Council on Energy, Environment and Water Integrated | International | Independent
Contour farming or ploughing is the practice of ploughing and/or planting along a contour, i.e., across the slope (horizontal) rather than up and down (vertical). Furrows are ploughed perpendicular rather than parallel to the slope. Contour farming tends to be treated as synonymous with terrace farming; however, contour farming follows the natural shape of the slope without altering it, whereas terrace farming builds walls and alters the shape of the slope to produce flat areas that provide a catchment for water and to check erosion (Stakeholders consulted at DoA, Himachal Pradesh).
In geographical terms, contour is an imaginary line joining the same elevation. In the hills farming is generally done by constructing terraces across the slope by providing a gentle gradient so that moistures and soil conservation is maintain and excess runoff water is safely disposed of. While contour bunding is a soil conservation structure created along the contours to control soil erosion.
In principle, Contour Farming adheres to and promotes most of the agroecological elements as defined by the FAO
| ELEMENTS | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|
| Diversity | Contour farming reduces soil erosion and leads to an increase in vegetation, thus supporting biological diversity and wildlife habitat. |
| Co-creation and sharing of knowledge | In the hills where contour farming has been practiced for hundreds of years, people have been dependent on sharing knowledge passed on between generations. As this is a labour-intensive practice it is often the result of communities co-operating and cocreating the possibility to farm. |
| Efficiency | Farming across slopes perpendicular to the water flow acts as a barrier and helps to slow water runoff, making it more available for seepage into the soil. The practice thus utilizes water efficiently and also avoids the runoff of nutrients, reducing the need for external fertilizers. |
| Resilience | With climate change leading to irregular rainfall, contour farming prevents soil erosion, increases water infiltration and productivity of the land, leading to greater resilience among farmers and their lands. |
| Human and social values | By preserving soil and moisture content, contour farming is known to increase crop yields, improving rural livelihoods. It can also lead to crop diversification, which can multiply its benefits. |
| Culture and food traditions | Contour farming is a traditional practice rooted in the culture of the people, particularly in the hills. It has been supporting healthy and diversified diets for generations. |
Contour farming, a traditional farming technique followed in India, is the simplest and easiest strategy for conserving rainwater. It is mainly practiced in the hilly, mid-hilly and sub-tropical areas at variable altitudes where a considerable degree of slope exists. But contour farming/bunding activities are also undertaken as a soil and water conservation (SWC) measure in the plains at lower altitudes. This involves creating bunds or ridges (made of soil and/or stones) to check soil erosion and enhance soil moisture in fields.
Contour farming is practiced under various agroecological conditions; in the hills across all climatic zones or regions with <5° slope receiving <500 mm annual rainfall, bunding or contour cultivation are used, with conservative furrows used in <500-700 mm annual rainfall." Contour farming/bunds and contour vegetative cover are recommended as a potential SWC interventions in watershed and resource management programs and policy documents, journals, etc. The practice was recognized and promoted as early as the 1930s, though it has been done traditionally, particularly in the hilly regions. Nonetheless, the effectiveness of the practice depends upon the area’s rainfall intensity, topography and soil type.2
Contour farming is suggested as one of the important mitigation techniques for reversing land degradation in major ACZs such as hilly areas; Indo-Gangetic plains; dryland and desert areas; southern peninsular India; central India and coastal areas.3 Contour bunds was an important component implemented under the Programmes of Natural Resource Management Division that includes the National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas and the River Valley Projects (RVP) and Flood Prone Rivers (FPR) Programme to deal with land degradation.4 Contour bunding /trenching is one of the rainfall management strategies in the Integrated Watershed Management Programme of PMKSY. The practice is even recommended in Report of the Committee on Doubling Farmers’ Income Volume XIV “Comprehensive Policy Recommendations”.5
How much area in India is under contour farming? Due to the lack of any comprehensive study across India to determine area and farm scales, there is very little information available. However, data provided by stakeholders suggest that in the hilly state of Sikkim, where most of the farming is under contour, it covers an area of approximately 50,000 hectares (stakeholders, Department of Agriculture, Sikkim). In Karnataka the practice varies according to the geographical location in the state; nonetheless rough estimates are that about 5-10 percent of the cultivated area in the rainfed plain lands and most of the hilly areas are under contour farming (stakeholders at UAS, Bangalore).
