Surprisingly, highly food-secure states in terms of production and access, and with proper facilities for healthcare to assist in absorption, fall in the bracket of moderately unsustainable regions. Cases in point are Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Haryana. Here, too, the extremely low environmental sustainability is characterised by inordinate use of natural resources.
"We produce enough; there is no problem of access to food. But sustainable production is unlikely to be achieved since our water resources are getting depleted," says S S Johl, vice-chairperson, state planning board, Punjab. The atlas suggests a gradual shift from direct dependence on land to venturing into non-crop enterprises.
The future availability of groundwater and surface water as well as adequate forest cover make Arunachal Pradesh and mp the best performers. The report notes that since Arunachal Pradesh is a tiny state, it has a fairly small net sown area. But it produces just about enough staple food for itself. Therefore, the present level of food production security is reasonably good. Environment sustainability is the most ideal in the country. In other words, the state has a large forest area and only a few people are dependent on the natural resources.
In mp, the per capita food grain production is next only to Punjab and Haryana. It scores over the latter two on sustainability as it has more unutilised water sources, a large forest area and a balanced crop pattern. These factors provide mp with a vast potential to expand food production. However, it narrowly trails Arunachal Pradesh with regard to livelihood and healthcare.
The atlas suggests several measures to facilitate sustainable food production. It calls for adoption of ecofriendly technologies while stating that no specific policy exists on the subject. The document suggests an overhaul in the current agricultural subsidies as they are seen to be damaging natural resources. The study contends that policies dealing with natural resources such as water, land and forests cannot be viewed in isolation. It criticises the National Water Policy 2002 for not charting out a specific course and ignoring key matters like community control over natural resources.
A nine-point action plan has been recommended to bring about changes in policy. These pertain to crop production, natural resource use and community conservation, and healthcare. The document exhorts each state to stabilise its population, conserve land resources, ensure water security, develop forests, protect biodiversity, sensitise communities to climate change, empower local bodies to manage resources, and strive for crop diversification. Strong emphasis has been laid on the formation of a state-level coalition to monitor the implementation of this action plan.