|
By Naren Karunakaran Dr Prabha Mahale, pioneer of organic farming in India, talks about the ways in which national governments and agribusiness corporations are shifting the focus of the organic movement away from the small farmer and the domestic market
Dr Prabha Mahale is a World Board Member of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), which represents a swathe of organic communities from over 110 countries. She also sits on the board of the International Society for Organic Farming Research (ISOFAR) and several other institutions that steer the collective fortunes of the global organic movement. Dr Mahale and her associates can be credited with giving a public profile to the organic movement in India when it was not very fashionable to speak about or work with organic communities. She presided over one of the first organised attempts at marketing organic produce in India, in the ’90s, and as a pioneer, battled problems of quality, inadequacies of the supply chain, pricing and consumer indifference. She is now India Director of Naturland, a German association of farmers that provides a complete range of organic services including training, project setup, marketing links and certification to organic farms. Naturland specialises in Grower Group Certification of small and marginal farmers, a constituency that needs considerable nurturing, as against big commercial farmers who are entering the organic arena with an eye on the bristling export market. Dr Mahale is particularly worried about the manner in which the farming community globally is being marginalised in the debate over the future of organic farming and where it should be headed. National governments, working hand-in-glove with large agribusiness corporations, are attempting to hijack the movement. In the Indian context, she wonders why no one speaks for or about small and marginal farmers. The lopsided emphasis on exports, much to the detriment of domestic markets, she says, does not augur well. Why this sudden spurt of interest in organic farming and foods? Who or what is driving this? Is it the farming community, the government, NGOs, the private sector or increasing numbers of discerning consumers who now want to eat and live healthy?
There are different factors responsible for the momentum we see today. And everyone -- farmers, exporters, the government and non-governmental organisations -- has contributed towards it. All recognise the potential of this sector. They cannot ignore the fact that organics is the fastest-growing industry worldwide! Largely it’s the export market -- the EU, USA , Japan -- that is driving growth now and not a concern for the environment, soil fertility or healthy living. There are positive signals though -- many farmers faced with leached out fields and related problems are looking for alternatives. The domestic market for organics, however, continues to remain disinterested. Where would you place India in the emerging organics scenario? Do we have the skills, the inclination, policy environment, systems et al in place?
India has an organics heritage. The farmers of ancient India are known to have evolved a nature-friendly farming system where the emphasis is on living in partnership with rather than exploiting nature. Echoes of this philosophy are to be found in the pancha mahabhutas (the five primordial elements essential for all life forms -- human, animal or plant). Organic farming is closely aligned with traditional forms of Indian agriculture (as opposed to commercial farming of the Punjab variety), with the majority of our farmers dependent on rain-fed agriculture. They use very little external inputs. Dry-land farming and farming in tribal regions and hill states is similar to organic farming and therefore the transition will be easy. As for policies, the national organic standards, based on the IFOAM standards and the Codex Alimentarius guidelines, are in place. The central government has allocated Rs 57 crore towards the promotion of organic agriculture for the rest of the Tenth Plan period. Hill states like Uttaranchal and Mizoram have declared themselves organic states. What is now required is the massive mobilisation of resources, especially on awareness campaigns, at all possible levels to get the Indian organic act together. There is also a dire need to look at the big picture and realign policies. Are you suggesting that our policymakers are not doing enough and have adopted a narrow, blinkered view of organics? What would you want to see them doing?
The entire focus today is on exports and very little attention is given to attaining critical mass at the domestic level. The emphasis has to shift to the small farmer and the domestic market. I don’t see anyone talking of small and marginal farmers. This lack of concern is appalling. Farmers signing contract deals with exporters are also beginning to be exploited. The government or some agency should organise organic farmers into cooperatives or devise some efficient, equitable model. Training and capacity-building of farmers are prerequisites for any meaningful result. Agricultural research should be steered in the right direction. The entire Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) apparatus is functioning as the handmaiden of the fertiliser industry and big business. This is unfortunate. Domestic markets and their development should be integral to any initiative with organics. There is no reason why India should export its best produce and leave pesticide-laced, unhealthy food for Indians to consume. Some experts are of the view that inadequate availability of bio-fertilisers or bio-pesticides is a limiting factor in the growth of organic farming, and that this particular sector needs encouragement for organics to take off.
This is the corporate lobby at work. An effort is being made to create a new breed of industrial units churning out so-called bio-fertilisers for the organic farming community. There is absolutely no need for external inputs on organic farms. The organic way of crop rotation, manuring, mulching and a host of other homegrown methods are good enough to enhance soil fertility and yields. How do farmers with small land holdings raise the necessary biomass etc for preparing and harnessing on-farm remedies, so important for sustainable organic farming?
Creating and fostering community resources for organic farming at the village level can solve the problems of the small farmer. It’s here that the government can step in and remedy the situation. We have lost our commons. Village common lands have been usurped by vested interests. The commons have to be restored to the community. Adoption of a so-called middle path -- that of integrated pest management (IPM) and integrated nutrient management (INM) -- as a transitory mechanism to approach organics is also being talked about. Do you agree with this?
Again, vested interests are at work. What is this ‘reasonable’ use of fertilisers that is being talked about? Who is going to define what ‘reasonable use’ is, and on what basis? There can be no half-baked middle path. One has to go the whole hog. The conversion of a conventional farm to an organic one takes about three years, during which time the farmer is confronted with a number of problems, right from inspection/certification/documentation requirements and resource constraints to a drop in yield (if the conversion is from an intensive farming regime). Is there a case for subsidy, or government hand-holding of some sort (as in the EU and elsewhere) during this period?
