Key Details
The analysis, published in the ADBI book Reimagining Net-Zero Cities, examines why crop residue burning continues in Northern India and how crop residue management can support clean air, farmer incomes and India’s Net Zero 2070 pathway.
Why Crop Residue Burning Persists
Driver | Chapter Finding |
|---|---|
Farmer incentives | Open burning remains the fastest, cheapest and least risky way to clear fields within short sowing windows. |
Cost of alternatives | Crop residue management options often involve machinery costs, logistics burdens, operational delays or uncertain returns. |
Limits of enforcement | Bans, fines and regulatory restrictions have had limited success where farmer incentives remain unchanged. |
Health and climate impact | Burning worsens PM₂.₅ pollution, contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and is linked to 44,000–98,000 premature deaths annually from PM exposure. |
Net-zero relevance | Crop residue burning weakens clean-air objectives and complicates India’s transition towards Net Zero 2070. |
Crop Residue Management (CRM) Pathways
CRM Pathway | Examples | Policy Logic |
|---|---|---|
In-situ management | Mulching, zero tillage, Happy Seeder, Pusa decomposer | Manages residues within the field while improving soil health and reducing open burning. |
Ex-situ utilisation | Bioenergy, biochar, biomass pellets, compost, livestock feed | Converts residues into marketable products and creates potential income streams. |
Market-based models | Takachar, nurture.farm, biomass enterprises | Uses innovation, platforms and private investment to make non-burning commercially viable. |
Climate-linked finance | Carbon finance, payments for ecosystem services, upfront compensation | Helps reduce the cost gap between burning and sustainable alternatives. |
Stakeholder Roles in Scaling CRM
Stakeholder | Role in Sustainable Residue Management |
|---|---|
Farmers | Adopt alternatives when they reduce cost, lower risk or create additional income. |
Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs) | Aggregate demand, reduce transaction costs and support collective access to machinery and services. |
Governments | Design incentives, regulate burning, support extension and create enabling markets. |
Private sector | Build biomass value chains, residue-management technologies and digital service platforms. |
Research institutions | Develop, test and evaluate crop residue management technologies and practices. |
Civil society and donors | Support awareness, financing, capacity-building and community mobilisation. |
Summary
The Core Insight
The chapter 5, The Trouble with Stubble: Exploring the Interlinkages Between Crop Residue Burning and Net-Zero Targets, of ADBI publication Reimagining Net-Zero Cities argues that that crop residue burning persists because it is often the most rational choice for farmers under current economic conditions. Burning is fast, cheap and predictable, while many alternatives involve higher costs, logistics burdens, short sowing-window risks or uncertain returns. The policy challenge is therefore not only to stop burning, but to make non-burning the easier and more profitable option.
What CRM Must Solve
Crop Residue Management (CRM) has two broad pathways. In-situ methods such as mulching, zero tillage and bio-decomposers manage residues within the field. Ex-situ options convert biomass into biochar, bioenergy, pellets, compost or livestock feed. Both require machinery access, extension support, biomass markets and farmer confidence.
Why Enforcement Is Not Enough
The analysis finds that bans, fines and court-backed restrictions have had limited success where farmer incentives remain unchanged. It points instead to a broader policy mix: payments for ecosystem services, carbon finance, upfront compensation, biomass procurement, peer demonstrations, digital advisory and support for FPOs.
Crop Residues as a Net-Zero Resource
CRM connects agriculture with clean air, public health, clean energy, rural income and climate mitigation. The analysis links CRM to India’s Net Zero 2070 pathway by showing how residue can shift from an environmental liability to a circular bioeconomy resource. Long-term progress will also depend on crop diversification and reducing dependence on residue-intensive paddy systems..
What Is Crop Residue Management (CRM)?
Crop Residue Management (CRM) refers to the collection, treatment and utilisation of crop residues after harvest without open burning. It includes in-situ practices such as mulching, zero tillage and bio-decomposers that manage residues within the field, as well as ex-situ approaches that convert biomass into products such as biochar, compressed biogas, biofuels, compost and industrial feedstock. Effective CRM seeks to reduce air pollution while creating economic value from agricultural waste.
Policy Relevance
Crop residue burning policy must begin with farmer economics. Sustainable residue management will succeed only when alternatives reduce cost, lower risk or create additional income for farmers, rather than relying mainly on penalties or awareness campaigns.
CRM should be treated as an incentive-design challenge, not only an environmental compliance problem.Payments for ecosystem services, carbon finance, upfront compensation and assured biomass procurement can help make non-burning economically rational.
Circular bioeconomy models can turn agricultural waste into rural value chains. Expanding markets for biochar, compressed biogas, bioenergy, pellets, compost and industrial biomass can support farmer incomes while contributing to clean energy and climate mitigation.
Agricultural policy and climate policy need closer integration. Crop residue burning shows how farm-level production decisions affect urban air quality, public health and national climate commitments, requiring coordination across agriculture, environment, energy and rural development.
Crop diversification is part of the long-term solution. Reducing dependence on residue-intensive paddy systems will require addressing water use, procurement incentives, MSP-linked cropping patterns and viable alternatives for farmers.
Technology adoption depends on extension, trust and local institutions. Demonstrations, peer learning, digital advisory, Farmer Producer Organisations and custom hiring models can reduce uncertainty and improve adoption of CRM alternatives.
Public-private partnerships will be essential for scale. Government can reduce early adoption barriers, while agri-tech firms, biomass enterprises and financial institutions can build commercially viable residue-management markets..
Follow the ADBI Book Here: Reimagining Net-Zero Cities Exploring the Role of the Private Sector, Institutions, Governments, and Communities