The Economics of

Organic Farming and Transition

from
Non-organic to Organic Farming

N Kim Guite
General Manager
Reserve Bank of India
2016

In Association with:
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad

Page 1 of 71
Acknowledgements:

Dr. G.V. Ramanjaneyulu, Executive Director, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA):
for imparting your expert guidance, domain knowledge and support. Words are not
enough to express your commitment and contribution to this study.

Smt. Dilnavaz Variava, Director, Sahayak Education Trust, for using your editorial scalpel
and chiselling the innumerable drafts and bringing the report into the shape and form it
now is in. Also, your coordination in fixing appointments with various individuals who
have experience in the field of organic farming

The individual farmers and various Farmers’ Organizations, Associations and Unions in
Telangana and Wardha who had sacrificed their precious time to interact with me and be
interviewed. More importantly, I appreciate the first hand practical experiences which you
shared during the course of the interactions.

The Staff of CSA (Hyderabad) and Sahayak Education Trust (Wardha) for the logistical
support including being my translator.

The Reserve Bank of India, my employer, for giving me the opportunity to learn and
expand my horizon of farming in general and organic farming in particular.

Page 2 of 71
 Table of Contents

Sl. Topic Page

No. No.
1 Introduction 7-8
 Objective of the paper
 Methodology
2 The Agrarian Crisis
i. The Economic Crisis 9-14
 Agriculture for livelihood: Is it viable?
 Agriculture: Is it sustainable?
 Agriculture & procurement policy: Is it helping the
farmer?
 Chemical agriculture: Is it healthy? Insights from field
visit at Wardha, Maharashtra
 The economics in chemical farming: Findings
ii. The Ecological Crisis 14-22
 Challenges
 Increasing land area for cultivation
 Consumption of fertilizers: Impact on yield
 Unhealthy nutrient mix
 Depleting groundwater level and quality
 Soil erosion and reduced carbon levels
iii. The Climatic Crisis 23-25
Organic Farming: Success Story 1: 15-17
Changing Course: From Hi-Tech to Right-Tech: Shri. Subhash
Sharma, Yavatmal, Maharashtra, India
3 Alternative Sustainable Farming? The Case for Organic Farming 26-35
 Organic agriculture: what is it?
 Organic farming: What are its principles?
 Organic farming: What are the techniques?
 Sustainable agriculture: what is it?
 Organic farming: Is it relevant?
 Organic farmer: The minority story
 Organic farming: Is it needed in India?
 Organic farming: The International scenario
30 Years of farming Systems Trial Conducted by The Rodale 28-29
Institute, USA: Findings
Organic Farming: Success Story 2: 29-31
From Desperation to deliverance: Shri. Narendra Vithalrao Pokle,
Jamni Village, Wardha, Maharashtra, India

Page 3 of 71
4 Organic farming and its Benefits 36-41
 Improvement in soil quality
 Increased crop productivity
 Low production cost and high net income
 Low incidence of pests
 Employment and income generation opportunities
5 Genetically Modified Food: Is it an Alternative Solution? 42-48
 Are GE crops the answer to food shortage?
 Do GE crops reduce weeds and fertilizer use? Is it
safe to use?
 Is GM safe for the environment?
Success Story 3 46-48
ENABAVI: Freedom from Chemicals, Pesticides & Pest
6 Organic Farming in India: Barriers for its Spread 49-53
 Barriers for spread: lack of investment and research
 Barriers for spread: skewed subsidization policy
 Barriers for spread: certification and infrastructure
 Barriers for spread: externalization of cost valuation
7 Organic farming: What are its Drivers? 54-59
 Drivers for organic farming: technology support
 Drivers for organic farming: multi-cropping pattern
 Drivers for organic farming: incentivising ecosystem services
 International Scenario
Chemical Farming in Drought Prone Area: Cherial, Warrangal 59
District, Telangana
8 Organic Farming in India: The Problem Diagnosis 50-63
 Policy initiatives & equity support
 Right mix of crops
 Subsidy to move from impact to ecological services

Page 4 of 71
 List of Tables & Annex

Table No. Topic Page No

1 Percentage share of different income sources, 70th Round 10
NSSO, 2014
2 Status of MSP in last 5 years (2011 -2016) 12
3 Economics of Chemical Farming: Survey Findings 14
4 Trend of Cropped Area: 10-year Trend since 1959 15
5 Trend of Fertilizer Consumption (2003 -2014) 18
6 Trend of Govt. Subsidy (2006 -2016) 19
7 2013: NPK Ratio of Select States in India 20
8 Comparison of Carbon Content in Organic & Inorganic 36
Farming
9 Trend of Crop Productivity in Organic Farming 38
10 Organic vs Inorganic: Cost Benefit Ratio 39
11 Top 10 Countries and their Share in Organic Farming 49
Annex I Average Nutrient content of Vermicompost and other 64
Components
Annex II Average Secondary and Micro-Nutrient contents of 65
Vermicomposting and FYM
Annex III The Farmer’s Economics: Farm Inputs 65
Annex IV Gross and Net Return of Kharif Crops of select states (2010- 66
11 and 2012-13)
Annex V Break-up of Cost of Cultivation of Select Crops in Select 67-71
States

Page 5 of 71
Terms & Abbreviations used:

APIGR: Association for Propagation of Indigenous Genetic Resources

ASSOCHAM: Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India
CACP: Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices
CAZRI: Central Arid Zone Research Institute
CSA: Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
DNA: Deoxyribonucleic Acid
EU: European Union
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization
GCF: Gross Capital Formation
GDP: Gross Domestic Product
GEAC: Genetic Engineering Approval Committee
GHG: Green House Gas
GM: Genetically Modified
GMO: Genetically Modified Organisms
GRACE: Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment
FCI: Food Corporation of India
HT: Herbicide Tolerant
IARC: International Agency for Research on Cancer
ICAR: Indian Council of Agriculture Research
IFOAM: International Federation of Organic Farming Movement
IPCC: Integrated Professional Competence Course
ITW: India Water Table
MSP: Minimum Support Price
NASA: National Aeronautical and Space Administration
NGO: Non-Government Organisation
NPOP: National Programme for Organic Production
NPK: Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium
NSSO: National Sample Survey Office
NSB: Nutrient – Based Subsidy
PDS: Public Distribution System
PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA)
RPS: Retention Price Scheme
TPDS: Targeted Public Distribution System
UP: Uttar Pradesh
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture
WHO: World Health Organization

Page 6 of 71
 1. Introduction

India is a country of more than a billion people. It is the seventh largest nation in the
world with a geographical area of 328.7 million ha. Agriculture is the major source of
support for the Indian economy, contributing about 18 percent of the gross domestic
product (GDP) in 2013-14. While agriculture’s contribution to GDP has slid down from 52
percent in 1950s, 30 percent in 1990s and below 20 percent from 2010 onwards, it
continues to provide occupation to the country’s millions. The budgetary allocation
towards agriculture in 2013-14 was Rs. 27049 crore which was reduced to Rs. 24909
crore in 2014 - 15 and again raised to Rs. 35984 crore in 2015-16.

According to the 2011 census1, there are 95.8 million cultivators (20 percent of total
workforce of over 481 million), 144.3 million agricultural labourers and over 600 million
dependents on related agricultural activities. With over 53 percent of the population of 1.2
billion dependents on agriculture and related activities, agriculture and its practices, its
economy and policy decisions not only shaped the destiny of millions across the country
but also impacted the food security and the ecological and human health of the country.

Farming, as a production system to begin with was subsistence based with the majorly
producing for self-consumption with little marketable surplus, devoid of synthetic inputs
such as fertilizers, pesticides, hormones and feed additives. Traditional farming relied
upon rotations, crop residues, animal manures, off-farm organic waste, mineral grade
rock additives and biological system of nutrient mobilization and plant protection. As such
organic farming is not new to Indian farmers.2

The chemical-based agriculture in India started with the ‘Green Revolution’ in the 1960s
to address the food shortage and the import of food grains to feed the hungry mouths of
the nation and become self-sustaining. The introduction of conventional farming, using
chemical-based fertilizers arrested the food shortage and made the country a food
surplus nation exporting excess food grain produced.

The euphoria over the national food self-reliance, however, came with a heavy price. The
indiscriminate use of chemicals in the form of fertilizers, pesticides and weedicides has

1
Hindustan Times, August 11, 2014
2
Alvares, Claude; The Organic Farming Sourcebook.

Page 7 of 71
led to multiple economic and ecological problems such as soil erosion, reduced soil
fertility, reduced ground water table, health issues, lack of safe drinking water on one
hand and increasing costs and reduced incomes to farmers etc.

Objectives of the Paper

i) To understand the agrarian crisis in India and its causes, impact on the
economy, ecology and climate;
ii) Is organic farming an alternate solution? If so, what are the barriers for spread
of organic farming?
iii) What are the drivers and the policy interventions needed for it to grow?

Methodology

The paper is based on secondary data. Information from literature on the historical
evolution of organic farming and the progress it has made both in India and abroad is
sourced from websites of the European Union countries, International Federation of
Organic Farming Movement (IFOAM), World Health Organization (WHO), books and
periodicals and newspaper reports etc. which are liberally used for the preparation of the
paper. A survey and interaction with both chemical and organic farmers was carried out
in Wardha District, Maharashtra. A case study of a village that adopted organic farming in
Telangana, India was also carried out with the help of Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
(CSA), Hyderabad.

Page 8 of 71
 2. The Agrarian Crisis

What ails agriculture in India?

Three issues could be considered as indicators of the agrarian crisis:

 The economic crisis comprising the farmers’ livelihood, viability and sustainability;
 The ecological crisis as a result of unrestricted use of fertilizers, depleting water
table, soil salinity and impact on biodiversity and ecosystem, topsoil erosion,
diminishing ecological biodiversity and reducing soil carbon content.
 Climate change, increased emission of greenhouse gases, increased crop failures
due to increased frequency of droughts and floods, heat and cold waves, hail
storms etc.

I. The Economic Crisis:

Agriculture for livelihood: Is it viable?

According to the 2011 census, there are 95.8 million cultivators having farming as their
main occupation. It is a fall of about 7.2 million since 2001 census (103 million) and 14.2
million since 1991 (110 million)3. While the number of cultivators has been decreasing,
there are more agricultural labourers (people who work on farms but do not own the land)
numbering about 144 million, i.e. 30 percent of the total workforce, which is up from 26.5
percent in 20014. This indicates that small cultivators are increasingly depending on wage
labour as cultivation alone was not able to sustain the farmer. Agriculture, in the current
scenario is neither remunerative nor viable for farmers and those who depend on it for
livelihood.

Agriculture: Is it sustainable?

According to the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), nearly 90 percent of India’s
farmers have less than 2 hectares of land and 81.83 percent of households have less
than one hectare of land. According to the survey, wheat is the most grown crop in the
first half of the year while paddy dominates in the second half. Among the cash crops,
sugarcane is the most profitable crop, giving the cultivator an average of over Rs. 80,000

3
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/sainath/over-2000-fewer-famers-every-day/article4674190.ece
4
http://www.ibtimes.com/india-losing-2000-farmers-every-single-day-late-rapidly-changing-society-1232913

Page 9 of 71
per season. The survey reveals that over half of wheat and rice grown are used for
household consumption. Agriculture inputs in the form of fertilizer and labour costs are
about 30 percent of the total output.

Table 1

The average farm household makes Rs. 6,426 per month5 from all sources. In the
current scenario, the average farming household needs at least a hectare of land to
make ends meet every month. In reality, over 65 percent of households have less than a
hectare of land and therefore, two out of every three farm households cannot make ends
meet. This gap of unsustainable livelihood is managed through odd jobs, daily wages,
government schemes and mostly high interest debt. The result is, more than half the
agricultural households are debt ridden.

5
http://www.thehindu.com/data/does-it-pay-to-be-a-farmer-in-india/articles6713980.ece

Page 10 of 71
It is stated that, in India, the average income of those working in non-agriculture is 4.9
times more than those working in agriculture.6

Contrary to this scenario, in USA, the annual average farm household income is $
61,0007 against the average non- farm household income of $ 54, 462.8

Agriculture and procurement policy: Is it helping the farmer?

Another facet of the economic crises in agriculture in India is the stagnant price policy of
food produces. The Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) fixes minimum
support price (MSP) for twenty-four food crops and four cash crops. The objective of the
policy is to ensure availability of food grains to weaker sections at affordable prices and
at the same time to ensure remunerative prices to the farmers for their produce by way of
assured minimum return for their crop production.

The procurement policy was revamped in 1997-98 with the introduction of the
decentralized procurement of food grains. This anticipated outcome was to enhance the
efficiency of procurement and the public distribution system (PDS), encourage local
procurement of wheat and paddy to the maximum by extending the benefits of MSP to
local farmers and also save on transit cost. Under the scheme, the State Governments
directly purchased paddy and wheat on behalf of the Government of India, stores and
distributes these food-grains under TPDS and other welfare schemes while the Central
Government finances the expenditure incurred by the state governments on the
procurement operations as per the approved costing.

The policy of procuring only paddy and wheat encouraged the farmer to cultivate those
crops for assured returns leading to monoculture of crop. These subsidies for chemical
fertilizers helped to boost crop yields. The goals achieved through the Govt. Policy and
the farmers chemically boosting mono cropping are purely one-sided and it has had long
term and manifold negative implications such as depreciating the soil fertility, harmful
food products, ecological and climatic ramifications. The policy puts the organic farmer
at a disadvantage. It discourages farmers from diversifying their crops t those most

6
www.swarajyamag.com/economy/the-income-of-the-average-indian-i-significantly-lower-than-the-average-incom--
india
7
www.work.chron.com/much-money-farmers-make-average-annually-3185.html.
8
U.S. Census Bureau -Income And Poverty in the United States -September 2015.

Page 11 of 71
suitable for the local agro-climatic conditions. It also leads to imbalance in meeting the
dietary needs of the country.

The CACP in 2014 noted that against the buffer stock norm of 31.9 million tonnes of rice
and wheat (as on 1 July every year), total central pool stocks were more than double at
65.3 million tonnes.9 It was further stated that the overflowing granary of cereals was
locking up resources to the tune of Rs. 45,640 crore, which entails not only opportunity
cost but also an additional cost to the rising expenditure on food subsidy. Therefore, the
country has the imbalanced scenario of overflowing cereals and shortfall of edible oils
and pulses which are made good by imports.

