JARQ 52 (3), 255-272 (2018) [Link]

jp Climate Change Effects on Supply and Demand of Rice in India

Climate Change Effects on Supply and Demand of Rice

in India

Chih-min HUNG1,2, Lin ZHOU1,3 and Jun FURUYA1*

1
 ocial Sciences Division, Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences
S
(Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8686, Japan)

Abstract
This study was conducted to clarify how climate change is expected to affect the demand and
supply of rice in India, an important rice-producing and rice-consuming nation. The method, a
supply-demand model, includes six functions: yield, area, export, stock change, demand, and price
linkage. To reflect topographic and climate diversity, these analyses use state data instead of national
data. Results for rice supply show the benefits and shortcomings of temperature, precipitation, and
solar radiation as determined by location and season. Scenario analyses that combine the three
dimensions of Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways
(SSP) scenarios elucidate the future supply and demand of rice, revealing that rice production and
per-capita consumption can be boosted most if India undergoes conventional development.
Alternatively, a fragmented society that faces higher challenges regarding mitigation and adaptation
is expected to engender lower rice yields. To maintain sufficient rice production, the government must
undertake social development projects and adequately address climate change-related difficulties.

Discipline: Agricultural economics

Additional key words: temperature, precipitation, solar radiation, socioeconomic scenarios

Introduction production and cultivation areas are greater than those of

other crops. And since 2012, India has overtaken Thailand
According to the 2016 Global Hunger Index (von as the world’s largest rice exporter. In 2013, India’s share of
Grebmer et al. 2016), the highest hunger levels are world rice exports was 30.1% and subject to wide fluctuations
found in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. In South according to domestic production. The share of total exports
Asia, India has exhibited the worst results for several to the total production of rice in the world was only 6.0%
decades. Moreover, India is expected to overtake China in 2013. Therefore, the world rice market is relatively small
in becoming the world’s most populous nation by 2022, compared to the domestic rice market, and India’s rice
according to the 2015 revision of World Population production strongly affects the world food market.
Prospects reported by the United Nations. Under such Rice in India is grown mainly in irrigated and rain-
circumstances, food security has brought great concern fed areas. In the total rice area, the respective percentages
in India. Kumar et al. (2009) have issued a warning of irrigated, rain-fed, and flood-prone rice areas are about
that current trends in production indicate that domestic 49.5%, 45.9% and 4.6%, respectively (Directorate of Rice
production will have difficulty satisfying future food Development 2014). In particular, rice production in rain-fed
grain demand. areas is highly sensitive to climate conditions. Goswami et al.
Among all foodgrains, rice is the most consumed in (2006) detected two abnormal climatic phenomena in India:
India (Directorate of Economics and Statistics 2015). Data (1) considerable increases in the frequency and magnitude
from the Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate of extreme rain events, and (2) marked decreases in the
Statistical Database (FAO-STAT) also show that the rice frequency of moderate events over central India during the

Present addresses:
2
Department of Economics, McGill University (Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T7, Canada)
3
Institute of Food and Nutrition Development, Ministry of Agriculture (Beijing 100081, China)
*Corresponding author: e-mail furuya@[Link]
Received 21 December 2016; accepted 25 October 2017

255
C.-M. Hung et al.

monsoons of 1951-2000. production in each state in India and on rice supply and
In considering both population growth and climate demand for the whole country, and to clarify the regions
change, one might be intrigued to clarify the influences that the government needs to focus on for implementing
of climate change on rice, the largest produced and most countermeasures. It is still fresh in our memory that
consumed crop in India, Moreover, future forecasts of the export ban on rice by the Indian government
the demand and supply of rice are clouded by uncertainty worsened the already tight food supply in 2007, which
that climate change presents. was a particularly poor harvest year. The development
Several approaches have been adopted to analyze of an economic model that can evaluate the regional
the effects of climate change on agriculture. Pohit (1997) impacts of climate change is very important for devising
analyzed four agriculture sectors (paddy, wheat, grains, countermeasures.
non-grain crops) and six non-agricultural sectors using Temperature and precipitation are often examined
a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model. The (e.g. Cabas et al. 2010) to estimate rice yield. Solar
results showed that, except for wheat and non-grain crops, radiation plays an important role in rice yield, but is
carbon dioxide fertilization effects decreased in India. rarely considered. Even though earlier reports of the
Sulser et al. (2010) combined precipitation and irrigation literature tend to disregard climatic factors for measuring
with the International Model for Policy Analysis of the areas of rice, Khan & Zaman (2010) present evidence
Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT), which of a relation between rainfall and wheat production.
is a world food model of the International Food Policy Consequently, we include temperature, precipitation,
Research Institute (IFPRI). They detected declining and solar radiation in the yield function, and incorporate
trends in water productivity for cereal production in the precipitation into the area functions.
Ganges and Nile river basins and in net trade (exports To project the effects of climate change on crops,
minus imports) for cereal in India until 2050. In 2000, some studies have specifically emphasized socioeconomic
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) factors such as population growth rate and income
issued the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios growth (Kumar et al. 2012, 2014). In contrast to such
(SRES), and these scenarios were used to project the socioeconomic investigations, we forecast the supply and
future impacts of climate change on food grains. Furuya demand of rice based on representative concentration
et al. (2009) explored the influence of global warming pathways and climate policy assumptions. Two steps
on the world food market under the SRES using the exist for this study. First, we elucidate the influence of
International Food and Agricultural Policy Simulation climate change on the supply, demand, and price of rice
Model (IFPSIM), which consists of yield, area, demand, in India. At the second stage, we project the tendencies
export, import, stock, and price linkage functions. The in several probable scenarios based on a combination
results for Indian rice under the A1B, B1, A2, and B2 1) of Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) and
scenarios in the SRES revealed a decrease in production Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) scenarios.
and an increase in the growth rate of consumption.
From a review of earlier literature describing climate Model
change effects on food grain production in India, we
noted the wide use of national data. Few reports of the 1. Rice production
relevant literature describe studies using state or regional Rice cultivation in India has three seasons: Rabi,
data. Kumar et al. (2004) clarified the influence of pre-Kharif, and Kharif, corresponding to the summer,
monsoon rainfall on the production of five major crops autumn, and winter harvesting seasons, respectively.
based on state-level statistics. Soora et al. (2013) adopted Figure 1 presents the rice cropping calendar. Since 1981,
the SRES scenarios to predict the impact of climate the DES (2017) has integrated data of pre-Kharif (autumn
change on rain-fed rice yields in five regions covering rice) into those of Kharif (winter rice). For the continuity
several states. Given India’s diverse topography and of data, we aggregate autumn and winter rice as Kharif.
climate, conducting analyses using state data is expected
to reflect actual conditions better than when using 2. Supply and demand model of rice
national data. Therefore, this study divides all territories To investigate the influences of climate change on
into 28 districts and provides a supply-demand model to the supply and demand of rice, we use the supply and
assess the particular influences of climate change on the demand model of rice based on the model of Furuya et al.
rice market. (2010). India’s extensive territory encompasses various
The purpose of this study is to conduct an economic topographical features and climates. For this reason, we
evaluation of the impacts of climate change on rice modified the original model and used state data instead

256 JARQ 52 (3) 2018

 Climate Change Effects on Supply and Demand of Rice in India

Seasons Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Summer Sowing Harvesting Sowing

Sowing
Autumn
Harvesting

Winter Harvesting Sowing Harvesting

Fig. 1. Rice cropping calendar for India.

Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi

Northern Kharif Rabi

Haryana 1796512
Himachal Pradesh 109324
Jammu & Kashmir 501313
Punjab 5874727
Uttar Pradesh & UttaraKhand 8403146 19567
Delhi 8515

Northeastern Kharif Rabi

Arunachal Pradesh 113815
Assam 2642047 264289
Meghalaya 129837 11444

Eastern Kharif Rabi

Bihar & Jharkhand 5550474 137708
Manipur 306503
Mizoram 61088 3324
Western Rabi
Nagaland 145166
Gujarat 148386
Orissa/Odisha 4670768 443929
Maharashtra 53632
Tripura 353551 85533
West Bengal & Sikkim 7758573 2479995

Central Kharif
Western Kharif
Madhya Pradesh & Chhattisgarh 4718778
Goa, Daman & Diu 121795
Gujarat 757534 Southern Kharif Rabi
Maharashtra 2117968 Andhra Pradesh 5682029 2833959
Rajasthan 161017 Karnataka 2149398 593505
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 18710 Kerala 865218 150373
Tamil Nadu 5063839 493368
Pondicherry 49873 12949

Bay of Bengal Kharif

A. & N. Islands 23583

Fig. 2. Indian states and their average production (in tons) of Kharif and Rabi during 1969-2009.
(Source of map: [Link]

257
C.-M. Hung et al.

of provincial data. Although mergers and splits have definition of RC is RPR/(CPI/100), which denotes the real
occurred among Indian states and union territories during retail price of rice, where RPR is the retail price of rice.
the period of analyses, 28 regions are divided based on (6) Stock change function
the divisions of 1969 (see Fig. 2).
This model consists of the following six functions. STCt = α s + β s1 ( Qt − Qt −1 ) + β s 2 ( RCt − RCt −1 ) + ε s
(8)
(1) Yield function
InQSthat
t = Qequation,
t + IMPt − EXP STCt − STC t − (annual
is the FDt + SDchange
t + WSTt +
inPROC t ) of
stock
(1)
YK i ,t = α yk + β yk1TMPi ,tm + β yk 2 PRCi ,tm + β yk 3 SRAi ,tm + ε yk milled rice, as calculated by subtracting the beginning
QD = QS POPt
stockt fromt ending stock.
YRi ,t = α yr + β yr1TMPi ,tm + β yr 2 PRCi ,tm + β yr 3 SRAi ,tm + ε yr (2) α β
(7)STC
QD Supply
t = αq +of
=
t
+
s ( Q t − Qβ q 2GP
βq1rice
RC
s1
+
t ) + tβ+ ε(qRC − RC ) + ε
t −1 s2 t t −1 s

FPt = α f + β f 1 RPRt + ε f
InAK
the i ,t = α ak + β ak1 AK
equations above,i ,t −1 + β ak 2 FC
YK t −1 + βfor
stands ak 3 PRC + ε ak of Kharif
thei ,tmyield QSt = Qt + IMPt − EXPt − STCt − ( FDt + SDt + WSTt + PROCt )
(9)
per hectare, YR signifies the yield of Rabi per hectare,
AR = α ar + β ar1 ARi ,t −1 + β ar 2 FCt −1 + β ar 3 PRCi ,tm + ε ar QDt = QSQS
TMPi ,t denotes the temperature in degrees Celsius (°C), Therein, t POPsignifies
t the total supply of rice, IMP denotes
PRC represents
QPRt = ∑ YK i ,t AK precipitation
i ,t + ∑ YRi , t ARi , t
in millimeters, SRA denotes the
QDimport
t = α q + volume
β q1 RC t + βof
q2
milled
GPt + εq
rice, FD refers the quantity
solar radiation i in megajoules i per day, ε is an error term, of milled rice for feeding livestock and poultry, SD
= αsubscripts
β yk1TMP β FPt = α f + β f 1 RPRt + ε f
YK
Qt i=
and ,t 0.667
the + QPR
yk × t i, i , t,
tm +andyk m
2 PRC i , tm + β yk 3 the
represent , tm + ε ykyear, and
SRAistate, represents the amounts of milled rice set aside for sowing,
month, respectively.
= α + β eyr1Q
planting, and reproduction purposes, WST denotes the
EXP
YR i ,t t = α yre t + β
1TMP e 2WEG
i ,tm
+ β e3iRC
+ β yrt2 PRC ,tm + β εyre3 SRAi ,tm + ε yr
t +
(2) Area function amount of milled rice lost through wastage between the
level at which production is recorded and the household,
AK i ,t = α ak + β ak1 AK i ,t −1 + β ak 2 FCt −1 + β ak 3 PRCi ,tm + ε ak (3)
and PROC stands for the quantities of processing for food.

AR = α + β AR + β FC + β PRC + ε (4) The sum of variables enclosed in parentheses denotes the
i ,t ar ar1 i ,t −1 ar 2 t −1 ar 3 i ,tm ar
STCt = α s + β s1 ( Qt − Qt −1 ) + β s 2 ( RCt − RCt −1 ) + ε s
domestic utilization of milled rice.
QPRt = ∑AK
Therein, t AK i ,t + ∑ YR
YK i ,signifies thei ,t AR
harvested area of Kharif in (8)QSPer-capita consumption
YK i ,t = α yki AR
+ β ykdenotes
i ,t
(
= Q + IMP − EXP − STC − FD + SD + WST + PROC )
1TMPi , tm + β i , tm + β yk 3 SRA ε yk Rabi in t t t t t t t t t
yk 2 PRC i , tm +of
i
hectares, the harvested area
Qt = 0.667 × QPRt
hectares, and FC represents the real farm price defined
QDt = QSt POPt (10)
YRi ,t = α yr + β yr1TMPi ,tm + β yr 2 PRCi ,tm + β yr 3 SRAi ,tm + ε yr
FP/(CPI/100),
asEXP where FP stands for the farm price of
t = α e + β e1Qt + β e 2WEGt + β e 3 RCt + ε e STC = α + β ( Qt − Qt −1 ) + β s 2 ( RCt − RCt −1 ) + ε s
QDt t= α q s+ β q1s1RCt + β q 2 GPt + ε q
rice (rupees per ton) and CPI denotes the consumer price QD is the per-capita consumption of milled rice. POP
AK i ,t = α ak + β ak1 AK i ,t −1 + β ak 2 FCt −1 + β ak 3 PRCi ,tm + ε ak
index. QS
FPtt == αQft + the
represents IMP − EXPt f− STCt − ( FDt + SDt + WSTt + PROCt )
tpopulation.
β f 1 RPR t +ε
YK i ,t = α yk + β yk1TMPi ,tm + β yk 2 PRCi ,tm + β yk 3 SRAi ,tm + ε yk
(3)ARPaddy = α production
+ β AR + β FC + β PRC + ε (9) Demand function
i ,t ar ar1 i ,t −1 ar 2 t −1 ar 3
YRi ,t = α yr + β yr1TMPi ,tm + β yr 2 PRCi ,tm + β yr 3 SRAi ,tm + ε yr
i ,tm ar
QDt = QSt POPt

QPRt = ∑ YK i ,t AK i ,t + ∑ YRi ,t ARi ,t

(5)
QDt = α q + β q1 RCt + β q 2 GPt + ε q (11)
i i
AK i ,t = α ak + β ak1 AK i ,t −1 + β ak 2 FCt −1 + β ak 3 PRCi ,tm + ε ak
FPt = α f + β f 1 RPRt + ε f
InQt the
= 0.667 × QPRt above, QPR represents the paddy
equation Therein, GP is defined as the real gross domestic product
AR
YK
production. = α ar + β ar ARi ,t i−,1tm++ββaryk2 FC
yk 1TMP 2 PRC
t −1 i+ ar 3βPRC
, tmβ+ yk 3 SRA
i ,tm i ,+ arε yk
tm ε+ (GDP) divided by POP. Here, the real GDP is GDP
EXP t = α e + β e1Qt + β e 2WEGt + β e 3 RCt + ε e
i ,
i ,tt yk

(4) Production of milled rice converted to 2005 constant international dollars using
YR α∑
i ,t t==
QPR yr +
YKβiyr,t 1AK
TMP tm ∑
i ,t i ,+
+ βYR ARi ,ti ,tm + β yr 3 SRAi ,tm + ε yr
yr i2, tPRC β s1 ( Qt − parity
Qt −1 ) + βrates.
i i
STCt = α s + power
purchasing s 2 ( RCt Here,
− RCt −1 )other
+ ε s substitutes

