







































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 5 (2): 21-42, July 2022 

RESEARCH PAPER 

Agricultural Sustainability in the North Eastern 
Region of India: A Sustainable Livelihood Security 
Index (SLSI) Approach 

Ankur Jain, Neela Madhaba Sheekha, Sandip Tanu Mandal 

Abstract: This paper offers an economic analysis of agricultural sustainability in the 
North Eastern Region (NER) of India by calculating the sustainable livelihood 
security index (SLSI) of each state. The SLSI serves as an important indicator for 
educating farmers and other stakeholders about sustainable agriculture production. 
This paper focuses on the NER as this region has received meagre attention in 
policy perspectives and is deprived in terms of various socio-economic and 
ecological indicators as compared to the rest of India. The findings show that 
various components of the SLSI, such as the ecological security index, economic 
efficiency index, and social equity index, have wide interstate variations. The 
agricultural sector in the NER has largely been neglected, with the state failing to 
adopt inclusive policies to uplift small and marginal farmers. The region suffers 
from severe poverty and malnutrition, improper management, over-exploitation of 
natural resources, and population explosion. These issues are a threat to agricultural 
sustainability. The study aims to identify the key factors that influence agricultural 
sustainability for inclusive and sustainable agricultural development. The findings 
show that the value of the SLSI ranged from 0.37 to 0.56 among the North Eastern 
states, which shows low agricultural sustainability. The indicators reveal that 
Tripura ranks first, with an SLSI score of 0.56, followed by Sikkim (0.50) and 
Assam (0.44). Manipur stood last in the SLSI ranking of North Eastern states, with 
a score of 0.37, which evidently shows the need for policy changes to enhance the 
sustainable development of agriculture. 

 
 Research Scholar at Centre for the Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru 
University, New Delhi, India. Assistant Professor, Manipal University, Jaipur, 

ankur.jain@jaipur.manipal.edu.  

 Lecturer in Economics, Kesinga Mahavidyalaya, Kesinga, Odisha, 
neela.madhaba21@gmail.com. 

 Research Scholar, Centre for the Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru 
University, New Delhi, India, sandip.tanu@gmail.com. 

Copyright © Jain, Sheekha and Mandal 2022. Released under Creative Commons Attribution 

© NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of  Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581–6152 (print); 2581–6101 (web).  

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v5i2.486 

mailto:ankur.jain@jaipur.manipal.edu
mailto:neela.madhaba21@gmail.com
mailto:sandip.tanu@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v5i2.486


 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [22] 

Keywords: Agriculture sustainability; North Eastern Region; ecological security; 
economic efficiency; livelihood 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The agricultural sector plays an important role in ensuring inclusiveness and 
sustainability for future generations. The sector not only provides a 
livelihood for 48 per cent of the rural workforce (Dev 2018), but it also 
ensures food and nutrition security (International Food Policy Research 
Institute 2015) and reduces poverty and malnutrition (World Bank 2008). 
The World Health Organization (WHO) aims to end food insecurity and 
improve nutrition by promoting sustainable agriculture at the global level 
(WHO n.d.). The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines 
sustainable agriculture as “the successful management of resources for 
agriculture to satisfy the changing human needs while maintaining or 
enhancing the quality of the environment and conserving natural resources” 
(FAO 1991, 277). Therefore, a balance between social equity, ecological 
security, and economic efficiency is needed for sustainability in agriculture 
(Swaminathan 1991; Saleth and Swaminathan 1993; Hatai and Sen 2008; 
Singh and Hiremath 2010; Sajjad, Nasreen, and Ansari 2014; Deshmukh 
and Patil 2020).  

In the North Eastern Region (NER) of India, the agricultural sector lacks a 
focus on growth, social equity, and sustainable livelihoods. The sector has 
not been able to adopt inclusive policies to uplift small and marginal 
farmers. The region suffers from severe poverty and malnutrition, improper 
management and over-exploitation of natural resources, and population 
explosion (Barah 2007; Konwar 2015) Historically, economic development 
in the region has lagged behind that of the rest of the country in terms of 
gross domestic product (GDP) as well as per capita GDP between 1993–94 
and 2002–03 (Birthal et al. 2006).  

Roy et al. (2014) found that the region’s agricultural productivity was so low 
from 1972–73 to 2011–12 that it can be considered a food deficit region. 
Thus, it needs to use inputs and sustainable agricultural practices 
judiciously. Based on sustainability indicators such as pest management, 
fertilizer use, soil health, water conservation, biodiversity, and efficient use 
of inputs, Veluguri, Ramanjaneyulu, and Jaacks (2019) assess the Indian 
agricultural sector’s dependence on natural resources. They found that 
Arunachal Pradesh (5%) is the only high-performing state in the NER, with 
the most vulnerable states in the region being Meghalaya (47%), Assam 
(43%), and Nagaland (42%). Factors like natural calamities, a large 



[23] Ankur Jain, Neela Madhaba Sheekha and Sandip Tanu Mandal 

percentage of smallholders, limited use of agri-inputs, low crop 
diversification, and negligible seed/variety replacement threaten the 
sustainability of the region’s livelihoods (Barah 2007).  