According to the local agriculture unions and NGOs working in Yavatmal and Wardha,
the minimum support prices are fixed so low that they do not cover even the production
cost. The MSP reflects the helplessness of the farmers, who are left with no choice but to
sell their produce at very low prices after a crop season and are left with no monetary
surplus whatsoever and thus continues the vicious cycle of agrarian poverty.

Table 2: Status of MSP in the last 5 years (2011-2016)

Commodity 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Paddy common 1080 1250 1310 1360 1410
Paddy (F)/Grade A 1110 1280 1345 1400 1450
Jowar –Hybrid 980 1500 1500 1530 1570
Jowar –Maldandi 1000 1520 1550 1590
Bajra 980 1175 1250 1250 1275
Ragi 1050 1500 1500 1550 1650
Maize 980 1175 1310 1310 1325
Tur (Arhar) 3200 3850 4300 4350 4625
Moong 3500 4400 4500 4600 4850
Urad 3300 4300 4300 4350 4625
Groundnut 2700 3700 4000 4000 4030
Sunflower seed 2800 3700 3700 3750 3800
Soyabean Black 1650 2200 2500 2500 -
Soyabean Yellow 1690 - 2560 2560 2600
Sesamum 3400 4200 4500 4600 4700
Nigerseed 2900 3500 3500 3600 3650
Medium Staple Cotton 2800 3600 3700 3750 3800
Long Staple Cotton 3300 3900 4000 4050 4100
Wheat 1285 1350 1400 1450 1525
Barley 980 980 1100 1150 1225
Gram 2800 3000 3100 3175 3425
Lentil (Masur) 2800 2900 2950 3075 3325

9
Grow more pulses, oilseeds and not cereals: CACP report; livemint; October 31, 2014

Page 12 of 71
Rapeseed/Mustard 2500 3000 3050 3100 3350
Safflower 2500 2800 3000 3050 3300
Jute (TD5) 2200 2300 2400 2700 3200
Sugarcane 170 210 220 230 -
Copra (Miling) 5100 5250 5250 5550 5950
Copra (Ball) 5350 5500 5500 5830 6240
Source: CACP

Chemical agriculture: Is it healthy? Insights from Field visit at Wardha, Maharashtra

To understand the ground realities, a field visit and interaction with several farmers in and
around Wardha, Maharashtra, India was carried out. The area was chosen for various
reasons; it is rain-fed area, irrigation is minimal and the area is prone to drought. In the
midst of chemical farming which is as natural as breathing itself, there are sporadic cases
of a few farmers who chose to be different from the crowd and opted for organic farming
and are successful at it too. For the chemical farmer, applying chemical fertilizer and
pesticide is a way of life, everybody is doing it, and the fields are used as a medium to
produce crop yield by chemical application. The cycle is repeated year after year, crop
after crop with more and more inputs.

The region has a lot of NGOs working for the spread of organic farming. While, the
number of organic farmers is few and far between, there is a general consciousness
among farmers that chemical farming is not viable and harmful for the soil. While the
farming system is trapped in chemical inputs, the conscience of the farmer is awakening
to the fact that chemical farming is not good for health, not good for the environment and
the soil fertility. In view of the harmful effects, the general practice is that, chemicals and
pesticides are not sprayed in fields meant for personal consumption. The organic kitchen
garden movement spearheaded by The Sahayak Trust in coordination with other NGOs
in Vidharbha region has further facilitated the farmers in segregating chemical free areas
in the field meant for family consumption.

At this stage, the farmer is not happy spraying chemicals but remains trapped in the
system unable to get away from the bad habit. Many farmers desired to switch over to
organic in a phased manner. It is at this stage that political initiative and will is required to
incentivise organic farming for the masses.

Page 13 of 71
The economics of chemical farming: Findings

Most of the chemical farmers rely on debt including bank loan for their farm services.
While assessing farm input-output, it is unthinkable for a farmer to include his labour cost,
labour cost of his family members and own farm inputs such as manure. Accordingly, the
assessment does not include these costs.

Table 3: Economics of Organic Farming: Survey Findings

The survey assessment of farmers who practiced chemical farming:

Sl Land Loans Labour Seed Fertilizer Pesticide/ Misc Total Total Profit/
size cost cost cost weedicide cost cost Income Loss
(acre) cost
S1 12 NA 83000 24000 32000 18000 12000 169000 225000 56000
S2 7 250000 32000 7000 10000 10000 5000 314000 540000 226000
S3 9 200000 167000 40000 32000 44000 20000 503000 600000 197000
S4 2 50000 26000 5000 10000 5500 1500 98000 1310000 33000
S5 10 150000 220000 27000 45000 31000 13000 486000 618000 132000
S6 3 50000 30000 6000 32000 2500 8000 128500 147000 18500
S7 12 100000 400000 42000 32000 28000 25000 627000 654000 27000

It is not only the large inputs required; the farmer has a lot more adverse circumstances
during the year such as:

 Uncertain rainfall/excess rainfall

 Adverse market pricing: Supply exceeding demand
 Lack of bargaining capacity. Distress sale of produce and non-holding capacity
especially around harvest time due to lack of economic standing.

II. The Ecological Crises

Challenges

For Indians, protection of nature and wildlife formed an ardent article of faith, reflected in
the daily lives of people and also enshrined in the myths, folklore, religion, art and
culture. The gains of self-sufficiency of food heralded by the green revolution have
jeopardized the biological and environmental base of the country. Some of the major
ecological and environmental challenges confronting India today are:

Page 14 of 71
  Improvement of air and water quality- abatement of air, water and land pollution;
 Global warming and climate change;
 Loss of biodiversity and wildlife;
 Conservation of land, forest and water.

Increasing land area for cultivation

In India, agriculture is not only an occupation of millions (600 odd million people), it
occupies a substantial land area of the country. With the pressure to produce more food
for over a billion people, larger land areas are continuously brought under cultivation
thereby shrinking the area for living ecosystems.

Table 4: Trend of Cropped Area: 10-year Trend: 1950 -2010

Total cropped area (Million Ha)

1950 -51 131.89
1960 -61 152.77
1970 -71 165.79
1980 -81 172.63
1990 -91 185.74
2000 -01 185.34
2010 -11 197.32
Source: Agriculture Statistics at a Glance 2014, GoI, Ministry of Agriculture

The increasing area brought under cultivation together with intensive methods of
chemical cultivation using pesticides and fertilizers has had long term effects on soil and
water quality across the country. Soils have degenerated and an increasingly large
number of water bodies have witnessed higher levels of nitrification, causing deterioration
in water quality and reduction in biodiversity. The unrestricted use of chemicals results in
the emission of major greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen 10

Organic Farming: Success Story 1

Changing Course: From Hi-Tech to Right Tech – Shri. Subhash Sharma, Yavatmal,
Maharashtra, India

“I was a chemical farmer (1975 -1994), following the hi-technology system and found that
my operating cost kept going north, leaving me bereft of profit year after year. Burdened
with debt and no money to procure high cost seeds, in 1995, I left the hi-tech system of

10
Jacob John, Incentivizing and providing common Ecosystem services in Agriculture sector.

Page 15 of 71
chemical farming and changed my course to right-tech farming by switching over to
organic farming” are the opening remarks of Shri. Subhash Sharma.

Subhash Sharma, 65 years old is a qualified B.Com. He started organic farming in 1995,
growing vegetables such as tomato, dhania (coriander) and palak (spinach) because he
had no money for buying hi-tech seeds and these vegetable seeds cost less money and
were readily available.

Shri. Sharma believes in integrated practices of balanced ecosystem – fresh air, water
and soil fertility where man, animals and nature live together in complete harmony. His
seventeen-acre farm (10 acres own and 7 acres on leased) comprised of three acres
dedicated to animals (currently 8 cows and 3 dogs), one acre dedicated as living area for
six family labourers and demonstration training area and the remaining thirteen acres as
area for growing crops.

Subhash Sharma believes and practices a balanced ecosystem of air, water and soil
carbon content. He has developed his own techniques to achieve all the three
parameters. He has planted about 100 trees around and dug two wells for irrigating the
farmland. According to him, in a span of five years (since he acquired the current
farmland), the soil carbon content of the farm has increased from 0.5 to 0.8.

His techniques comprised mulching, decomposing the biomass of leaves and plants,
crop rotation, multi-cropping, rain-water harvesting by way of grid-locking system. He
avoids using sprinklers and other mechanical systems of irrigation.

In addition to his techniques for increasing soil nutrient content and water conservation,
Mr. Sharma uses his business acumen and marketing knowledge to his advantage. He
understands the market demand and accordingly plans his sowing and harvesting of
crops. Accordingly timing of crops is critical. To achieve this purpose he used both
natural as well as facilitated conducive processes for growing crops. For eg. he grew
chick-pea (which is tall and having leafy leaves as shade for growing dhania (coriander)
during Aug – October, when the crop commands premium pricing. Another technique is
pest trap of varieties of crops (chick-pea and corn).

Mr. Sharma has become the pioneer and the face of organic farming in Maharashtra.
Hordes of farmers have continuously visited his farm to learn about organic farming, its
techniques and practices. He also frequently interacts with farmers and other interested

Page 16 of 71
bodies at various forums.

Mr. Sharma achieved profitability from the very start. The conservative assessment on
the economics of Subhash Sharma’s farmland for the financial year 2015-16:

April 2015 – March 2016

Round I (Amount in Rs.)

Land Crop Yield ( Average Income Total Operating Net
size per price per per income cost profit
(acre) acre) kg acre (Labour)
kg
7 Pumpkin 120 7 84000 588000 168000 420000
2 Cow-pea 30 30 90000 180000 72000 108000
4 Tuar 10 (processed 100000 400000 120000 280000
as dal)
Total 1168000 360000 8,08,000
Round II
2 Onion 200000 400000 160000 240000
2 Tomato 200 10 200000 400000 160000 240000
2 Radish 70000 3 per piece 210000 420000 168000 252000
pieces
2 Chana 12 55 66000 132000 40000 92000
3 Dhania 270000
Total 13, 52, 5,82,000 10,94,
000 000
Total Net profit of 2015-16 19,02,000
Aside from the cash profit, the farm has other intrinsic economic values in terms of soil
fertility profit, ecological profit and water conservation profit which could not be assessed.

On why he remained an organic farmer:

“I do organic farming because the requirements for living are met by this manner of
farming. Environment is not only for human beings but also for the benefit and well-being
of all living beings. Chemical farming is done keeping in mind the needs of providing food
only for human beings and the requirements of water and air for other living beings is not
taken into consideration. If we do not consider air and water requirements for other living
beings, environment will be ruined. Therefore, keeping in mind the requirements of entire
living beings regarding air, water and food, organic farming proves to be most beneficial
for all. That is why organic farming, which is in fact environmental farming, is the true
science of farming.”

Page 17 of 71
Consumption of fertilizers: Impact on yield

The consumption of fertilizers in agriculture has been increasing over the years.
According to the data provided by the Department of Fertilizers, Ministry of Chemical and
Fertilizers11, a four percent annual increase could be calculated on an average.

Table 5: Trend of Fertilizer Consumption (2004 -2014)

(In lakhs MT)

Years Domes Impor Total Change in % Food

tic ts consumptio consumptio increase/ grain
n n decrease productio
n
2003-2004 14180 2018 16798
2004-2005 15646 2752 18398 1600 9 (8.7)
2005-2006 15086 5254 20340 1942 10 (9.55)
2006-2007 15571 6080 21651 1311 6 (6.06)
2007-2008 14820 7750 22570 919 4 (4.07)
2008-2009 14688 10221 24909 2339 9 (9.39)
2009-2010 17320 9148 26468 1559 6 (5.89) 2181
2010-2011 15758 12364 28122 1654 6 (5.88) 2358.8
2011-2012 14788 13002 27790 (-) 332 -1 (-1.19) 2592.9
2012-2013 18228 7308 25536 (-) 2254 -9 (-8.83) 2571.3
2013-2014 24482 (-) 1054 -4 (-4.31) 2647.7
Source: Dept. of Fertilizers, Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers

The increase in fertiliser consumption has not increased the yield to the same extent,
showing that the factor productivity of chemical fertilisers is lower. Similarly, a look at the
trend of fertilizer consumption pattern vis-à-vis food grain production from 2011-12
throws an interesting pattern. It is observed that during 2012-13, although consumption of
fertilizers was reduced by 1 percentage point, the food grain production was up by 9.92
percent (234.1 MT). In 2012-13, while fertilizer consumption was reduced by 9 percent,
food production reduced marginally by 0.83 percent (21.6 MT) and with further reduced
consumption during 2013-14 (4 percent), food grain production increased by 2.97(76.4
MT).

11
Fertilizers Scenario 2013

Page 18 of 71
Consumption of fertilizers: Unhealthy nutrient mix

Till 1991, the country followed a single pricing policy for specific grade of fertilizer
throughout the country. In order to reconcile the uniform sale price and varying cost of
production across manufacturing plants, a Retention Price Scheme (RPS) was
introduced under which a manufacturer was paid by government as subsidy the
difference of net realization from the sale of fertilizers at the government controlled rate
such that under the assumption of 80 percent capacity utilization, the plant is able to earn
12 percent post tax return on its net worth.

Beginning from June 10, 1994, all fertilizers except urea have been decontrolled to
reduce the burden of subsidies on the government exchequer. This policy, however,
failed to reduce the actual outgo as prices of phosphoric and potassic fertilizers shot up
and the government was compelled to announce an ad-hoc subsidy to reduce the burden
on farmers. The policy also led to the farmers using excess urea, instead of a mix of
fertilizers that are essential for better productivity and soil health.

The fertilizer subsidy increased three-fold from Rs. 26,222 crore during 2006-07 to
Rs. 76,603 crore in 2008-09. Rethinking about the RPS subsidy model, the Government
introduced the nutrient –based subsidy (NBS) scheme in 2010.