Qt = 0.667 × QPRt (6) are not considered because the cross price elasticity of
AK i ,t = α ak + β ak1 AK i ,t −1 + β ak 2 FCt −1 + β ak 3 PRCi ,tm + ε ak QSt = Qt + IMPt − EXPt − STCt − ( FDt + SDt + WSTt + PROCt )
demand of rice for other cereals and food is inelastic in
EXP = α + β Q + β WEG + β RC + ε
QARrepresents
t e
the production
e1 t e2 t
of milled
e3 t e
rice. The paddy
i ,t = α ar + β ar1 ARi ,t −1 + β ar 2 FCt −1 + β ar 3 PRCi ,tm + ε ar
India
QDt (Kumar
= QSt POP et al. 2011).
t
to rice conversion rate is 0.667, based on estimation by (10) Price linkage function
QPRt = ∑ YK i ,t AK i ,t + ∑ YRi ,t ARi ,t QDt = α q + β q1 RCt + β q 2 GPt + ε q
FAO-STAT.
i i
(5) Export function
FPt = α f + β f 1 RPRt + ε f (12)
Qt = 0.667 × QPRt

(7)
EXPt = α e + β e1Qt + β e 2WEGt + β e3 RCt + ε e The retail price and farm price are equilibrium prices
determined as the quantity demanded equal to the
Therein, EXP is the export volume of milled rice. WEG quantity supplied. In other words, both are market-
is defined as (WP×EXR)/(GDPD/100), which denotes the clearing prices.
real world price of rice in Indian rupees. Here, WP is the We use the data of each state to estimate the areas
world price of rice in US dollars, represented by the Thai and yields of Rabi and Kharif separately. Farm prices
5% broken rice, f.o.b. Bangkok, and EXR is the rupee - and precipitation affect the harvested areas of rice. The
US dollar exchange rate. GDPD is the GDP deflator. The climate variables are exogenous and also affect the rice

258 JARQ 52 (3) 2018

 Climate Change Effects on Supply and Demand of Rice in India

yield. according to the population projection released by the

Figure 3 shows the flowchart of supply and demand United Nations Population Division (UNPD) in 2011.
for rice econometric model for India. Total production Another reason is that the atmospheric CO2 concentration,
is the sum of Rabi and Kharif production. Domestic a factor affecting climate change, is projected to reach its
utilization is defined as the sum of feed, seed, waste, zenith in 2060 (Tollefson 2015). The projections of POP
processing for food, and other forms of utilization. and real GDP are calculated by the International Institute
Supply is influenced by total production, domestic for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). Forecast data
utilization, stock changes, and the volumes of exports of climate variables were estimated from the Model for
and imports. Demand is affected by the population, Interdisciplinary Research on Climate (MIROC5), based
gross domestic product, consumer price index, and on RCPs. The assumptions of other predictive variables
retail prices. Retail prices are determined when supply are as follows: GDPD was estimated from the average
and demand reach equilibrium. The movements of retail growth rate during 1989-2009; CPI was estimated from
prices are transferred to farm price through the price the average growth rate during 2003-2009; IMP was
linkage function and the farm price affects next year’s estimated from the average growth rate of 1996-2008;
supply. In this sector, the exchange rate, world price, RPR was estimated from the average growth rate during
imports, population, and GDP are exogenous variables. 1971-2003; STC was estimated from the average growth
rate of 1990-2009; PROC, FD, SD, and WST were
Data estimated from their individual average growth rates of
1993-2007; EXR was estimated from the average growth
The estimation period was 1969-2009, for which all rate during 1971-2007; and WP was estimated from the
data are available. The DES (2017) is the source of yield, average growth rate during 1983-2009. Each period we
harvested area, and production data. The data of CPI, chose was most representative of the tendency of its
EXR, GDPD, real GDP, and POP are obtainable from the variable.
WDI (2017). RPR is acquired from the International Rice
Research Institute3. WP is data of the IMF (2017). The Empirical analysis
following data were obtained from FAO-STAT (2017): FP,
EXP, STC, IMP, FD, SD, WST, and PROC. Observations of We initially conducted tests of stationarity to ascertain
climate variables, specifically temperature, precipitation, whether differencing variables are necessary. If necessary,
and solar radiation, were compiled by the CRU (2017). we will then modify these variables and proceed to
The forecast period was set as 2010-2060 for two estimate the functions presented above.
reasons. One is that India’s population is expected to
peak at 1.718 billion in 2060, after which it will decline,

World Domestic
price Exports Population
utilization
Production
of summer rice Exchange
rate
Supply Retail Demand
Production price
sector Total
production

Production t, t-1 Farm

Imports GDP
of autumn and price
winter rice
Changes in
stock
t, t-1 Production CPI
sector

Fig. 3. Flowchart showing supply and demand of the rice econometric model for India (based on Furuya et al. 2010).

259
C.-M. Hung et al.

1. Tests of stationarity extremely high elevations, where warmer weather seems

To avoid the problem of spurious regression, we first to favor rice growth.
apply the augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) tau test to The results also show that more precipitation tends
examine the stationarity of all variables. The optimal lag to boost the yield of Kharif during April-September,
length is selected using the Akaike Information Criterion when the monthly average temperature (higher than
(AIC). Engle-Granger tests are applied in the next step if 26°C) is higher than those of other months. It signifies
variables have unit roots. Even though the variables are that ample precipitation is favorable for growth of Kharif
non-stationary, the existence of cointegration signifies in hotter seasons. Nevertheless, the relation is reversed
a stable long-run equilibrium relation. The linear in November, probably due to greater decreases in
combination is both stationary and predictable. temperature and solar radiation during October-November
Results show that most variables in the functions than in any other period. Therefore, precipitation becomes
of yield, area, and exports have unit roots. Cointegration a negative factor. We failed to find the same tendency for
relations are absent from these functions. Although few that of Rabi. More precipitation only elevates the yield
variables are stationary, we transform all variables into of Rabi in the northern and northeastern regions where
first-order differences in an attempt to create uniform average temperatures are the two lowest (about 20°C and
estimation methods that are applicable to each state. The 21°C). The data also point out that more sufficient solar
p-value of each transformed variable is less than 0.01, radiation not only benefits the yield of Kharif during
except the first-order difference of WEG, the p-value of January-April and in November, but also improves the
which is 0.01-0.05. The result implies the stationarity of yield of Rabi in December and January. The monthly
these variables (Appendix A). Accordingly, we transform average temperature from November through March is
equations (1)-(4) and (7) as shown below. between 18°C and 24°C, which is lower than in other
months. Even in April, the average temperature in the

∆ (1’)
YK i ,t = α ′yk + β yk′ 1∆TMP ′ ′
i , tm + β yk 2 ∆PRCi , tm + β yk 3 ∆SRAi , tm + ν yk northern region is around 23°C. These results are derived
from plentiful solar radiation, which compensates for
∆YRi ,t = α yr′ + β yr′ 1∆TMPi ,tm + β yr′ 2 ∆PRCi ,tm + β yr′ 3 ∆SRAi ,tm + ν yr (2’)
the shortcomings caused by prevailing low temperatures
∆
AK i ,t = α ak′ + β ak′ 1∆AK i ,t ′ ′
−1 + β ak 2 ∆FCt −1 + β ak 3 ∆PRCi , tm + ν ak
(3’) during these months.
(2) Area function
∆
ARi ,t = α ar′ + β ar′ 1∆ARi ,t −1 + β ar′ 2 ∆FC ′
t −1 + β ar 3 ∆PRCi ,tm + ν ar
(4’) According to the results of Tables 3 and 4, higher real
farm prices encourage farmers to cultivate more paddy
∆EXPt = α e′ + β e′1∆Qt + β e′2 ∆WEGt + β e′3 ∆RCt + ν e (7’)
fields. The area of the prior year positively or negatively
influences that of the current year. In addition, the
In these equations, Δ represents the difference between increase in precipitation expands the harvest areas of rice
one period and the prior period. The stock change in most states during monsoons, which last from late May
function is not modified due to the existence of stationary or early June to September. And during the post-monsoon
variables. Moreover, the variables of the demand and period (October-December), the high precipitation
price linkage functions have unit roots. Therefore, reduces the harvest area of Kharif in the northern region,
Engle-Granger tests are applied. The p-values are 0.083 but enlarges the area in the eastern region. Compared
and 0.018, respectively, which verify the existence of with the eastern region, the rain is probably colder in the
cointegration and signify steady long-run equilibrium north as a result of the lowest temperature and least solar
relations. Therefore, both functions are also unchanged. radiation during November-March. The cold rainwater
tampers the harvest and diminishes the area. However,
2. Estimated results of functions the precipitation shows a positive correlation with the
(1) Yield function area of Rabi in the late harvest season in most states.
Table 1 and Table 2 depict the relations between the This April-July period is the hottest of the entire year.
rice yield and temperature. Higher temperatures generally Therefore, rainfall might conceivably reduce the damage
decrease the yields of rice after May because the average related to high temperatures.
temperature is sufficiently high so that overly hot weather (3) Export function, stock change function, demand
hinders growth. Although the weather turns cool after function and price linkage function
September, high temperatures are still disfavored due to Table 5 shows that an increase in domestic rice
the simultaneous decrease in precipitation. However, the production promotes rice exports. A high domestic real
reverse results are clear in a few states such as Arunachal retail price of rice entices farmers to sell their rice in
Pradesh, Jammu, and Kashmir, which are located at home markets, resulting in low exports. Regarding stock