At what farm size is contour farming practiced? Traditionally, contour farming has been mostly undertaken in the Himalayan region and Western Ghats, largely by subsistence farmers. However, the last few decades have seen it spread to many other parts of the country, with reasonably large farmers adopting it on the plains.
How many farmers in India are practicing contour farming? As contour farming is such a common practice, government or other agencies do not include it in agricultural surveys, meaning that data on the numbers of farmers practicing it across India are not available. However, stakeholders in the Department of Agriculture, Sikkim estimate that approximately 35,000 farmers are using the practice in the state. In Karnataka, stakeholders consulted from the Dryland Agriculture Project, UAS, Bangalore estimate less than 30 percent of large-scale farmers and 5-10 percent of small and marginal farmers follow the practice in the state.
Where in India is contour farming prevalent? Although contour farming is practiced more or less across India, some of the prominent states are Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Jammu and Kashmir, and the north-eastern region that includes eight states. In Himachal, contour farming is practiced in 6-7 hilly districts (Shimla, Sirmour, Kangra, parts of Mandi, Solan). In addition, it is also carried out in the southern states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, dryland regions of Rajasthan as well as some parts of Eastern Ghats. Contour bunding is also carried out, notably in Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh (Figure 1).
Which are the major crops cultivated under contour farming in India? All types of crops can be grown using contour farming; the topography, climate and locational factors determine which crops are grown. Stakeholders consulted affirm that in the hill state of Sikkim, maize, rice and vegetables tend to be cultivated and pea, potato, maize, pulses, millets, tomato, capsicum, garlic and ginger in Himachal Pradesh. Particularly, in Sirmour in Himachal, during the rainy season farmers are able to grow peas because of the sloped land; this would otherwise be difficult on flat land (Stakeholder consultation).
This section considers the economic, social, and environmental impacts of contour farming.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
The short-term studies on natural farming conducted over one or two cropping seasons indicate both increases and reductions in yields for different crops (see below). However, there is a need to generate rigorous longitudinal evidence across different agro-climatic zones and cropping systems. This is also one reason for the polarised views in India's food security discussion on the impact of natural farming. Natural farming is based on poly cropping. New methodologies should be developed to include all the hidden costs in both chemical-based and natural practices to compare the overall productivity in both systems.
Out of 97 farmers surveyed in 2012 in one study in Karnataka, 78.7 percent stated that their yields had increased, 85.7 percent reported improvements to income, and 90.9 percent reported that production costs had decreased.6 Crop cutting experiments and field surveys in Andhra Pradesh conducted by the Centre for Economic and Social Studies (CESS) in Rabi season 2018-19 reported no statistically significant difference in banana yields bengal-gram, black-gram, green-gram, and groundnut when compared to chemical-based farming. An increase of between 2-38 percent was reported for these crops. Maize, sorghum, and cashew-nut showed reduced yields (between 1 and 7 percent).7 Research by ICAR-IIFSR, Modipuram on Subhash Palekar natural farming in the rice-wheat system in north India shows a 40 percent yield reduction compared to chemical-based methods.8
Another study, not based on any field data, reported that while natural farming could yield benefits for low-input farmers, it could result in yield penalties for crops where higher inputs are needed. The study stated that "even with maximum potential nitrogen fixation and release, only 52-80 percent of the national average nitrogen applied as fertilizer is expected to be supplied."9 The study, however, compared the impact on yields against the national average fertilizer rates. In India, the actual application rate is much higher than the reported official figures.