The fiscal burden on fertilizer subsidy had been climbing steeply over the last 10 years as
shown under:

Table 6: Trend of Govt. Subsidy: 2006 -2016

Year Subsidy Amount (Rs. In crore)

2006-2007 26, 222
2007-2008 46,451
2008-2009 76,603
2009-2010 61,264
2010-2011 65, 837
2011-2012 73,791
2012- 2013 74, 170
2013-2014 67, 971
2014-2015 72,970
2015-2016 72, 969
Source: Online news reports

Page 19 of 71
The NBS was introduced with the twin objective to deregulate subsidy on non-urea
fertilisers to prevent its over-use and contain fiscal burden. However, it failed to impact
the fiscal burden on fertilizers. The subsidy on fertiliser, which was Rs. 61,246 crore in
2009-10 immediately before the introduction of NBS, increased subsequently to Rs. 72,
969 crore (2015-16).12

The undesirable outcome of the NBS was the change in fertilizer mix leading to
worsening the soil nutrient content. As a result of the NBS, the fertilizer prices rose
sharply, especially for phosphoric and potassic fertilisers - i.e. from Rs. 10,000 per MT
before the introduction of NBS to Rs. 25,000 per MT in 2013. The immediate outcome
was a sharp decline in the use of phosphoric and potassic fertilizer mix, with increased
consumption of urea. This led to an undesirable outcome in the fertilizer mix thereby
worsening the soil nutrient. As against the recommended mixture of 4:2:1 ratio of NPK
(Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potassium), the country’s NPK ratio in 2013-14 was 8.2:3:1
against the NPK ratio of 4.3:2:1 in 2009-10 (close to its recommended ratio). 13

While the worsening NPK ratio at the all-India level is a matter of concern, what is more
worrisome is the alarming proportion of NPK in some states.

Table 7: NPK Ratio of Select States in India (2013)

State NPK Ratio

Punjab 61.7 : 19.2 : 1
Haryana 61.4 : 18.7 : 1
Rajasthan 44.9 : 16.5 : 1
Uttar Pradesh 25.2 : 8.8 : 1
Source: India’s flawed fertilizer policy - Livemint

The impact of this disproportionate fertilizer mix on the long-term health of soil, nutrient
content, ground water quality and level and biodiversity are causes for concern.

Depleting groundwater level and quality

Intensive use of chemicals in agriculture has caused eutrophication. The over-abundance

of nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen in the sensitive ecosystem causes long
term damage especially in the aquatic ecosystem.

12
http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/XCCJwEzbwiyWFYfK1wRdO/Indiaas-flawed-fertilizer-policy.html?
13
Himanshu, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University and visiting fellow at Centre de Sciences Humaines, New Delhi

Page 20 of 71
Mono culturing on water intensive crops increase usage of underground water resources.

Following green revolution there is an increased shift towards paddy, wheat and
sugarcane and post 90s the area under cotton has increased. As all these crops are
water intensive, the groundwater usage has increased. In the earlier days, surface water
and rain were used. The practice of sinking tube –wells or bore-wells has meant that
underground water resources are now used to irrigate crops. In many parts of the
country, tube-well levels are now sunk as deep as 600 ft.

Groundwater levels are declining across India. Of the 4000 wells captured in the IWT 2.0
(India Water Table), groundwater levels have shown a decline in the past seven years in
54 percent of the wells, and about 16 percent had shown decline by more than 1 metre.14

In North-western India, of the 550 wells studied, 58 percent have declining water levels.

According to NASA’s space satellite15, Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment

(GRACE), analysis of six years of monthly GRACE gravity data for north India revealed
that groundwater levels have been declining by an average of one metre every three
years (one foot per year). More than 109 cubic km of groundwater disappeared between
2002 and 2008. The report further states that the loss is particularly alarming because it
occurred during the period of normal rainfall. The loss in groundwater is attributed to
irrigation use to maximize agricultural productivity.

Soil erosion and reduced carbon levels

Soil erosion is a major threat to the sustainability of agriculture all around the world and
more specifically in developing countries. It adversely affects the productivity of
agricultural, forest and rangeland ecosystems16.

The shift towards use of chemical fertilizers and reduction in application of the organic
matter to the soil has led to the drop in soil carbon content. Soil carbon levels have been
falling across the country- in both dry and wetland areas. As a result of chemical farming,
soil is no longer maintained. It is seen purely as a holding medium into which different
chemicals are applied in order to grow a crop. This has also led to reduction in water
holding capacity of the soils.

14
3 Maps to Explain India’s Growing Water Risk by Tien Shio, Andrew Maddocks, Chris Carson and Emma Loizeaux
15
www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/indian_water.html
16
Pimental.D.et.al. Environment and economic cost of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science, 1995, 267, 11

Page 21 of 71
These agricultural practices and subsequent soil and water loss are responsible for
significant economic and environmental costs of soil erosion. It was estimated that
approximately INR 8893 per ha would be required to replace the lost micro-nutrients
through inorganic fertilizers.17 This estimated cost does not take into account the cost of
replacing topsoil, conserving water and compensating for the lost crop productivity.
These losses have resulted in significant ecological damage such as depletion in soil
biodiversity, changed soil structure and plant composition.

III. The Climatic Crisis

Agriculture and climate Change are mutually impacted. Often the impact of climate
change is underestimated, and the contribution of agriculture to climate change is
ignored. As a result, most of the discussions and debates on climate change and
agriculture revolve around particular technologies, which can help farming to adapt to
climate change18. In reality, to adapt to the changing climate, we need to understand this
in a broader context of ecological, economical, socio-political crisis, which Indian farmers
are already undergoing, and at the same time we also need to understand the changes in
the food habits and marketing systems. Climate change is already a reality for a majority
of Indian farmers even as plans are being evolved at the government level mostly to
create adaptive capabilities; meanwhile, Indian farmers are being forced to adapt to
several Climate Change-related changes by themselves because they have no other
choice. For no fault of theirs, Indian farmers, like the most marginalised everywhere, are
paying a high price for anthropogenic climate change. The worst-hit, as usual, are small
and marginal holders in marginalised locations with social disadvantages to begin with.
Such farmers have meagre resources to buffer them from the new risks that climate
change poses.

The relationship between climate change and food and agriculture is three-fold. Firstly,
climate change has a direct bearing on the biology of plant and animal growth. Secondly,
the changes in the farm ecology for example, soil conditions, soil moisture, pests,
diseases, etc. and thirdly, the ability of the existing social and economic institutions, like
markets, to deal with the challenges posed by global warming. In the larger context of

17
Aastha Gulati and S.C. Rai. Cost estimation of soil erosion and nutrient loss from a watershed of the Chotanagpur
Plateau, India
18
A review on Relationship between Climate Change and Agriculture, Yohannnes H

Page 22 of 71
food security and climate change, it is also important to consider other sectors like animal
husbandry and livestock, which are closely linked with agriculture.

Droughts, floods, tropical cyclones, heavy rains and extreme heat have impacted
agriculture production and livelihoods in the country with significant loss of life and to the
economy19. According to the World Bank, between 1990 -2008 in South Asia, “750 million
people - 50 percent of the region’s population - were affected by at least one weather
related disaster, leaving almost 60,000 dead and resulting in about $ 45 billion in
damages.”20

About two-thirds of the sown area in India is drought prone and around 40 million
hectares is flood prone. The intensity and frequency of rainfall is likely to increase
flooding, while hotter temperatures will create more droughts, resulting in higher
energy and water use.21

The climate change impact on the summer monsoons will have a drastic effect on the
country’s food production. Seventy-five to eighty percent of the annual rainfall happens in
the monsoon months.22 The Southwest monsoon is responsible for nearly fifty percent of
the food grains production and sixty five percent of the oilseeds in the country. 23

The INCCA 2010 study indicates that temperature in the sub-continent had risen by 0.48
degree Celsius over the last 100 years. It projected a rise of 2.5 degree Celsius to 4.9
degree Celsius by the end of the 21st century and predicted a 1.7 - 2.0 degree Celsius
temperature rise in the subcontinent as early as the 2030s.

A one degree temperature rise will adversely impact wheat production. Temperature
increase will increase heat stress in animals and impact milk production and
reproduction.24

The impact of climate change is already visible. A network of 15 centres of Indian Council
for Agriculture Research (ICAR) has reported that apple production is declining in
Himachal Pradesh due to inadequate chilling. This is also causing a shift in the growing

19
Climate Change and Indian Agriculture, Implications & way forward, Study conducted by Actionaid
20
World Bank Group 2009. Why is South Asia Vulnerable to Climate Change
21
iSET 2008 Climate Adaptation in Asia: Knowledge gaps and Research issues in South Asia
22
IFAD
23
Mall et al 2006
24
Climate Change and Indian Agriculture: Implications and way Forward, Study conducted by Actionaid

Page 23 of 71
zone to higher elevations (Rana et al). Similarly, in the case of marine fisheries, it has
been observed that sardines are shifting from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal,
which is not the normal habitat.25

India consumes about 14 metric tonnes of synthetic nitrogen (N) every year, of which 80
percent is produced within the country, thus making it the second largest consumer and
producer of synthetic N fertilizer in the world, after China. The nitrate fertiliser use
efficiency is very low and it is released into the environment as nitrous oxide from fields
after use. Nitrous oxide is considered more dangerous than carbon dioxide and one ton
of Nitrous Oxide emission is considered equivalent to 310 tons of carbon emissions. The
Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from fertiliser manufacture and use in India reached
nearly 100 million tonnes of carbon-di-oxide equivalent in 2006/07, which represents
about 6 percent of total Indian greenhouse gas emission (Roy et.al 2010). The production
and transport of fertilizer generates 6.7. kg of carbon-di-oxide equivalent emissions for
every kg of fertilizer produced in the country according to research done by the Centre for
Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) using IPCC accounting.26

A study conducted by ActionAid in Ananthpur District, Andhra Pradesh revealed that the
first monsoon showers which usually arrived in the district by the first week of June, have,
of late been delayed till mid-July. This 45-day delay altered the sowing dates for
groundnut, thereby throwing agricultural activities completely out of gear. Also, untimely
rains at harvest time ruin the harvest. For the majority of farmers, erratic rainfall pattern is
impacting the cultural traditions and knowledge regarding agricultural practices thereby
rendering the sowing and harvesting knowledge meaningless.

The study further reveals that according to local people, western Odisha is increasingly
experiencing desert-like climate with increasing day time temperatures and cooler night
temperatures. The yield of Bt cotton which was introduced in 2005 in these areas have
decreased by a third after the initial years of good yield. Communities attribute this to
higher temperatures and prolonged dry spells along with monoculture practices.

The study found that in Lalitpur District, Uttar Pradesh the frequency of drought has
increased. In 2009, there was drought in several parts of UP whereas there was

25
Reproduced from Climate Change and Indian Agriculture, Implications & Way Forward, Study conducted by
ActionAid
26
Climate Change and Indian Agriculture, Implications & Way Forward; Stucy conducted by ActionAid

Page 24 of 71
excessive rainfall in several parts causing massive runoff and soil erosion from the
barren hills which swelled up the seasonal streams and rivers. 27 It was reported that not
only have rains been decreasing for about a decade but now the number of rainy days
have also drastically reduced. Not only the rains, but moisture content too has reduced.
The reduced moisture fog which was common in November -December helped in
ripening of oilseeds like Arhar, Gram, Masoor and mustard. Because of its
disappearance, these crops ripen prematurely before the grains have developed fully.

The study findings revealed that in all the three areas, farmers stated that the cost of
production was always higher than the income they received through farming. They
needed ever more fertilizer to get the same yields as in the past. Monoculture practices,
introduction of cash crops and purchase of poor quality store bought seeds had virtually
made traditional varieties and intercropping practices disappear. Pest attacks have also
increased resulting in increased pesticide use. The problem gets compounded by the
acute water shortage at the appropriate times.

The rising production cost and the failure of formal and effective credit system has made
these farmers dependent on local money lenders. With each new planting season,
farmers enter a new and ever increasing cycle of debt after taking loans for the season
and their personal needs. As a result, many of these farmers are leaving farming or
working as urban agricultural labourers while women tend the fields and their
communities. Increasingly, the new face of agriculture is women - whose workload has
increased with increasing rural poverty while men migrate to earn income elsewhere.

27
Directorate of Agriculture and Food Production accessed at: www.orienvis.nic.in/soe/agriculture.pdf

Page 25 of 71
 3. Alternative Sustainable Farming? The Case for Organic Farming

In a country of small holding agriculture with 81.83 percent being small and
marginal farmers, 65 percent of the farmers do not have access to safe source
of even drinking water; labour is relatively abundant and cheaper as compared
to the global scenario of scarce labour. Organic farming uses more labour but less
water. Globally, there is increasing demand for organic food and its related
products. The hidden cost of chemicals in agriculture exists. In this current
scenario, is chemical and GM based or organic/ecological farming is relevant for
India?

Agriculture has always been, and continues to be, one of the ways in which humankind
has improved the basis of human existence on earth. Technologies were always an
integral part of agriculture. Time and again, new technologies and developments have
had a decisive impact on methods of cultivation, and our agriculture will continue in future
to be based on innovations (Kern, 2002, p. 291)

The green revolution had changed our position from a food deficit nation to a food
surplus nation. Not only are we able to feed ourselves, but we also maintain a sizable
trade in agricultural products and commodities.

The agricultural policy and subsidization of fertilisers along with indiscriminate use of
pesticides have boosted agricultural production. However, these practices have also led
to a host of issues that are now adversely impacting agricultural production, such as soil
pollution, water pollution, depletion in biodiversity in the ecosystem, depletion in topsoil,
decrease in water table level and increased emission of greenhouse gases, health of the
population etc. Productivity levels have declined over the years. In order to produce the
same yields, chemical inputs have to be increased which have further led to deterioration
in the environment, in the process increasing the input cost and making agriculture
unsustainable.

Of late, there has been a lot of loud thinking - spearheaded by agricultural scientists,
NGOs and social thinkers that the long-term sustainability of agriculture could be what is
known as organic farming.

Page 26 of 71
Organic agriculture: What is it?

Organic farming has been defined in many ways. The IFOAM definition of organic
farming is “Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils,
ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles
adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic
agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment
and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved”.

Organic agriculture: What are its principles?

According to IFOAM, the four principles of organic agriculture are:

 Health – healthy soil, plants, animals and humans makes a healthy planet;
 Ecology – emulating and sustaining natural systems;
 Fairness – equity, respect and justice for all living beings;
 Care/concern – for the generations to come.

Organic agriculture: What are the techniques?

Techniques of organic farming are based on agroecological principles including multiple-

cropping, mulching, integration of livestock and crop. Based on laws and certification
programmes, it prohibits use of synthetic inputs as health of soil is recognised as the
central theme of the method.

In India, there are a number of models of agriculture which make use of agro-ecological
principles in practices.