260 JARQ 52 (3) 2018

 Climate Change Effects on Supply and Demand of Rice in India

Table 1. Coefficients of yield of Kharif with temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation
State Variable Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Northern
Haryana ∆TMP -0.067**
∆PRC -0.005***
(0.721 ) ∆SRA -0.097***
Himachal Pradesh ∆TMP -0.076**
∆PRC -0.000**
(0.611 ) ∆SRA -0.105***
Jammu and ∆TMP -0.051**
Kashmir ∆PRC -0.005***
(0.545 ) ∆SRA -0.108*
Punjab ∆TMP -0.062***
∆PRC -0.002***
(0.631 ) ∆SRA -0.138***
Uttar Pradesh and ∆TMP -0.079***
Uttarakhand ∆PRC -0.000**
(0.767) ∆SRA -0.133***
Delhi ∆TMP -0.251***
∆PRC -0.001*
(0.643 ) ∆SRA -0.242***
Northeastern
Arunachal ∆TMP -0.053**
Pradesh ∆PRC -0.000***
(0.708 ) ∆SRA -0.055**
Assam ∆TMP -0.028***
∆PRC -0.001***
(0.504 ) ∆SRA -0.023*
Meghalaya ∆TMP -0.041**
∆PRC -0.000***
(0.572 ) ∆SRA -0.020**
Eastern
Bihar and ∆TMP -0.192***
Jharkhand ∆PRC -0.000**
(0.712 ) ∆SRA 0.440***
Manipur ∆TMP -0.085*
∆PRC -0.001**
(0.761 ) ∆SRA -0.041***
Mizoram ∆TMP -0.084***
∆PRC -0.001**
(0.717 ) ∆SRA -0.163**
Nagaland ∆TMP -0.074***
∆PRC -0.001***
(0.682 ) ∆SRA -0.035**
Orissa (Odisha) ∆TMP -0.254***
∆PRC -0.001**
(0.562 ) ∆SRA -0.090***
Tripura ∆TMP -0.171***
∆PRC -0.001***
(0.588 ) ∆SRA -0.073***
West Bengal ∆TMP -0.079***
and Sikkim ∆PRC -0.001**
(0.574 ) ∆SRA -0.068***

261
C.-M. Hung et al.

Table 1. Coefficients of yield of Kharif with temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation (continued)
State Variable Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Southern
Andhra Pradesh ∆TMP -0.137***
∆PRC -0.001**
(0.662 ) ∆SRA -0.115***
Karnataka ∆TMP -0.097*
∆PRC -0.001***
(0.730 ) ∆SRA -0.114**
Kerala ∆TMP -0.022**
∆PRC -0.000**
(0.631 ) ∆SRA -0.053***
Tamil Nadu ∆TMP 0.217***
∆PRC -0.002**
(0.502 ) ∆SRA -0.208*
Pondicherry ∆TMP -0.247***
∆PRC -0.000**
(0.535 ) ∆SRA -0.098**
Western
Goa, Daman and Diu ∆TMP -0.150**
∆PRC -0.005***
(0.641 ) ∆SRA -0.063**
Gujarat ∆TMP -0.180***
∆PRC -0.000**
(0.614 ) ∆SRA -0.805**
Maharashtra ∆TMP -0.090**
∆PRC -0.000***
(0.710 ) ∆SRA -0.081***
Rajasthan ∆TMP -0.169***
∆PRC -0.002***
(0.655 ) ∆SRA -0.489*
Dadra and Nagar Haveli ∆TMP -0.140***
∆PRC -0.000*
(0.642 ) ∆SRA -0.050**
Central
Madhya Pradesh and ∆TMP -0.117***
Chhattisgarh ∆PRC -0.001**
(0.726 ) ∆SRA -0.090***
Bay of Bengal
Andaman and Nicobar ∆TMP -0.089*
Islands ∆PRC -0.000**
(0.467 ) ∆SRA -0.133***
Note: *** Significant at the 1% level. ** Significant at the 5% level. * Significant at the 10% level. Numbers in parentheses
are adjusted R-square values. ∆TMP, ∆PRC, and ∆SRA denote first-order differences in temperature, precipitation, and solar
radiation, respectively.

262 JARQ 52 (3) 2018

 Climate Change Effects on Supply and Demand of Rice in India

Table 2. Coefficients of yield of Rabi with temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation
State Variable Nov(t-1) Dec(t-1) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Northern
Uttar Pradesh and ∆TMP -0.049***
Uttarakhand ∆PRC 0.004**
(0.709 ) ∆SRA 0.380***
Northeastern
Assam ∆TMP -0.086***
∆PRC 0.001***
(0.650 ) ∆SRA 0.078***
Meghalaya ∆TMP 0.146**
∆PRC 0.001***
(0.680 ) ∆SRA 0.278***
Eastern
Bihar and Jharkhand ∆TMP 0.0389**
∆PRC -0.01048**
(0.750 ) ∆SRA 0.426***
Mizoram ∆TMP -0.097*
∆PRC 0.002**
(0.481 ) ∆SRA 0.971***
Orissa (Odisha) ∆TMP -0.121***
∆PRC -0.004**
(0.678 ) ∆SRA 0.258***
Tripura ∆TMP 0.119**
∆PRC -0.003***
(0.571 ) ∆SRA 0.241*
West Bengal and Sikkim ∆TMP -0.048**
∆PRC -0.001**
(0.557 ) ∆SRA -0.268***
Southern
Andhra Pradesh ∆TMP 0.081***
∆PRC -0.002**
(0.415 ) ∆SRA 0.416***
Karnataka ∆TMP 0.120*
∆PRC -0.021*
(0.560 ) ∆SRA -0.468***
Kerala ∆TMP 0.141**
∆PRC -0.001**
(0.844 ) ∆SRA -0.162***
Tamil Nadu ∆TMP -0.145*
∆PRC 0.066***
(0.833 ) ∆SRA -0.843***
Pondicherry ∆TMP -0.211***
∆PRC 0.001*
(0.678 ) ∆SRA 0.114*
Western
Gujarat ∆TMP -0.014***
∆PRC 0.041*
(0.850 ) ∆SRA -0.145*
Maharashtra ∆TMP -0.080**
∆PRC -0.000*
(0.540 ) ∆SRA -0.232*
Note: *** Significant at the 1% level. ** Significant at the 5% level. * Significant at the 10% level. Numbers in parentheses
are adjusted R-square values. ∆TMP, ∆PRC, and ∆SRA denote first-order differences in temperature, precipitation, and solar
radiation, respectively.

263
 Table 3. Coefficients of area of Kharif with prior area, real farm price, and precipitation

264
State ∆AK(t-1) ∆FC Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Adj. R2
Northern
Haryana -0.615*** 9.785*** -2291.770*** -2990.300*** 0.659
C.-M. Hung et al.

