Biofach Global report 2017 on Organic Agriculture
Believe it or not, almost 70 per cent of the national Capital was used for organic farming in 2011-2012, according to National Project on Organic Farming (NPOF), which comes under the Ministry of Agriculture. While the total geographical area of Delhi is 1.48 lakh hectares, NPOF data shows 100238.74 hectares (almost twice the size of Mumbai) was used for organic farming during that period.
What smacks of data fudging and a gigantic scam took place between 2009 and 2012 when the Sheila Dikshit government was in power in Delhi and Congress-led UPA ruled at the Centre. As per the central government scheme, a subsidy of Rs.10,000 per hectare of land is given to a farmer for organic farming. Hence, Rs.100-crore plus subsidies in 2011-12 were given by the Union government for organic farming in the national Capital for 100238.74 hectares. And Delhi, on paper, produced 4,765 tonnes of organic products in 2009. The state of Assam produced 2,329 tonnes. In other words, urban Delhi’s output of organic products was 100 per cent higher than that of Assam. The scam was exposed by the Crop Care Foundation of India (CCFI) through an RTI.
When MAIL TODAY asked the Ministry of Agriculture if indeed such gigantic tract of land inside Delhi has been used for organic farming or if the national capital is such a big producer of organic vegetables, we got no answers. Neither did the Commerce Ministry which is in charge of export of organic products come up with any answers. Both ministries passed the buck and pointed fingers at each other.
The Delhi Agriculture department says there is hardly any organic farming done in Delhi. “There is no awareness about organic farming in Delhi. We don’t get any specific data on such farming from the government. Neither do we get any subsidy,” an official from the department told MAIL TODAY. Delhi agriculture department records show 30,922 hectares of land were used for overall agricultural activities in Delhi in 2011-12. Agriculture activity in Delhi takes place only on six blocks, out of which there is negligible farming in 50 per cent of the area. NPOF was introduced by the Congress-led UPA government during the 10th five-year plan as a central sector scheme with effect from 10 October, 2004, with an initial outlay of `57 crore for promotion of organic farming in India. Though introduced by the UPA government, the scheme continues till date with substantially enhanced budget.
Dr Krishan Chandra, Regional Director, National Center for Organic Farming (NCOF), Ministry of Agriculture, said: “Agriculture is a state subject. The Centre’s role is to help states monetarily so that they can take up organic farming. We have different schemes through which we help farmers by providing money to states. But there is no scope of organic farming in Delhi as there is meagre land available for any kind of farming. As far as subsidy is concerned, we give subsidy for the export of organic produce.” According to the data available with the Ministry of Agriculture, the annual export value of Agriorganic products for 2012-13 was Rs.1155.81 crore.
Dr Chandra said that on noticing major glitch in the data provided by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), under the Ministry of Commerce, regarding organic farming in Delhi, he asked them for clarification.
“The data regarding land for organic farming is maintained by APEDA and not by our department. They said that earlier they used to enter the data manually but now they are doing it using computers. There may be some data manipulation as it is not possible to carry out such large-scale organic farming in Delhi,” said Chandra. “At times the state helps the farmer financially to carry out organic farming. Farmers furnish address details of the national capital, but the land is somewhere else. The responsibility to check such details furnished by farmers lies with the Commerce Ministry,” he said. Sources in the Agriculture Ministry said that there is a possibility of embezzlement of funds at the state level because who the beneficiaries would be are decided by the state.
The state agriculture department claims to have no information on organic farming in Delhi. “We don’t have any information,” said Kaushal Kishore, joint director, agriculture, Development department, Delhi government. Rajinder Chaudhry, Director (Media), Ministry of Commerce, said: “We are not aware about the disparity in data from other sources. The data provided by APEDA is sourced from TRACENET – a web-based traceability system operational under NPOP.”
The present paper is to investigate the economics of organic farming. The concept of organic farming or natural farming came forward from Asian countries. This
art of farming already preserved and cultivated by Indian and Chinese farmer. Before the invention of chemical fertilizer farming is cultivated in organic farming way. even today the organic farming is increased all over the world due to environment point of view, health point of view and as well as economic point of view. Thus in the present paper it is find out economical benefit of organic farming with compare to chemical farming
ORGANIC farming is neither coterminous with the non-usage of chemicals nor homogenous. Besides, the non-usage of chemicals, it has many other components. What goes under the rubric of organic farming can vary from farming dependent on external inputs (some times provided by some of the same corporations that supply chemical inputs), practising mono-cropping similar to one practised by conventional farming, looking for a year-round supply of ‘tomatoes’ to those using no external or minimal external inputs other than labour, insisting on mixed cropping and combining animal husbandry etc with farming, respecting nature and producing only seasonal crops to the point of excluding mono-cropping from the definition of organic.
This diversity within the ‘organic’ is often ignored in comparative studies while amongst practising ‘organic’ farmers, one will find wide diversity going up to the point that each one gives a different name to it! This diversity should be acknowledged in all comparative studies. The moment we do this, we will realise that comparing individual crop yields does not make much sense as contrary to the conventional practice, practising organic ‘wheat’ growers are often growing no less than 6-7 crops in the same field at the same time. An organisation in Wardha refuses to treat any farmer producing less than 10 different crops in his/her fields as an organic farmer.
But all this should not be read to mean that comparisons of yields and income are not important or that organic performs poorly on these counts. A conference organised by the FAO in 2007 had some 350 participants from more than 80 countries, including five inter-governmental institutions, 24 research institutions and 31 universities. ‘Recognising the need to increase agriculture productivity by 56 per cent by 2030’, it evaluated the available data to determine whether organic agriculture could offer an alternative system. It concluded that ‘organic agriculture has the potential to secure a global food supply … but with reduced environmental impacts’.
Then there is the case of Cuba, which in the mid-nineties in the post-Soviet phase, devoid of petroleum products, had no choice but to go organic and it is no worse for that. Nutritional status as well as rural employment are reported to have improved.
It is a well-known fact that conventional agriculture is in crisis. Father of Indian Green Revolution M.S. Swaminathan himself calls conventional agriculture ‘exploitative agriculture’. This ‘exploitative agriculture’, according to a Planning Commission report, has ‘damaging impacts on environment, human and animal health, soil and water resources’. … The rural economy is in ruins because of over-dependence of outside inputs in agriculture such as seed, fertilisers, pesticides, growth-promoting chemicals etc.’ Another Planning Commission study reports that according to official reports, ‘it appears that nearly 2/3rd of our agricultural land is degraded or sick to some extent’.
So, one has to certainly look for alternatives. If there are various ‘organic’ alternatives available that claim to work wonders, one must. study and evaluate them seriously rather than brush these aside as ‘misinformation’. We must devote a significant part of resources going into agriculture research into these alternatives too. Way back in 2001 a Planning Commission committee had recommended that ‘all the state governments may be advised to consider experimentation and demonstrations on government farms on 50:50 area basis on organic farming and other forms of farming’. How many mainstream agriculture research institutes in India have implemented this? Without having done this, to claim that non-chemical farming does not work out is ‘misinformation’!
The writer is a Professor, Department of Economics, M. D. University, Rohtak
Interesting published paper from ATREE which uses a multi-criteria analysis to compare villages supported under an organic farming project/policy in Karnataka with those that are not, in terms of a variety of parameters on the economic, environmental and socio-cultural fronts. I am not too sure where I picked up the paper from, and might be circulating it back to a group from where I picked it up and my apologies for the same.
Purushothaman et al 2012 mca ktaka(1)
Seema Purushothaman • Sheetal Patil • Ierene Francis
Received: 3 October 2011 / Accepted: 12 February 2012
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Environ Dev Sustain
The paper presents the results of a multicriteria analysis conducted to comprehend
the effects of two different practice–policy scenarios on smallholders in Karnataka—one
scenario ‘with policy’ (WP) to support organic agricultural practices and the other a
‘business as usual’ (BAU) scenario that continues to stress on market-based, synthetic
inputs for cultivation. The paper integrates results from quantitative and participatory
techniques to compare and project effects on ecological, economic and socio-cultural
indicators. Ecological and economic indicators in WP are projected to be signiﬁcantly
higher than BAU in a majority of the study sites, while socio-cultural indicators show
mixed outcomes, depending on regional and social characteristics. Across the study sites,
small and rain-fed farms are beneﬁtted better in WP compared to large and irrigated farms,
respectively. Among small and rain-fed farms, soil fertility, water quality, agro-diversity,
net income and freedom from indebtedness improve considerably, while there is slight
reduction in collective activities and no perceivable change in land-based subsistence.
A letter from Chengal Reddy, Secretary General of Consortium of Indian Farmers’ Association (CIFA), dated 11/7/2012, supposedly an “open letter” to Aamir Khan and his “select group of environment activists” who appeared in an episode of Satyamev Jayate on 24th June (not on 12th June as mentioned in the letter) prompts us to write an open response, as part of the India For Safe Food Campaign.
While Chengal Reddy launches a scathing attack on the environmental activists who spoke out against chemical pesticides, and calls their perspectives, knowledge and experience as elite discourses, we should not forget that many so-called farmer leaders are actually not into farming, though they would like to equate themselves with millions of Indian farmers. Incidentally, this is one show that is being watched by millions, including from the farming communities and the message on ill-effects of pesticides has indeed reached millions of rural homes, as it rightly should – the discourse around synthetic pesticides which are essentially poisons has for too long been hijacked by vested interests which have promoted these poisons as “medicines” and projected them as indispensable and beneficial to all of us. The main philosophy churned out by the vested interests is that of the “greater common good” and the activism against pesticides is based on the fact that there is no greater common good here, only corporate profiteering, especially given that pesticides are not indispensable. The evidence brought into the show is based on the experience of lakhs of farmers, and also evaluated for its positive effects (of non-pesticidal management) by agriculture scientists.
