Deagriculturalisation and India’s trajectory toward net-zero: Analysing emission impacts using bayesian vector autoregression


195 / 85

Authors

  • MAJID KARIMZADEH University of Saravan, Saravan, Iran image/svg+xml
  • FARAZ AHMAD Amity School of Economics, Amity University, Gurugram, Haryana, India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v96i03.168753

Keywords:

Bayesian VAR model, CO₂ emissions, Deagriculturalization, India, Net Zero targets

Abstract

This study examined how deagriculturalisation has impacted CO₂ emissions in India from 1990–2023. Although structural economic change is often seen as a sign of progress, little is known about how it affects the environment, especially in large emerging economies experiencing rapid urban and industrial growth. Using a Bayesian Vector Autoregression model with Minnesota priors, we estimated both short-term and long-term emission responses to the contraction of the agricultural sector in 2025. Our findings showed that a 1% decrease in agriculture’s GDP share led to an immediate 0.22% increase in CO2 emissions, which accumulated to 1.5% over ten years. This ongoing rise resulted from land-use changes, coal-intensive industrialisation, and urban sprawl that displaced carbon-absorbing croplands. Impulse response functions showed asymmetric dynamics: declines in agriculture drive emissions more strongly than growth reduces them. Energy consumption and industrialisation were the primary drivers of emissions, while high-tech exports offered only minor decarbonisation benefits. These results challenged the idea that sectoral diversification automatically supports climate goals. To reach India’s Net Zero 2070 target, policies need to decouple industrial growth from fossil fuels, such as transforming coal corridors into green hydrogen hubs, and include agroecological zoning to protect carbon-rich agricultural lands. This research provided empirical evidence to fill a key policy gap of how to manage structural change without locking in high emissions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bajpai N and Biberman J. 2021. India’s smart city programme: Challenges and opportunities. (In) ICT India Working Paper No. 62. Center for Sustainable Development, Columbia University. https://csd.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/ docs/ICT%20India/Papers/ICT_India_Working_Paper_62.pdf

BEE. 2024. India Energy Scenario: For the Year 2023–24. Bureau of Energy Efficiency, Ministry of Power, Government of India. https://beeindia.gov.in/sites /default/files/India_Energy_ Scenario_for_the_Year_2023-24.pdf

Crippa M, Guizzardi D, Pagani F, Banja M, Muntean M, Schaaf E, Monforti-Ferrario F, Becker W E, Quadrelli R, Risquez Martin A, Taghavi-Moharamli P, Koykka J, Grassi G, Rossi S, Melo J, Oom D, Branco A, San-Miguel J, Manca G, Pisoni E, Vignati E and Pekar F. 2024. GHG Emissions of All World Countries. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2760/4002897

Dasgupta D and Sarangi G K. 2021. Meeting India's electricity demand in 2030. Energy and Climate Change 2: 100038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egycc.2021.100038

Dogan N. 2016. Agriculture and environmental kuznets curves in the case of Turkey: Evidence from the ARDL and bounds test. Agricultural Economics–Czech 62(12): 566–74. https:// doi.org/10.17221/112/2015-AGRICECON

Dou Y, Zhao J, Malik M N and Dong K. 2021. Assessing the impact of trade openness on CO2 emissions: Evidence from China-Japan-ROK FTA countries. Journal of Environmental Management 296: 113241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2021.113241

Dwivedi A K and Soni A. 2023. The carbon footprint of India and its drivers: A structural decomposition analysis of global value chains. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 56: 103109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103109

El Weriemmi M and Bakari S. 2024. The impact of CO2 emissions, domestic investment, and trade openness on economic growth: New evidence from North African countries. (In) MPRA Paper No. 122152. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/122152/

Gibba A, Jammeh L and Jallow M A. 2024. Effect of energy consumption, foreign direct investment, and economic growth on greenhouse gas emissions in OPEC member states: Evidence from panel data analysis. Frontiers in Environmental Economics 3: 1428754. https://doi.org/10.3389/frevc.2024.1428754

Hu J, Wang Z and Huang Q. 2020. Factor allocation structure and green-biased technological progress in Chinese agriculture. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja 34(1): 2034–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2020.1860795

IBEF. 2024. Agriculture and Allied Industries Industry Report. India Brand Equity Foundation. https://www.ibef.org/industry/ agriculture-india

IEA. 2023. World Energy Outlook 2023. International Energy Agency, Paris. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023

IEA. 2025. World Energy Outlook 2025. International Energy Agency, Paris. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2025, Licence: CC BY 4.0 (report); CC BY NC SA 4.0.