There is a pressing need to develop the NER, particularly its agricultural 
sector, by implementing the right agricultural policies. The region has the 
potential to increase its farm income and enhance its food and nutrition 
security. It is rich in natural resources, has abundant water, and has a 
favourable climate for agricultural production (Barah 2007; Birthal 2010). In 
addition, the region shares international borders with Bhutan, China, 
Myanmar, and Bangladesh, giving it an advantage in the international trade 
of agricultural products. Unfortunately, agricultural production in the NER 
is yet to realize its full growth potential, and the marketing of its products 
remains inadequate. The literature has identified the constraints that limit 
agricultural output in the NER, such as a lack of system-specific production 
technologies, a lack of infrastructure, and unfavourable agrarian policies 
(Birthal et al. 2006; Birthal 2010; Syiem and Raj 2015; Dev 2018). Hence, the 
region has failed to convert its strengths into growth opportunities, and it 
lags behind the rest of the country. High population growth, with a large 
proportion of small and marginal farmers, forms the context for any effort 
targeting livelihood sustainability in the NER (Barah 2007; Dev 2018). 
Farmers in this region use low-input agricultural practices that result in low 
yield (Barah 2007). In an estimation of the income and consumption of 
small and marginal farmers for the NSS Situation Assessment Survey 2013, Dev 
(2018) states that the income they earn is not sufficient to meet their daily 
consumption requirements. Hence, non-farm employment opportunities 
need to be promoted for inclusive and sustainable agricultural growth in the 
region.  

These issues are a threat to the sustainability of agricultural livelihoods. 
There is a dearth of literature on agriculture sustainability in the NER that 
quantifies sustainability at the state level. This study contributes to 
policymaking in the region by informing the allocation of investment 
projects according to social equity, ecological security, and economic 
efficiency requirements. Measuring agricultural sustainability in the NER 
can contribute toward improving regional imbalances and serve as an 
important micro-indicator for analysing progress towards sustainability. 

Given the entrenched problems of the region, the study aims to identify the 
key indicators of agricultural sustainability for inclusive and sustainable 
agricultural development. The paper proceeds by discussing the data 
collection and methodology adopted for determining the sustainable 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [24] 

livelihood security index (SLSI) in Section 2. Section 3 measures the status 
of sustainable livelihood agriculture and is followed by a discussion in 
Section 4. Finally, Section 5 gives the conclusions and policy implications.  

2. DATA, METHODOLOGY, AND SELECTION OF VARIABLES 
FOR THE STUDY 

2.1 Description of the Study Area 

The (NER) comprises eight states, namely, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, 
Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura. Agriculture 
in the NER is characterized as subsistence, low-input, and technically 
backward (Alam 1993; Birthal et al. 2006). 

 

Figure 1: Location of the Study Area 

 
Source:  Authors’ 

The region is economically backward, with agriculture serving as the main 
source of occupation. The region is marked by inter-state socio-economic 
inequalities (Alam 1993; Padhi et al. 2020). The NER faces several 
challenges, such as the prevalence of traditional subsistence agriculture and 
hill agriculture (Alam 1993; Birthal et al. 2006; Jeeva, Christopher, and 
Mishra 2006; Barah 2007; Birthal 2010). Shifting cultivation (jhum) is still 
prevalent in the NER, although it is considered economically unfeasible and 
environmentally destructive (Bezbaruah 2006). In addition, the region’s 
growth potential is limited by poor infrastructure such as poorly developed 



[25] Ankur Jain, Neela Madhaba Sheekha and Sandip Tanu Mandal 

roads and markets (Alam 1993; Birthal 2010; Ghosh 2019). None of the 
markets in the NER is part of the e-NAM (Electronic Nation Agriculture 
Market). Moreover, the region lacks economies of scale. In the NER, 
though the average farm holding size is more than the national average, 
with Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh reporting the largest average farm 
holdings in the region, in some states, such as Tripura, Manipur, Meghalaya, 
and Mizoram, the percentage share of small and marginal farmers is greater 
than that in all of India. This shows the disparity in landholding size within 
the NER. Even though the region is well endowed with natural and human 
resources, it lags behind the national average in terms of socio-economic 
conditions. There is high multidimensional poverty and inequality, poor 
sanitation facilities (drinking water, electricity, and toilets), poor 
infrastructure (road and rail density), low levels of education, and low per 
capita monthly expenditure (Konwar 2015).  

2.2 Data Sources 

Secondary data for this study were collected from the Population Census of 
India (2011), Government of India; North Eastern Region (NER) 
Databank; North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd. 
(NEDFi); and Agriculture Statistics at a Glance, Government of India; Basic 
Statistics of North Eastern Region (2015), Basic Road Statistics of India (2013–14 
and 2014–15) and the human development reports of the North Eastern 
States.  

2.3 Methodology 

Various approaches are used to measure the sustainable development of the 
agricultural sector, such as agroecosystem analysis (Conway 1985), 
mathematical programming–based simulations (Parikh 1988), dynamic 
programming (Saleth 1991), and carrying-capacity evaluations (Food and 
Agriculture Organization 1984). However, these methodologies require 
time series data, which are not available periodically. Further, they lack 
transparency and do not capture every dimension of agricultural 
sustainability. The SLSI approach is simpler, more transparent, and more 
information efficient. The SLSI, developed by the United Nations 
Development Programme (UNDP), is a widely used methodology. It is a 
relative approach underlying the human development index (Saleth and 
Swaminathan 1993; Hatai and Sen 2008; Singh and Hiremath 2010; 
Deshmukh and Patil 2020). It is a composite index of the social equity 
index (SEI), economic efficiency index (EEI), and ecological security index 
(ESI). It takes into account multiple dimensions of social security, 
economic efficiency, and ecological security to measure the relative 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [26] 

livelihood sustainability status of a given cross-sectional set of entities 
(UNDP 1992).  

Assuming Xijk and SLSIijk are the values of the ith variable, the jth 
component of the kth state and the index for the ith variable represent the 
jth component of the SLSI of the kth state, respectively. 

 

 

 

where i = variables (1, 2, 3……I) 

          j = component (1, 2, 3…..J) 

          k = states (1, 2, 3……..K) 

 

Equation (1) is used to measure the SLSI when there is a positive 
relationship between the chosen variable and the SLSI; equation (2) is used 
when there is a negative relationship between the chosen variable and the 
SLSI; equation (3) represents the simple mean of the various components 
of the SLSI such as the SEI, EEI, and ESI. Equal weight is assigned to all 
the variables selected for calculating the SLSI. Simple arithmetic means are 
computed at two stages to arrive at the final value of the SLSI. In the first 
stage, the simple arithmetic mean is computed to find the value of the 
various components of the SLSI. In the second stage, the arithmetic mean 
of various components is computed to capture the value of the SLSI. The 
value of the SLSI lies between 0 and 1, where values close to 0 indicate low 
sustainability, and those near 1 mean high sustainability. 

