According to a recent report released by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), there are inadequacies in the implementation of the flagship programme for farming – Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY) including limited understanding of organic farming, inadequate farmer training and handholding, certification not farmer friendly, poor market linkages and non-availability of quality seeds suitable for organic farming.
Officials responsible for ground-level implementation often lack required expertise
The state-level agricultural extension officials expected to closely work with farmers often have limited understanding of organic farming approaches and are not convinced of the practice. This is because organic farming has not been adequately covered in agriculture educational curricula and most of the professional work of the officials involves handling chemical-based agriculture projects. But, most importantly, they do not receive adequate training on necessary aspects of organic farming and lack practical expertise, which jeopardises the entire implementation process. Besides, their limited know-how gets reflected in their interaction with farmers and fails to motivate them.
The revised PKVY guidelines of 2018 tried to address this concern by providing the flexibility to rope in professional support agencies with requisite expertise and experience to implement the scheme. However, this option has not been widely utilised.
In the case of organic farming, National Centre of Organic Framing (NCOF), mandated for technical capacity building of all stakeholders, is not able to provide specific training on multiple aspects of organic farming – limited budget has been cited as a reason. According to the December 2019 Parliamentary Standing Committee report on export of organic products, for example, out of the Rs 17 crore allocated against the proposed Rs 84 crore, only Rs 1.5 crore was allocated for training.
Careful enrollment and mobilisation of farmers a concern
The first big and critical task to be done by the local officials at ground level is the selection of farmers to form a group. This requires identification and sensitisation of farmers towards organic farming practices and its benefits followed by detailed discussions about eligibility and interest. Select farmers are then mobilised to form a group based on the required criteria.
But the ground reality is different for multiple reasons. Apart from officials’ expertise and farmers’ interest, this process requires considerable time and effort by officials, which is often not spent. This leads to farmers getting limited time to weigh the benefits and risks and decide. Often, farmers effectively get lured more by subsidies and enrol for them rather than opting for a transition based on a well-informed decision.
Inadequate farmer training and handholding
As local-level officials are not trained enough, knowledge is not transferred to farmers satisfactorily in most cases. Most often it remains superficial and helps the farmers only in a limited way. Farmers, therefore, do not get to understand detailed aspects of organic farming in their specific contexts.
Such training, which should have been part of the orientation and regular handholding for successful transition, includes soil preparation, seed treatment, bio-input preparation and application, knowledge of cropping patterns, non-chemical pest management, complying with certification processes, value addition, and creating and utilising market linkages.
External trainers, if involved during training, are hardly available thereafter to guide farmers as and when needed. Other important training and monitoring tools such as farmer field schools and exposure visits to farms of successful farmers are not satisfactory either. In such a scenario, farmers struggle to appropriately practise organic farming techniques and approaches. They become vulnerable to yield losses due to several factors such as mismanagement of diseases, pest attacks and poor soil-health management practices. They may get demotivated and to prevent losses resort to chemical practices or opt out of transitioning.
Certification still not farmer-friendly
PKVY calls for certification as per PGS standards. Though PGS-India certification is cost effective as no certification cost is charged, it requires extensive documentation and uploading of data online. This burden relies heavily on efforts made by the regional council staff and becomes a key priority for them instead of actual work on the ground.
Regional councils are also responsible for supporting farmer groups in capacity building, technology dissemination and data uploading on the PGS portal managed by NCOF. Key issues of the certification process, such as testing of residues in crop produce and ensuring complete transition in a span of two years, fail to get the necessary attention.
Moreover, limited efforts in marketing the PGS certification has led to low popularity and credibility of PGS certification among consumers so far. In recent years, there has been some initial discussion on the need to bring a new alternative system of organic certification that is more farmer friendly.
Poor market linkages
Getting remunerative prices for organic produce is a big hurdle for farmers. On the ground the direct market linkages of farmers and consumers are missing. The scheme has no provision to buy back the organic produce farmers are asked to grow. In the absence of direct linkages with processors, retailers and exporters, farmers are dependent on middle men to market their produce. Often their produce is sold at the same price as conventional produce. Only some are able to sell on their own in their local areas because of their personal reputation and efforts. This is a key concern particularly for small and marginal farmers.
To get more price for the product, selling a value-added product helps. But here too, the reality is that the functions of processing, packaging, branding and marketing are still the weakest part of PKVY implementation. For example, organic clusters often lack processing units of their own, which makes it difficult to get certification and sell their product as organic. Despite provision for financial support to clusters, marketing of organic produce remains a big concern.
The Central government does not have any separate dedicated programme or provisions for providing market support to organic produce. Limited support is provided by the government through PKVY and Mission Organic Value Chain Development for North East Region (MOVCDNER) schemes. PKVY has provision to provide support for direct marketing, post-harvest value addition and processing facilities and brand-building support provided on a case-to-case basis and in the range of Rs 15 lakh–53 lakh per cluster of 1000 ha each.
MOVCDNER focuses on value-chain development and Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs) and support for post-harvest management practices, including infrastructure creation and marketing in a value-chain mode. Support under the scheme is in the range of Rs 15 lakh – Rs 37.5 lakh. The government has also developed a jaivik kheti portal to link organic farmers with consumers, but the success of this initiative remains to be seen.
There is also no provision for procurement of organic produce by the Central government. A few states such as Karnataka, Odisha and Uttarakhand, however, are providing some market support to organic farmers in the form of procurement, connecting organic produce with government schemes such as the Public Distribution System (PDS) and Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) and linking with buyers.
The PGS certificate has still not generated enough credibility and popularity in the market. On the other hand, NPOP-certified products sold by companies are generally sold in the market at higher prices, making it a niche market for higher-end consumers only.
Availability of good quality seeds suitable for organic farming
The PGS-India manual mandates use of seeds and planting material varieties that are suitable for organic management, well adapted to soil and climatic conditions, resistant to pest and disease, not treated with chemicals and preferably of organic origin. It restricts use of genetically engineered seeds, pollen, transgenic plants or planting material. Farmers, however, struggle to get good-quality local seeds suitable for organic farming.
Decrease in agro-biodiversity has led to decreased seed diversity, limiting the availability of seeds of diverse crops and varieties. Seeds available in the market are often chemically treated, more suited for irrigated areas and chemical-based rather than organic farming. There is a strong need for community seed banks. For cotton crop, organic seed is not easily available as the market is flooded with genetically modified seeds.
Apart from the aforementioned, the design of the scheme has several issues. First is the limited ambition, which is linked with an annual budget of just a few hundred crore. Then is the limited allocation of money for critical aspects such as residue analysis, which would fail to generate confidence about PGS-certified products among consumers. For example, only three samples are planned to be tested per 100 ha during the second and third year of the conversion process, which is inadequate.
There are also differences in state and Central schemes on key issues. The revised 2018 guidelines allow flexibility in adopting from a wide set of practices such as vermicompost, panchgavya and zero-budget natural farming. However, some states like Rajasthan, in line with the earlier guidelines, continue to rely on vermicompost.
Source: Amit Khurana and Vineet Kumar, 2020, State of Organic and Natural Farming: Challenges and Possibilities, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi
