Agri Impact Assessment -II ‘More from the Cotton Fields’ · 6.2 Shri Praveenbhai Varmora 57 6.3...

Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India

‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd

Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India

Agrocel Industries Ltd Koday Cross Roads, Ta: Mandvi, Koday-370460 Dist: Kutch Gujarat (India)

Agri Impact Assessment -II ‘More from the Cotton Fields’

January 2008

Mott MacDonald India 501, Sakar-II, Nr Ellisbridge Ahmedabad – 380 006 Gujarat - India Tel: #91-79-26575550 Fax: #91-79-26575558 E mail. [email protected]



Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India i

Agri Impact Assessment -II for More From Cotton Fields

December 2007

Issue and Revision Record

Rev Date Originator Checker Approver Description

01 01-12-2007 Ms. Zainab

Kapasi Umesh Shukla Ajey Nandurkar Draft Report

02 16-01-2008 Ms. Zainab

Kapasi Umesh Shukla Ajey Nandurkar Final Draft

This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any

other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authority of Dalal Mott

MacDonald being obtained. Dalal Mot MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequence of this

document being used for a purpose other than the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person using or relying on

the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm his agreement to

indemnify Dalal Mott MacDonald for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Dalal Mott MacDonald accepts no

responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned.



Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India ii

Acknowledgement The Mott MacDonald team would like to acknowledge the support and contribution of the Agrocel

Field Survey team during the survey. We would like to thank them for their sincere co-operation and

active support through out, which helped us to conduct the Field Survey work in such an efficient and

timely manner. Without their committed team efforts, at all locations and their assistance it would not

have been possible to cover as many respondents, in such a short span of time. Above all we would

like to thank Mr. Hasmukhbhai Patel – G.M Agrocel Service Division, who spared his valuable

time from his hectic schedules and accompanied the survey team in entire survey and ensured that

accurate and clear information is captured from member farmers, which reflected the actual conditions

of the farmers. We also thank other Agrocel office staff, specifically Shri. Shailesh Patel and

Ms.Diptiben for their co-operation in providing all secondary data about the member farmers.

Agrocel Team at Rapar and Mandvi

1. Shri Gordhanbhai K Rangapar

2. Shri Pachanbhai Aahir

3. Shri Mukeshbhai Bareliya

4. Shri Bhawanbhai Makwana

5. Shri Bhaveshbhai Vasani

6. Shri Gangarambhai Vadekhaniya

7. Ms. Krupa Patel-Koday-Mandvi

8. Shri Laljibhai Patel (Navadiya)

Agrocel Team at Dhrangadhra

1. Shri Chamanbhai Patel

2. Shri Yogeshbhai Patel

3. Shri Narendrabhai Adhara

4. Shri Mahendrabhai Makasniya

5. Shri Dilipbhai Sapprola

6. Shri Laljibhai Navadiya



Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India i

List of Contents

Chapters and Appendices

1 Introduction 5

1.1 About The Client 5

1.2 About the Consultants 6 1.2.1 Services 7

(i) Management Consultancy 7 (ii) Social Solutions 7 (iii) Engineering Services 7 (iv) Infrastructure 7 (v) Industry 8 (vi) Buildings 8

1.3 Project Background 8 1.3.1 Project Objectives 10 1.3.2 Purpose and Indicators of the Project 10 1.3.3 Scope of Work 11

1.4 Approach and Methodology 12 1.4.1 Questionnaire Design 13 1.4.2 Data Entry, Processing and Report Preparation 14

1.5 Limitations of the Study 14

2 Organic Farming and Fair trade 15

2.1 Organic Farming 15 (i) The Concept 15 (ii) Relevance 16

2.2 Fair Trade 16 (i) Concept 16 (ii) Relevance 17

2.3 Geographical distribution of the Programme 17

3 Survey Findings 18

3.1 Geographical distribution of the survey 18 3.1.1 Year of joining the Project 19 3.1.2 Average distance from Agrocel Service centre 20 3.1.3 Family Type 21 3.1.4 Family Size 22

3.2 Findings on the Economical Aspects 22 3.2.1 Alternate sources of Income 22 3.2.2 Change in type of house 23



Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India ii

3.2.3 Change in Ownership of House 24 3.2.4 Change in Facilities available in the house 24 3.2.5 Land holding details 26 3.2.6 Change in Land Ownership 27 3.2.7 Change in Agricultural facilities available 27 3.2.8 Change in Agricultural Income 29 3.2.9 Cost of production 29 3.2.10 Percentage Distribution of Input Cost 30 3.2.11 Change in Price realization or Yield 31 3.2.12 Major Benefits of Organic Farming 31