2.4 Selection of Variables for Agricultural Sustainability 

Agricultural sustainability is inter-linked with diverse social, economic, and 
ecological indicators; identifying the right indicators that have the greatest 
impact is a significant challenge (Swaminathan 1991; Saleth and 
Swaminathan 1993; Hatai and Sen 2008; Singh and Hiremath 2010; Sajjad, 



[27] Ankur Jain, Neela Madhaba Sheekha and Sandip Tanu Mandal 

Nasreen, and Ansari 2014; Deshmukh and Patil 2020). The challenge in 
conducting such an assessment lies in selecting the appropriate variables for 
the analysis. Figure 2 shows the relationship between these indicators and 
livelihood sustainability. Any indicator linked to low sustainability threatens 
livelihood security and vice-versa. 

 
Figure 2: The Sustainable Livelihood Security Index and Its Components 

 

Source: Authors’ compilation 

To address this challenge, we selected 12 variables from the three 
components of agricultural sustainability based on the literature review and 
identified the implications of these variables for sustainable economic 
development. The selected variables reflect the overall social, economic, 
and ecological aspects of agricultural systems in the NER. Table 1 lays out 
the components, criteria, and indicators for evaluating the SLSI in the 
NER. 

Ecological Security: It is assessed by examining four key variables. These 
are population density (per square km) in 2011, forest cover under gross 
area (%) in 2019, cropping intensity (%) in 2014–15, and total water bodies 
(lakh hectares). Human development (health, education, and skills) helps 
improve standards of living and furthers sustainable economic 
development. Human resource development can help overcome the 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [28] 

sluggish pace of agricultural productivity and growth. However, high 
population density can also put pressure on overall ecological security. And 
so, it is selected as an indicator. Forest cover plays an important role in 
maintaining the ecological balance and contributes significantly to the 
NER’s economy. Forest activities ensure food security and livelihoods for 
those living around the forest. Hence, we consider it one of the criteria for 
ecological security. Cropping intensity indicates the number of crops a 
farmer grows in a given agricultural year on the same field. Due to the 
development of irrigation facilities, more areas have been brought under 
cultivation, and farming communities can now raise more than one crop on 
the same land in the same year. In assessing agricultural sustainability in the 
context of ecological security, the cropping intensity variable plays a 
significant role. Irrigation plays a key role in both stabilizing agricultural 
production and increasing cropping intensity and has an associated effect 
on increasing productivity and improving the region’s food security. Barah 
(2007) highlights that the NER states produce diversified crops using fewer 
chemical fertilizers and have the potential to go organic throughout the 
year. In line with Hatai and Sen (2008) and Sajjad et al. (2014), we use the 
cropping intensity variable to measure ecological security. Water bodies play 
an important role in maintaining the ecological balance and providing 
irrigation facilities for the agricultural sector. Hence, this is an important 
variable for measuring ecological sustainability. 

Economic Efficiency: It is captured by four variables: yield rate of rice (kg 
per hectare) in 2017, per capita output of food grains (kg per annum), gross 
irrigated area (thousand hectares) in 2015–16, and per capita NSDP at 
constant prices in 2018–19, with 2011–12 as the base year. Rice is the staple 
food in the NER. The yield rate of rice is an important variable in 
determining economic efficiency as it is a major crop cultivated in the NER. 
An increase in the per capita output of food grains can ensure food security 
and reduce poverty in select states in the region. Gross irrigated area is also 
an important variable in measuring the EEI, because with an increase in the 
gross irrigated area, cropping intensity increases as well. This leads to an 
increase in the production of total food grains and generates employment 
opportunities for those who depend on the primary sector for their 
livelihood. Per capita income is an indicator of human development that 
measures the overall standard of living in an economy. Therefore, an 
increase in per capita income can increase economic efficiency. 

 



[29] Ankur Jain, Neela Madhaba Sheekha and Sandip Tanu Mandal 

Table 1: Components, Criteria, and Indicators for Evaluating the SLSI in the NER 

Component Criteria Indicator (+/-ve) 

Ecological 
security 

Puts pressure on resources 

Population density (-ve) 

Forest cover (+ve) 

Cropping intensity (+ve) 

Total water bodies (+ve) 

Reduces pollution and 
provides resources 

Ensure crop diversification 
and soil health 

Maintains ecological balance 

Economic 
efficiency 

Agriculture production 

Food security 

Cropping pattern 

Income 

Rice yield (+ve) 

Per capita output of food 
grains (+ve) 

Gross irrigated area (+ve) 

Per capita NSDP at constant 
prices (+ve) 

Social equity 

Women’s empowerment Female literacy (+ve) 

Poverty and inequality Population under BPL (-ve) 

Infrastructure  Rural road connectivity (+ve) 

Agriculture mechanization Villages electrified (+ve) 

Source: Authors’ own criteria adopted from literature 

Social Equity: The variables selected to measure social equity are female 
literacy (%) in 2011, population below the poverty line (BPL) in 2011–12, 
rural road connectivity (km) in 2011, and village electrification (%) in 2013. 
The female literacy rate encourages women to participate in the process of 
nation-building and can stabilize the growth rate of the population as 
education leads to lower birth rates and slows population growth. The 
percentage of the BPL population captures inequality in accessing 
resources. It measures the extent of hardships an individual faces in terms 
of ownership of assets, income, indebtedness, employment facilities, access 
to hygiene, food consumption, housing facilities, etc. Rural road 
connectivity is a crucial element of rural infrastructure and economic 
growth. Poor road connectivity reflects the backwardness of a region. 
Village electrification is a major concern in the NER. The lack of electricity 
supply has frozen the growth rate of different sectors in the economy. 
Thus, it is a prerequisite of social equity for achieving agricultural livelihood 
security. 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [30] 

3. RESULTS 

As most of the population in the NER depends on the agricultural sector 
either directly or indirectly, it is pertinent to make agriculture economically 
and ecologically sustainable. There are a lot of constraints that limit the 
development of the agricultural sector in the NER, such as the presence of 
hilly areas, the practise of shifting cultivation, and a lack of technology, 
markets, and infrastructure. This sector has huge untapped potential for 
development, which can improve people’s livelihoods. Measuring 
agricultural sustainability in this region can improve regional imbalances and 
serve as an important micro-indicator for analysing progress towards 
sustainability. 