‘The income from contour farming, as for any agriculture practice, depends on multiple factors such as location, landholding, crops and seed quality among many.
The few studies undertaken on the impact of contour cultivation on overall income suggest that contour farming tends to be more remunerative than fields which are left in the natural state as soils are likely to be eroded due to the steep slope and have to be replenished continuously with nutrients. A study of contour ploughing in rainfed conditions in the north-east monsoon zone found cowpea and castor to be more profitable, with a cost-benefit ratio of 1.9 and 1.86 respectively.10 An experiment conducted to estimate income from contour-bunding activities in Kandhamal, Odisha found a higher gross return from contour bunded areas than control plots, and a cost-benefit ratio of 1.85.11 However, more long-term systematic studies are required to understand and document income enhancement from the practice.
1. There is a strong need to evaluate the evidence on economic indicators (income, productivity) in different regions of the country, to gain a better perspective on economic gains. Its effect on human health and women also has comparatively litle research.
2. More studies are needed on the impact of the practice on below-ground biodiversity, which has synergistic effects that may translate into enhanced crop productivity.
SOCIAL IMPACT
There are no scientific studies on the impact of the practice on human health. However, contour farming is practiced in the hilly regions of the country with minimal or almost no use of chemical inputs. This would definitely signify better health outcomes for the implementers.
‘Though there is a general understanding of the prominent role of contour farming traditionally in crop cultivation and for sustaining women in the hilly regions of the country, there is a general lack of literature on the topic. One study of the north-eastern states found that in Mizoram State, contour farming and terracing allow rice and vegetables to be grown and processed, with the products being sold by women.12 In Nagaland, about 70 percent of the female jhum (shifting cultivation) farmers introduced contour bunding to conserve resources within their jhum lands. This had led to enhanced soil quality below the contour bunds and improved the size and quality of crops, helping women to earn additional income.13
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Soil conservation is one of the central goals of contour farming and several papers mention the practice as a potential SWC strategy.14,15,16 On very steep slopes, contour farming alone may not be sufficient to control erosion and needs to be supplemented by bunding' and planting vegetative barriers across the slope. Other than these measures, it is most effective when implemented along with alley and cover cropping, residue management and mulching, etc. One contour guideline is said to be enough in smaller fields with uniform slopes, but where slopes are irregular, two to three guidelines are required. Overall, the practice is known to be the most effective on moderate slopes of 2 to 7 percent, while contour bunding is recommended on up to 6 percent slopes and where rainfall is up to 600mm.17
Conservation furrows with contour cultivation offer a low-cost in-situ soil conservation practice in red (Alfisol) soil regions with 400-900 mm rainfall and slopes up to 4 percent.18 Contour farming can reduce soil erosion by as much as 50-60 percent compared with vertical ploughing.19,20 It also helps to reduce sediment runoff and increase water infiltration. In one study, the reduction in soil loss was between 20 and 30 tonnes per hectare. However, the incorrect establishment of contour lines can increase the risk of erosion. As for contour bunds, they are recommended for medium to low rainfall areas (<700 mm) and on permeable soils with <6 percent slope; they are not suitable where soils are shallow (less than 7.5 cm).21,22 In experimental areas, contour bunds recorded only 0.3 tonnes/hectare soil loss compared with 18.92 tonnes/hectare in control treatment.23
Contour farming prevents nutrient-rich top soils from eroding excessively.24 The increase in soil moisture promotes biological activity which releases additional nutrients to the soil, thus avoiding the need for input costs. Though this is validated by stakeholders consulted (Department of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh), more in-depth research is required to assess the impact of nutrients from implementing the practice.
