NITI Aayog’s scenario studies on Viksit Bharat and Net Zero place energy, industry and finance at the forefront of India’s long-term transition. Yet embedded within the modelling is a quieter but far more consequential reality: India’s ability to achieve Net Zero by 2070 without derailing development hinges critically on agriculture and rural livelihoods.
Unlike power or transport, agriculture is both a victim of climate change and a contributor to emissions, while remaining the primary source of income for nearly half the population. The scenarios underline that India’s development–climate balance will be determined less by headline emission targets and more by how the farm economy adapts, finances itself, and absorbs transition shocks.
Agriculture as a Climate Risk Multiplier
The macroeconomic volume of the study highlights climate change as a material risk to agricultural output, food inflation, rural incomes and fiscal stability. Rising temperatures, erratic monsoons and extreme weather events directly threaten crop yields, particularly in rain-fed regions that dominate India’s farming landscape.
The implication is stark: without large-scale investment in climate-resilient agriculture, India’s growth trajectory itself becomes vulnerable. Farm distress feeds into inflation, migration, and social instability—risks that compound as climate impacts intensify over the next two decades.
Emissions Without Exit Options
Agriculture presents a unique challenge in India’s Net Zero pathway. Unlike power or industry, there is no clear technological “switch” that eliminates emissions. Methane from livestock, nitrous oxide from fertilisers, and emissions from rice cultivation remain structurally embedded in food production.
NITI Aayog’s scenarios implicitly acknowledge this constraint. Rather than absolute emission cuts, the pathway relies on efficiency gains, improved practices, demand-side shifts, and carbon sequestration through soils and biomass. This positions agriculture not as a sector to be decarbonised in isolation, but as one that must be managed within a broader land-use and food-system strategy.
Financing the Rural Transition
While most of the $22–23 trillion investment requirement identified in the Financing Needs report is concentrated in power, transport and industry, agriculture faces a different financing problem: chronic underinvestment rather than capital scarcity alone.
Climate-resilient seeds, micro-irrigation, precision farming, diversified cropping, and post-harvest infrastructure require sustained capital flows—but returns are uncertain, fragmented, and highly exposed to weather risk. Traditional finance is ill-suited to these conditions, and private capital remains cautious.
The implication is that public finance, blended finance, and institutional innovation will determine whether agriculture becomes a climate liability or a resilience asset. Without this shift, rural India risks bearing the costs of the transition without accessing its benefits.
Behaviour Change and Mission LiFE in Food Systems
NITI Aayog places significant emphasis on Mission LiFE and behavioural change, and agriculture sits at the heart of this strategy. Changes in cropping patterns, fertiliser use, water consumption, and dietary preferences are essential to reducing emissions intensity without threatening food security.
This signals a subtle but important shift in policy thinking: India’s Net Zero pathway assumes changes not just in how energy is produced, but in how food is grown and consumed. For farmers, this means adapting to new agronomic practices; for consumers, it implies gradual shifts in diets and reduced food waste.
However, the political economy of such change is complex. Without credible income support, risk-sharing mechanisms, and market access, behaviour change at the farm level will remain aspirational.
Coal Rises, Agriculture Absorbs the Shock
One of the most debated findings—that India’s coal consumption will continue to rise until 2047—has indirect but powerful implications for agriculture. Continued fossil fuel dependence raises the likelihood of faster climate impacts, placing additional pressure on farm systems already operating near ecological limits.
In effect, agriculture becomes the shock absorber of delayed emissions reductions, bearing the consequences of warming even as other sectors prioritise growth and energy security. This reinforces the need for anticipatory investment in rural resilience rather than reactive relief.
85% Yet to Be Built—Including Rural India
The study’s observation that 85% of India’s 2047 infrastructure is yet to be built applies as much to rural India as to cities. Cold chains, storage, processing facilities, rural logistics, and water systems will shape future agricultural emissions and incomes.
If these assets are climate-aligned, agriculture can transition toward higher value, lower waste, and greater resilience. If not, India risks locking millions of farmers into low-productivity, high-risk systems just as climate pressures intensify.
Agriculture as the Litmus Test for Viksit Bharat
NITI Aayog’s Net Zero scenarios ultimately suggest that India’s climate ambition is technically feasible and economically defensible. But agriculture remains the sector where feasibility meets social reality.
If India can stabilise farm incomes, protect food security, and reduce emissions intensity without marginalising smallholders, Viksit Bharat becomes a credible, inclusive vision. If not, climate policy risks deepening rural distress and undermining the very growth it seeks to protect.
In that sense, agriculture is not a side chapter in India’s Net Zero story—it is the litmus test. How India manages its farms over the next two decades will determine whether its development model becomes a template for the Global South, or a cautionary tale of transition without inclusion.