Tables 2–4 show the raw data used to calculate the ecological, economic, 
and social equity variables for the region. Large variations among all the 
selected 12 variables can be seen in this table. 

Table 2: Ecological Variables Selected to Study Agricultural Sustainability in the 
North Eastern Region 

States 

Ecological Security 

Population 
density/km 
sq. 

Percentage 
of forest 
cover in GA 
2019 

Cropping 
intensity 
2014–15 (%) 

Total water 
bodies (lakh 
hectare) 

 Arunachal 
Pradesh 17 79.63 132.8 3.18 

Assam 398 36.11 144.4 1.35 

Manipur 115 75.46 100 0.10 

Meghalaya 132 76.33 120 0.10 

Mizoram 52 85.41 100 0.02 

Nagaland 119 75.31 130.3 0.67 

Sikkim 86 47.1 176 0.03 

Tripura 350 73.68 189.3 0.18 

     

Source: Government of India (2018), NEDFi (n.d.), Census (2011) 

Table 5 shows the variations in the individual indices of the selected 
variables for calculating the ESI, EEI, and SEI. In the population density 



[31] Ankur Jain, Neela Madhaba Sheekha and Sandip Tanu Mandal 

index, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram are the best-performing states with 
a low population density and Tripura and Assam are the worst-performing 
states with the highest population density. The pressure on natural 
resources due to the large populations in Assam and Tripura has resulted in 
the degradation of the ecological balance. Forests play a pivotal role in the 
socio-economic development of the NER. There is a large tribal population 
in this region that depends on forest resources for their livelihoods 
(Viswanathan 2015). In terms of forest cover, the states of Arunachal 
Pradesh and Mizoram rank the highest. Sikkim and Assam have the least 
proportion of area under forest cover. Tripura and Sikkim perform the best 
in terms of cropping intensity; Manipur and Mizoram show very low 
cropping intensity. This is in support of Birthal’s (2010) findings, which 
show that cropping intensity in most states except Assam and Arunachal 
Pradesh is low, at 104 to 120 per cent. Most of the agriculture sector in the 
region is rainfed. In terms of water bodies, Arunachal Pradesh and Assam 
are the richest states, while Mizoram and Sikkim lack water resources. 
Cultivation in the post-rainy season is restricted due to under-developed 
irrigation infrastructures (Birthal 2010). 

Table 3: Economic Variables Selected for Agricultural Sustainability in the North 
Eastern Region 

States 

Economic Efficiency  

Rice 
yield 
(2017) 
(Kg per 
ha) 

Per capita 
output of 
food grain 
(Kg/annum) 

Gross 
irrigated 
area 
2015–16 
(‘000 
Ha) 

Per capita NSDP 
at constant price 
2018–19 at 
2011–12 base (in 
INR) 

 Arunachal Pradesh 1767.68 249.77 56 93191 

Assam 2171.03 173.37 388 60470 

Manipur 2567.66 263.19 73 49579 

Meghalaya 2740.25 117.91 127 66223 

Mizoram 1650.48 62.96 31 100934 

Nagaland 1649.19 255.87 114 73276 

Sikkim 1856 145.39 16 232968 

Tripura 2962.77 227.56 117 81057 

Source: Government of India (2018), NEDFi (n.d.), Census (2011) 

 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [32] 

Rice occupies more than 65 per cent of the gross cropped area in Assam, 
Manipur, and Tripura and 33–50 per cent in other states (Birthal 2010). The 
EEI shows that the rice yield index is highest in Tripura and Meghalaya 
while Mizoram and Nagaland are the worst performers. There is ample 
scope for improving the yield of rice in Mizoram and Nagaland. According 
to Roy et al. (2015), a supply-demand analysis of food grains production and 
requirement in this region reveals that Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, 
Manipur, and Tripura are ‘surplus category states’ whereas Meghalaya, 
Mizoram, Assam, and Sikkim have a deficit in food grain production. In 
terms of the food security index, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh are the 
best performers while Mizoram and Meghalaya lack food security the most. 
The irrigation index shows that Assam and Meghalaya have the best 
irrigation facilities in the region while Mizoram and Sikkim lack adequate 
irrigation facilities. There are wide variations in the income index across the 
NER; Sikkim and Mizoram have the high per capita incomes while Assam 
and Manipur have the lowest per capita incomes. 

