Securing India’s farm economy through soil regeneration

India’s agriculture underpins the nation’s economy, social stability, and food security. Agriculture contributes around 15.33% of India’s Gross Value Added (GVA) and supports close to 45% of the workforce. In 2023–24, India achieved a record foodgrain production of 332.29 million tonnes, including over 137.3 and 113.3 million tonnes each of rice and wheat respectively[1], a testament to decades of productivity gains.

Yet beneath this achievement lies a structural concern: the condition of India’s soil.

Why is this a concern?

Approximately 97.85 million hectares, or nearly 30% of India's land, are categorized as degraded due to erosion, salinity, nutrient depletion, or other quality declines[2]. Data from soil assessments indicate that a significant proportion of Indian soils are deficient in nitrogen and organic carbon. These trends are not dramatic in one season. They unfold slowly, over years. But their cumulative effect is serious.

India’s growth model in agriculture since the Green Revolution has relied heavily on chemical fertilizers, irrigation expansion, and high-yielding varieties. This model delivered food security. However, it was never designed for ecological balance. As fertilizer usage increased, soil biology declined. As monocropping expanded, crop diversity reduced. Yields initially rose sharply, but in several regions they have now plateaued.

This creates a development dilemma.

Agriculture still supports nearly half of India’s workforce, even though its contribution to GDP is far lower. Around 86% of Indian farmers are small and marginal, cultivating less than two hectares[3]. For them, soil is not an environmental concept; it is their primary asset. When soil weakens, income stability weakens.

Globally, this challenge is not unique. The FAO’s The State of Food and Agriculture 2025 report estimates that around 1.7 billion people live in areas where agricultural yields are at least 10% lower than they could be due to human-induced land degradation, including soil erosion, nutrient depletion, and organic matter loss.

Globally, about 20% of cropland shows declining productivity because of soil degradation, especially in Asia and Africa, where high population density and intensive farming practices intersect with fragile soils.[4]

At the same time, global food demand is projected to increase significantly by 2050 as population and incomes grow. The world must produce more, but not by exhausting the very resource that enables production.

This is where regenerative agriculture enters the conversation.

Regenerative and natural farming practices aim to restore soil organic matter, improve microbial activity, reduce chemical inputs, and diversify cropping systems. The objective is not merely to reduce damage, but to rebuild soil health. Healthy soil retains water better, stores carbon, and supports more stable yields under climate stress.

From an economic perspective, regenerative practices reduce variable costs over time by lowering expenditure on fertilizers, pesticides, and supplemental irrigation. Early evidence from pilot sites shows potential input cost reductions of 30–50% as farmers adopt organic or natural farming techniques, a trend validated by soil science research showing improved soil function and resilience in regenerated systems.

India has already seen early policy experimentation in this direction.

Andhra Pradesh launched one of the most ambitious large-scale natural farming transitions in the world, aiming to shift millions of farmers toward Zero Budget Natural Farming. The programme has focused on reducing input costs, strengthening farmer collectives, and promoting soil-based practices. Similarly, Himachal Pradesh has expanded natural farming across lakhs of farmers and has introduced price incentives for crops grown under such systems. These examples show that transition is possible, but they also show that it requires sustained institutional support.

The key constraint is trust.

Farmers are rational economic actors. A shift away from chemical-intensive farming carries short-term uncertainty. There may be yield adjustments during transition years. Markets may not immediately reward natural produce. Without assured procurement, price premiums, or income protection, adoption will remain limited.

This is where policy design becomes critical.

India spends substantial public resources on fertilizer subsidies. Gradual reorientation of a portion of these funds toward soil restoration incentives, crop diversification support, and farmer training could create better long-term returns. Strengthening the Soil Health Card framework with real-time advisory and localised data could also improve decision-making at the farm level.

From a climate perspective, agriculture contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane from rice cultivation and nitrous oxide from fertilizers. Regenerative practices including improved nutrient management, diversified cropping, and organic matter enhancement can help reduce these emissions while improving resilience. This directly supports India’s climate commitments and advances multiple Sustainable Development Goals, including SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

Importantly, this transition must align with India’s broader development vision of Viksit Bharat. A developed India cannot be built on degraded natural capital. Soil health, water security, and farmer income stability are interconnected.

Compared to Europe or the United States, where average farm sizes are larger and transition support is often subsidy-backed, India faces a different structural challenge. Small landholdings, credit constraints, and fragmented markets require collective models, farmer producer organisations, cluster-based transitions, and blended finance mechanisms. Multilateral institutions can support this shift through technical assistance, carbon market development, and risk-sharing frameworks.

The transition will not be instantaneous. It may take 3–5 years for soil systems to rebuild measurable organic carbon levels. But the cost of inaction is higher. Continued chemical dependency without soil regeneration risks stagnating yields, rising input costs, and declining farm profitability.

If India is to meet rising food demand, sustain rural livelihoods, meet climate targets, and advance toward Viksit Bharat, soil must move from being treated as an input platform to being recognised as national infrastructure.

The question is no longer whether we can afford to invest in soil regeneration. The real question is whether we can afford not to.

[1] https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2058534&utm_source=chatgpt.com&reg=3&lang=2

[2] https://dolr.gov.in/rewards/#:~:text=The%20most%20important%20natural%20resource,to%20Combat%20Desertification%20(UNCCD)

[3] https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1939473&reg=3&lang=2

[4] Addressing land degradation for a sustainable future | FAO