It is well established that contour cultivation, including bunding and terracing, is a common agronomic measure for conserving water in hilly agro-ecosystems and on sloping land. The furrows and ridges built across the slope act as a barrier that reduces the flow of water. In drier areas, it conserves moisture as it increases infiltration rates, while it reduces soil loss in higher areas of rainfall, enhancing the soil moisture in both cases and thus improving crop productivity.25 It also prevents waterlogging of fields as water runs down the hill gradually, decreasing incidence of root or water-borne diseases. Seasonal runoff from catchments decreased from 54 to below 40 percent where contour farming was practised.26
In the north-eastern region, contour trenches are built along contours (slope >15 percent) to trap soil which needs to be removed annually before monsoon. These trapped soils are fertile and as they are lower in the contour trenches infiltration of water is greater. They are used to grow horticultural plants or for silviculture (e.g., pineapple plantations in Mizoram).27 Rectangular staggered contour trenches designed to trap 75 percent of runoff are recommended in the ravine and marginal lands of Rajasthan, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh.28
Contour farming is constructed to counteract or decrease the kinetic energy of water that flows downhill with high intensity on steeper slopes.29 However, scientific studies relating to such inferences are lacking and need more research.
As a SWC measure, contour farming preserves soil and soil organic matter, including soil carbon, which would otherwise run off on sloping terrain. As soil removed by erosion has 1.5-5 times soil organic matter than the soil left behind, contour farming assists in preserving the soil organic carbon that is mostly concentrated in the topsoil layer.30
Without building contours, terracing and bunding the fields it is almost impossible to plough and cultivate crops on sloping lands. Sowing a diversity of crop varieties enhances biodiversity. As a SWC measure contour farming retains soil and soil organic matter, which would otherwise wash away. The soil organic matter affects soil biodiversity and biological activities within it; hence the practice is vital for promoting biodiversity in an agro-ecosystem. Despite such linkages, no systematic studies were found on the impact of the practice on biodiversity in India.
State of available research discussing the impact of conservation farming on various outcomes.
|
Evidence type |
Yield |
Income |
Health |
Gender |
Soil & nutrients |
Water |
Energy |
GHG emissions |
Bio-diversity |
|
Journals |
3 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
Reports |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Articles/case-studies |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Others** |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
14 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
15 |
11 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
** Thesis, guidelines, conference papers, etc Source: Authors' compilation
Note — The evidence is from the first 75 results examined in Google Scholar Advanced search and the first 30 results from Google Advanced Search. Only those papers which clearly established the evidence for different indicators were selected.
The following institutions are involved in the research and promotion of conservation farming; a few were consulted for this research:
|
Government institutions |
Research/implementation institutions |
NGOs/Civil society organisations |
|
Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers’ Welfare (DACKFW) |
ICAR-Research Complex for North Eastern Hill Region |
Peoples Endeavor for Social Change (PESCH) |
|
Government of Himachal Pradesh — Prakritik Kheti Khushhal Kisaan |
Dryland Agriculture Project, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore |
|
|
Department of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh; |
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics (ICRISAT) |
|
|
Agriculture Department, Government of Sikkim. |
College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, Odisha (CAET) |
Source: Authors' compilation
Note — The stakeholders list is indicative and not exhaustive
1 Bhattacharyya, Ranjan, Birendra Nath Ghosh, Pradeep Dogra, Prasanta Kumar Mishra, Priyabrata Santra, Suresh Kumar, Michael Augustine Fullen, et al. 2016. “Soil Conservation Issues in India.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 8 (6): 1-37. doi:10.3390/5u8060565.
2 Kumawat, Anita, Devideen Yadav, Kala Samadharmam, and Rashmi Itcyamkandath. 2020. “Soil and Water Conservation Measures for Agricultural Sustainability.” Intech, 38. doi:10.1016/j.colsurfa. 2011.12.014.
3 Bhattacharyya, Ranjan, Birendra Ghosh, Prasanta Mishra, Biswapati Mandal, Cherukumalli Rao, Dibyendu Sarkar, Krishnendu Das, et al. 2015. “Soil Degradation in India: Challenges and Potential Solutions.” Sustainability 7 (4). MDPI AG: 3528-70. doi:10.3390/5u7043528.