Table 4: Equity Variables Selected for Agricultural Sustainability in the North 
Eastern Region 

States 

Social Equity  

Female 
literacy 
index Pop BPL 

Rural road 
(2011) 
(Km) 

Villages Electrified 
(as of 31 March 

2013) 

 Arunachal Pradesh 57.7 34.7 21,555 75.5 

Assam 66.3 32 2,41,789 96.1 

Manipur 72.4 36.9 19,133 86.3 

Meghalaya 72.9 11.9 11,984 86.3 

Mizoram 89.3 20.4 9,810 93.5 

Nagaland 76.1 18.9 34,146 70.1 

Sikkim 75.6 8.2 4,630 100 

Tripura 82.7 14.1 33,772 92.9 

Source: Government of India (2018), NEDFi (n.d.), Census (2011) 

Among social equity variables, Tripura and Mizoram have the highest 
female literacy rates while Arunachal Pradesh and Assam report the lowest 
female literacy levels. The literacy rates of all the NER states, except 
Arunachal Pradesh (65.38) and Assam (72.19), surpass all-India levels 
(74.04) (Konwar 2015). There exists a wide disparity in socio-economic 
achievements across NER states and across urban and rural areas. If the 



[33] Ankur Jain, Neela Madhaba Sheekha and Sandip Tanu Mandal 

problems of poor economic growth, low overall development, and gender 
disparities are not properly addressed, the region may fall into the trap of a 
vicious quadrant instead of moving to a virtuous one (Nayak 2009). Poverty 
in the NER is highest in Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh and lowest in 
Sikkim and Meghalaya. According to 2009–10 estimates, Manipur had the 
highest magnitude of poverty followed by Assam. Meanwhile, Sikkim had 
the lowest magnitude of poverty. While 30% of people in India live below 
the poverty line, the corresponding figures for Manipur and Assam were as 
high as 47.1 per cent and 37.9 per cent, respectively. During 2009–10, all 
other states in the region had poverty levels below the national average 
(Nayak 2009).  

Table 5: Individual Indices to Capture the Ecological, Economic, and Equity 
Indices for Agricultural Sustainability in the North Eastern Region 

PDI FCI CII TWBI RYI FSI II YI FLI  PBPLI RRI VEI

Arunachal 

Pradesh
1 0.88 0.37 1 0.09 0.93 0.1 0.2 0 0.08 0.07 0.18

Assam 0 0 0.5 0.42 0.4 0.55 1 0.1 0.27 0.17 1 0.87

Manipur 0.74 0.8 0 0.02 0.7 1 0.2 0 0.46 0 0.06 0.54

Meghalaya 0.69 0.81 0.22 0.02 0.83 0.27 0.3 0.1 0.48 0.87 0.03 0.54

Mizoram 0.91 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 1 0.57 0.02 0.78

Nagaland 0.73 0.79 0.34 0.21 0 0.96 0.3 0.1 0.58 0.62 0.12 0

Sikkim 0.82 0.22 0.85 0 0.16 0.41 0 1 0.56 1 0 1

Tripura 0.13 0.76 1 0.05 1 0.82 0.3 0.2 0.79 0.79 0.12 0.76

States

Ecological Security 

Index

Economic 

Efficiency Index
Social Equity Index

Source: Authors’ calculation  

Note: PDI: population density index, FCI: forest cover index, CII: cropping 
intensity index, TWBI: total water bodies index, RYI: rice yield index, FSI: food 
security index, II: irrigation index, YI: income index, FLI: female literacy index.    

The condition of rural roads in the NER is abysmal. The rural road index is 
very low in all the states except Assam. Access to electricity is a basic 
amenity and acts as an index of industrialization (Nayak 2013). The villages 
in Assam and Sikkim have good electricity facilities while those in 
Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland have poor electricity facilities. 

 

 

 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [34] 

Table 6: Agricultural Sustainability in the North Eastern Region 

States ESI 
ESI 

Rank EEI 
EEI 
Rank SEI 

SEI 
Rank 

SLS
I 

SSLI 
Rank 

Arunachal 
Pradesh 0.81 1 0.34 6 0.08 8 0.41 5 

Assam 0.23 8 0.50 2 0.58 4 0.44 3 

Manipur 0.39 7 0.46 3 0.27 7 0.37 8 

Meghalaya 0.44 6 0.37 5 0.48 5 0.43 4 

Mizoram 0.48 4 0.08 8 0.59 3 0.38 7 

Nagaland 0.52 2 0.34 7 0.33 6 0.40 6 

Sikkim 0.47 5 0.39 4 0.64 1 0.50 2 

Tripura 0.48 3 0.57 1 0.62 2 0.56 1 

Source: Authors’ calculation 

The results of this study reveal that the sustainability indexes for the NER 
states ranged from 0.23 to 0.81 for ESI, 0.08 to 0.56 for EEI, and 0.08 to 
0.64 for SEI. This demonstrates that the agricultural systems of all the states 
have considerable variations in their ecological, economic, and social equity 
indicators. The SLSI ranged from 0.37 to 0.56. This shows the poor status 
of agricultural sustainability in NE India. When we consider the ESI, 
Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland are the best performers while Manipur 
and Assam are the worst ones. Therefore, it is suggested that 
environmentally friendly policy measures be adopted in Manipur, Assam, 
and all other states where the ESI value is low. In the case of EEI, Tripura 
and Assam are the best performers while Nagaland and Mizoram stand last. 
This is due to the low per capita income, less area under irrigation, deficit in 
the demand-supply of food grains, and low productivity of rice in these 
states. Hence, economic policies should be improved upon in states where 
the value of the EEI is low, and measures related to enhancing income and 
increasing investment in the agriculture sector should be taken. In the case 
of the SEI, Sikkim and Tripura are the best performers and Manipur and 
Arunachal Pradesh are the worst. This is due to severe poverty, low literacy, 
and poor infrastructure. Therefore, measures such as providing better 
education, especially for women, strengthening poverty alleviation 
programmes, and developing infrastructure, such as roads in rural areas and 
electricity in villages, should be given priority to improve the SEI. Overall 
agricultural sustainability is represented by the SLSI, which shows that 
Tripura and Sikkim are the best performers and Mizoram and Manipur the 



[35] Ankur Jain, Neela Madhaba Sheekha and Sandip Tanu Mandal 

worst. There is a pressing need to improve overall agricultural sustainability 
in Manipur and Mizoram and other states where the SLSI is low. 

