(slightly) Bitter-sweet details about sugarcane: In Marathwada and in general

Lot has been written about sugarcane and drought. HarishDamodran in IE has argued that sugarcane is a scapegoat. The crux of the argument was that the area under sugarcane in Marathwada is about 2% and water-usage in sugarcane occurs over large number of days compared to other crops. Vernacular media in Maharashtra and social media public opinion seems to be critical of sugarcane.

                I always had a simpler question in mind. In total available/utilized water in Marathwada agriculture, how much goes to sugarcane. And I was not able to get the answer. So I decided to search for numbers to find something.

Table 1 : Estimates water usage

Crop	Share in total area under the crop (2014-15)	water requirement (in mm)	water requirement (in meter)	Area under crop in Marathwada (in sq meter)(10000 sq m=1 hectare)	total water consumption (in cubic meter)	Share (%)
Kh Jowar	5	600	0.6	3664000000	2.2E+09	6
Bajra	3	600	0.6	2201000000	1.32E+09	4
Kh Maize	4	500	0.5	2869000000	1.43E+09	4
Tur	8	600	0.6	5362000000	3.22E+09	9
Mung	2	550	0.55	1576000000	8.67E+08	2
Udad	2	550	0.55	1516000000	8.34E+08	2
Soyabean	18	320	0.32	1.2229E+10	3.91E+09	11
Sugarcane	3	2200	2.2	2194000000	4.83E+09	14
Cotton	27	600	0.6	1.8337E+10	1.1E+10	31
Rabi jowar	12	275	0.275	8281000000	2.28E+09	6
Wheat	4	425	0.425	2790000000	1.19E+09	3
Gram	7	500	0.5	4871000000	2.44E+09	7

Here I have made multiple assumptions:

1.       I assume that every field consumes on average required amount of water for the crop in that field. In case of flooding method and because of cheap electricity (is it there?), water usage can be seriously more than requirement.  At the same time, in rain-fed parts, usage can be lower too. I do not know which dominates.

2.       Water requirement numbers are picked from various internet sources and Harish Damodaran’s IE article on 15-4-2016. There is considerable variation. For Mung, udad and Bajra, I have made my own assumptions based on similar crops.

3.       The lamest assumption is estimating water consumption by multiplying area with requirement. I am treating process of agriculture like an absorbing pot or collector.

        Now let’s see what table tells. 56% water goes for the cash crops out of which 14% (of the total) for the sugarcane. 

        This includes water from rain directly and water from dams (wherever it is available). In this total water usage, sugarcane is 14%. I assume that sugarcane area has to be irrigated area. So out of irrigation water, proportion of sugarcane can be lot higher.

Well, even now I do not see sugarcane as a villain. This is the reason:

Table 2 : Table 1 : Returns per Hectare - Sugarcane and other crops(in rupees)

	Cost (without Land and interest on Capital)₹	Cost ₹	Gross Value of Output ₹	Gross Returns ₹	%	Net Returns ₹	%	Per Month Gross Returns ₹	Per Month Net Returns ₹
All-India	63986	101224	160437	96451	151	59213	58	8038	4934
Uttar	44168	78000	130367	86199	195	52367	67	7183	4364
Karnataka	54094	92372	167199	113105	209	74827	81	9425	6236
Maharashtra	101115	147229	216373	115257	114	69144	47	9605	5762
Paddy
All-India	26604	37733	42282	15679	59	4550	12	3920	1137
Punjab	30358	51914	69566	39208	129	17651	34	9802	4413
Haryana	31013	52277	70237	39224	126	17960	34	9806	4490
Andhra	36047	54578	61062	25014	69	6483	12	6254	1621
Uttar	23588	34925	39835	16247	69	4911	14	4062	1228
Karnataka	33864	47388	58223	24359	72	10835	23	6090	2709
Cotton
All-India	33339	49439	65129	31790	95	15689	32	7948	3922
Gujarat	35193	51353	81223	46030	131	29870	58	1507	7467
Maharashtra	36837	50104	55322	18485	50	5217	10	4621	1304
Wheat
All-India	23914	39096	53356	29442	123	14260	36	7360	3565
Punjab	25111	47118	65819	40708	162	18701	40	10177	4675
Haryana	27528	49068	70340	42812	156	21272	43	10703	5318
Uttar	25457	40689	51447	25990	102	10758	26	6498	2690
Maharashtra	29982	41164	44700	14718	49	3536	9	3680	884
Paddy and Wheat is 4 month crops with 3 cycles possible per year while Sugercane is 12 month crop.
Years considered: 2010-11 to 2012-12 for Sugarcane and wheat and 2009-10 to 2011-12 for paddy and cotton
Source: CACP report price policy for Sugarcane 2015-16

   

               

                Sugarcane is providing purchasing power to those who grows sugarcane and it is much better than other crop-choices. So, farmers are going for it, which makes sense. It is also possible that compared to other crops, sugarcane can have more backward-forward linkages in local economy and can have more (ill-famous) trickle down effects.

                I guess it is a tricky choice. Not having sugarcane, will making more water available, especially in drought year, but at the same time, it will take away the incomes which are proving to be important resilience against drought. (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-article-by-jean-dreze-on-drought-conditions-a-drought-of-action/article8524623.ece)

                The aura of sugarcane resides on the government support which in turn is the product of politics. The assured returns add to the fact that returns are higher among available alternatives.

                The more serious question is what is social distribution of economic gains of sugarcane? Who enjoys and who suffers, if not absolutely, then relatively? It will be naïve to assume that these gains percolate to all parts of the districts. Dams, which are bedrock of the sugar economy, are built at locations which are not really optimal from distributional point of view. (http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/98303/1/cdp923.pdf)  

                I will be critical (not opposed) to sugarcane because of consequences of sugar economy to socio-economic mobility in rural India and consequences for public finances and agricultural trade.

                In the exceptional cases of drought, drinking water should be priority. But to make it happen, foresight and political pressure will be required. And, therein lies the rub, I guess.