 Organic farming
 Natural farming
 Zero budget natural farming
 Permaculture
 Biodynamic farming
 Non Pesticidal Management
 Sustainable Agriculture

While each of these models may differ in the specific set of practices followed, the basic
principles remain the same.

Sustainable agriculture: What is it?

Sustainable agriculture is the successful management of resources for agriculture to

satisfy changing human needs while maintaining or enhancing the quality of environment
and conserving natural resources (FAO)

Page 27 of 71
30 Years of farming Systems Trial conducted by The Rodale Institute, USA:
Findings

 Soil health in the organic systems has increased over time while the conventional
systems remain essentially unchanged;
 Carbon increase was highest in the organic manure system and the conventional
system has shown a loss in carbon in more recent years;
 Organic fields increased groundwater recharge and reduced runoff;
 Soils of the organic systems are better equipped to store and use water, i.e. the
plants have what they need ‘in storage’ and can access those stored;
 In over 30 years of field trial, organic corn and soybean yields were equivalent to
conventional yields in the tilled systems;
 Wheat yields were the same for organic and conventional systems;
 Organic corn yields were 31 percent higher than conventional in years of drought;
 Corn and soybean crops in the organic systems tolerated much higher levels of
weed competition than their conventional counterparts, while producing equivalent
yields;
 Organic agriculture has the potential to secure a global food supply, just as
conventional agriculture is today, but with reduced environmental impact;
 Agro-ecological farming methods could double global food production in just 10
years;
 Organic agriculture promotes job creation, providing for more than 30 percent
more jobs per hectare than non-organic farms;
 More of the money invested in an organic farm operation goes to paying people.
 The organic systems were nearly three times more profitable than the
conventional systems;
 The organic systems used 45 percent less energy than the conventional systems;
 Diesel fuel was the single greatest energy input in the organic systems;
 Nitrogen fertilizer was the single greatest energy input in the conventional systems
representing 41 percent of the total energy;
 Production efficiency was 28 percent higher in the organic systems than in the
conventional systems, with the conventional no-till system being the least efficient
in terms of energy usage.

Page 28 of 71
  The conventional systems emit nearly 40 percent more greenhouse gases (GHG)
per pound of crop produced than the organic systems;
 The biggest GHG emissions from direct inputs in the conventional system
came from fertilizer production and on-farm fuel use, whereas in organic
system it came from fuel use and seeds which is minimal.

Source: The Farming Systems Trial, Celebrating 30 years, Rodale Institute

India is bestowed with a lot of potential to produce all varieties of organic products due to
its varied agro-climatic conditions. (Salvador et al.2003).

The total irrigated land in 2013 was 3,287,240 sq.km. of which the share of organic farms
was a 0.3% (5, 690,000 ha including wild collection)

The Indian Govt. endeavours to increase the organic farmland area to 10 lakh hectares
by 2017-18 by developing 10,000 clusters (one cluster of 20 hectares each) across the
country.28

Organic Farming: Success Story 2

Desperation to Deliverance: Narendra Vithalrao Pokle, Jamni village, Wardha

District, Maharashtra, India.

The year 2000 will be remembered in the annals of Indian agriculture. Vidharbha region
of Maharashtra earned the reputation of being ‘farmer suicide region’ in India.

Debt ridden, no credibility (Seed vendors refused to loan him seed on credit), Narendra
V. Pokle decided not to succumb to the ‘lure’ of taking the drastic step of ending his own
life and instead rewrote his story. He turned ‘organic’ out of desperation. Fifteen years
on, he is the proud owner of an eighteen acre organic farm, the lone organic farming in
Jamni Village, near Wardha with a thriving business of processing and selling his own
farm produce in the market.

The road to success was not easy for Pokle. He struggled to make ends meet and his
farming could become profitable only after 3-4 years. However, fortune eventually smiled
upon him. His hard work and un-daunting persistence bore fruit. Today he proudly says,
“My customers did not visit the doctor’s clinic in the last ten years”.

28
Eye on growing Domestic Demand And Export Market, Sunday Times of India, Mumbai, July 10, 2016.

Page 29 of 71
As he walks you through his farm, his enthusiasm and pride is infectious: here is a farmer
who is heart and soul with his farm. He practices inter-cropping, preparing his own
organic manure and biomass for his crops.

Pokle’s 18-acre farm comprises of a vast variety of crops which is starkly different from
the surrounding fields comprising of only few crops (cotton, tur, soyabean, wheat and
sugar-cane).

Today, Pokle is debt free, having a profitable farm practice, commands respect in the
society and is emancipated. On November 15, 2011, he was awarded the Akola PKV
Award by the Agriculture Department, Government of Maharashtra. He has the sense of
responsibility for educating the farmers who come to him for guidance in organic farming
and is a member of the National Organisation for Community Welfare, an NGO based in
Wardha, promoting the spread of organic farming. He also has a host of visitors from all
over the country including various Government functionaries to see his organic farm and
learn a few tips from him.

When asked, why he chose organic farming while the vast majority around him practiced
chemical farming, his response is:

“From the time I took up organic farming, the soil in my fields yield more crops. Rain
water has stopped flowing out of my fields. When I was doing chemical farming, the soil
in my fields was very hard, but now the soil is soft and it is not necessary to plough or
knead it again and again.

Today I can say with full confidence that if all farmers farm like me and sell their produce
themselves, then, they will never have to borrow even a rupee from anybody and live a
life of self-respect.”

The farming economics of Narendra Pokle for 2015-16:

Expenses Income
Land Preparation 15000 Crop Yield Income
Cost of seeds 56000 Cotton 20 quintal 90000
Organic manure 3000 Pigeon-pea Processed to 40000
dal
Labour cost 11500 Soya-bean 2 6400
Transportation cost 62000 Vegetables 300000
Harvesting cost 13000 Wheat 4 Consumption
Incidental cost 40000 Sugar-cane 250 quintal 35000

Page 30 of 71
 Others 100 kg 10000
Total 200500 Total 481400
Net Profit 280900

Organic farming: Is It Relevant?

The need for an eco-friendly alternative farming system arose from the ill effects of
chemical farming practices adopted worldwide during the second half of the 20 th century.
As a result of the injurious methods of chemical farming, people began to look for
alternative farming systems which would protect the environment, balance ecosystems
and increase the welfare of humankind and meet the need for healthier food. Many
farming systems were experimented on by both experts and laymen. However, organic
farming is considered to be the best among all of them because of its scientific approach
and wider acceptance all over the world.

A survey of the farmers in Maharashtra revealed that farmers are aware of the ills of
chemical farming, that the soil quality is affected. In fact, the general practice is that,
farmers will not use chemicals and pesticides on fields meant for own consumption.

Smt. Varsha Udan, a chemical farmer says, “We tried organic farming in a small area but
it did not give any produce. So we gave up organic farming. For our personal domestic
consumption, we do not use fertilizers. Instead, we use dung manure.”

Study of the few organic farmers in the same region revealed a different picture. It shows
that organic farming as a farming practice is indeed feasible, healthy and good for the
environment.

Organic farmers: The minority story

Mandar Vasantrao Deshpande, 34: Aamgaon, Wardha with a 5-acre farm. His
expenses comprised of labour (Rs. 170000/-), transport (Rs. 5000/-), harvesting and
others (5000/-). Against his estimated expenses of Rs. 1, 98,000/-, his farm income for
2015-16 was Rs. 3, 24,750/- (including processed food products) leaving him with a net
profit of Rs. 1, 26,750/-. The profit was over and above the self-consumption produce for
the 4-member family. Mr. Deshpande’s philosophy is preserving nature in its purest form,
maintaining ecological balance in the environment and farming for self-sustenance.

Page 31 of 71
Arun Eknathji Ingole, 55, Akoli, Wardha is an organic farmer. He grows pigeon-pea
(tur), soya-bean, vegetables, lemons, chick-pea and other seasonal crops by rotation. He
had grown cotton till about 2 years back and has stopped growing cotton due to its
unstable market demand and falling prices. In 2015-16, against farm expenses of
Rs. 1, 00,000/-, the farm produce got him an income of Rs. 8, 00,000/-. The estimate,
however, is without accounting for self-labour or the ecological savings in terms of soil
fertility, soil carbon content and fresh air.

Organic farming: Is it needed in India?

The need for organic farming in India arises because of the unsustainable agriculture
production and the damage caused to ecology through chemical farming practices.
Organic farming reduces the dependency on external inputs thereby reducing the paid
out costs. Organically cultivated soils are relatively better attuned to withstand water
stress and nutrient loss. Their potential to counter soil degradation is high and several
experiments in arid areas reveal that organic farming may help to combat
desertification (Alam and Wani, 2003)

The chemical farming requires large inputs of fertilizers and raising the same crop again
and again. This repeated mono-cropping or growing a few crops year after year is
resulting in the reduction of soil fertility and bio-diversity. It damages the rhizobia that fix
nitrogen and other micro-organisms that make phosphates available to plants (Wadia,
1996). The long term effects of these conventional practices were reduction of crop yields
and soil erosion. The eroding soil has needed increasing quantities of fertilizers, much of
which has leached into surface and underground water sources.

Organic farming: The International scenario

IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) founded in France in

1972 spearheads and coordinates organic farming efforts the world over by promoting
organic agriculture as an environment friendly and sustaining method. It undertakes a
wide range of activities related to organic farming such as exchanging knowledge and
thoughts among its 600 organisational members spread over 120 countries including
India.

Page 32 of 71
The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations provides support to
organic farming in the member countries. It also attempts the harmonisation of national
organic standards which is essential to increase international trade in organic products.

USA: The US agriculture farms view organic farming as a method to reduce input costs,
the use of non-renewable resources, and use of eco-friendly agriculture practices in soil
and pest management and avoids application of chemicals, antibiotics and hormones. It
spread fast during the 1990s. It is estimated to be growing at 10 percent per annum.

The organic vegetables and fruits are the major produce in the country accounting for 4
percent of food sales.29

USA has very rigid certification and labelling laws. Imports of organic products must
conform to the standards laid down by the USDA.

Italy: Growth of organic farming in Italy has been spectacular during 1990-2000 and Italy
continues to be a major player in European organic markets with 49, 703 producers and
1.2 million HA of cultivated land in 2014.30 The organically cultivated area increased from
13,000 ha to more than a million ha, constituting 7.2 percent of the total cultivated area.
The reasons for this substantial increase were attributed to reports about mad cow
disease and the search for safe food, the continual endeavour for alternative farming
methods which were environmentally, technically and economically acceptable to the
farmers and to the general public.

The support of organic farming by the European Union by way of subsidies through
various legislations was instrumental in the growth of organic farming in Italy. Universities
and Public Research Centres are becoming increasingly interested in research and
extension activities in relation to organic agriculture.

Austria: Austria is one of the leading countries in Europe in adopting organic farming.
About 10 percent of the total cultivated area is under organic farming. The organic
movement in the country picked up after the Federal Government introduced subsidies
for conversion to organic cultivation in 1991. The Government programme of agro-
environment of 1995 and the conversion of grass lands into organic farms gave a great
fillip to the organic movement.

29
www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview.aspx
30
Global Agricultural Information Network Report No. IT1412 on Italy Organic Agriculture Update 2014

Page 33 of 71
Agricultural schools and colleges offer training programmes/courses in organic farming
and promote scientific research. The Institute for Organic Farming at the University of
Vienna is a major centre for research in organic agriculture.

Germany: Germany is a leading nation in the adoption of organic farming in Europe. The
country has a large number of processors and importers of organic products. In 1984, a
common basic standard for organic agriculture was laid down and subsequently the
organic farming movement spread rapidly in Germany. State funding for organic farming
available since 1989 and the unification of Germany in 1990 further intensified the growth
of organic farming in the country.

Government regulation and the support of European Union regulations have made
organic agriculture accepted in the country.

The country follows very strict standards and certification processes for organic farming,
more stringent than other European Union countries. Advisory services are provided to
farmers for organic farming. Research and training facilities are available in almost all
German agricultural universities and technical colleges in organic farming. Degree
courses are offered in organic agriculture and organic farming research are also funded
by the state. The research funding on organic funding is proportionate to that of the
conventional ones.

India: India has shown rapid progress in organic sector since 2003. From just 73,000 ha
of organically certified land in 2003, the figure has reached to 528,000 ha under organic
management by 2007 (311,000 ha land is fully certified another 217,000 ha is under
conversion). In 2007 the global trade of organic touched USD 38.6 bn. India’s Organic
exports is around Rs.300 Crores (USD 62.5 million), which is only 0.2 percent of the
organic trade. The area currently farmed by organic methods is about 1.2 million
hectares, plus several hundred thousand hectares in the conversion phase. The organic
farming area has to increase to five million hectares in the coming years according to the
ambitious plans, for which both the national government and many federal states will
provide funds. The states of Bihar and Sikkim are expected to provide USD 20 million
and Karnataka as much as USD 50 million. In India, the total acreage under certified
organic cultivation was 1.18 million hectares for 2009-10. At the same time, the total
number of farmers registered with certification agencies has also increased to cross the
half-million mark. The total value of organic products at farm level now stands at USD

Page 34 of 71
889 million. Currently, India ranks 33 in terms of total land under organic cultivation and
88 for agricultural land devoted to organic crops compared to total farming area.