4 Sikka, A K, B Venkateswarlu, A K Singh, P S Vijay Shankar, and Arbinda Mishra. 2011. “Report of the XII Plan Working Group on Natural Resource Management and Rainfed Farming.” New Delhi. https://niti.gov.in/planningcommission.gov.in/docs/aboutus/committee/wrkgrp12/agri/wg_NRM_Farming.pdf
5 Murthy, Srinivas, Ashok Dalwai, Pawanexh Kohli, Raka Saxena, and Uday C Javali. 2017. “Report of the Committee for Doubling Farmers’ Income Volume VIII ‘Production Enhancement through Productivity Gains.” New Delhi. https://farmer.gov.in/imagedefault/DFI/DFI%20Vol-8C.pdf
6 Khadse, A, Rosset, P.M, Morales, H, and B.G Ferguson. 2018. “Taking agroecology to scale: the Zero Budget Natural Farming peasant movement in Karnataka, India.” The Journal of Peasant Studies, Volume 45, 2018 - Issue 1
7 Galab, S, P. Prudhvikar Reddy, D. Shree Rama Raju, C. Ravi, and A. Rajani. 2019. Impact Assessment of Zero Budget Natural Farming in Andhra Pradesh — Rabi 2018-19. Hyderabad: Centre for Economic and Social Studies.
8 Khurana, A.and V Kumar. 2020. Share of Organic and Natural Farming: Challenges and Possibilities, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi.
9 Smith, J. et al. 2020. “Potential yield challenges to scale-up of zero budget natural farming”. Nature Sustainability, 3(3):247-252. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0469-x.
10 Bhattacharyya, Ranjan, Birendra Nath Ghosh, Pradeep Dogra, Prasanta Kumar Mishra, Priyabrata Santra, Suresh Kumar, Michael Augustine Fullen, et al. 2016. “Soil Conservation Issues in India.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 8 (6): 1-37. doi:10.3390/5u8060565.
11 Subudhi, C R, and R Subudhi. 2018. “Effect of Contour Bunding on Yield of Maize Crop in North Eastern Ghat Zones of QOdisha.” International Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry 5 (9): 19-20. htep://ijraf.org/papers/v5-i9/3.pdf.
12 Ralte, Laltanpuii. 2015. “Farming in Mizoram: Jhumming and the Role of Women.” Internet local Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development 2 (7): 496-500. www.allsubjectjournal.com.
13 UNDP. 2020. “Women Farmers Combat Land Degradation in Nagaland.” https://www.in.undp.org/content/india/en/home/climate-and-disaster-resli....
14 Goyal, R K, M A Khan, T K Bhari, C B Pandey, and M M Roy. 2013. “Watershed Management for Development of Hor Arid Zone of India.” Jodhpur. http://www.cazri.res.in/publications/watershedmanagement.pdf.
15 Bhattacharyya, Ranjan, Birendra Nath Ghosh, Pradeep Dogra, Prasanta Kumar Mishra, Priyabrata Santra, Suresh Kumar, Michael Augustine Tullen, et al. 2016. “Soil Conservation Issues in India.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 8 (6): 1-37. doi:10.3390/su8060565.
16 Kumawat, Anita, Devideen Yadav, Kala Samadharmam, and Rashmi Ittyamkandath. 2020. “Soil and Water Conservation Measures for Agricultural Sustainability.” Intech, 38. doi:10.1016/j.colsurfa.2011.12.014.
17 Goyal, R K, M A Khan, T K Bhati, C B Pandey, and M M Roy. 2013. “Watershed Management for Development of Hot Arid Zone of India.” Jodhpur. hetp://www.cazri.res.in/publications/watershedmanagement.pdf.
18 Ramachandrappa, B. K., and M. N. Thimmegowda. 2016. “Soil Conservation, Crop Water Planning and Its Use Efficiency in Rainfed Agriculture.” Geological Society of India 5 (October 2018): 29-35_ doi:10.17491/cgsi/2016/95946.