Himachal Pradesh -0.427*** 0.601*** -43.658*** 34.959*** 9.444*** 0.615

Jammu and Kashmir -0.203* 0.799*** -149.427*** 333.698*** -183.245*** 61.207*** 33.363*** -203.628*** -203.375*** 0.678
Punjab -0.196* 8.670*** -2322.560*** 2932.072*** -4006.070***-5672.370*** 0.738
Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand -0.345** 56.180*** -3605.400** 1756.527*** -2241.740*** 0.692
Delhi -0.121* 0.106*** 16.823*** -13.581*** 1.614*** 3.246*** 0.749
Northeastern
Arunachal Pradesh -0.571*** 1.570*** -214.858** 45.481*** 27.341*** 41.491*** -593.526*** 0.634
Assam -0.292*** 16.786*** 258.481*** 167.535*** -969.576*** 0.645
Meghalaya -0.205** 0.939*** 2.837*** 9.339*** 0.660
Eastern
Bihar and Jharkhand -0.227** 44.401*** 6665.941*** 6388.277*** 697.385*** -488.923*** 0.702
Manipur -0.380*** 9.042*** 41.169*** 22.787*** 58.388*** 0.547
Mizoram -0.207* 1.118*** 953.490*** -14.279*** 257.220*** 0.683
Nagaland -0.122* 1.324*** -26.219*** -9.072*** 7.242*** 0.778
Orissa (Odisha) -0.452*** 14.623*** 8422.920*** 433.376*** 0.627
Tripura -0.355*** 2.593*** 58.107*** 31.756*** -77.947*** 115.198*** 0.631
West Bengal and Sikkim -0.433*** 30.590*** -730.453*** 454.227*** 620.213*** 1073.33*** 17284.500*** 0.639
Southern
Andhra Pradesh -0.259* 43.771*** 1875.438*** -16006.700*** 0.757
Karnataka -0.278*** 5.563*** 224.228*** 293.813*** -3404.710*** 0.769
Kerala -0.260** 3.006*** 69.493*** 28.160*** -33.533*** 0.607
Tamil Nadu -0.228** 42.905*** 2253.530*** -792.822***2007.835*** 412.546*** 0.683
Pondicherry -0.509*** 0.329*** 78.599*** 46.194*** -10.386*** 0.603
Western
Goa, Daman and Diu -0.389*** 0.560*** -7.169*** 3.488*** -4.289*** 15.730*** 0.773
Gujarat -0.484*** 15.806*** -123633.000* 3646.980*** 491.228*** 256.311*** -165.643*** 0.636
Maharashtra -0.237* 8.555*** 33.177*** 90.899*** 0.736
Rajasthan -0.423*** 2.588***-9569.510*** 384.436*** 109.745*** 59.115*** -4358.070*** 0.612
Dadra and Nagar Haveli -0.272** 0.130*** -2591.460*** -4.369*** 0.640
Central
Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh -0.257 15.753*** 9099.757*** 594.245*** -225.326*** 0.649
Bay of Bengal
Andaman and Nicobar Islands -0.420*** 0.117*** 1.996*** 1.980*** 0.614

JARQ 52 (3) 2018

Note *** Significant at the 1% level. ** Significant at the 5% level. * Significant at the 10% level. ∆ denotes first-order difference.
 Table 4. Coefficients of area of Rabi with prior area, real farm price, and precipitation
State ∆AK(t-1) ∆FC Sep(t-1) Oct(t-1) Nov(t-1) Dec(t-1) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Adj. R2
Northern
Uttar Pradesh
-0.978*** 1.277** 49.893* 0.784
and Uttarakhand
Northeastern
Assam 0.336*** 3.091** 18.060*** 521.245*** 0.750
Meghalaya 0.393*** 0.098* -0.394* -0.420** 0.238*** 0.666
Eastern
Bihar and
-0.676*** 2.532* -364.600** -424.754*** 759.012*** 0.764
Jharkhand
Mizoram -1.035*** 0.240*** -1.769** 0.800
Orissa (Odisha) -0.703*** 6.376* 76.951* -810.449***431.409*** 0.755
Tripura -0.323*** 0.626* -8.935*** 8.661*** 0.624
West Bengal and
-0.569*** 13.118 3281.010***-2030.491*** 0.577
Sikkim
Southern
Andhra Pradesh -0.226*** 49.184* -23344.000*** 0.582
Karnataka -0.306*** 6.583** 7916.921*** -538.729**230.776*** 240.953*** 0.797
Kerala -0.468*** 1.948*** 14.093*** -34.649*** 113.878*** -58.050*** 22.255** 0.695
Tamil Nadu -0.453*** 5.755* -78.870** 102.735*** -5304.340***2463.278*** 0.857
Pondicherry -0.808*** 0.089* -3.798*** -2.964*** 27.659*** -82.740*** 0.787
Western
Gujarat -0.724*** 0.192*** -356.709* 0.839
Maharashtra -0.488*** 2.306*** -8.413*** 18841.160*** 123.510** 0.713
Note: *** Significant at the 1% level. ** Significant at the 5% level. * Significant at the 10% level. ∆ denotes a first-order difference.

Table 5. Coefficients in functions of export, stock change, demand, and price linkage

∆Q ∆WEG ∆RC Adj. R2 RC GP Adj. R2

Export function Demand function
0.087*** 57.536 -596.794** 0.630 -6×10-6*** 6×10-5*** 0.751
2
∆Q ∆RC Adj. R RPR Adj. R2
Stock change function Price linkage function
0.620*** -662.923** 0.753 0.749*** 0.881
Note: *** Significant at the 1% level. ∆ denotes a first-order difference.

265
Climate Change Effects on Supply and Demand of Rice in India
C.-M. Hung et al.

change, it is noteworthy that the stock of rice rises when effects and challenges to adaptation and mitigation, as
the current year’s rice production exceeds that of the presented in Figure 4. Furthermore, Hallegatte et al. (2011)
prior year. It is conceivable that an increase in the supply demonstrated that mitigation and adaptation policies
of rice at an unchanged level of demand increases the play important roles relative to reducing greenhouse
inventory. Moreover, a high retail price of rice inspires gas (GHG) emissions and coping with the consequent
farmers to sell as much rice as possible to earn higher climate change. Researchers have proposed the concept
profits. Therefore, the rice stock will decline. Table 5 also of Shared Policy Assumptions (SPAs) and incorporated it
shows that the per-capita consumption of rice is related into socioeconomic pathways (Kriegler et al. 2012, 2014).
negatively to the retail price of rice and real GDP per Theoretically speaking, 20 scenarios exist in the
capita. That fact suggests that high retail prices of rice RCP-SSP combination. However, not all scenarios are
deter consumers from purchasing rice. Higher real GDP likely to occur. For instance, sustainable world (SSP1)
per capita means that individuals have more income binding to very loose SPAs is unreasonable. Referring
and wider choices for meals other than rice. The result to the studies reported by Edmonds (2011), Kram (2012),
of the price linkage function confirm a strong positive and van Vuuren et al. (2014), three irrational scenarios
correlation between the farm price and retail price. are excluded: SSP1-RCP6.0, SSP1-RCP8.5 and SSP2-
RCP8.5. By eliminating the three scenarios, we then
Simulation analysis investigated the effects of futuristic climate change
on Indian rice and addressed some difficulties that the
The NAPCC (2017) reported that the surface air government must resolve.
temperature in India has risen by about 0.4°C over the
past century. Regional monsoon variations have also 2. Results
been observed. As a major agricultural nation, climate We first explore the differences in supply and demand
change is a deeply important concern in India. The goal (per-capita consumption) among five SSP scenarios in a
of this study is to project the future supply and demand of given RCP scenario. Figure 5 presents that, at any level of
Indian rice under precarious climate conditions. GHG emissions, SSP5 (conventional development) produces
the strongest effect on production and consumption. It is
1. Scenario assumptions conceivable that, in this pathway, high economic growth
The first scenario assumption is RCPs, which comprise boosts the per-capita income as well as per-capita
four new pathways—RCP 8.5, RCP 6.0, RCP 4.5 and consumption. Investments in technology are very high,
RCP 2.6—to provide widely diverse total climate forcing with a specific emphasis on increasing productivity
(Moss et al. 2010; van Vuuren et al. 2011). Subsequently, and managing the natural environment. This progress
O’Neill et al. (2012, 2014) introduced a set of five SSPs compensates for a decreasing agricultural labor force and
(SSP1, SSP2, SSP3, SSP4 and SSP5) that defines the supports increased production. SSP1, subsequent to SSP5,
state of human and natural societies at a macro scale. implies sustainability. As with SSP5, low population is
They further extended the concept by integrating climate assumed for SSP1, but economic growth is slowed to
Socioeconomic challenge for