While hitting out against activists and their “elite sermons on farming in India sitting before TV cameras”, Chengal Reddy should remember that he does a more elitist thing: of sitting and discussing about “emerging business opportunities in Indian agriculture” with industry friends in 5-star hotels in conferences after conferences. At least these activists have sought to use the medium of a popular TV show, to put out a message of hope on alternatives to farmers of this country, who are reeling under a severe distress. The farmers who sought to produce the most, by increasing their yields at any cost, egged on by unaccountable players like the state agriculture apparatus and the industry, are in fact in the greatest distress as study after study shows from the farm suicide belts of India. Punjab’s farmers are a classic example for this.
In fact, CIFA is doing great disservice to farmers by ignoring and discounting the evidence in favor of giving up chemical pesticides.
The main points of this open letter centre around:
– organic leading to lower yields, leading to hunger and starvation;
– household pesticides being as dangerous or as safe as agricultural pesticides but not being attacked;
– pesticides should be safe since our governments and scientists are permitting them!
Chengal Reddy has not progressed in his discourse, unfortunately and has brought up hackneyed arguments, as he has done in the past too, addressing press conferences organized by pesticides industry.
The most important thing that CIFA & Chengal Reddy don’t seem to have realized, while they have been watching only their chemicalised agriculture, IS THAT ORGANIC FARMING IS PRODUCTIVE, VIABLE AND EXTREMELY SCIENTIFIC. EQUATING TRADITIONAL INDIAN FARMING WITH ORGANIC FARMING IS REFLECTIVE OF A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING AND KNOWLEDGE ON BEHALF OF CIFA. While traditional farming is indeed organic, organic agriculture in today’s world is way beyond traditional farming (organic, natural, ecological, bio-dynamic etc., are the variants of appreciating nature’s way of functioning and emulating it without dependence on external inputs – organic agriculture which only seeks to replace on set of chemical inputs with another set of organic inputs is not desirable either though the organic industry might want it for various reasons). It is an application of modern science in understanding and appreciating nature’s complexities and re-creation of sustainable farm eco-systems that optimize yields even as it conserves and regenerates resources. There is much evidence to show the multi-faceted benefit of ecological farming at the international and national level, just as there is enough and more evidence of the ill-effects of chemicals in our agriculture and food.
CIFA is exhibiting that it lacks any medium and long-term vision for Indian farming and farmers by endorsing chemical pesticides and bringing in funny examples on rice and wheat yield comparisons in different states. Yield is a complex phenomenon and yield maximization is not the only reason why farming is done. The yield maximization paradigm has, after all these years, only resulted in Indian farmers on an average getting lower incomes than the minimum wages in farming as per official data. Therefore, aiming for optimal, sustainable and stable yields is a major perspective in organic or ecological approaches to farming.
WE should stop placing the burden of feeding the nation on individual farmers when the nation and the elected governments do not care enough about farmers and their real welfare and well-being. We urge CIFA not to place this unreasonable burden on farmers either in its advocacy of the “produce more and perish” mode of production.
When CIFA calls upon environmental NGOs to walk their talk – it should know that they have indeed done so. They have shown a variety of small scale to large scale examples that farming of a different kind is indeed possible and viable. Not just in hundred acres per district but on millions of acres. It is in fact this kind of farming which has not ended up in farmers becoming indebted or contemplating suicides. It is now the responsibility of the government and organizations like CIFA to take this forward, if they care about farmers.
There is no point in boasting about food surplus and food security in India if we cannot actually feed the starving, the hungry and the malnourished. It is a shame that a majority of the hungry in India are actually partaking in the food production process and are actually impoverished in the process! It is obvious that we have more than we need and it is high time the nation as a whole thought of addressing hunger and malnutrition in fundamental ways.
The argument around household pesticides vs. agricultural pesticides – surely both are harmful and no activist is arguing that household pesticides are harmless. The harm from agricultural pesticides is certainly higher however, in terms of the quantities used (it does not help to give the market worth in rupees, as Chengal Reddy has chosen to do), number of exposure routes for the poison that such large scale use opens up contaminating many life-sustaining resources, the effect it has directly on our farming community members etc. Activists are arguing for agri-workers and farmers to be saved from such poisons and no farmer leader in the right senses should have any objection to this?
Finally, about the great faith that Chengal Reddy is placing on government and scientists permitting pesticides only because they know that such pesticides will not cause any ill-health etc. – it is laughable and it is such an opportunistic rhetoric being put out that one feels like asking CIFA to close down shop since it has so much faith in the government and scientists doing only the right thing by Indian farmers! CIFA better stop its advocacy work since it believes that the government will only think of the good of our farmers and citizens in general. It is unbecoming of any farmers’ organization to forget the ignominous stories of Indian regulators being bribed by MNCs for registering their pesticides or that pesticides once allowed as “safe” being banned or restricted later on for their negative impacts. This does not even deserve a response!