19 Goyal, R K, M A Khan, T K Bhati, C B Pandey, and M M Roy. 2013. “Watershed Management for Development of Hot Arid Zone of India.” Jodhpur. http://www.cazri.res.in/publications/watershedmanagement.pdf.
20 IAS Academy. 2018. “IAS Parliament.” Cliennai: Shankar IAS Academy. https:/ fwww.iasparliament.com/.
21 Goyal, R K, M A Khan, T K Bhati, C B Pandey, and M M Roy. 2013. “Watershed Management for Development of Hot Arid Zone of India.” Jodhpur. https/www.cazri.res.in/publications/watershedmanagement.pdf.
22 Bhattacharyya, Ranjan, Birendra Nath Ghosh, Pradeep Dogra, Prasanta Kumar Mishra, Priyabraca Santra, Suresh Kumar, Michael Augustine Fullen, et al. 2016. “Soil Conservation Issues in India.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 8 (6): 1-37. doi:10.3390/5u8060565.
23 Ibid
24 Kumawat, Anita, Devideen Yadav, Kala Samadharmam, and Rashmi Ittyamkandath. 2020. “Soil and Water Conservation Measures for Agricultural Sustainability.” Intech, 38. doi:10.1016/j.colsurfa.2011.12.014.
25 Ibid
26 Bhattacharyya, Ranjan, Birendra Nath Ghosh, Pradeep Dogra, Prasanta Kumar Mishra, Priyabrata Santra, Suresh Kumar, Michael Augustine Fullen, et al. 2016. “Soil Conservation Issues in India.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 8 (6): 1-37. doi:10.3390/5u8060565.
27 Kanta, Laishram, and Roma Devi. 2018. “Important Traditional Soil and Water Conservation Techniques Practices for Sustainable Agriculture in North East India.” Imphal. www.rainwaterharvesting.org.
28 Chaudhari, SK, A Patra, and Biswas. 2018. “Soil and Water Management Innovations towards Doubling the Farmers’ Income.” Isss-India. Org. New Delhi. www.isss-india.org.
29 Kanta, Laishram, and Roma Devi. 2018. “Important Traditional Soil and Water Conservation Techniques Practices for Sustainable Agriculture in North East India.” Imphal. www.rainwaterharvesting.org.
30 Kumawat, Anita, Devideen Yadav, Kala Samadharmam, and Rashmi Ittyamkandath. 2020. “Soil and Water Conservation Measures for Agricultural Sustainability.” Intech, 38. doi:10.1016/j.colsurfa.2011.12.014.
Suggested citation: Gupta, Niti, Shanal Pradhan, Abhishek Jain, and Nayha Parel. 2021. Sustainable Agriculture in India 2021: What We Know and How ro Scale Up. New Delhi: Council on Energy, Environment and Water
The Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) is one of Asia’s leading nor-for-profit policy research institutions "The Council uses dara, integrated analysis, and strategic outreach to explain — and change — the use, reuse, and misuse of resources. It prides itself on the independence of its high-quality research, develops partnerships with public and private institutions, and engages with wider public. In 2021, CEEW once again featured extensively across ten categories in the 2020 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. The Council has also been consistently ranked among the world’s top climate change think tanks. Follow us on Twitter @ CEEWIndia for the latest updates.
FOLU Coalition: Established in 2017, the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU) is a community of organizations and individuals committed to the urgent need to transform the way food is produced and consumed and use the land for people, nature, and climate. It supports science-based solutions and helps build a shared understanding of the challenges and opportunities to unlock collective, ambitious action. The Coalition builds on the work of the Food, Agriculture, Biodiversity, Land Use and Energy (FABLE) Consortium teams which operate in more than 20 countries. In India, the work of FOLU is being spearheaded by a core group of five organizations: Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA), The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Revitalising Rainfed Agriculture Network (RRAN) and WRI India.
Contact [email protected]/ [email protected] for queries