Page 35 of 71
 4. Organic Farming and its Benefits

The developed world is concerned about spreading contamination of poisonous

chemicals in food, feed, fodder and fibre. The organic farming system is looked upon as
one of the means to remedy these maladies. However, the major problem in India is the
low level of organic matter content in the soil. The efficiency of organic inputs in the
promotion of productivity depends on the organic contents of the soil. Organic farming
has several benefits which have been proved across the globe:

I. Improvement in soil quality

Organic farming is all about soil quality. Multi-cropping, crop rotations, organic manures
and minimum tillage are the methods employed for the purpose. Natural plant nutrients
from green manures, farmyard manures, composts and plant residues build organic
nutrients in the soil. It is reported that soil under organic farming conditions had lower
bulk density, higher water holding capacity, higher microbial biomass carbon and
nitrogen and higher soil respiration activities compared to the conventional farms
(Sharma 2003). A comparison of the soil organic carbon content over a four-year period
revealed 26.93 percent higher carbon content and 20 percent more phosphorus in
organic farming over non-organic farming. The effect of organic cultivation on soil fertility
as reported at the farm of Central Institute for Cotton Research, Nagpur is given below:

Table 8: Organic Carbon and available P Contents

Year Organic Non-organic % increase in

Organic C Available
P (kg/ha)
Organic Available Organic Available P
carbon P (kg/ha) carbon (kg/ha)
(%) (%)
June 0.38 12.1 0.38 12.1 - -
1993
Feb 1994 0.40 12.6 0.36 12.0 11.11 5
Feb 1995 0.46 14.5 0.35 12.9 31.43 12.40
Feb 1996 0.52 15.0 0.38 12.0 36.84 25
Source: Sharma, PD, 2003

Page 36 of 71
The availability of essential nutrients from the field is limited and the additional amount
required is supplied either from organic manures or chemical fertilizers. In chemical
fertilizers, the nutrients are released immediately after their application. When this
application is synchronized with plant growth, it gives optimal benefits. In organic farming,
however, nutrients are released slowly and make synchronization of nutrient release from
organic manures and their uptake by crop plants a difficult task. Therefore, supplying
nutrients through organic manure requires much more skill on the part of the
farmers. 31

II. Increased crop productivity

Many experienced organic farmers have reported crop yields as high as, or higher than,
the average conventional yields. However, the average organic crop yields are often
lower than the average conventional yields32. The difference in average yield is largely a
reflection of differences in skill and not farming practice.

The most challenging time for a farmer switching over from convention farming is the
transition period during which the yield is low and the price premium is absent. Some
farmers have reported drops in yields as low as 30 percent during the conversion stages.
A study conducted by the Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR), Nagpur on the
economics of cotton cultivation in Yavatmal district of Maharashtra concluded that the
yield under organic method increased progressively equalling it to that of the
conventional system by the sixth year (Sharma, PD, 2003). The success of conversion
depends on the augmentation of biomass to increase the soil organic matter, improve the
soil microbes and correct any chemical abnormalities (acidity/alkalinity/salanity etc).
Therefore, efforts to plan the production based on the soil chemical/physical and
biological properties.

31
Modern Concepts of Agriculture, Organic farming, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, INSA Senior Scientist & Ex ICAR National
Professor, 2007
32
Extracted from COG’s Organic Field Crop Handbook

Page 37 of 71
 Table 9: Trend of Crop Productivity in Organic Farming

Year Status Yield Gross Premium Total Net Surplus

(Qtls/ha) Income (20%) (Rs.) Income / Deficit over
(Rs.) conventional
(Rs.)
Conventional 10.00 20000 0 20000 9000 0

Year Under 5.00 10000 0 10000 750 -8250

1 conversion

Year Under 5.75 11250 0 11250 3750 -5250

2 conversion

Year Organic 6.25 12500 2500 15000 7000 -1500

3

Year Organic 7.50 15000 3000 18000 10500 1500

4

Year Organic 8.75 17500 3500 21000 13500 4500

5

Year Organic 10.00 20000 4000 24000 16500 7500

6

Source: Rajendran, T.R., Venugopalan, M.V. and Tarhalkar, P.P. Organic Cotton
Farming. Technical Bulletin No. 1/2000, CICR, Nagpur, 37 (1999)

III. Low production cost with high net income

Organic farms have lower costs of production than conventional farms, with much less
emphasis on purchased inputs.

Organic farmers do not purchase synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. They also replace
herbicides with mechanical cultivation and other management practices to provide weed
control. Moreover, they have lower overhead costs for depreciation and interest charges
attached to capital inputs, such as machinery and equipment. On the whole, input costs
are lower on organic farms.

In general, expenses on organic farming are lower and income is higher (due to the price
premium) as compared to that of conventional farms.

A study of 100 farmers in Himachal Pradesh during a three year period found that the
total cost of production of maize and wheat were lower under organic farming whereas

Page 38 of 71
the net income was 2-3 times higher. Both productivity and premium prices contributed to
increased profitability. Another study of 100 farmers using organic and conventional
methods in five districts of Karnataka indicated that the cost of organic farming was lower
by 80 percent than that of conventional farming. 33 The cost benefit ratios mentioned for
the various crops under experiment were:

Table 10: Organic vs. Inorganic: Cost Benefit Ratio

Crops Organic Inorganic Difference in % of

organic over
inorganic

Groundnut 1:1.26 1:1.31 3.95

Jowar 1:1.36 1:1.28 5.13

Cotton 1:1.34 1:1.24 7.41

Coconut 1:1.70 1:1.31 22.37

Banana 1:3.66 1:2.82 22.86

A four-year study under “Network Project on Organic Farming” was initiated by Indian
Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)34 under Project Directorate of Cropping Systems
Research, Modipuram and thirteen research stations from all over the country
participated. The highlights of the four-year research were:

 Several region-specific cropping systems were found to perform better than or at

par with conventional cropping, in terms of yield and economics;
 In general, appreciable improvements in yield levels under organic farming system
were noted over the previous years;
 Improvements of different magnitudes were recorded in respect of soil organic
carbon, available-P, available-K, bulk density, and microbial count under organic
systems as compared to chemical farming;

33
Thakur, et.al., 2003
34
Organic Agriculture: Concept, Scenario, Principals and Practices; A.K. Yadav, Director, National Centre for Organic
Farming

Page 39 of 71
  Some of the non-chemical measures tried at different centres were quite effective
in controlling major diseases/insect-pest/weeds and resulted in improvement in
yields.

iv. Low incidence of pests

In organic farming, tillage for weed control after plant emergence is relatively shallow with
low potential to compact the soil. With improved soil structure and good management
practices, in organic farming, not more but in some cases less tillage is required than
their conventional neighbours.

The study on the effectiveness of organic cotton cultivation on pests at the farm of
Central Institute for Cotton Research, Nagpur revealed that the mean monthly counts of
eggs, larva and adults of American Bollworm were far lesser under organic farming than
those under conventional method.35

A seven-year study was conducted by International Crops Research Institute for Semi-
36
Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India to examine the possibility of comparable
yields of different grains, legume, fibre, vegetable and fruit crops under organic farming in
India. The major findings were:

 Six different crops (soybean, pigeon pea, maize, sorghum, cow pea and cotton)
emerged well;
 In spite of the fear of collar rot by Sclerotium rolfsii and stem borer in the presence
of high biomass, the incidence was virtually non-existent, Helicoverpa armigera, a
major pest of pigeon pea and cotton was managed well with biological methods.
The problem posed by aphids could be overcome with timely application of 1
percent soap spray. The other insects such as mealy bugs and cow bugs were
managed with 0.8 percent soap;
 Among different soil biological properties, the soil respiration was 17-27 percent
more in organic plots, microbial biomass carbon was 28-29 percent higher,
microbial biomass nitrogen was 23-28 percent more and acid and alkaline
phosphates were 5-13 percent higher than conventional plots;

35
Sharma, PD, 2003
36
Yadav, A.K., Director,National Centre of Organic Farming, Ghaziabad; Organic Agriculture; Concepts, Scenario,
principals and Practices,

Page 40 of 71
  Soil fertility and soil nutrient balance were on significantly higher side in organic
system and offer longer sustainability and suitability of the approaches under
Indian conditions, typical of small and marginal farmers.

v. Employment and income generating opportunities:

Shift towards organic farming reduces the dependency on external inputs and paid
out costs and shifts towards farm based or locally made inputs. This gives scope for
several small enterprises to come up at the local level. Similarly, the demand for
organic food is growing at 15 percent in India. The increased demand can be
translated into better opportunity for farming community in terms of increasing their
bargaining power for better prices if the farmers can be organised into collectives like
cooperatives or producer companies. At the farmers’ collective level, there is
enormous scope to take up processing and value addition. Producer Companies like
Sahaja Aharam (http://www.sahajaaharam.in) have already demonstrated such
potential.

The Rodale Institute in their 30 years long study found that organic agriculture promotes
job creation, providing for more than 30 percent more jobs per hectare than non-organic
farms.

Many studies both outside and within India revealed that organic farming requires more
labour input than the conventional farming system. Organic farming could be a solution to
the large labour unemployment in India. Moreover, the crop diversification with different
planting and harvesting schedules could mitigate the problem of periodic unemployment
in rural India.

Page 41 of 71
 5. Genetically Modified Food: Is it an Alternative Solution?

The World Health Organisation - (WHO) defined genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
as organisms (i.e. plants, animals and microorganisms) in which the genetic material
(DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural
recombination.

In the developing world 840 million people are chronically undernourished, surviving on
fewer than 2000 Kcal/day and approximately 1.3 billion people are living on less than
US$1 a day and do not have access to secure food. The United Nations Food and
Agriculture organization estimates that the world will have to grow 70 percent more food
by 2050 just to keep up with population growth. In this scenario, is GM the answer to
feeding the hungry millions of the world?

Are GE crops the answer to food shortage?

GM advocates argue that GM plant technologies are developed to combat these

problems of food shortage by increasing yields and weed resistant crops and the benefits
outweigh the perceived health risks. According to David Zilberman37, GM crop “has
lowered the price of food”, “It has increased farmer safety by allowing them to use less
pesticide”, “It has raised the output of corn, cotton and soy by 20 to 30 percent, allowing
some people to survive who would not have survived without it” :”If it were more widely
adopted around the world, the price of food would go lower, and fewer people would die
of hunger” Climate change will make much of the world’s arable land more difficult to
farm. GM crops, Zilberman says, could produce higher yields, grow in dry and salty land,
withstand high and low temperatures, and tolerate insects, disease and herbicides.

These promises are attractive to the hungry masses, fatigued farmers and policy makers
looking for quick and easy solutions. The claims, today remains as promises and the
miracle technology is yet to deliver its promises in actual terms.

The Union of Concerned Scientists in its 2009 report titled ‘Failure to Yield: Evaluating
the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops’ reported that investigation of yield
data for GE crops shows that genetic engineering is not living up to its promise. Their

37
Scientific American, September 1, 2013

Page 42 of 71
findings38based on comparison of 13 years of yield data on corn and soya since the
commercial introduction of GE food crops in the United States found that:

 Herbicide-tolerant (HT) GE soybeans and corn have not increased yields any
more than conventional methods that rely on commonly available herbicides;
 Insect-resistant Bt-corn varieties have provided an average yield advantage of just
3-4 percent compared to typical conventional practices, including use of synthetic
insecticide.
 Meanwhile, non-GE plant breeding and farming methods have increased yields of
major grain crops by values ranging from 13-25 percent.

Do GE crops reduce weeds and fertilizer use? Is it safe for use?

It was reported that the GM cotton engineered to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate,
marketed as Roundup by Monsanto was used by the US farmers in the 1990s. The
combination worked well till 2004, after which the herbicide resistant palmer amaranth
39
caused farmers to lose up to half of their cotton fields to the weed. Twenty-four
glyphosate resistant weed species have been identified since Roundup tolerant crops
were introduced in 1996.

A study by David Mortensen, a plant ecologist at Pennsylvania State University in

University Park predicts that total herbicide use in the United States will rise from around
1.5 kilograms per hectare in 2013 to more than 3.5 kilograms per hectare in 2025 as a
direct result of GM crop use. 40

Studies show that use of glyphosate reduces species that build humus in the soil and
thus contributes to the decline in soil organic matter.41 Use of glyphosate reportedly
reduces earthworm populations, reduces the activity of nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Other
studies also revealed that glyphosate herbicides increase the susceptibility of plants to
more than 40 diseases.42

Lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto, the agribusiness giant, alleging that the
company’s popular weed-killer Roundup (where glyphosate is the key ingredient) causes

38
Union of Concerned Scientists; issue briefing, July 2009; Failure to Yield - Biotechnology’s Broken Promises
39
www.nature.com/gmcrops Case studies; A hard look at GM crops, May 01, 2013
40
Mortensen,D., Egan, J.F., Maxwell, B.D., Ryan, M.R. & Smith, R.G. Bioscience 62, 75-84 (2012)
41
KavitaKuruganti, Briefing Paper on Herbicide Tolerant GM Crops (India) January 2011
42
KavitaKaruganti, Briefing Paper on Herbicide Tolerant GM Crops (India), January 2011

Page 43 of 71
cancer. It was reported by Reuters that personal injury law firms around the U.S. are
gathering numerous plaintiffs to build “mass tort actions” against the cancer causing
weed-killer.43

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of WHO had in 2015
concluded that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. Mosanto defended the lawsuits and
had demanded a retraction of the WHO report. It has announced a reduction of 12
percent of its workforce in light of the negative impacts on its business. In April 2016, The
United Nations and WHO in its meeting on herbicide residues issued a joint report that
glyphosate poses no cancer risk.44

Since 2005, there have been reports of illnesses and in some cases death of cattle which
foraged on cotton leaves and bolls from the standing crops in Andhra Pradesh (CSA,
2006). ANTHRA’s study on this matter has shown that usually the third day after
consumption of Bt-cotton foliage/cake etc. animals show signs of nasal discharge, cough,
and respiratory distress and sometimes bloody urine. In Haryana, cows fed on Bt-cotton
seed cake had lower milk yields (Ramdas 2010). In a letter to the Genetic Engineering
Approval Committee (GEAC), the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry,
Government of Andhra Pradesh in 2007 wrote that ‘animal deaths were observed after
feeding on Bt cotton in February-March, 2006 and 2007. In discussions with crop
developers and scientists, it was felt that the bio safety tests conducted were inadequate
to establish the safety of Bt cotton being fed to animals. (Department of Animal
Husbandry, 2007)

Is GM safe for the environment?

One of the objectives for developing plants based on GM organisms was to improve crop
protection without the use of pesticides. According to David Zilberman, a U.C. Berkeley
agricultural and environmental economist45, the benefits of GM crops greatly outweigh
the health risks. The GM crops “has lowered the price of food, it has increased farmer
safety by allowing them to use less pesticide, raised the output of corn, cotton and soy by
20 – 30 percent, allowing some people to survive who would not have without it. If it were

43
Lawsuits Mount Against Monsanto’s ‘Cancer-Causing’ weedkiller, EcoWatch dated October 16, 2015
44
Lawsuits Mount Against Monsanto’s ‘Cancer-Causing’ weedkiller, EcoWatch dated October 16, 2015
45
The Truth about Genetically Modified Food, by David H Freedman on September 1, 2013, Scientific America

Page 44 of 71
more widely adopted around the world, the price of food would go lower and fewer
people would die of hunger.”

