Farming in the rugged Himalayan mountains of the northern Indian state of Uttarakhand poses considerable challenges. For generations, small-scale farmers have depended on traditional agroecology-based practices known as ‘Baraanaja’ to sustain both themselves and the health of their soils. Ever since the government started to push for certified organic agriculture, and despite promises of increased revenue, farmers have experienced substantial hurdles to the safeguarding of their livelihoods, lands, and traditions.
Government push for organic certification
Certified organic farming is gaining traction globally as a remedy to industrial agriculture, primarily because it promotes environmentally sustainable practices and creates livelihood opportunities for farmers. In recent years, the Indian government has enthusiastically embraced the organic movement, juxtaposing it with traditional Baraanaja agriculture which it considers ‘unproductive’ and is now pitching the conversion to organic production as ‘innovative’ and ‘groundbreaking’.
Organic certification was first introduced in 2002 in the Himalayan state of Uttarakhand through a series of World Bank projects, where agriculture production is popularly known as ‘organic by default’ due to the minimal use of chemicals by local farmers. It was piloted in the plains of the Terai region, where the availability of consolidated land and the ability to provide irrigation resulted in successful commercial cash crops, including bumper harvests of the renowned basmati rice. Buoyed by these promising results, the state government aggressively expanded the project – specifically targeting small, marginal and subsistence farmers – with the goal of transforming the entire state into a leading producer of organic produce.
Organic certification is being promoted and rolled out in Uttarakhand under various schemes funded by the federal government, including the Traditional Agricultural Development Scheme (Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yogna, or PKVY). This scheme utilises IFOAM-Organic International’s Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) certification, which offers an alternative to third-party organic certification: it is based on principles agreed by the community and involves lower costs and less administration. Whereas third-party certification often targets global markets, PGS opens local or domestic markets for small-scale farmers. The PKVY targets independent small-scale farmers who cultivate on average two hectares of land across the state. The government claims that initiatives like the PKVY will be instrumental in stabilising agriculture-based livelihoods and halting the rampant outmigration from the region’s mountainous areas.
Under the scheme, the state designates specific agricultural land with an organic classification and assists in merging smallholder farms into groups or ‘clusters’. These clusters focus on producing specific crops that can be used for commercial purposes, such as millet, lentils, vegetables, fruits or medicinal plants. Training is provided through facilitating agencies such as regional councils, as is guidance on organic input procurement, on-farm activities, and post-harvest management including marketing, all based on the logic of maximum yield per acre. Farmers also receive subsidies for material assistance, for example organic fertiliser and pesticides, manure, seeds, compost systems and vermicompost kits.
Baraanaja vs certified organic farming
The state government’s recent integration of the Baraanaja model into Uttarakhand’s PKVY scheme under the label of ‘certified organic farming’ has been disappointing for small and marginal farmers. Despite the professed reliance on “trust, social networks, knowledge exchange, and transparency” that is normally at the heart of PGS certification, the guidelines, procedures and instructions have undermined farmers’ autonomy, their decision-making power, and community dynamics.
The guidelines, procedures and instructions have undermined farmers’ autonomy, their decision making power, and community dynamics
For instance, to obtain the final certification (PGS-Organic) for their crops, farmers must spend at least three years in transition (PGS-Green). During this period, they are required to undergo peer reviews to ascertain their compliance with PGS guidelines for organic farming standards. This scrutiny by fellow farmers has led to heightened interpersonal tensions at the community level.
The cluster production model further exacerbates these challenges by forcing participating farmers to focus on cultivating common crops. According to the PGS India website, partial conversion and parallel production are not allowed. This is risky for small-scale farmers, as they are more vulnerable to economic and climatic shocks when their other seasonal crops are marginalised. Moreover, the scheme overlooks the complex system of growing multiple crops that are essential for the local community and their livestock. Unsurprisingly, this focus on yield over quality and diversity poses a significant threat to Baraanaja-based resilient multi-cropping farming systems. Anxiety among Baraanaja farmers is increasing, as they are forced to choose between the pursuit of economic gains or the preservation of their traditional agroecological practices.
As Mr. Vijay Jardhari, a prominent social activist, indigenous seed saver and Baraanaja farmer in Uttarakhand, says: “Baraanaja farming lies at the heart of rural life, and every plant cultivated in our fields serves a distinct purpose. Anything that jeopardises our diverse seed heritage, overall farm ecology and community relations, all crucial elements for ensuring food security and sovereignty at the village level, is unsustainable.”
Market challenges
Under this programme over the past two decades, the number of certified organic farmers and farming clusters across the state of Uttarakhand has rapidly increased. But getting crops to the market is a major challenge: farmers struggle with major gaps in the state’s marketing strategies for organic produce.