Figure 3: ESI, The EEI, SEI and SLSI Maps of the North Eastern States         

  

  

Source: Authors’ calculation   

4. DISCUSSION 

There is a consensus among researchers that a robust operational definition 
of agricultural sustainability based on indicators and indices is a prerequisite 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [36] 

for the proper design, implementation, and monitoring of agricultural 
policies targeting agriculture sustainability at the farm level. The SLSI can 
be considered an important indicator in policymaking and decision-making 
surrounding sustainable agricultural production. The NER has a lot of 
potential for the development of agriculture and allied sectors, as this region 
has both geographical and climatic advantages. Agricultural growth can 
improve the livelihoods of people in the region. The factors of low 
livelihoods, backwardness, and poor agricultural productivity have strong 
relationships with each other; this is reflected in the SLSI indices of the 
selected states. Efforts should be made to adopt new technologies and 
educate farmers about them. In particular, policies should aim to enhance 
the yield effect of high agricultural growth by improving access to high-
quality seeds in this region and by encouraging the development of new 
varieties through biotechnology research. There is not much literature on 
agricultural research in the NER. We suggest that more research be 
conducted on the region, especially on agriculture and allied sectors. Land 
and water management and resource-use efficiency should be given priority 
to increasing cropping intensity. There is a need to increase public spending 
to improve rural road connectivity and post-harvest market infrastructures 
such as cold storage and rural godowns; this would help farmers progress 
towards sustainable agriculture. 

5. CONCLUSION 

Agricultural sustainability in the NER is facing challenges due to low 
agriculture productivity, low crop diversification, fragmentation of 
landholdings, poor infrastructure, and few employment opportunities. The 
situation in Manipur, Mizoram, and Nagaland, when we consider all the 
components of the SLSI, is distressing. The SLSI reveals regional disparities 
in ecological, economic, and social equity variables in the NER. Tripura 
ranks first, with an SLSI value of 0.56. Manipur and Mizoram are ranked 
seventh and eighth, respectively. The states with low SLSI values should be 
given priority in policymaking according to the values of the components of 
the SLSI. The conditions of Nagaland, Manipur, and Mizoram indicate an 
urgent need to improve ecological, economic, and social equity parameters 
in these states.  

5.1 Limitations of This Study 

Construction of the SLSI using time series data could help improve the 
progress of different development interventions aimed at sustainable 
development in general and livelihood security in particular. Future research 
agendas could include the evaluation of the SLSI at the district level in the 



[37] Ankur Jain, Neela Madhaba Sheekha and Sandip Tanu Mandal 

NER. This study does not include allied sectors such as livestock, fisheries, 
and sericulture. Efforts should be made to measure sustainability at the 
farm level, as conditions in hilly terrains are very different from those in the 
plains. There is a dearth of time series databases related to these ecological, 
economic, and social indicators, particularly in the NER. The selected 
variables for measuring the SLSI are comprehensive but not exhaustive; 
other variables can be looked at for measuring sustainability. The weights 
assigned to the different variables in measuring various components of the 
SLSI are not calculated using scientific methods as all the variables 
considered in SLSI are given equal weights. 

5.2 Policy Implications 

The SLSI and its components can be used to eradicate regional imbalances 
in social equity, ecological security, and economic efficiency. In states that 
have a low ESI, such as Assam and Manipur, policymakers must give 
priority to ecological restoration by emphasizing afforestation, cropping 
intensity, and crop diversification practices. Some states, such as Nagaland 
and Mizoram, are the worst performers in terms of EEI, which indicates 
that policymakers need to address food security and agriculture 
productivity, expand irrigation sources, and promote more employment 
opportunities. In terms of social equity, the worst performing states are 
Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram; these states require policymakers to 
invest in social infrastructures such as female literacy, roads in rural areas, 
the capacity and distribution of electricity in rural areas, and welfare 
programmes to alleviate poverty. Policymakers must evaluate the SLSI and 
its components periodically to progress towards agriculture sustainability so 
that the potential to increase farm income and enhance food and nutrition 
security can be reached in this region. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The authors acknowledge the valuable suggestions provided by the referee 
to improve the quality of this research article. 

REFERENCES 

Alam, K (Ed). 1993. Agricultural Development in Northeast India Constraints and Prospects. 
New Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications. 

Barah, B C. 2007. “Strategies for Agricultural Development in Northeast India: 
Challenges and Emerging Opportunities.” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 62 
(1): 1–19. https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/inijae/204500.html. 

https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/inijae/204500.html


 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [38] 

Bezbaruah, M P. 2006. “Agricultural Development in the North-East: Status, 
Assessment and Prospects.” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 (3): 561–570. 
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/204484.  

Birthal, Pratap Singh. 2010. “Unlocking the Potential of Agriculture in North-
eastern Hill Region of India.” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 65 (3): 1–15. 
https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/inijae/204687.html.  

Birthal, Pratap Singh, Awadhesh K Jha, Pramod Kumar Joshi, and D K Singh. 
2006. “Agricultural Diversification in North Eastern Region of India: Implications 
for Growth and Equity.” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 (3); 328–340. 
https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/inijae/204466.html. 

Census of India. 2011. Population Census of India, 2011. Office of Registrar General, 
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. 
https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website/. 

Convoy, Gordon R. 1985. “Agroecosystem Analysis.” Agricultural Administration 
20(1): 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-586X(85)90064-0. 

Deshmukh, M S and Digvijay R Patil. 2020. “Economic Analysis of Agricultural 
Sustainability in Satara District of Maharashtra.” Agricultural Situation in India 77 (3): 
11–21. 

Dev, S Mahendra. 2018. “Transformation of Indian Agriculture? Growth 
Inclusiveness and Sustainability.” Working Paper 2018-026. Mumbai: Indira 
Gandhi Institute of Development Research. 

FAO. 1984. “Potential Population Supporting Capacities of Land in the 
Developing Countries.” Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. 

FAO. 1991. “Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development in Asia and Pacific.” 
Regional Document No. 2, FAO/Netherlands Conference on Agriculture and the 
Environment, Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands, 15–19 April. Rome: Food and 
Agriculture Organization.  