I sincerely think the government has a role to play if India has to go organic in a meaningful way. Hand-holding is necessary, whether you call it ‘subsidy’ or ‘incentive’ or whatever. Look at the thousands of crores allocated as fertiliser subsidy every year. If the government can spend such massive amounts on a regime that is detrimental to the environment, the farming community and the health of our countrymen, it can surely afford to spend money on sustainable farming that rejuvenates soil fertility, brings down farm production costs and helps the environment. While on the issue of farm costs, the high annual costs incurred by the farmer on mandatory inspection and organic certification comes to the fore. Is formal certification for organic produce absolutely necessary?
In the earlier days, and even today in many pockets, farmers sold their produce directly to the consumer who knew for certain that whatever was sold to him was grown organically. There was an element of trust, fostered by long personal relationships, between producer and buyer. But as distances grew and producers entered bigger, real markets, certification became vital. How else would a consumer know that what he was buying was truly organic, especially in these times when there are so many cheats and profiteers? Certification is an assurance given to the consumer by stating upfront that standards are being followed and that the produce is grown according to prescribed norms. The cost question persists. Why is certification so expensive?
Certification costs are coming down. A couple of years ago, inspection and certification costs were very high. The few who undertook the job were foreign agencies. With the mandatory requirement for these foreign agencies to establish Indian offices and more accredited players now in the fray, costs are declining. On an average, inspection costs today range between Rs 3,500 and Rs 13,000 per day. However, on occasion inspectors do take several days to complete farm inspections, depending on the size and complexities involved. Some agencies are known to select a sample size of 70-80% of farmers for an evaluation of the Internal Control System (ICS). They spend a lot of time on inspections. Our efforts at Naturland are aimed at promoting group certification, ideal for associations of small farmers. The farmers pay a small membership fee and become members of Naturland (itself an association of farmers). The farmers/producers’ groups pay the inspection costs, which we do not undertake on our own. This function is outsourced. Naturland certification is done free of cost and the farmers pay a nominal licensee fee for use of our label. This fee, again, varies and is pegged to turnover so that in a lean year, if yields are low, the farmer pays less fees. Certification and related costs appear to have become a millstone around the neck of the organic sector. Many producers and activists are actively exploring alternative certification models. What is the progress on this front?
IFOAM is promoting a ‘participatory guarantee system’ which attempts to do away with the ‘outsider’ who visits the farm and checks on the farmer and his farming practices. The prevalent system of inspection/certification reeks of policing and is based on cumbersome and elaborate documentation. The fulcrum of the participatory system is trust; each member of the producer group is expected to follow the norms of the internal control system. Of course, there is a degree of control in the participatory system too, but it is in the form of ‘social control’, where each member keeps a check on the other and ensures the organic integrity of the produce. This system is definitely more authentic when compared to the system of a single annual visit by an external inspector. More and more producers engaged in contract farming with corporates and exporters are complaining of exploitation. The certificate is often issued in the name of the company/ exporter and not the farmer…
This situation has emerged because producers, reluctant to foot inspection/certification and other costs, have signed away their freedom to the exporters who bear all the expenses involved in certifying and getting the produce to foreign markets. It’s natural for exporters therefore to seek exclusive rights to the crops raised. Individual farmers are also to blame for the situation. They must realise that holding their own certificate gives them considerable leeway in accessing markets and selecting partners of their choice. Organic farmers have to look at their costs in a realistic manner; considering the fact that farm input costs are reduced when compared to conventional farming and that yields are optimised. Unfortunately, they do not consider all this and expect unreasonable premiums. Reasonable prices, consistent quality and regular supply lines are the keys to the development of a vibrant domestic market. The multiplicity of world organic standards has made trade extremely cumbersome. For instance, an exporter to the EU -- the biggest market for Indian organic produce -- has to not only adhere to EU standards but also, in some cases, to those of member states. Again, the US and Japan , other major markets for organics, have their own standards. There are a host of government and private standards and multiple agencies implementing them. All this makes market access difficult for small farmers…
Yes, policymakers have recogised this problem and are working towards harmonising global organic standards and regulations. In fact, an International Task Force on Harmonisation and Equivalence in Organic Agriculture is already in place. The task force convened by the FAO, IFOAM and the UNCTAD is examining worldwide organic standards and looking at opportunities of harmonising them to remove trade barriers that work to the benefit of developing countries. Considering that Indian national standards on organics, designed primarily to facilitate exports, are quite stringent, do you think we should have a separate set of organic standards for the domestic market? Maybe this can fuel domestic growth in the production and consumption of organic food…
No. Nothing should be done to tamper with the sanctity of organic standards. Already, organic standards are under attack from powerful vested interests, including countries like the US , and big agribusinesses seeking a dilution of norms and practices. Recently, American organic farmers and civil society organisations had to fight the US Department of Agriculture bent on watering down its own National Organic Programme by allowing the use of certain synthetic pesticides and antibiotics. The move was eventually reversed. Back-door moves are still on. I remember, at a recent meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, US representatives argued fiercely to allow Chilean nitrates in organic agriculture, under pressure from Chile , a strategic partner of the US . The setting of standards has been hijacked by national governments. It has unfortunately moved out of the hands of the farmers who ought to be the real custodians. National governments are now beginning to wield this as a tool in their power games and also as a weapon of trade. What are the implications for India in this context?
India is definitely on the radar of developed countries. Big global powers are wary that India , in the near future, could emerge as an agricultural giant. It’s amusing that the EU and Australia disallow neem and neem extracts in organic agriculture; a herbal wonder that has been used by Indian farmers in their fields for generations. And these are the very people who tried, unsuccessfully, to patent neem. (Naren Karunakaran is an independent writer and journalist based in Delhi) InfoChange News & Features, March 2005 |
