) in 2011 was seen in some scattered pockets in western and eastern parts of the state mainly in the districts of Firozabad, Auraiya, Kannauj, Pilibhit, Etawah, Baghpat, Balrampur, Siddharthnagar, Ambedkar Nagar, Kushinagar, Chandauli, and Basti respectively (Figs. 6.7 and 6.8). Again, very low WP was seen in the districts of Bundelkhand region; the lowest value has been in Lalitpur in both years. In these districts, yield of rice was very low and CWU is high, consequently, the districts formed part in the lowest WP region. The regions forming the medium water productivity were scattered over the entire state from western to eastern parts in 2011. The districts of Lalitpur and Banda with 0 and 91% irrigated area, respectively, have much higher CWU than Mahrajganj and SKN districts which fall in very high WP category. High evaporation losses due to rain-fed irrigation and meagre groundwater resources are responsible for high CWU and thus, lower yield has pushed these districts to lie in the lowest WP region.

6.4.3  Water Productivity of Maize Maize (Zea mays) is one of the major kharif season (summer) crops grown in a tropical country like India. It is consumed by human beings and constitutes a basic raw material for manufacturing a number of items. Climate is the main environmental determinant influencing yield of the crop. Maize is grown in climates ranging from tropical to temperate during the period in which mean daily temperatures remain above 15  °C and nights are frost-free. Successful cultivation of maize depends on the right choice of varieties, so that, the length of the growing period matches with the length of growing season, and the purpose for which the crop is to be grown (FAO 2011). It is a high water demanding crop and gives higher yields when adequate amount of water is provided. However, maize is very sensitive to water stress. Flowering period is the most sensitive stage to water deficit, with reductions in biomass, yields and harvest index. At this stage crop yield is affected due to flower abortions, and hence a decrease occurred in number of grains per m3 of water (Otegui et al. 1995; Farre and Faci 2009; Karrou et al. 2012). In the state maize was grown on 0.91  million  ha. (i.e., 3.6% of GCA) and 0.76 million ha. (3.04%) of area in 2001 and 2011, respectively, out of which only

6.4 Water Productivity of Crops

295

27 and 32% of area, received irrigation. During both the years, it was grown over large area in the districts of Kannauj, Farrukhabad, Bahraich, Mainpuri, Gonda, Bulandshahr and Etah, the yields of maize were in order of 1742, 2116, 1113, 2134, 919, 2037 and 2139 kg/ha, respectively in the year 2011 (Table 6.15). Maize during its cultivation needs more water in comparison to other cereal crops. Estimations of maize water requirements are essential to be made in order to curtail excessive application of water than needed, which can cause crop damage, poor traficability, soil erosion, excessive leaching and the wastage of water, labour and energy (Tekwa and Bwade 2011). CWU of maize crop in the state varied from 718 to 1037  mm in 2001, and between 602 and 1077  mm in 2011, whereas the yields of maize ranged between 710 and 2217 kg/ha, and 457 and 5587 kg/ha in respective years (Tables 6.15 and 6.18). Figures 6.7 and 6.8 and Table 6.18 clearly show that in 2001, the districts marked with very high and high WP (0.431–0.546 kg/m3) of maize crop were located in an entire Ganga-Yamuna doab region stretching from the district of Saharanpur in the north up to Allahabad in the south. A cluster of four districts namely, Bareilly, Pilibhit, Shahjahanpur of Rohilkhand and Hardoi from Awadh regions also formed part in this category during 2001. The districts having medium WP of maize covers most of the areas in Rohilkhand plains and Purvanchal region of the state. In 2011, there were few districts scattered all over the state belonged to the category of high and very high WP (0.58–1.76 kg/m3). These districts were namely, Agra, Mahrajganj, Kaushambi, Bijnor, Firozabad, Meerut, Mahoba, Rae Bareli, Chandauli and Mathura. Agra ranked first in WP with crop yield of 5031  kg/ha and the lowest CWU of 602 mm in the growing season. The district of Mahrajganj, with the highest yield of 5587 kg/ha ranked second having highest WP. The districts with low and very low WP of maize formed parts of northern districts of Awadh and Purvanchal regions, all of the Bundelkhand districts, and districts forming the south-eastern part

Table 6.18  Water productivity of maize in Uttar Pradesh, 2001 and 2011 Water productivity Category z-score Very >1.50 high High 0.50 to 1.50 Medium −0.50 to 0.50 Low −1.50 to −0.50 Very low 1.50 4.90– 4 high 6.53 High 0.50 to 3.91– 18 1.50 4.32 Medium −0.50 to 3.19– 24 0.50 3.90 Low −1.50 to 2.49– 22 −0.50 3.17 Very low