Introduction Asian agriculture is dominated by small farmers and herders, with very few exceptions (notably large extensions of rangeland and grains in places such as Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Northern China). While many are directly benefiting from the dramatic urban-oriented growth that characterizes many parts of Asia, a far greater number still struggle to produce sufficient food and income (IFAD 2004; UNESCAP 2002; IFPRI 2002; Janz, Shanxi and Jacobi 2003; Scialabba and Hattam 2003). Many millions of Asia’s poorest farmers live in mountainous or semi-arid areas where both economic and agricultural opportunities are limited. While a great many migrate to industrial and urban areas, many more must depend on their agricultural endeavors to provide both food and a basic income for clothing, education, and healthcare. Small and poor farmers have a unique set of needs that, in many cases, are not adequately satisfied by conventional modern agricultural paradigms. Green Revolution approaches have certainly been effective in dramatically increasing crop yields in many parts of Asia. The Green Revolution has, in part, enabled countries to address the pressing macro-level need for food security that plagued them until recently. Using hybrid seed, irrigation, and agrochemicals to fuel intensive farming, these methods have in a few short decades become embedded in the educational, policy, and extension systems of most countries. While most Asian countries — certainly the larger ones — have achieved food security at the macro level, pockets of poverty and malnutrition persist. It is here that the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) is committed to being effective and also at this level that Green Revolution methods have most been called into question (IFAD 2002 and 2004; Shiva 1992). So, to what extent do smaller farmers who are the recipients of development assistance require the methods and inputs that have come to be associated with the Green Revolution in order to optimally achieve their needs? While it is true that Green Revolution inputs have successfully raised yields in many irrigated and agriculturally optimal areas, they have been much less effective in marginal farmlands, rain-fed areas, and where farmers do not have the income and/or skills to make use of these approaches. Recent studies about rice — Asia's most important crop — and the subject of considerable rigorous and published research makes the point succinctly. The long-term research by Cornell University’s International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development in a number of countries1, shows that dramatic increases in rice crop yields (50% in China and up to 700% elsewhere) were possible without the use of conventional agrochemicals (Uphoff 2002a and 2002b). Development professionals increasingly posit that organic agriculture could be a useful tool to meet farmers' needs (UNESCAP 2002; Scialabba and Hattam 2002; Damiani 2003). In some areas, organic agriculture methods appear to show considerable promise for fulfilling these basic needs of small farmers and also allegedly providing positive externalities such as ecological benefits. Yet, there has been little data collection and external analysis to understand what works and what doesn't. Relatively little information is available about the mechanics of implementing organic agriculture with smallholders in developing countries. As the popularity of organic projects grows, it will be useful to recognize the inherent risks and benefits of converting to organics. Rural development projects can determine whether and how to integrate organic approaches if they better understand the drivers of success and the pitfalls of such projects. This evaluation seeks to offer lessons and insights about whether organic methods ought to be a part of development programs and strategies for small farmers. And if such methods are valid, then under what circumstances or conditions should they be fostered so as to optimize their benefits and minimize potential difficulties. To better determine the role of organics for small farmers in Asia, the evaluation used a diverse series of 14 case studies to better understand several key areas:
The evaluation explores the pros and cons of organic adoption in terms of poverty reduction, food security, and also trade. The format addresses the organizational forms of organic agriculture such as civil organizations, marketing channels, adoption of standards, and certification and also follows a modified value-chain analysis to uncover the key factors at every step of the organic journey. From this work, a set of conclusions synthesizes the most important lessons and the factors that motivate the adoption of organic agriculture. The key success factors are identified in the final section along with recommendations for identifying and designing projects in which organic methods could be a useful component. Characteristics of the farmers, conditions, and products This evaluation of Asian organics has considered research from a number of countries but the dominant focus is on India and China. These two have more than half of the world’s farming households2. The 14 case studies documented herein were chosen according to a broad set of parameters designed to capture lessons from diverse circumstances. Cases were selected to reflect different social situations including women’s participation and indigenous or tribal people. They reflect experience in four different agro-ecological zones and looked at more than two dozen different products (See Appendix 1). The major ones include: rice, beans, livestock, tea, cotton, sorghum, fruits, vegetables, wild