SSP 5 Conventional Development SSP 3 Fragmentation

(Mitigation Challenges Dominate) (High Challenges)
High Economic Growth
Low Population SSP 2 Middle of the Road Very Slow Economic Growth
Medium Economic Growth Very High Population
Low Population
SSP 1 Sustainability SSP 4 Inequality
(Intermediate Challenges)
mitigation

(Low Challenges) (Adaptation Challenges Dominate)

Medium-high Economic Growth Slow Economic Growth
Low Population High Population

Socioeconomic challenges for adaptation

Fig. 4. Socioeconomic challenges for mitigation and adaptation (based on O’Neill et al. 2012, 2014).

266 JARQ 52 (3) 2018

 Climate Change Effects on Supply and Demand of Rice in India

a medium-high level by the slight gap separating the The moderate trends of SSP2 (middle of the
rich and the poor. Similarly, the productivity of farms road) make the incomes of individuals stable and
is elevated by improved technology, but the speed of balance concerns about advanced technology and the
progress is somewhat slower than that in SSP5. Therefore, environment. Consequently, no extreme results are
production and per-capita consumption of SSP1 are presented in these figures. SSP4 shows wide inequalities
located in the second place. and social stratification both across and within countries.

kg Production under RCP2.6 kg Per-capita Consumption under RCP2.6

250 140
120
200
100
Million

SSP1 SSP1
150 80
SSP2 SSP2
100 SSP3 60 SSP3
SSP4 40 SSP4
50
SSP5 20 SSP5
0 0
2009
2012
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2036
2039
2042
2045
2048
2051
2054
2057
2060

2009
2012
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2036
2039
2042
2045
2048
2051
2054
2057
2060
kg Production under RCP4.5 kg Per-capita Consumption under RCP4.5
250 140
120
200
100
Million

SSP1 SSP1
150 80
SSP2 SSP2
100 60 SSP3
SSP3
SSP4 40 SSP4
50
SSP5 20 SSP5
0 0
2009
2012
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2036
2039
2042
2045
2048
2051
2054
2057
2060
2009
2012
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2036
2039
2042
2045
2048
2051
2054
2057
2060

kg Production under RCP6.0 kg Per-capita Consumption under RCP6.0

250 140
120
200
100
Million

SSP1 SSP1
150 80
SSP2 SSP2
60
100 SSP3 SSP3
40 SSP4
SSP4
50 20
SSP5 SSP5
0 0
2009
2012
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2036
2039
2042
2045
2048
2051
2054
2057
2060
2009
2012
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2036
2039
2042
2045
2048
2051
2054
2057
2060

kg Production under RCP8.5 kg Per-capita Consumption under RCP8.5

250 140
120
200
Million

100
SSP1 SSP1
150 80
SSP2 SSP2
60
100 SSP3 SSP3
40
SSP4 SSP4
50 20
SSP5 SSP5
0 0
2009
2012
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2036
2039
2042
2045
2048
2051
2054
2057
2060
2009
2012
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2036
2039
2042
2045
2048
2051
2054
2057
2060

Fig. 5. Differences in production and per-capita consumption among five shared socioeconomic pathways.

267
C.-M. Hung et al.

In contrast to low income people who have little are assumed to have strong environmental awareness,
consumption, high and middle-income groups have a indicating fewer challenges in terms of mitigation
high standard of consumption, which raises the average and adaptation. Clean technologies have been actively
of per-capita consumption. However, similar situations improved and adopted in society. Therefore, new rigid
do not occur with production. Fertile farms possessed policies bring about only slight effects. In contrast,
by a few upper-class farmers have higher productivity. enforcing more ambitious policies in SSP3-SSP5 can
Nevertheless, such production cannot offset poor lessen GHG emissions and increase rice yields.
production at barren farms owned mostly by lower class
farmers. Such production causes the lowest level of total Conclusion
production among the five pathways. SSP3 is defined as
a fragmented world separated into regions of extreme Global climate change has become a crucially
poverty, moderate wealth, and other factors. Rivalry important issue in the last few decades. Its influence on
and conflicts among these regions impede economic and agriculture in most countries persists as a subject of great
technological development, thereby resulting in deficient and growing concern. India, an agricultural powerhouse,
production. Moreover, high population growth due to is an important target for researchers to investigate the
poor education and a sluggish economy greatly decreases relations between climate change and crop development.
per-capita consumption. Accordingly, strengthening the Few earlier reports of the literature describe studies that
capability of adaptation ameliorates the socioeconomic analyze this subject by state. India governs an extensive
situation. Then it lifts the production and per-capita territory with diverse topography. Therefore, we are
consumption of rice. encouraged to assess how rice, the most important crop,
In the next step, we assess the influence of climate is affected by climate change in India’s respective states.
policies on yield and areas of rice under certain socioeconomic The results show that high temperatures lower
pathways. For each pathway, two probable scenarios are the yields of rice in most states, except for states at
chosen: one with the lowest emissions is regarded as strict high altitudes. Precipitation and solar radiation favor
policies being implemented; the other with the highest the yield of Kharif rather than that of Rabi. However,
emissions is regarded as lax policies being implemented. high precipitation impedes the growth of yields and
Examining the effectiveness of policies, we use a two- rice cultivation areas during the rainy season, at a low
sample t-test to ascertain whether two population means temperature or under scant solar radiation. Increased
are equal. domestic production of rice and the real world price of
Table 6 presents no difference in areas of rice rice are expected to enhance rice exports. The stock of
regarding whether climate policies are implemented. rice shows a positive correlation with the rice surplus,
However, strict climate policies alleviate environmental but it has a negative relation with the retail price of rice.
degradation and boost the yield of rice except with SSP1 Otherwise, the per-capita consumption of rice is related
and SSP2. Compared with SSP3-SSP5, SSP1 and SSP2 negatively to the retail price of rice and real GDP per

Table 6. Results of paired sample t-test for area and yield

Yield Area
SSP RCP Forcing N Mean Variance t-value Mean Variance t-value
RCP2.6 51 3.628 0.718 51051299 3.48380E+13
SSP1 0.816 -0.279
RCP4.5 51 3.613 0.727 51115843 3.47102E+13
RCP2.6 51 3.627 0.715 50445326 2.65655E+13
SSP2 0.954 0.000
RCP6.0 51 3.612 0.691 50445237 2.68473E+13
RCP2.6 51 3.626 0.712 50445326 2.65655E+13
SSP3 2.665*** -0.669
RCP8.5 51 3.589 0.675 50595331 2.74488E+13
RCP2.6 51 3.625 0.711 49659705 1.98292E+13
SSP4 2.664*** -0.676
RCP8.5 51 3.588 0.674 49812174 2.06319E+13
RCP2.6 51 3.631 0.723 52207978 5.06516E+13
SSP5 2.660*** -0.716
RCP8.5 51 3.594 0.685 52372112 5.21172E+13
Note: *** Significant at the 1% level.

268 JARQ 52 (3) 2018

 Climate Change Effects on Supply and Demand of Rice in India

capita. Furthermore, the farm prices of rice show a strong References

positive correlation with the retail prices of rice.
To forecast the expected production of rice up to Cabas, J. et al. (2010) Crop yield response to economic, site and
2060, we considered five SSPs. The results of analysis climatic variables. Climatic Change, 101, 599-616.
Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (CRU)
show that SSP5 (conventional development) boosts the
(2017) [online] [Link] (browsed on
production of rice and per-capita consumption most in Aug. 8, 2017).
India. SSP1 (sustainability) follows SSP5 according to Directorate of Economics and Statistics (2015) Agricultural
an increase in GDP. Moreover, under future scenarios of Statistics at a Glance 2015. Ministry of Agriculture,
SSPs 3-5, we found that if the Indian government does Government of India. [Link]
not adopt climate policies to lower GHG emissions, the Agricultural_Statistics_At_Glance-[Link]
Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES), Ministry of
rice yield will decline. Therefore, to prevent decreases in Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, India (2017) [online]
rice production, the government must not only adopt and [Link] (browsed on Aug. 8, 2017).
follow aggressive climate policies but also lead society Directorate of Rice Development (2014) Status paper on rice.
toward moderate socioeconomic pathways. Certain Directorate of Rice Development, Government of India.
policies are feasible, such as on population control, the Edmonds, J. (2011) The Role of Scenarios in Driving Climate
Futures. Workshop on Climate Change Impacts and
acceleration of urbanization and globalization, and
Integrated Assessment, Washington D.C., September 21,
technological improvement. 2011.
Finally, it is conceivable that growing and harvest Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical
seasons will be different in 2060 due to climate change. Database (FAO-STAT) (2017) [online] [Link]
Farmers are expected to undertake actions to adapt faostat/en/#home (browsed on Aug. 8, 2017).
changes. However, further investigation is necessary Furuya, J. et al. (2009) Impacts of global warming on the world
food market according to SRES scenarios. World Academy
for which some approach (top-down, bottom-up or a of Science, Engineering and Technology, 57, 24-29.
combination of both) will be undertaken and for which Furuya, J. et al. (2010) Development of Supply and Demand
the period of this approach will be effective. The Models of Rice in Lower Mekong River Basin Countries:
assumptions of constant growing and harvest seasons REMEW-Mekong. JIRCAS Working Report, 68, 91-117.
will thus be relaxed in future studies. Goswami, B. N. et al. (2006) Increasing Trend of Extreme Rain
Events over India in a Warming Environment. Science,
314, 1442-1445.
Acknowledgements Hallegatte, S. et al. (2011) Building world narratives for climate
change impact, adaptation and vulnerability analyses.
This study was supported by the budget for the Nature Climate Change, 1, 151-155.
“Climate Change Project” of the Japan International International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2017) [online]
Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS). We [Link]
(browsed on Aug. 8, 2017).
are grateful to the participants of this project, and to the Khan, M. & Zaman, K. (2010) Production and acreage response
two anonymous referees for their helpful comments and of wheat in north west frontier province. Sarhad Journal of
suggestions. Agriculture, 26, 427-433.
Kram, T. (2012) SSPs: A new framework for future scenario
Footnote development. Fifth Annual IAMC Meeting, Utrecht
Netherlands, November 12-13, 2012.
Kriegler, E. et al. (2012) The need for and use of socio-
1) 
The SRES scenarios were used in the Fourth economic scenarios for climate change analysis: a new
Assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC. The A1 approach based on shared socio-economic pathways.
scenario assumes high economic growth and low Global Environmental Change, 22, 807-822.
country borders. The A1B scenario is a balanced Kriegler E. et al. (2014) A new scenario framework for climate
energy consumption scenario among the four A1 change research: the concept of shared climate policy
assumptions. Climatic Change, 122, 401-414.
sub-scenarios. The A2 scenario assumes a block or Kumar, K. et al. (2004) Climate impacts on Indian agriculture.
local economy. The B1 scenario assumes progress in International Journal of Climatology, 24, 1375-1393.
clean energy technology and low-country borders. Kumar, P. et al. (2009) Demand Projections for Foodgrains in
The B2 scenario assumes clean energy and a localized India. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 22, 237-
economy. The A2 scenario is the worst case scenario. 243.
Kumar, P. et al. (2011) Estimation of Demand Elasticity for
The A1B and the B2 scenarios are moderate scenarios.
Food Commodities in India. Agricultural Economics
Research Review, 24, 1-14.
Kumar, P. et al. (2012) Demand and Supply of Cereals in India,

269
C.-M. Hung et al.

2010-2025. IFPRI Discussion Paper, 01158. Delhi, India.

Kumar, P. et al. (2014) Projected effect of droughts on supply, Soora, N. K. et al. (2013) An assessment of regional
demand, and prices of crops in India. Economic and vulnerability of rice to climate change in India. Climate
Political Weekly, 49, 54-63. Change, 118, 683-699.
Leiserowitz, A. & Thaker, J. (2012) Climate Change in Sulser, T.B. et al. (2010) Green and blue water accounting in
the Indian Mind. Yale Project on Climate Change the Ganges and Nile basins: Implications for food and
Communication, Yale University, 9-10. agricultural policy. Journal of Hydrology, 384, 276-291.
Moss, R. H. et al. (2010) The next generation of scenarios for Tollefson, J. (2015) Is the 2 °C world a fantasy? Nature, 527,
climate change research and assessment. Nature, 463, 747- 436-438.
756. United Nations, World Population Prospects: The 2010
National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), Ministry Revision (United Nations Population Division, Department
of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, 2011).
of India (2017) [online] [Link] van Vuuren, D. P. & Carter, T. (2014) Climate and socio-
(browsed on Aug. 8, 2017). economic scenarios for climate change research and
O’Neill, B. C. et al. (2012) Meeting Report of the Workshop on assessment: reconciling the new with the old. Climate
The Nature and Use of New Socioeconomic Pathways for Change, 122, 415-429.
Climate Change Research. National Center for Atmospheric van Vuuren, D. P. et al. (2011) The Representative Concentration
Research, Boulder, Colorado, November 2-4, 2011. Pathways: An Overview. Climatic Change, 109, 5-31.
O’Neill, B. C. et al. (2014) A new scenario framework for climate von Grebmer, K. et al. (2016) 2016 Global Hunger Index:
change research: The concept of shared socioeconomic The Challenge of Hunger: Getting to Zero Hunger.
pathways. Climate Change, 122, 387-400. Welthungerhilfe, International Food Policy Research
Pohit, S. (1997) The impact of climate change on India’s Institute, Concern Worldwide, 47.
agriculture: some preliminary observations. Proceeding World Development Indicator (WDI) (2017) [online]
of the 20th International Conference of the International [Link]
Association for Energy Economics, 22-24th January, indicators (browsed on Aug. 8, 2017).

270 JARQ 52 (3) 2018

 Climate Change Effects on Supply and Demand of Rice in India

Appendix: Results of Augmented Dickey–Fuller (tau) unit root tests

Table A1. First-order differences of yield and area

Kharif
t-value t-value
No. State No. State
∆YK ∆AK ∆YK ∆AK
1 Andhra Pradesh -8.481 -7.858 15 Meghalaya -8.243 -7.383
2 Arunachal Pradesh -9.570 -10.402 16 Mizoram -5.662 -8.342
3 Assam -9.081 -8.880 17 Nagaland -8.385 -6.285
4 Bihar and Jharkhand -8.393 -6.231 18 Odisha (Orissa) -13.128 -11.854
5 Goa, Daman and Diu -9.363 -7.450 19 Punjab -8.853 -4.759
6 Gujarat -11.418 -10.858 20 Rajasthan -9.501 -6.780
7 Haryana -9.170 -7.275 21 Tamil Nadu -7.755 -7.426
8 Himachal Pradesh -9.972 -8.902 22 Tripura -10.661 -9.850
9 Jammu and Kashmir -8.719 -8.499 23 Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand -11.535 -10.630
10 Karnataka -10.731 -9.039 24 West Bengal -8.687 -11.295
11 Kerala -9.772 -5.173 25 Andaman and Nicobar Islands -8.678 -10.419
12 Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh -16.173 -9.276 26 Dadra and Nagar Haveli -10.563 -8.075
13 Maharashtra -13.158 -8.021 27 Delhi -6.560 -10.799
14 Manipur -7.706 -7.597 28 Pondicherry -8.649 -9.861
Rabi
t-value t-value
No. State No. State
∆YR ∆AR ∆YR ∆AR
1 Andhra Pradesh -10.776 -8.786 16 Mizoram -7.076 -9.698
3 Assam -8.400 -8.338 18 Odisha (Orissa) -8.717 -10.995
4 Bihar and Jharkhand -8.712 -10.685 21 Tamil Nadu -9.132 -6.702
6 Gujarat -9.192 -4.224 22 Tripura -13.980 -6.702
10 Karnataka -6.114 -6.709 23 Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand -9.137 -6.733
11 Kerala -10.507 -7.261 24 West Bengal -8.142 -7.347
13 Maharashtra -7.922 -10.647 28 Pondicherry -9.564 -11.458
15 Meghalaya -7.631 -5.607
Note: P-values of all variables are less than 0.01.