On the other hand, the issues of concern towards the environment are GMO‘s capability
to escape and potentially introduce engineered genes into wild populations; the
persistence of the gene after a GE crop is harvested; the susceptibility of non-target
organisms to the gene product; the reduction in the spectrum of other plants, including
loss of biodiversity.

 GE scientists had claimed that Bt is benign towards non-target organisms. This

assumption has been questioned by many studies. GM Canola, a genetically
modified crop has been reported to be thriving in the wild in the US in 2010 by
scientists from the University of Arkansas.46
 Research has established that the insecticide in Bt-corn is polluting rivers and
water bodies in the US. They have found that the insecticide from Bt corn has
leached into many streams and rivers. The impact this has on aquatic biology of
the water bodies is not yet known. (Rosi - Marshall et.al. 2007)
 The large amount of active Bt toxins generated by the transgenic plants impact the
soil systems. It was found that the soil in which Bt cotton grew has lower average
soil respiration rate, lower level of activity by a section of soil microbes and a
negative effect on availability of mineral nitrogen in the soils (Sarkar et al, 2008)

Some of the remunerative losses suffered on account of GM contamination are listed

below47:

 In 2004 GM contamination of Hawaiian papaya led to loss of export markets.

Organic farmers were forced to sell their papaya at a third of the price they were
getting before. Total papaya production in Hawaii has reduced by 30 percent since
the GM varieties were introduced in 1998 as export markets have shrunk;
 In 2005, GM contamination in Spain of organic maize led to cancellation of organic
certification and loss of 2 varieties of maize. Across the USA, organic farmers are
being affected by lower prices or loss of sales due to GM contamination from
neighbouring farms. It is estimated that contamination of the total organic maize

46
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100806/full/news.2010.393.html?s=news_rss
47
The Economic Impacts of GM Contamination Incidents on the organic Section, Hewlett & Azeez

Page 45 of 71
 crop would total a potential lost income of over $90 million annually for organic
farmers;
 In 2007 post -harvest GM contamination of organic soybeans cost food company
Nevada Soy $ 100,000 as it was forced to close their business for a month
following a positive GMO test on their organic soybean oil.
 In 2009 an unauthorized GM flax called CDC triffid contaminated Canadian flax
export market to Europe;
 In Canada, contamination from GM oilseed rape has made it virtually impossible to
cultivate organic, non-GM oilseed rape.

ENABAVI: Freedom from Chemicals, Pesticides & Pests

A little over 100 kms away from Hyderabad, located in Warangal District, on the
way to entering a small village reads a signboard: “Welcome to Chemical Free
Village, ENABAVI”. The region is generally dry, receiving scanty rainfall at best
with no major irrigation project available. It depended on rainwater and bore wells
for all purposes.
It was 1999. The entire region was infested by
‘hairy caterpillars’, a pest that devoured practically
every standing crop in the field. With the initiatives
and help received from Centre for Sustainable
Agriculture (CSA) in association with Centre for
Rural Operations Programme Society
(CROPS), the farmers of the region were
encouraged to stop spraying pesticides and
instead fight the pest with other organic based methods. The methods were found
effective. After the ‘pest’ were gone some surrounding villages, while opting to be
pesticide free chose to continue with chemical farming. However, ENABAVI, a
small village of about 51 households collectively chose to transform into a totally
chemical free, organic farming village – all the 210 acres of field.

Most of these farmers are marginal farmers with average 3-4 acres of land.
Eventually, The Enabavi Organic Farmers Mutual Aided Co-operative Society Ltd.,

Page 46 of 71
a registered society was born in 2006, to facilitate the farmers to collectively
market their produce.

The initial years of going organic saw that yields were reducing. However, the low
yield was compensated by cost reduction on account of low inputs and overall loss
was minimized.

CSA technically supports the village in multi-cropping patterns, shifting from risky
cash crops such as cotton, and in compost making and other such knowhow in
their journey towards organic farming.

A visit to the village gets one to see the older generation farming in tandem with
the new generation, fully engaged, tired but contented with what life offers.

According to Ponnam Mallaiah, the current president of the society, he recollected

starting off as a traditional farmer and later on drifted to chemical farming. He
recalled that after practicing chemical farming, pest increased, the soil has low
moisture content; even after rains the soil could not retain moisture for long.

To him, the best thing about organic farming is; it is returning to the old traditional
way of farming and he is free from ‘Saukari’, the Fertilizer Trader. He is happy to
see that his soil is back to its moisture retaining capacity and giving yield as
before.

The other farmers’ general feeling is that, their (the villagers) needs are minimal.
They have rice produced, vegetables and other things needed for their
consumption. Also, the premium they received on their farm produce is
satisfactory.

The two most challenging issues are the uncertainty of rains and drought like
situation year-on-year, which makes farming difficult to carry on. The other issue is
the drudgery of intensive labour method of farming, which on the other hand is
beneficial for the farm and the animals. While, they are aware of the trade-off, the
wishful desire of reducing the labour intensive method remains an elusive dream.
Page 47 of 71
 On the whole one sees a community of hard working, simple-folk who chose
‘drudgery labour’ with healthy soil and environment over mechanised mono-
cropping chemical laden fields.

The Enabavi farmers’ cooperative is a member of Sahaja Aharam Producer

Company and markets their produce directly to consumers through the company
owned stores. The price realisation by the farmers is by over 50 percent of the
consumers price which is more than double of what conventional farmers realises.
(about 22 percent).

The village, has, indeed, become a first of its kind, a role model for the
surrounding areas where many individuals have got the inspiration to switch over
to organic farming.
ENABAVI, today shines as a beacon of hope, showing us that the right effort could
overcome many obstacles.
The village won the first ‘Krishi Gourav’ award by Patanjali Trust. The village was
an inspiration for many farmers. CSA in partnership with Rural Development
Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh has scaled up the model through
Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture Program over lakhs of acres. The
pesticide use in the state came down by over 50 percent during 2005-201048

48
http://ppqs.gov.in/PMD.htm#consumption

Page 48 of 71
 6. Organic Farming in India: Barriers for its Spread

The organic farming movement in India started in the early 1980s and was spearheaded
by NGOs. The first conference of NGOs on organic farming was organised by the
Association for Propagation of Indigenous Genetic Resources (APIGR) in October 1984
at Wardha. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)
estimated that about 41,000 hectares in India was then under organic farming,
representing 0.17 percentage of world acreage.

From a mere 41,000 hectares in 1984, the area cultivated under organic farming has
gone up to 5,10,000 hectares in 2013 but this is still only 0.3 percent share of organic
agricultural land in the world. China has an estimated 2.1 million hectares under organic
farming against India’s 0. 5 million hectare.49 The top ten countries are:

Table 11: Top 10 Countries & their share in Organic Farming

(In Million hectares)

Australia 17.2
Argentina 3.2
USA (2011) 2.2
China 2.1
Spain 1.6
Italy 1.3
France 1.1
Germany 1.1
Uruguay (2006) 0.9
Canada 0.9
Source: IFOAM Survey 2015

While India has been making remarkable progress in terms of acreage area under
organic farming, a comparison of India’s 0.5 m ha against Australia (17.2 m ha),
Argentina (3.19 m ha), USA (2.2. m ha) and China ( 2.1 m ha) indicates that the country
still has a long way to go to be a major player in this field. In 2013, India produced 1.24
million MT of certified organic products, exported 135 products with the total volume of
194088 MT. The organic agricultural export realization was around US$ 403 million.50

49
IFOAM Survey 2015
50
www.apeda.gov.in

Page 49 of 71
The opportunities for India are huge as globally the largest number of organic producers
is in India. There were an estimated 650,000 organic producers in India in 2013.51

To encourage organic farming, the Government of India introduced the National

Programme for Organic Production (NPOP) on May 08, 2000. The NPOP involves the
accreditation programme for Certification Bodies, standards for organic production,
promotion of organic farming etc.

A study conducted by ASSOCHAM (Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of

India) on the roadmap for West Bengal organic state reveals that adoption of organic
farming can increase the states per capita income by a whopping 250 percent. At least
35 percent of the cultivable land can be converted into organic farming, thereby arresting
the migration of people from West Bengal to other states in search of jobs.

The NPOP was last revised in 2014 to suit the changing times and incorporating
standards accepted in Europe and USA so that exports do not suffer.

In spite of Government intervention to promote organic farming as an environmentally

and socially responsible approach, the momentum is far behind the curve. The share of
organic cultivation is merely 0.26 percent of the total cropped area (195.25 million ha)52
of the country.

What prevents the momentum to pick up, if organic is an important part of the solution of
the agriculture sector?

Barrier for spread: Lack of investment in research and extension

Agriculture needs both public and private investment. One indicator for investment is the
share of gross capital formation (GCF). Public investment in rural physical infrastructure
such as roads, electricity, marketing, irrigation and social infrastructure like education and
agriculture research influences agricultural growth.

Agriculture itself was once a technology perfected through years of evolution of

civilization. One essential intervention is to increase funding for research and
development on ecological farming practices that move away from reliance on chemical

51
IFOAM Survey 2015
52
Agricultural Statistics At a Glance 2014

Page 50 of 71
fertilisers and from chemical pest control towards biodiversity-based tools to control pests
and enhance ecosystem health.

An Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Ahmedabad study on the “Economics and

Efficiency of Organic Farming vis-a-vis Conventional farming in India” in 201053
concluded that there is ample scope for increasing the efficiency of organic farms.
Exposure to more trainings and increase in technical guidance would enhance the
productivity and efficiency of organic farms in India. One of the study’s concluding factors
for expansion of organic farming was more investment in R & D.

While, data is available in respect of trends of Government spending, subsidy on fiscal

burden, spending on infrastructure, there is lack of data regarding trend of investment in
organic farming.

The Government of India, in its 2016-17 budgets has allocated Rs. 412 crore towards
organic farming to increase crop yields in rain-fed areas. Besides this, there has been no
dedicated provision for research in organic farming. The sector lacks scientific research
to further improve the practices in organic farming.

Barrier for spread: Skewed subsidization policy

The agriculture policy in India seeks to maintain food self-sufficiency while providing
income support to the agricultural sector and poor consumers. The policy instruments
used to achieve these goals are:

 Domestic subsidies to inputs, outputs, transportation, storage, and consumption to

reduce producer costs and consumer prices;
 Border measures such as subsidies, tariffs, quotas, and non-tariff measures to
protect domestic producers from import competition, manage domestic price
levels, and guarantee domestic supply.

The input subsidies in the form of fertilizers and electricity are the most expensive
aspects of the agriculture policy regime and effectively cover about 40-75 percent
fertilizer and 70-90 percent for irrigation and electricity54. The cost of India’s agricultural
input subsidies as a share of agriculture output almost doubled from 6.0 percent in 2003-

53
Economics and Efficiency of Organic Farming vis-a-vis Conventional Farming in India, D. Kumara Charyulu and
Subho Biswas, April 2010
54
https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/EBOT_IndiaAgSubsidies.pdf

Page 51 of 71
0455 to 11.6 percent in 2009-10, driven mostly by large increases in the subsidies to
fertilizer and electricity.

Against this high level of government support through fertilizer subsidization for
conventional farming, by contrast there is no policy support to encourage the organic
farmer. There is no support policy in place for supporting the farmer who is practicing a
safe and environment friendly farming approach.

Barrier for spread: certification and infrastructure

Organic farming has four basic requirements, viz., organic standards, certification/
regulatory mechanism, technology packages and marketing network.

India has a large number of organic cultivators (mostly small and marginal farmers
cultivating one acre or less) spread across a large geographical area having different
climatic zones.

There are about 60 standards for organic foods globally. The Government of India has,
under the National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP) developed the “National
Standards for Organic Export”. Currently, there are twenty-four accredited certifying
agencies in the country.

The cost of certification, packaging and undeveloped marketing network remains a

barrier for the spread of organic farming in a big way since 85 percent of India’s farmers
are small and marginal farmers56 and have not been organised into producer collectives.
While efforts have been undertaken to evolve an Indian version of Participatory
Guarantee System (PGS) it has not taken off in a full way.

Barrier for spread: externalization of cost valuation

It was reported in 2013 that 5, 690,000 sq ha of land in India falls under certified organic
farming (including wild collection), but the actual area under organics is much more.
There are many areas where penetration of chemicals is very low and most of the areas
fall under organic farming ‘by default’. These areas could be Assam and other north-

55
The Budget of Government of India; Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers and Fertilizer Association of India; Ministry
of Statistics and Programme Implementation; central Electricity Regulatory Commission; Economic Intelligence Unit;
and the Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 134 (Nov. 23, 2007)
56
Agriculture Census 2010-11

Page 52 of 71
eastern states, Jharkhand, Orissa, J & K, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya
Pradesh, Chhatisgarh and Rajasthan.

Sudheer (2013)57 found that organic farmers were making profits over conventional
farmers even without the premium pricing of organic products as none of the farmers
went for organic certification due to the prohibitively high costs demanding procedures,
paper work and their produce was sold undifferentiated in the market.

Sudheer (2013) further concluded that organic farming will spread in India further if the
Government provides subsidies on organic inputs and support for getting certification and
marketing the produce. The technical support from the Government (Agriculture
department) will be helpful on a wider scale.

Organic farming is labour intensive. Added to that is the constraint of certification

involving laborious documentation and paperwork. The lack of technical support,
absence of support for cattle and labour and lack of incentive for use of self-made
fertilisers from the government act as barriers in the spread of organic farming.

57
Economics of organic versus chemical farming for 3 crops in Andhra Pradesh, India

Page 53 of 71
 7. Organic Farming: What are its Drivers?

Agroecological approaches have proven to be the major hope to sustain agriculture in the
era of climate change. Learning from the entire successful model, we can draw four
common features which they had. First, made use of locally adapted resource conserving
technologies. Second, in all there has been coordinated action by groups or communities
at local level.Third, there have been supportive external (or non-local) government and/or
non-governmental institutions working in partnership with farmers and Fourth, a favorable
public policy which supports such initiatives.

Therefore we need to create policy instruments, institutional systems which will drive
farmers to adopt agroecological approaches so that they can sustain their livelihoods and
ecology.

Drivers of organic farming: technology support

The USDA (1995) defined organic farming as an ecological production management

system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological
activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and management practices that
restore maintain and enhance ecological harmony.

Organic promotion is more labour-intensive than conventional production. This increased

labour cost, on one hand, is one factor that makes organic food more expensive. On the
other hand, the increased need for labour could also be an “employment dividend”,
providing more job opportunities especially in India.