IPCC. 2019. Special Report on Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www. ipcc.ch/srccl/

Khan R, Alabsi A A N and Muda I. 2023. Comparing the effects of agricultural intensification on CO2 emissions and energy consumption in developing and developed countries. Frontiers in Environmental Science 10: 1065634. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fenvs.2022.1065634

Kuschnig N and Vashold L. 2021. BVAR: Bayesian vector autoregressions with hierarchical prior selection in R. Journal of Statistical Software 100: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.18637/ jss.v100.i14

Lin S, Zhou N, Jahangir J and Sohail S. 2022. Analyzing dynamic impacts of deagriculturalization on CO2 emissions in selected Asian economies: A tale of two shocks. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29: 72957–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11356-022-20773-2

Omri A, Daly S, Rault C and Chaibi A. 2015. Financial development, environmental quality, trade and economic growth: What causes what in MENA countries. Energy Economics 52: 207–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.01.008

Padalia K, Bargali K and Bargali S S. 2017. Present scenario of agriculture and its allied occupation in a typical hill village of central Himalaya, India. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 87(1): 132–41. https://doi.org/10.56093/ ijas.v87i1.67134

Patel N and Mehta D. 2023. The asymmetry effect of industrialization, financial development, and globalization on CO₂ emissions in India. International Journal of Thermofluids 20: 100397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijft.2023.100397

Patle G T, Bandyopadhyay K K and Singh D K. 2013. Impact of conservation agriculture and resource conservation technologies on carbon sequestration, a review. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 83(1): 1–10.

Rao G B. 2023. CO₂ emissions, economic growth, and energy consumption nexus: The case of India. Theoretical and Applied Economics 30(4): 63–76.

Shahzad S J H, Kumar R R, Zakaria M and Hurr M. 2017. Carbon emission, energy consumption, trade openness, and financial development in Pakistan: A revisit. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70: 185–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2016.11.042

Streimikis J and Saraji M K. 2022. Green productivity and undesirable outputs in agriculture: A systematic review of DEA approach and policy recommendations. Economic Research- Ekonomska Istrazivanja 35(1): 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1331677X.2021.1942947

Udemba E N, Gungor H, Bekun F V and Kirikkaleli D. 2021. Economic performance of India amidst high CO2 emissions. Sustainable Production and Consumption 27: 52–60. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.024

Ullah S, Ahmad W, Majeed M T and Sohail S. 2021. Asymmetric effects of premature deagriculturalization on economic growth and CO2 emissions: Fresh evidence from Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28: 66772–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15077-w

Villanthenkodath M A and Pal S. 2024. Environmental degradation in geopolitical risk and uncertainty contexts for India: A comparison of ecological footprint, CO2 emissions, and load capacity factor. Energy and Climate Change 5: 100122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egycc.2023.100122

Xu B and Lin B. 2017. Factors affecting CO2 emissions in China’s agriculture sector: Evidence from geographically weighted regression model. Energy Policy 104: 404–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.02.011

Zoaka J D, Ekwueme D C, Gungor H and Alola A A. 2022. Will financial development and clean energy utilization rejuvenate the environment in BRICS economies? Business Strategy and the Environment 31(5): 1860–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/ bse.3013

Zou S and Zhang T. 2020. CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth nexus: Evidence from 30 provinces in China. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2020: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8842770

Downloads

Submitted

2025-07-08

Published

2026-03-03

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

KARIMZADEH, M. ., & AHMAD, F. . (2026). Deagriculturalisation and India’s trajectory toward net-zero: Analysing emission impacts using bayesian vector autoregression. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 96(3), 394–400. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v96i03.168753
Citation