Ghosh, Sujan. 2019. “Is the Indian Government Impeding Infrastructure 
Development in North East India?” Economic & Political Weekly 54 (17).  

Government of India. 2013. Basic Road Statistics of India, 2012–13. New Delhi: 
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India. 

Government of India. 2018. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2018. New Delhi: 
Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government 
of India. 

Government of India. 2020. Economic Survey, 2019–20. New Delhi: Economic 
Division, Ministry of Finance. 

Government of India. 2015. “Basic Statistics of the North Eastern Region.” 
Shillong: North Eastern Council Secretariate and Ministry of Development of 
North Eastern Region.  

Hatai, L D and Chandra Sen. 2008. “An Economic Analysis of Agricultural 
Sustainability in Orissa.” Agricultural Economics Research Review 21 (2): 273–282. 
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/47682. 

https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/204484
https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/inijae/204687.html
https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/inijae/204466.html
https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-586X(85)90064-0
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/47682


[39] Ankur Jain, Neela Madhaba Sheekha and Sandip Tanu Mandal 

International Food Policy Research Institute. 2015. “2014–2015 Global Food 
Policy Report.” Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/9780896295759.  

Jain, Ankur. 2018. “Analysis of Growth and Instability in Area, Production, Yield 
and Price of Rice in India.” Social Change and Development 15 (2): 46–66. 

Jeeva, Solomon Retna Dhas Nadar, Roytre Christopher, and Bhanu Prakash 
Mishra. 2006. “Traditional Agricultural Practices in Meghalaya, North East India.” 
Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 5 (1): 7–18. 
http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/6792/1/IJTK%205%281%29%20
%282006%29%207-18.pdf    

Konwar, Paranan. 2015. “Socio-economic Conditions, Inequality and Deprivations 
in North East India.” Munich Personal RePEc Archive. https://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/id/eprint/65407.  

NSSO. 2012. National Sample Survey 2011–2012 (68th Round). New Delhi: National 
Sample Survey Organization, Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, 
Government of India.  

Nayak, Purusottam. 2009. “Human Development in Northeastern Region of India: 
Issues and Challenges.” SSRN Electronic Journal. 
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1464204.  

Nayak, Purusottam. 2013. “Development and Deprivation in Meghalaya.” SSRN 
Electronic Journal. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2342684 

NEDFi. n.d. North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Databank. 
https://databank.nedfi.com/.  

North Eastern Council and Government of India. 2017. “North Eastern Council 
Regional Plan (2017–18 to 2019–20).” 
https://necouncil.gov.in/sites/default/files/about-
us/Final%20Regional%20Plan%20NEC%2025_04_2017.pdf. 

Padhi, Balakrushna, M K Khan, and Lalhriatchiani. 2020. “A Poverty 
Decomposition Analysis for the Northeastern Region of India.” Review of 
Development and Change 25 (2): 237-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972266120979429  

Parikh, J K (Ed). 2013. Sustainable Development of Agriculture. Springer Science and 
Business Media. 

Roy, A, D S Dkhar, A K Tripathi, N U Singh, D Kumar, S K Das, and A Debnath. 
2014. “Growth Performance of Agriculture and Allied Sectors in North East 
India.” Economic Affairs 59: 783–95. 

Roy, A, N U Singh, D S Dkhar, A K Mohanty, S B Singh, and A K Tripathi. 2015. 
“Food Security in North East Region of India: A State-wise Analysis.” Agricultural 
Economics Research Review 28: 259–266. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-
0279.2015.00041.5. 

Sajjad, Haroon, Iffat Nasreen, and Shahzad Ali Ansari. 2014. “Assessing 
Spatiotemporal Variation in Agricultural Sustainability Using Sustainable Livelihood 
Security Index: Empirical Illustration from Vaishali District of Bihar, India.” 

http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/9780896295759
http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/6792/1/IJTK%205%281%29%20%282006%29%207-18.pdf
http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/6792/1/IJTK%205%281%29%20%282006%29%207-18.pdf
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/65407
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/65407
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1464204
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2342684
https://necouncil.gov.in/sites/default/files/about-us/Final%20Regional%20Plan%20NEC%2025_04_2017.pdf
https://necouncil.gov.in/sites/default/files/about-us/Final%20Regional%20Plan%20NEC%2025_04_2017.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/0972266120979429
https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-0279.2015.00041.5
https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-0279.2015.00041.5


 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [40] 

Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38 (1): 46–68. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2013.820251.  

Saleth, R M. 1991. “Measuring Sustainability in a Regional and Resource-Specific 
Context: The Case of a Groundwater Aquifer System.” Discussion Paper No. 46, 
Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Bombay. 

Saleth, R M. 1993. “Developing Indicators of Sustainable Development at the 
Global Level: Approach, Framework and Empirical Illustrations.” Delhi: Institute 
of Economic Growth. 

Saleth, R M and M S Swaminathan. 1993. “Sustainable Livelihood Security at the 
Household Level: Concept and Evaluation Methodology.” In Proceedings of an 
Interdisciplinary Dialogue on Ecotechnology and Rural Employment, Chennai, 12–
15 April, 105–122. 

Singh, P K and B N Hiremath. 2010. “Sustainable Livelihood Security Index in a 
Developing Country: A Tool for Development Planning.” Ecological Indicators 10 (2): 
442–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.07.015.  

Swaminathan, M S. 1991. “From Stockholm to Rio de Janeiro: The Road to 
Sustainable Agriculture (Monograph No. 4).” Madras: MS Swaminathan Research 
Foundation. 

Syiem, Rebekka, and Saravanan Raj. 2015. “Access and Usage of ICTs for 
Agriculture and Rural Development by the Tribal Farmers in Meghalaya State of 
North-East India.” Journal of Agricultural Informatics 6 (3): 24–41. 
https://doi.org/10.17700/jai.2015.6.3.190. 

