Ashwini K Swain & Olivier Charnoz: The futility of 'pump priming' agriculture

The programme to target pump efficiency will only add to chronic water and power shortages

Over the past three decades, agricultural electricity consumption has been a critical concern for Indian electricity supply industry. Rising agricultural electricity consumption is perceived to cause India’s power crisis. Accordingly, utilities have taken several initiatives to curb agricultural electricity demand. These fragmented efforts, however, targeting pump efficiency improvement, could not produce much result.

Pursuing energy efficiency in agriculture gained renewed interest, under the current energy-climate governance paradigm, to achieve the “co-benefits” of energy security and climate mitigation. India seems to be proactive and focused with a dedicated legislation, an action plan, a national mission and a bureau to enhance energy efficiency. The bureau is supposed to give equal thrust to all consumer sectors in pursuance of the action plan. Has this been achieved? In practice, there is a huge paradox: implementation is low and slow in sectors in which the savings potential is high, especially in agriculture.

The little efforts taken towards improving energy efficiency in agriculture are largely technology-focused. In early 2009, India launched an Agricultural Demand-Side Management (AgDSM) programme calling for the replacement of inefficient irrigation pumps with five-star-rated energy efficiency pumps as well as replacement of foot valves, suction and delivery pipes to avoid energy wastage. Responding to limited state capacity, it seeks a greater role from market intermediaries like ESCOs (Energy Service Companies) for implementation, and aims to facilitate a “conducive policy environment” for their engagement. The programme has been well received by public utilities as well as international development agencies.

Can this programme take Indian agriculture on a low-carbon development pathway? Considering the experiences of Indian electricity in implementing such programmes, we are not very optimistic about the replacement of the existing 18.5 million irrigation pumps across India. At the same time, the chosen approach might fall short of the goals for several reasons.

Indian farmers need water as a direct input, not electricity. Since water demand in agriculture is much higher than the current extractable quantity, improving pump efficiency will hardly save any energy from the current consumption level. Rather, it will increase water use since the new pumps are capable of drawing more water with limited electricity supplied to farmers, causing a further depletion of the groundwater table. We must not forget that a depleted water table requires raising the horsepower of irrigation pumps to draw water from further below. The addition of each horsepower means an increase in electricity consumption. This way, in the long run, the AgDSM programme may actually raise electricity demand in agriculture.

Even if AgDSM manages to achieve some energy savings in the short run, will it be financially viable? Success depends on the proactive engagement of ESCOs, who are required to make an upfront investment and get returns through sharing the energy savings with utilities. When agricultural connections are un-metered, highly subsidised, and often supplied cheap off-peak power, energy savings in the sector will hardly translate into a sizable financial return. This apprehension is evident in the attitude of ESCOs: they are more interested in conducting energy audits and preparing project reports than in actual implementation, since the former activity has secure returns. Consequently, most of the pilot projects are stuck after the energy audit and preparation of bankable project reports. Yet, there is no market taker to make the required investment.

Given that farmers will get the new pumps free of cost, the programme is vulnerable to political co-option. Public distribution schemes in India are full of such precedents. The fact that the first pilot project was launched in the political constituency of the then federal power minister has raised eyebrows. Moreover, current farmers’ support to the programme is based on misleading promises, by local authorities, that the new pumps will retrieve more water, which is far from certain. Can the programme be sustained when these promises fail?

Any way you look at it, improving pump efficiency is a wrong entry point. The consequences are likely to be dangerous and unaffordable, and make the sector more vulnerable to climate change by aggravating the water problem. Though the agriculture sector is an important area for actions on climate mitigation, it has been underestimated. It is directly accountable for 17.6 per cent of greenhouse gases in India, while indirectly responsible for another 10 per cent of emission by consuming a quarter of the electricity produced. When combined with the emissions caused by the fertiliser industry, which caters solely to the sector, agriculture emerges as the highest contributor to emissions in India. Improving pump efficiency may, at best, have some impact on energy consumption, but will not put the sector on a low-carbon pathway. The narrow approach taken by India has failed to notice the larger problem, that is, water.

In the present context, India needs a much wider and embedded approach cutting across energy, water and climate concerns in the agriculture sector. The National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture has also failed to take that wider approach. The priority should be managing water demand in agriculture. Simple modifications in agricultural practices, promoting organic farming, crop diversification and endorsing advanced and efficient technologies like sprinkler and drip irrigation can save a great deal of water demand. Simultaneously, much of remaining irrigation needs can be met through surface water. Better managing water demand and surface irrigation can not only reduce energy demand but also address the water crisis.

At the same time, the country needs to reconsider its agricultural policies that promote higher water and energy use. India’s food procurement policy, ensuring a secure price for water-intensive crops, encourages farmers to harvest those crops. A progressive step would be ensuring secure price and market demand for less water-intensive crops. Similarly, subsidised chemical fertilisers are equally responsible for causing high water demand, while subsidised electricity enables farmers to meet that demand. Agricultural subsidies are important for various reasons; yet, it is time to redesign the subsidies to promote resource-efficient technologies and practices.

Only when these measures are taken, can raising electricity tariff and improving pump efficiency be useful and multiply the benefits.

Swain is an energy & climate policy analyst, currently based in Kabul. Further details on his research and writing can be found at www.ashwiniswain.net.
Charnoz is a research officer at Agence Française de Développement, where he leads a multi-country research programme entitled “Local Politics, Global Impacts: Climate Change, Biodiversity, and Health”