rice, ginger, wheat, mushrooms, soybeans, spices, sugarcane, and medicinal plants. The cases illustrated the common organizational structures prevalent in their countries; these ranged from local farmer associations to private companies to non-govermental organizations (NGOs) and even government participation. They covered a range of representative geographic areas from the semi-arid steppe of Inner Mongolia to the moist tropical hills of Kerala. Of course, they also researched organic projects with very distinct market orientations: some were for local consumption and benefit; some were oriented toward larger and domestic markets, and others focused on exports. A few cases were mini studies looking at key issues and relying primarily on existing secondary data. Perhaps even more than conventional agriculture, organic agriculture in Asia is very much a smallholder-oriented endeavour. India for example, classifies 81% of its farmers as small and China’s average farm size is less than 0.5 hectare per household. There are of course some organic plantations and extensive tracts of company-owned lands but sometimes even these are leased or manned by small farmers. As Rundgren notes (2002 p. 6) “Broadly speaking there are two different kinds of organic farms in the world: certified organic farms producing for a premium price market and non-certified organic farms producing for their own households and for local markets.” With small farmers in Asia this distinction is sometimes blurred as they straddle the two categories or sometimes slide between them from year-to-year. The case study subjects are primarily small farmers. Most depend entirely, or almost so, on their agricultural production. The majority are relatively poor. There is an even mixture of those that previously practiced traditional or rustic forms of agriculture and those that practiced more conventional methods (using agrochemical inputs, hybrid seed, etc.). A few practiced more intensive and market-oriented forms of production. The majority sell their products as raw materials. Of those that add value, most do so via the application of basic grading and primary processing methods such as dehydration or washing. A few have access to primary processing facilities. Most lack direct access to markets other than local ones. Getting a new type of knowledge to farmers As Swaminathan (2004) has noted, organic farming is primarily knowledge intensive whereas conventional farming is more chemical and capital intensive. Accordingly, farmers can take longer to adapt, especially if they had been practicing conventional agriculture using external inputs. Organic farmers need to learn the rhythms and natural responses of their farm environment in order to deal with them effectively. Experienced and older farmers can sometimes find this easier whereas younger farmers can require more guidance. Many projects share the experience of the farmers studied in southeastern China (Jianxi). Once farmers began conversion, their main challenges were how to enhance their understanding of organic agriculture so as to develop appropriate production techniques especially for soil fertilization and pest and disease control and to facilitate the integration of animal husbandry into the system. Training is required, of course, but this may be more difficult than the chemically-oriented training that helped establish conventional agriculture in recent decades. Agricultural education in organic or sustainable agriculture is rarely available, particularly at the university level, where it is usually focused on Green Revolution models of farming. Most public extension services are only beginning to provide training to their agents in organic practices. In some cases (Madhya Pradesh cotton, Maharashtra field crops), the contracting firm or the farmers' support networks such as NGOs, must provide specialized extension services. Unless these have local experience, they can find it difficult to help farmers surmount challenges when ideal approaches are often dictated by the particular ecological and climactic conditions in different zones. Farmer-to-farmer learning models are perhaps best suited for this situation, especially when linked to broader sources of research and knowledge about organic methods. Government policy can clearly play a large role. Overview of the policy and institutional situation In many countries organic agriculture has sprouted and grown as a result of grass-roots efforts. In most cases, governments have initially adopted a position of benign neglect. This changes when the number of constituents participating become vocal and numerous, when the superior financial or ecological benefits become evident, or in response to the needs of businesses or consumers for product standards and labeling. China is a notable exception. Recognizing the economic and ecological benefits at the early stages, Chinese local and provincial governments invested in a number of successful export-oriented enterprises. While local policies and regulations were adapted as necessary for this development, there was not a coordinated policy approach toward organic agriculture. At the ministerial level in China the primary proponent of organics until 2004 was the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA). More positive policy and regulatory approaches did not emerge from the Ministry of Agriculture at that time since it was involved with Green Foods, its own set of agricultural standards that in some cases parallel organic standards. This Green Food certification and labeling program has by most measures been a great success. It was initially adopted by a number of state-owned and state affiliated agricultural organizations