Table A2. First-order differences of macro variables except STC

Variable t-value Variable t-value
∆FC -10.339 ∆WEG **-4.040**
∆EXP -11.982 ∆RC -5.646
∆Q -10.691 ∆STC -9.848
Note: The p-value of ΔWEG is 0.01-0.05; the remaining variables have p-values less than 0.01.

271
C.-M. Hung et al.

Table A3. First-order differences of temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation

∆TMP t-value ∆PRC t-value ∆PRC t-value ∆PRC t-value ∆SRA t-value
1/ Feb -11.63 1/ Feb -11.63 10/ Apr -10.09 20/ Aug -10.86 1/ Jun -7.49
1/ Oct -11.74 1/ Aug -11.62 10/ Aug -14.87 20/ Jan -11.07 1/ Mar -11.82
2/ Nov -11.66 1/ Dec -9.17 10/ Dec -9.59 20/ Jul -9.78 2/ Mar -10.45
3/ Mar -10.92 1/ May -11.81 10/ Feb -10.24 20/ Jun -10.47 3/ Mar -10.87
3/ May -8.42 1/ Nov -8.43 10/ Jul -7.18 20/ Oct -10.56 3/ Oct -17.28
4/ Feb -9.63 1/ Oct -7.92 10/ Mar -9.79 20/ Sep -9.83 4/ Jan -9.79
4/ Jul -8.55 2/ Aug -10.31 10/ May -12.57 21/ Apr -10.07 4/ Mar -10.15
5/ Sep -12.51 2/ Dec -17.81 10/ Oct -12.69 21/ Aug -10.01 5/ Jul -20.96
6/ Feb -10.34 2/ Feb -11.60 11/ Apr -9.35 21/ Dec -10.10 6/ Feb -10.30
6/ Jul -10.31 2/ Jun -9.04 11/ Dec -12.04 21/ Jun -13.00 6/ Nov -8.42
7/ Jul -9.94 2/ May -11.48 11/ Feb -9.85 21/ Mar -11.20 7/ Jun -11.80
8/ Sep -12.20 2/ Sep -11.31 11/ Mar -10.82 21/ May -11.82 8/ Sep -12.53
9/ Jun -10.57 3/ Apr -9.24 11/ May -9.93 21/ Nov -8.05 9/ Apr -9.78
10/ Jan -9.69 3/ Jan -9.95 11/ Nov -9.06 21/ Oct -8.32 10/ Apr -9.03
10/ Sep -11.27 3/ Jun -9.05 11/ Sep -9.30 21/ Sep -7.31 10/ Oct -9.84
11/ Jun -9.21 3/ Mar -11.42 12/ Apr -8.49 22/ Jul -9.02 11/ Aug -11.84
11/ Sep -9.58 3/ Nov -10.93 12/ Aug -11.21 22/ Jun -11.97 11/ Mar -17.66
12/ Oct -8.79 3/ Sep -12.52 12/ Jun -8.22 22/ Mar -12.09 12/ Sep -9.98
13/ Jun -10.36 4/ Apr -11.12 13/ Jun -9.47 22/ Nov -13.33 13/ Apr -9.87
13/ Oct -8.85 4/ Aug -10.96 13/ Mar -7.27 22/ Sep -10.25 13/ Jul -13.69
14/ Jun -9.42 4/ Feb -14.61 13/ May -10.98 23/ Feb -14.67 14/ May -9.54
15/ Apr -8.80 4/ Jan -10.54 13/ Sep -12.81 23/ Jul -9.93 15/ Mar -11.51
15/ May -7.87 4/ Jul -9.82 14/ Apr -10.64 23/ May -10.31 15/ May -9.32
16/ May -8.82 4/ Jun -11.49 14/ May -11.05 23/ Oct -12.48 16/ Jan -9.92
17/ Feb -9.56 4/ Mar -11.00 14/ Oct -9.41 23/ Sep -10.84 16/ Nov -9.68
18/ Jun -11.07 4/ May -9.80 14/ Sep -11.10 24/ Apr -9.28 17/ Jun -13.95
18/ Oct -9.16 5/ Jul -9.16 15/ Apr -10.77 24/ Aug -10.97 18/ Apr -7.23
19/ Apr -9.77 5/ May -9.52 15/ Aug -9.08 24/ Dec -10.67 18/ Aug -12.17
20/ Jul -11.75 5/ Nov -8.95 15/ Jul -8.77 24/ Feb -9.75 19/ Mar -13.70
21/ Apr -11.61 5/ Oct -7.97 15/ Jun -9.16 24/ Jan -11.28 20/ Oct -9.33
21/ Nov -8.96 5/ Sep -10.89 15/ May -10.54 24/ Jul -10.16 21/ Mar -9.68
22/ Aug -9.40 6/ Aug -9.86 15/ Nov -11.76 24/ Jun -9.69 21/ May -7.55
22/ Dec -8.55 6/ Dec -11.30 15/ Oct -10.42 24/ Mar -10.16 22/ Dec -9.27
23/ Aug -11.26 6/ Jan -8.17 16/ Dec -11.66 24/ May -11.32 22/ Sep -10.54
23/ Mar -11.36 6/ Jun -9.95 16/ Jan -14.53 24/ Oct -8.42 23/ Apr -11.32
24/ Jan -10.69 6/ Mar -7.34 16/ Mar -12.15 25/ Jun -9.13 23/ Sep -10.74
24/ Mar -10.41 6/ May -10.20 16/ May -9.32 25/ Nov -10.51 24/ Feb -8.79
25/ Jul -8.64 6/ Sep -12.86 16/ Oct -8.69 25/ Oct -10.78 24/ Jul -10.94
26/ Jun -11.44 7/ Jun -9.54 16/ Sep -11.46 26/ Jun -10.22 25/ Nov -8.62
27/ Sep -8.49 7/ Mar -9.35 17/ Aug -7.76 26/ Mar -7.45 26/ Jul -13.56
28/ Aug -11.00 7/ Oct -11.42 17/ Jun -11.50 26/ Oct -11.47 27/ Sep -12.36
28/ Jun -9.04 8/ Jul -11.32 17/ Mar -10.96 27/ Aug -11.28 28/ Aug -7.46
8/ Jun -10.13 17/ Oct -9.77 27/ Jul -11.73 28/ May -8.83
8/ May -10.36 18/ Apr -9.91 27/ Jun -9.13
9/ Apr -9.73 18/ Jan -13.39 27/ May -8.13
9/ Aug -11.23 18/ Jun -8.47 27/ Sep -11.32
9/ Jan -10.64 18/ May -9.64 28/ Apr -9.88
9/ Jul -11.80 18/ Oct -10.77 28/ Aug -10.50
9/ Jun -9.85 19/ Jun -9.85 28/ Dec -9.98
9/ May -17.16 19/ Mar -9.52 28/ Jan -9.78
9/ Nov -10.80 19/ May -9.73 28/ Mar -10.46
9/ Oct -13.23 19/ Nov -11.76 28/ Oct -8.54
19/ Oct -11.60 28/ Sep -8.52
Note: Variables of climate are presented as state/month; p-values of all variables are less than 0.01.

272 JARQ 52 (3) 2018