Some of the usual methods of organic farming are poly-culture, mixed farming and
intercropping. Similarly, no-till farming has been one of the recent advances in the
technology of organic farming.

The challenge for organic farming is whether yield of organic farming could match the
yield of conventional farming.

58
A long-term field study comparing organic and conventional farming carried out over
twenty-one years in Switzerland concluded that “crop yields of the organic systems
averaged over twenty-one experimental years at 80 percent of the conventional ones.

58
Andreas Fliebach, Jacques Fuchs, Paul Mader, D-O-K 9 Biodynamic -Bioorganic-Conventional: Results from 21 year
old field experiment; International Conference, Soil and Compost Eco-Biology; September 15-17, Leon-Spain

Page 54 of 71
The fertilizer input was, 34-51 percent lower, and it used 20- 56 percent less energy to
produce”

The outcome of experiments at Model Organic Farm, CAZRI (Central Arid Zone
Research Institute) shows that in the initial developmental stage of organic system there
may be low yield by 20-30 percent but after 2-3 years when the system developed the
yield levels are comparable to the conventional system.59

The decrease cost of synthetic fertilizer and pesticide inputs, along with the higher prices
that consumers pay for organic produce, contribute to increased profits. Organic farms
have been consistently found to be more profitable than conventional farms.

Even though the results of each research have been contested, there are certainly
encouraging signs in organic farming, if technologies are perfected to facilitate
productivity.

Scientific research in organic farming is in rudimentary stages. A push in this direction is

the need of the hour for mass scale production in organic farming.

In this scenario, the major benefit to an organic farmer could be information and
knowledge sharing in this field. Sharing of knowledge and techniques can increase
productivity, tackling pests’ through different ways of intercropping; effective use of
compost manure can reduce the low productivity in organic farming.

Traditionally, farmers have been sharing their knowledge and experiences among the
community. Information technology can assist farmer community in knowledge sharing
through this platform.

Much like the Digital Green campaign in India and Farm Hack in USA, the sharing of
knowledge can facilitate the industry of organic farming - teaching farmers different ways
to farm, solutions to multiple farming problems etc. This sort of information can be
particularly helpful to small-scale farmers, who cannot invest time and resources in
researching for advancement in technologies. Doordarshan Krishi programmes could
also be used as a platform to disseminate organic farming success stories and
techniques.

59
Reproduced from Outcome of Experiments at Model organic farm, CAZRI, Ecological Agriculture in India -Scientific
Evidence on positive Impacts & Successes; Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture

Page 55 of 71
For a large scale shift into organic farming from conventional methods of farming, much
research needs to be carried out in terms of efficacy and the findings so far are both
interesting and encouraging. One of the major transits could be public investment in
research for increasing productivity through organic farming to make it as good as or
even better than conventional ways of farming.

Drivers of organic farming: multi-cropping pattern

The Green Revolution heralded the arrival of mono-cropping culture required for
mechanised intervention over physical labours’ dedicated devotion. Mechanised farming
which requires less labour intensive farming, like any other new mechanization, reduces
the farming community and the prospect of less labour along with more yields in the field
seemed to be the answer to the farmers’ woes.

This however, led to the loss of a host of other things - health of soil deteriorated,
imbalanced living ecosystem leading to loss of natural pest controllers, pollution of water,
depleting soil nutrients, increased greenhouse gases and impacts on health of farmers
and consumers are a few among the many impacts of mono cropping farming based on
chemical inputs.

Organic farming on the other hand, results in enhancing the health of soil, sustaining
living ecosystems, ensures fairness with regard to common environment and life
opportunities. Against the principle of mono-cropping propagated by the Green
Revolutionist, mixed cropping is the outstanding feature of organic farming. A variety of
crops are grown simultaneously or at different times on the same field. This reduces risks
from failure of any single crop as occurs in mono-cropping systems. Legumes (dicots)
are usually grown in at least 40 percent of the organically cropped area. The legume is
the natural nitrogen fixing agent when used either as companion crop or succeeding
crops.

Mixed cropping promotes photosynthesis and avoids the competition for nutrients as
different plants draw their nutrients from different depths of soil. Deep rooted plants drew
nutrients from deeper layers of soil and bring them up to the surface of soil through their
leaf fall. The nutrients leached down to lower strata are further brought back to upper
layer by these deep rooted plants, protecting the soil from soil erosion.

Page 56 of 71
Crop rotation is the backbone of organic farming practices and keeps the soil healthy and
allows the natural microbial systems to work. High nutrient demanding crops should
precede and follow legume dominated crop combination. It also helps in controlling soil
borne diseases and weeds.

The practice of mono-cropping results in crop production patterns in the country which is
not in sync with changing demands and nutritional requirements. While the granaries are
overflowing with wheat and rice, there is a shortage of edible oils and pulses which are
met through imports.60 Mono-cropping or cultivating a few crops have resulted in surplus
in few crops and shortage in many others, which is met through imports at a price and
affecting the health of the nation and the livelihood of Indian farmers who are faced with
competition from heavily subsidized low cost imports.

The CACPs price policy report for rabi crops noted that against the buffer stock norm of
31.9 million tonnes of rice and wheat, total central pool stocks at 65.3 million tonnes were
more than double (25.5 million tonnes of rice and 39.8 million tonnes of wheat) as on July
1, 2014.61 This also amounts to locking of resources, estimated at Rs. 45,640 crore,
which entails opportunity cost and further adding to the expenditure towards the already
rising food subsidy bill.

The situation demands urgently moving away from cereals to grow pulses and oilseeds.
However, the state-specific bonus on wheat and paddy encourages more production of
these two commodities and dampens the prospects of diversification towards oilseeds
and pulses. The latter crops also require less water for growth.

Such a public policy which encourages only a particular crop is also susceptible in many
ways. Crop failure is one factor. In crop rotation or multi-cropping the pest host and non
pest host crops help in controlling soil borne diseases and pests, thus eliminating or
minimising the chances of crop failure. Mono-cropping does not have this kind of check
and the chances of pesticides controlling the entire crop if a serious crop pest invades
may be bleak at times.

60
Live mint, Oct 31, 2014
61
Live Mint, Oct 31, 2014

Page 57 of 71
Incentivising Ecosystem Services: International scenario

USA: Conventional farmers wanting to switch to organic farming can receive grants from
the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Environmental Quality Incentives
Program. Agricultural producers can receive upto $ 20,000 per year or upto $ 80,000
over six years. Farmers undergoing certification from eligible programs are reimbursed
75 percent of the certification upto $ 750. The department also takes initiatives by
developing research, extension and higher education programs that help organic farmers
and farmers transitioning to organic agriculture. Grants are also available to state
agencies, colleges and universities, businesses, non-profits and land grant institutions.62

Germany: Germany promoted the introduction of organic farming with public funds since
1989. Since 1994, the introduction and maintenance of organic farming has been
supported under the Lander rural development programmes (RDPs). The national funds
are co-financed at a rate of 60:40 by the federal government and the Lander. As from
2015, support rates under the GAK (The Act on Joint Task for the Improvement of
Agricultural Structure and Coastal Protection) amount to Euro 250 per hectare of arable
land and grassland holdings embarking on organic farming and Euro 210 per hectare for
holdings that maintain organic farming. Holdings that participate in the control procedure
under the EU legislation on organic farming can receive an additional Euro 50 per
hectare up to a maximum of euro 600 per holding.63

Switzerland: In Switzerland the issue of biodiversity is addressed through several

sectoral policies - ecological direct payments and the Swiss Foundation for the
Conservation of Cultural Landscapes (FLS).Direct payments are offered to those farmers
who are willing to use more ecological and biodiversity - sound management practices.
The farmers who damage the environment are not penalized, and the environmental
friendly farmers received rewards under the ecological direct payments policy. The FLS
supports the conservation and sustainable use of old orchards of regional ecosystems
and old chestnut plantations.

China: There are indications that the central government has a positive attitude towards
organic agriculture in China. With this background, several local and regional
governments have expressed their commitments to support organic agriculture and some

62
www.smallbusiness.chron.com/government-grants-new-organic-farms-12458.html.
63
https://www.bmel.de/EN/Agriculture/SustainableLandUse/-Texte/OrganicFarmingInGermany.html.

Page 58 of 71
have invested in pilot projects and research. The support is mainly towards covering the
cost of certification. Apart from the support for production and trade, also research and
consultation on organic agriculture are receiving funds from donors/government.64

The policy of subsidies, incentives and bonuses drives the cropping pattern of the
country. Putting in place the right policy will go a long way in the spread of organic
farming.

Chemical Farming in Drought Prone Area: Cherial, Warrangal District, Telangana

Cherial village, Warangal District, about 100 kms away from Hyderabad, with 124
suicides is the hotbed of farmer suicides in 201565. Being dry and rain fed area, the
region is dependent on seasonal rains for agriculture.

The area has been growing Bt cotton for the last several years, in anticipation of high
demand and prices in the international market. However, the failed/scanty monsoons
have dashed the farmer’s dreams to ashes. Against the expected 10-12 quintals of yield
per acre, the actual yield had turned out to be just about 3 quintals per acre. Added to the
low yield were the falling cotton prices of just Rs. 4100/- per quintal against input cost of
Rs. 50,000/- resulting in a net loss of Rs. 38,000/- per acre.

The year 2016 started with anticipation for good and timely rains. With the promise of a
good monsoon, the farmers shifted from cotton to corn. The first crops were shown in the
month of June. While the crops sown in late June-early July survived, with no rains in
July-August, the crops sown in early June have dried up.

With the drought-like situation staring at them, the farmers are just drifting around content
with the Rs. 150/ - per day scheme from government.

One feels a sense of helplessness, hopelessness and aimlessness in the atmosphere.

For them cultivating without chemicals and pesticides is unthinkable. It will indeed be a
great challenge to motivate, encourage and train these farmers to change their farming
practices. It’s not just about the motivation, encouragement and handholding but the
policies and incentives in place to make them confident farmers is not only a challenge
but the need of the hour.

64
www.organic-world.net/fileadmin/documents/yearbook/2011/qiao-2011-china.pdf
65
Livemint, January 30, 2015; “Telangana farmer suicide

Page 59 of 71
 8. Organic Farming in India: The Problem Diagnosis

The mainstream agricultural research and extension system still castes doubts over
Organic farming and other agro ecological approaches to wards farming. The main
concerns comes from the understanding they get when seen from a modern industrial
agriculture lenses which looks farming as a linear model and believes more yields are
possible with more inputs and that will solve all the farmers individual farmer or the nation
faces. This needs a paradigm shift in terms of maximising the input/labour use efficiency,
decreasing the paid out costs and effects on environment which can return best incomes
for the farmers and provide healthy and nutritive food to all. The public policy should gear
up for this shift and it will bring in a big change. Problem diagnosis: policy initiatives &
equity support

The growth of organic agriculture in India has three dimensions:

 For farmers situated in no-input or low-input use zones, organic farming is a way
of life and a tradition. They are organic by default and not certified;
 For farmers who have recently adopted organic farming in the wake of ill effects
such as reduced soil fertility, food toxicity, increasing cost and diminishing returns
on account of conventional agriculture. This category comprises of both certified
and uncertified organic farmers;
 For farmers and enterprises who have systematically adopted commercial organic
agriculture to capture emerging market opportunities and premium prices. Farmers
in this category are mostly certified.

The Government support towards agriculture in India is noteworthy - subsidization of

chemical inputs (fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides), procurement of select crop
products thereby assuring minimal return to farmers. The budgetary allocation for the
year 2016-2017 towards agriculture is Rs. 47,912 crore.

All these Government initiatives in agriculture are geared to benefit the conventional or
chemical farmer, be it input support or procurement of crop yield.

On the other hand, the organic farmer is not benefitting from the government initiatives.
S/He is not using chemical inputs, is protecting the health of the soil, is not polluting the
environment, protecting the biodiversity of the ecosystem by using his/her own farm

Page 60 of 71
sources, saving on energy consumption and water resources, etc. S/He is excluded from
the various government schemes because they are designed in such a way that it only
benefits the conventional/chemical farmer.

The Government may consider creating a level playing field based on equity principle
and facilitate the organic farmers and incentivise their contribution and bring them up.
The level playing field will be a boost to organic farming in a big way.

Some of the ways to incentivise the organic farmer could be to supplement his/her
income for non-use of chemical products, which otherwise is subsidized to the
conventional farmer.

Schemes may also be designed to incentivise the organic farmer for using his/her own
cattle which saves on energy and urea.

Problem diagnosis: right mix of crops

Government announces Minimum Support Price (MSP) for twenty-five crops and
acquires mainly two crops through the Food Corporation of India (FCI). The farmer is
assured of the MSP in case market is not favourable. Such a policy drives the farmers
towards those crops which gives them the assurance of minimum price support from
government in adverse circumstances. The result is while there is surplus of cereal
crops, the supply of pulses and oilseeds are falling short of demand and government has
to bridge this shortfall through imports which is an added fiscal burden to the government
exchequer and a deterrent to farmers to produce the wide range of crops that the country
needs.

An equity based policy for all crops will take care of such eventualities. Given the
assurance of a level playing field, the farmer may decide on a mixed crop suitable to the
agro-climatic conditions and not be dictated by the terms of subsidy and procurement
which is prevalent in its current form. In fact this should be encouraged and incentivised
by making the right mix of locally available and nutritious crops part of the Public
Distribution System.

Problem diagnosis: subsidy to move from impact to ecological services

Currently, the farmer is getting subsidy on fertilizers. The fiscal burden towards subsidy in
the last 3 years was Rs. 67,971 cr (2013-14); Rs. 72,970 cr (2014-15) and Rs. 72,962 cr

Page 61 of 71
(2015-16). It was reported that for every kilogram of urea, the government subsidy
amount is Rs. 64.

Subsidy makes the farmer dependent on chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Expenses
for fertilizers and insecticides were relatively lower in the initial years of the Green
Revolution, while yield was high. This impressed farmers. However, over the years the
pests not only increased in abundance but also developed resistance to insecticides,
making it necessary to apply greater variety of insecticides and increasingly larger
quantities of fertilizer as soil fertility declined. Over the years, cash inputs often exceeded
the value of the crop. Though, the farmer wanted to get away from inputs, the continuous
spraying of insecticides had drastically reduced the populations of insectivorous birds,
wasps, beetles and other predatory insects that provided natural control of pest insects.
In this scenario, farmers were caught in a “pesticide trap66” and were compelled to
continue using insecticides.