whose size, market linkages, and competitiveness have made Green Foods one of the most successful eco-labeling programs in the world. Its annual sales should reach close to USD 10 billion (measured at the wholesale level) in 2004. India's long tradition of ecological agriculture in many different forms has been rooted in community level approaches. As in China, India's private sector assessed its many competitive advantages in certain crops and developed and export orientation. Only later, as the potential benefits of organic agriculture for small farmers became more widely appreciated, did the government participate more actively in its development. The strongest components of this early development were several state level initiatives that have developed standards, research, and support systems for their farmers. India's approaches have been characterized as being more farmer-oriented than market-oriented. The focus has been on food security, health, and environmental welfare benefits that are perceived as intrinsic to the organic systems. More recently, market oriented approaches have emerged in the form of public marketing supports such as retail outlets and commodity boards promotions. There have been relatively few public private linkages between governments and companies involved in the sector. Box 1.1. Brief on Organic Agriculture in China
None of the small farmers studied were able to successfully initiate organic conversion projects on their own. All needed some form of support, especially in the early stages. This support took many different forms. In India, it tended to come from NGOs and also from the private sector and lately from government as well. In China, the Government has been a primary driver working together with private companies that are increasingly taking a primary role. Local certification has been an important step in both countries although only a few of the national certifiers have sought international (IFOAM) accreditation. For local markets, there are emerging domestic certifiers. International certifiers from Europe, the USA, Japan, and Australia certify nearly all organic exports. An increasing number of these overseas certifiers are establishing local offices as the certification business continues to grow. Organics is now gradually more coming to the attention of both provincial and central government policymakers because it aligns well with the increasing international trade demand for recognizable safety standards. Since organic agriculture intrinsically involves stringent traceability measures and record-keeping —besides its prohibition of a most dangerous agrochemicals — it perfectly fits the bill for both corporations and governments that are progressively more cautious in the arena of food safety. Box 1.2. Brief on Organic Agriculture in India
Overview of the case studies In order to reduce a bias that might incorrectly represent only the positive aspects of organic agriculture, case studies were selected — and researchers were mandated — to clearly reflect, where possible, the less positive or negative aspects. Selecting cases for the diversity of their experience was also a primary goal. The selection parameters therefore included diversity in: agro-ecological zones, product types, organizational structures, geographic areas, and market orientation. Following is a list of the case studies analyzed. Although all of the products are produced or processed in the referenced projects, not all are the subject of direct analysis in the report.
India It is not simple to classify these cases as successful or unsuccessful, even aside from elaborating definitions of success. Certainly, some of them are quite successful by almost any measure but a number of them also demonstrate significant shortcomings and can only be called successful to the extent that they still exist. While most offer farmers distinct improvements, a number of these cases under perform in terms of potential small farmer benefits. The factor that perhaps most skews the statistical interpretation is that for practical research reasons we endeavored to select cases that were operational for more than two years. We found that most — even those currently operating — kept very limited records and had conducted few, if any, objective measurements. This therefore automatically eliminated the inclusion of projects that had failed or no longer existed because of the intrinsic difficulty in measuring ex post. 1/ In Asia these include Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, and Sri Lanka. 2/ Swaminathan’s personal communication
of Oct. 1, 2004 in advisory capacity as a Scientific Committee member.
|
 |
 |
 |
The market orientation of farmers in the 14 cases varies considerably.
Naturally, many are primarily oriented toward sales, especially export
sales. However, a number of those in India — while not eschewing
the market — are primarily focused on the intrinsic local benefits
of organic production. In such cases (Maharashtra, Kerala, Karnataka)
improved soils, fewer toxic chemicals, self-reliance in inputs, and harmony
with nature were cited as the most important reasons for being organic.
Those farmers that are appreciative of such local benefits appear to be
more likely to withstand setbacks and difficult periods especially during
the conversion stages (Uttaranchal mixed crops). Although it is too early
to tell in many of the case instances, the events to date indicate that
the vast majority of organic adopters continue with organic methods. In
some cases (Yuexi Kiwi) as farmers become more familiar with organic methods
in their environment, they become more confident and more willing to adopt
organic methods in other crops.
China