Veluguri, Divya, G V Ramanjaneyulu, and Lindsay Jaacks. 2019. “Statewise Report 
Cards on Ecological Sustainability of Agriculture in India.” Economic & Political 
Weekly 54 (26–27): 19–27.  

Vishwanathan, K U. 2015. “Is Growth in Agriculture Propelled by Its Allied 
Sectors in Northeast India?” Agricultural Economics Research Review 28: 69–80. 
https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-0279.2015.00023.3.  

World Bank. 2008. “World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for 
Development.” Washington, DC: World Bank. 

World Health Organization. n.d. “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).” 
https://www.who.int/health-topics/sustainable-development-goals#tab=tab_3.  

 



[41] Ankur Jain, Neela Madhaba Sheekha and Sandip Tanu Mandal 

APPENDIX 

Table 5: Socio-economic Profile of the North Eastern States of India 

Compone

nts
Year Units AP Assam Manipur

Meghalay

a
Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura All India

Geographi

cal area
2011 Sq km 83,743 78,438 22,327 22,429 21,081 16,579 7,096 10,486 32,87,263

Total 

population
2011 Lakhs 13.8 311.6 27.2 29.6 10.9 19.8 6.1 36.7 1,210.20

Sex ratio 2011 Nos. 938 958 992 989 976 931 890 960 940

Population 

density
2011 Nos. 17 398 115 132 52 119 86 350 382

Literacy 

rate
2011 % 65.38 72.19 79.21 74.43 91.33 79.55 81.42 87.22 74.04

Total 

forest area
2011 Sq km 51,540 26,832 17,418 9,496 16,717 9,222 5,841 6,294 6,92,027

Total road 

length
2011 Km 21,555 2,41,789 19,133 11,984 9,810 34,146 4,630 33,772 46,90,342

Total 

persons 

below the 

poverty 

line 

(NSSO 

68
th 

Round)

2011-12 % 34.67 31.98 36.89 11.87 20.4 18.88 8.19 14.05 21.92

Reporting 

area for 

land 

utilization 

statistics

2014-15 Th ha 7,228 7,844 2,117 2,242 2,039 1,652 442 1,049 3,07,813

Net sown 

area
2014-15 Th ha 225 2,827 383 286 145 384 77 255 1,40,130

Gross 

cropped 

area

2014-15 Th ha 299 4,083 383 343 145 500 136 483 1,98,360

Agricultural land2014-15 Th ha 423 3,364 390 1,056 367 694 97 272 1,81,886

Cropping 

intensity
2014-15 % 132.8 144.4 100 120 100 130.3 176 189.3 141.6

 

Source: Census (2011), Government of India (2018), NSSO (68th Round) (2012) 

Table 6: Sector-wise Share of Contribution in GDP in the North Eastern States of 
India (%). 

2011-

12

2018-

19

2011-

12

2019-

20

2011-

12

2018-

19

2011-

12

2019-

20

2011-

12

2018-

19

2011-

12

2018-

19

2011-

12

2018-

19

2011-

12

2018-

19

Primary 44.1 31 20.8 23.2 31.4 26 22.32 19.42 19.77 15.7 31.88 27.3 33.48 36.79 8.35 8.38

Secondary 17.2 24.7 19.8 25.6 12.4 12.3 32.97 16.89 15.4 16.9 21.59 25.7 14.11 16.25 62.83 64.14

Tertiary 38.7 44.3 59.4 51.3 56.2 61.7 44.72 63.69 64.84 67.4 46.53 47 52.4 46.96 28.82 27.48

Total 

GSVA
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Assam Tripura Sikkim

Sector

AP Mizoram Nagaland Meghalaya Manipur

 

Source: Northeast Databank (https://databank.nedfi.com/)  



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [42] 

 
Table 7: State-wise Annual Growth of Gross State Domestic Product at Constant 
Prices (2011–12) (as of 15 March 2020) 

State 

Percentage Growth over the Previous Year 

2012–

13 

2013–

14 

2014–

15 

2015–

16 

2016–

17 

2017–

18 

2018–

19 

2019–

20 

Arunachal 

Pradesh 2.14 9.2 16.57 -0.99 3.55 8.12 4.59 NA 

Assam 2.91 4.88 6.92 15.67 5.74 13.18 7.97 NA 

Manipur 0.61 8.64 8 7.73 4.01 3.88 6.44 NA 

Meghalaya 2.19 1.83 -2.74 2.38 5.29 9.26 9.04 9.48 

Mizoram 7.15 16.21 24.59 9.44 10.32 4.8 1.3 11.64 

Nagaland 5.68 7.19 4.39 1.82 6.75 5.34 7.05 NA 

Sikkim 2.29 6.07 7.9 9.93 7.15 6.95 7.05 NA 

Tripura 8.67 9.32 18.17 -0.66 14 10.17 10.85 NA 

Source: Northeast Databank (https://databank.nedfi.com/)  

Table 8: Operational Holdings by Size Group among the North Eastern States 
(%), 2015–16 

State 

Margin

al 

Sma

ll 

Semi-

medium 

Mediu

m 

Larg

e 

All 

holdings 

Arunachal 

Pradesh 24.0 21.2 25.6 23.2 5.9 100 

Assam 68.1 18.1 10.8 2.9 0.1 100 

Manipur 51.0 32.4 14.8 1.8 0.0 100 

Meghalaya 52.8 25.9 17.2 4.0 0.1 100 

Mizoram 50.1 30.6 15.4 3.6 0.3 100 

Nagaland 4.0 14.7 31.7 37.6 11.9 100 

Sikkim 65.8 18.9 11.2 3.6 0.5 100 

Tripura 87.9 8.4 3.2 0.4 0.0 100 

All India 68.5 17.7 9.5 3.8 0.6 100 

 Source: Government of India (2018) 

 