The need of the hour is to ask the right questions -

What motivates the farmer? How to motivate the farmer in the right direction?

What are his aspirations?

What are the things required/the steps to make the farmer realize his aspirations and
reach his potential?

What is the impact of a self-reliant farmer?

The farmer today, like everyone else aspires for a friendly environment where s/he is at
peace, where s/he does not have to rely on loans for expensive inputs, free from hazards
and the assurance that s/he gets adequate returns for his labours and his/her needs are
taken care of.

If we desire a robust farming community, we need to have policies in place that will
enable the farmer to take his/her own decisions, based on his/her knowledge and
expertise and facilitate him/her to channelize the potentials of the soil and the
environment in which he/she operates.

66
Garry Masten, The eco Tipping Points Project, June 2005

Page 62 of 71
The policies need to address whether the incentives meant for agriculture impact the
sector in the intended way and ascertain whether it is beneficial to the farmer, the land,
the ecosystem and the society as a whole.

The ideal situation would be to shift subsidy from its current form to focus on ecological
services. If there are subsidization plans based on criteria’s such as:

 What is the farmers’ contribution towards ecological biodiversity?

 What is his contribution towards soil erosion?
 What is his contribution towards saving precious resources such as water, power
and energy?
 What is his economic saving in terms of non-usage of fertilizers, pesticides,
insecticides and weedicides?
 What incentives can be provided for depending on own resources?

@@@@@

Page 63 of 71
 Annex I: Average Nutrient content of vermicompost and other composts

Compost Nutrient content (% of dry matter)

Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium di-oxide

oxide

Vermicompost 1.6 2.2 0.7

Rural compost 1.2 1.1 1.5

Urban compost 1.2 1.9 1.5

Paddy straw compost 0.9 2.1 0.9

Maize stalk compost 1.1 1.3 1.0

Cotton wastes 1.6 1.1 1.5

compost

Water hyacinth 2.0 1.0 2.3

Poultry manure 2.9 2.9 2.4

Castor 5.8 1.8 1.0

Cotton seed 3.9 1.8 1.6

Neem 5.2 1.0 1.4

Niger 4.8 1.8 1.3

Rapeseed 5.1 1.8 1.0

Linseed 5.5 1.4 1.2

Sunflower 4.8 1.4 1.2

Page 64 of 71
Annex II: Average secondary and micro-nutrient contents of vermicomposting and
FYM

Nutrients Vermicomposting FYM

Ca (%) 0.44 0.91

Mg (%) 0.15 0.91

Fe (ppm) 175.2 146.5

Mn (ppm) 96.51 69.0

Zn (ppm) 24.43 14.5

Cu (ppm) 4.89 2.6

Annex III. The Farmer’s Economics: Farm Inputs

Year (12 Fertiliz Irrigatio Pesticide Non- Tractor Lubricant High Fodde Cattl Total
mossnth er n s Electrica s s Spee r e
s) l d Feed
Machiner Diese
y l
(HSD
)

2010 1370.3 1479.2 1355.7 1416.6 1490.5 2251.6 1774. 2190. 2124. 15453.
9 7 2 7

2011 1529.1 1565.7 1370.1 1484 1608.9 2637.6 1931. 2302. 2204. 16934.
9 8 6 7

2012 1751.4 1842.6 1433.5 1475.3 1682 2884.7 2102. 2570. 2417. 18160.
9 7 1 2

2013 1825.8 2271.7 1493.8 1481.7 1728.4 3082 2530. 3111. 2828. 20354.
9 9 4 6

2014 1850.1 2527.2 1601.2 1512.4 1812.4 3219.8 2771 3579. 3118. 20179.
5 1 3

Source: CACP March 2015

Page 65 of 71
Annex IV

Gross and Net Return of Kharif Crops of Select States (Average of 2010 – 11 and 2012 -
13)

(Rs./Ha)
Andhra Gujarat Haryana Madhya Maharashtra Punjab West All
Pradesh Pradesh Bengal India
A2 Paddy 32645 25081 26970 14445 30198 28708 26547 22645
Maize 26535 17305 - 11319 - - - 14396
Jowar 16155 - - - 18456 - - 14396
Tur 16779 15391 - 9856 28436 - - 18011
Cotton 33820 30934 23131 15467 38517 33974 - 32098

C2 Paddy 59227 39140 55115 29867 48953 56612 49382 42441

Maize 48295 27866 - 22721 - - - 31492
Jowar 29766 - - - 32272 - - 27292
Tur 30925 25620 - 22046 49964 - - 34012
cotton 60546 55511 58758 39319 61857 66485 - 57666
GVO Paddy 66319 53603 74946 37713 44929 76331 43723 46797
Maize 52738 24632 - 24528 - - - 35357
Jowar 30341 - - 16908 31834 - - 27227
Tur 30261 31822 - 27843 57248 - - 19518
Cotton 63972 79425 74926 63251 65176 79381 - 70400
Gross Paddy 33674 28523 47976 23268 14731 47632 17176 24251
Return Maize 29203 7327 - 13209 - - - 19104
Jowar 14186 - - 7116 13378 - - 12831
Tur 13482 16431 - 17987 28811 - - 21506
Cotton 30152 48491 51795 47785 26659 45408 - 38301
Net Paddy 7091 14464 19831 7847 -4024 19719 -5659 4356
Return
Maize 7443 -3234 - 1807 - - - 3865
Jowar 576 - - -1374 -438 - - -66

Tur -664 6202 - 5797 7284 - - 1126

Cotton 3432 23914 16167 23932 3319 12896 - 12734

Source: CACP, March 2015

Page 66 of 71
Annex V

Break –up of Cost of Cultivation of Select Crops in Select States

1) Paddy
(Rs./Ha)
Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra Odisha Punjab

2012-13 2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13 2011-12

Human 22664.3 20892.7 16329.2 13628.9 23073.8 19025.5 19909.1 16594.3 13320.8 12117.4
7 7 3 2 8 8 9 6 1 0
labour
Bullock 650.17 545.33 1183.88 982.03 5894.88 6102.04 3802.76 3921.75 45.83 44.30

Labour
Machine 7113.78 6172.47 2782.99 2588.18 3154.03 3172.45 1440.71 1176.32 5098.44 4372.33

Labour
Seed 1602,79 1421.19 3246.03 2707.15 1271.70 1486.96 1063.50 1041.64 1509.04 1328.31

Fertilizers 6345.20 5073.12 5378.32 5424.81 4482.11 3205.61 3913.91 2924.90 4129.84 3334.92

& Manure
Insecticide 1774.04 1481.33 956.47 544.40 389.42 410.62 50.32 59.74 3159.29 2672.43

s
Irrigation 1027.43 913.83 2949.81 1121.37 13378 216.77 79.81 169.13 2638.32 2029.04

Charges
Interest on 1096.25 950.95 873.61 726.02 908.20 780.18 599.85 523.12 773.64 667.00

working
capital
charge
Misc 55 42.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 6.48 10.25 34.82

charges
Fixed 25820.6 20533.8 11186.7 10875.2 13314.7 10936.5 12796.6 9555.06 34057.7 27213.3
6 6 2 6 6 4 0 8 8
Costs
Total Cost 68149.6 58027.1 44887.0 38578.1 52622.7 45336.7 43661.6 35972.5 64734.2 53813.9
7 9 6 4 7 5 5 0 4 3
Source: CACP, March 2015

Page 67 of 71
 2) Maize
Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra Odisha Punjab

2012-13 2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011
-13 -12 -13 -12 -13 -12
Human 15823.6 13971.3 14534.8 11031,0 - - - - - -
labour 9 6 6 0
Bullock 1574.09 1339.04 2768.40 2346.16 - - - - - -
Labour
Machine 4343.18 3161.64 3219.88 2581.87 - - - - - -
Labour
Seeds 2900.83 2453.02 1746,73 1468.69 - - - - - -
Fertilizers 6829.50 4510.59 3456.05 3462.05 - - - - - -
& Manure
Insecticide 907.79 648,92 56.60 6.43 - - - - - -
s
Irrigation 503.73 463.22 744.47 620.14 - - - - - -
Charges
Interest on 869.25 710.84 574.68 540.49 - - - - - -
working
capital
charge
Misc 39.55 17.59 0.00 0.00 - - - - - -
charges
Fixed 20826.66 16761.92 7201.34 7532.94 - - - - - -
Costs
Total Cost 54618.27 44038.14 29272.42 27640.99 - - - - - -
Source: CACP, March, 2015

Page 68 of 71
3. Tur (Arhar)
Andhra Gujarat Maharashtra Odisha Punjab
Pradesh
2012- 2011- 2012- 2011- 2012- 2011- 2012- 2011- 201 201
13 12 13 12 13 12 13 12 2-13 1-12
Human 12110. 10324. 7968.5 8852.6 19326. 15987. 7129.1 6626.5 - -
32 44 7 8 37 16 8 0
labour
Bullock 1259.1 1312.0 3829.2 4084.1 5842.7 6023.8 2443.8 1811.7 -- -
9 3 3 8 0 4 4 2
Labour
Machine 2028.8 1628.0 2119.8 1805.6 4953.6 2992.1 64.70 21.67 - -
4 8 9 2 0 8
Labour
Seeds 975.36 1144.7 784.17 1361.0 1356.9 1248.6 854.06 897.16 - -
7 5 9 4
Fertilizers 3507.3 2897.1 2615.1 1983.8 4649.8 2406.3 55.50 18.50 - -
1 9 4 2 8 9
& Manure
Insecticid 1614.7 1697.6 585.25 981.09 3409.9 1578.0 6.17 0.00 - -
5 5 1 8
es
Irrigation 126.34 112.99 683.30 959.70 404.77 467.93 0.00 0.00 - -
Charges
Interest 546,78 502.89 459.27 473.96 979.47 722.38 139.95 129.43 - -
on
working
capital
charge
Misc 0.00 60.93 14,19 0.00 35.28 24.94 0.00 0.00 - -
charges
Fixed 10872. 13758. 6372.3 7278.5 17836. 14993. 6121.1 5664.2 - -
17 38 6 8 52 49 3 4
Costs
Total 34531. 33439. 25431. 27780. 58795. 46445. 16814. 15169. - -
06 35 37 68 49 03 53 22
Cost
Source: CACP, March 2015

Page 69 of 71
4. Groundnut
Andhra Gujarat Maharashtra Odisha Punjab
Pradesh
2012- 2011- 2012- 2011- 2012- 2011- 2012- 2011- 201 201
13 12 13 12 13 12 13 12 2-13 1-12
Human 24366. 21053. 11489. 11112. 23954. 21760. 20788. 15636. - -
labour 46 40 20 37 25 60 93 50
Bullock 1754.6 1491.9 3105.2 3051.0 2518.8 2361.2 2093.7 1683.5 - -
Labour 9 3 9 9 5 1 9 2
Machine 3159.4 3105.8 3557.7 3810.8 2395.5 4203.1 1184,9 980.49 - -
Labour 7 0 9 5 2 0 1
Seeds 11062. 8270.8 10691. 8170.9 8778.4 7959.1 5615.6 3379.4 - -
46 3 68 1 9 1 6 8
Fertilizer5129.7 3656.0 5449.5 3162.6 3141.2 4413.0 3563.7 1950.0 - -
s& 5 5 7 6 7 7 7 0
Manure
Insecticid 600.06 778.26 659.62 1361.4 404.58 79.81 0.00 21.40 - -
es 8
Irrigation 1323.9 826.06 917.98 1078.4 2986.4 1685.5 231.58 192.60 - -
Charges 1 5 0 7
Interest 1242.4 1046.8 810.02 745.10 1064.3 1027.5 629.52 452.60 - -
on 1 2 3 4
working
capital
charge
Misc 1.92 22.44 11.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - -
charges
Fixed 33054. 25380. 10427. 10365. 18376. 12174. 16850. 14527. - -
Costs 14 54 35 51 10 04 72 75
Total 81695. 65632. 48014. 42836. 63610. 55664. 50958. 38824. - -
Cost 27 13 65 57 79 05 88 34
Source: CACP, March, 2015

Page 70 of 71
5) Cotton
Andhra Gujarat Maharashtra Odisha Punjab
Pradesh
2012- 2011- 2012- 2011- 2012- 2011- 2012- 2011- 2012- 2011-
13 12 13 12 13 12 13 12 13 12
Human 26311. 19351. 19028. 20013. 22983. 20127. 19122. 17836. 22580. 18989.
labour 08 12 98 24 80 28 93 76 11 52
Bullock 2959.6 2166.8 2255.9 1904.5 7334.2 6010.9 3421.6 2647.5 234.61 213.12
Labour 8 3 1 6 6 1 7 5
Machine 2806.0 2401.9 3488.2 3105.0 3302.5 2781.5 788.62 857.55 5194.0 3767.2
Labour 4 5 4 1 1 9 5 4
Seeds 4120.4 3711.1 3456.5 2956.6 3690.7 3750.7 3255.9 3744.2 5511.9 5793.7
6 5 3 1 8 8 7 3 0 7
Fertilizer 8458.4 6384.0 7009.9 6077.2 9581.3 6807.1 6307.5 4393.6 3960.5 3230.5
s& 7 8 6 1 7 5 6 3 4 2
Manure
Insectici 3134.4 2738.2 1594.9 2458.2 2794.. 2198.4 466.88 277.54 4332.8 5455.5
des 0 1 0 5 33 4 1 4
Irrigation 92.93 291.93 2907.6 2705.0 2183.7 2006.5 0.00 0.00 395.44 387.92
Charges 7 2 1 7
Interest 1276.0 993.46 946.75 964.01 1376.9 1116.5 745.09 670.62 1089.0 1024.7
on 6 4 9 5 9
working
capital
charge
Misc 4.98 14.14 0.00 9,71 72.20 45.42 0.00 3.33 12.44 53.32
charges
Fixed 21445, 23581. 14080. 17844. 17759. 17062. 13783. 13003. 30164. 27581.
Costs 41 13 51 26 83 76 91 12 37 82
Total 70609. 61634. 54769. 58037. 71079. 61907. 47892. 43434. 73475. 66697.
Cost 51 00 45 88 73 49 63 33 32 56
Source: CACP, March 2015

Page 71 of 71