The absence of a well-structured market system is particularly problematic. The transition to organic certification requires a minimum of three years; during this period, farmers are not allowed to sell their produce under the organic label. The government does not provide sufficient platforms to connect producers and consumers: the progress on the promised government-authorised market outlet for every 12 clusters is very slow, so the only options are direct government procurement and occasional government-sponsored ‘kisan melas’ (farmers’ markets). As a result, the nearest ‘mandi’, or local marketplace, which may be located up to 100 kilometers away from the organic farming clusters, is often the only option for small farmers wanting to sell their produce.
"The expenses incurred often outweigh the returns from the market."- Certified Farmer Dhan Singh
Dhan Singh, a certified farmer from Uttarakhand, explains: “The closest road to our village is 5 or 6 kilometers away, and to transport organic produce to the local market – approximately 20 to 25 kilometers away – I have to hire a minivan. The expenses incurred often outweigh the returns from the market. Moreover, there is no designated area for organic products within the market, giving established farmers with cheaper produce an advantage. If we fail to sell our perishable produce, our hard work goes to waste and we only lose money.”
Farmers not included
The formation of organic clusters in the region follows a top-down approach, heavily influenced by political and bureaucratic structures and often neglecting crucial local issues. Decisions such as cluster approvals are centralised in high-level bureaucratic offices in Dehradun, the state capital, and do not fully account for factors that determine the sustainability of these initiatives. Key considerations like soil and land suitability for organic farming, challenges posed by wildlife, unpredictable local climate conditions, and the availability of transportation infrastructure for market access are frequently overlooked.
Moreover, local political dynamics significantly shape these processes, with ruling parties using such initiatives as political tools to secure support. Promises of financial incentives, infrastructure development, and policies that benefit agricultural communities are often made during election campaigns to appeal to rural voters. These pledges can be instrumental in winning elections, as rural constituencies represent a significant voter base. After elections, governments may pursue policies that reflect their campaign promises, either to maintain their political standing or to deliver on commitments made to these communities.
How organic certification could really benefit farmers
The experiences of Uttarakhand farmers demonstrate that the state’s rapid shift towards organic farming should not be based on a rigid model imposed from above, but instead should be nuanced, progressive and based on the individual contexts of farmers. As certified organic farming integrates farmers into global value chains, it is essential that the local context is considered. Local conditions, farmers’ circumstances, and their involvement in – or exclusion from – agri-food value chains, greatly impact the opportunities and risks that are transmitted through the chain.
Policy measures that prioritise the needs of small-scale farmers, ensure ecological and financial security, and uphold the fundamental principles of food security and food sovereignty are urgently required. These policies should include the establishment and safeguarding of dedicated markets offering fair prices for organic agricultural products, the development of robust supply and marketing channels and farmer-producer organisations that enhance the collective power of small-scale growers, and the provision of crop insurance and government-backed safety nets such as Minimum Support Price for organic produce.
Traditional staples such as rice and wheat should be supplemented with more nutritious crops like millet, and should be integrated into the government’s public distribution system for poorer populations to safeguard their cultivation and increase livelihood-based opportunities. Additionally, farmer cooperatives and community-based seed banks at the village level should be encouraged to bolster diversity, resilience, autonomy, local food security and food sovereignty.
Finally, policymakers must be educated about the distinction between output-oriented organic farming and agroecological multi-cropping practices like Baraanaja. Traditional Baraanaja techniques, which are strongly related to family nutrition and to cultural practices, should be valued and preserved rather than transformed into monocropping-inspired initiatives. Organic farming can only flourish in an equitable and sustainable manner when the welfare of small-scale farmers, their livelihoods, and their communities is put first.
Author: Sadaf Javed is a PhD candidate at Rutgers University in New Jersey, USA. A human geographer by training, her work looks at agricultural development initiatives and farmers’ responses in India.
Sources:
- Challies, E. R. T., & Murray, W. E. (2011). The interaction of global value chains and rural livelihoods: The case of smallholder raspberry growers in Chile. Journal of Agrarian Change, 11(1), 29-59.
- Meek, D., & Anderson, C. R. (2019). Scale and the politics of the organic transition in Sikkim, India. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 44(3).
- Niwarthana, S. S., Dissanayake, N., Thibbotuwawa, M., & Rosairo, H. S. R. (2023). The impact of chemical fertilizers ban on the paddy sector: Propensity score matching and value chain analysis. Feed the Future, 21.
Download pdf (slightly shortened version)
This article is part of Issue 1-2024: Policies for Agroecology