3.3 Findings on the Agricultural/Environmental Aspects 34 3.3.1 Perception about increase in Yield 34 3.3.2 Perception about Contamination in Cotton 35 3.3.3 Perception about occurrence of crop disease and pests in cotton crop 36 3.3.4 Perception about Improvement in Soil quality 37 3.3.5 Perception about Improvement in Water quality 38 3.3.6 Perception about the Crop rotation 38 3.3.7 Information about Alternate crops 39 3.3.8 Benefits of crop rotation 40

3.4 Findings on the Social Aspects 40 3.4.1 Findings on road blocks and obstacles faced in the Project 40 3.4.2 Social Standing 41 3.4.3 Social status of labourers/co-workers 42 3.4.4 Perception of OF/FT with regards to personal and social life 42 3.4.5 Indebtedness at initial stage 43 3.4.6 Reduction in Indebtedness 44 3.4.7 Change in Working Conditions 44 3.4.8 Income Sufficiency 45 3.4.9 Reverse Migration 46 3.4.10 Perceptions about long term sustainability of OF/FT 46 3.4.11 Perceptions about future prospects of OF/FT 47 3.4.12 Facilities provided by Agrocel 47 3.4.13 Suggestions given by farmers regarding the project 48

(i) Agricultural Assistance 48 (ii) Financial assistance 48 (iii) Community development 49

4 Key Findings of the Field Survey 49

4.1 Demographic 49

4.2 Economic Impact 49

4.3 Environmental Impact 51

4.4 Social Impact Aspects 51

5 Work done by Agrocel on the Social front 53

6 Case Studies 56



Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India iii

6.1 Shri Laljibhai Ramji Patel 56

6.2 Shri Praveenbhai Varmora 57

6.3 Shri Kedabhai Madheva Mali 58

6.4 Head of household: Shri. Gelabhai Dosabhai Mor 59

6.5 Shri Ravajibhai Devaji Bangali 60

6.6 Shri Parvatbhai Sauji Ravariya 61

6.7 Shri Dhanabhai Ambavi Nor 62

6.8 Head of household: Shri. Aayabhai Teja Parmar 63

6.9 Shri Karsanbhai Manji Chaudhary 64

6.10 Shrimati Narmadaben Harilal Chowdhary 65

7 Conclusions 65

7.1 Economic Impact Assessment 66

7.2 Environment / Agriculture Impact 66

7.3 Social Impact 67

7.4 Overall Impact of Organic Farming and Fair trade Program 67

7.5 Farmers’ Aspirations from Agrocel 68

7.6 Suggestions for Agrocel 68

Appendix A: Field Survey Questionnaire A-1

Appendix B: List of Respondent Farmers for Field Survey B-1

Figures

Figure 1-1: Agrocel Service Centres In Gujarat ...................................................................................... 6 Figure 3-1: Use of Kit given for Cotton Contamination Prevention ..................................................... 36 Figure 5.1: Deepening of Village Lakes in Rapar Taluka ..................................................................... 54 Figure 5.2: Solar Street Lighting From Fare Trade Premium ............................................................... 54 Figure 5.3: Drinking Water Tanks in Schools with Water Conservation Slogans ................................ 55 Figure 5.4: Compost Pit Assistance by Fair trade ................................................................................. 55

Tables

Table 1.1: Location of Agrocel Service Centre’s in Gujarat ................................................................... 5 Table 1.2: Locations of Agrocel Service Centre’s nationwide ................................................................ 5 Table 2.1: Geographical Distribution of the Programme ...................................................................... 17 Table 3.1: Member Farmers Number Details of Kutch Area ................................................................ 18 Table 3.2: Member Farmers Number Details of Surendranagar Area................................................... 18 Table 3.3: Sample Size and Geographical distribution ......................................................................... 19 Table 3.4: Villages covered in the Survey ............................................................................................. 19 Table 3.5: Year of joining the Project ................................................................................................... 20 Table 3.6: Average Distance from Agrocel Service Centre .................................................................. 20



Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India iv

Table 3.7: Percentage Distribution of Family Type .............................................................................. 21 Table 3.8: Percentage Distribution of Family Size................................................................................ 22 Table 3.9: Percentage Distribution of Farmers with Alternate Source of Income ................................ 22 Table 3.10: Percentage Change in Type of House ................................................................................ 23 Table 3.11: Percentage change in housing facilities.............................................................................. 24 Table 3.12: Land holding details ........................................................................................................... 26 Table 3.13: Farmers’ distribution on the basis of Land holding size .................................................... 26 Table 3.14: Percentage change in Land Ownership .............................................................................. 27 Table 3.15: Percentage change in Agricultural facilities ....................................................................... 27 Table 3.16: Difference perceived in Agricultural Income ..................................................................... 29 Table 3.17: Average Percentage Cost of Production ............................................................................. 29 Table 3.18: Average Percentage Distribution of Input Cost ................................................................. 30 Table 3.19: Perceived Difference in Price realization of yield .............................................................. 31 Table 3.20: Rating response summary for Kutch District ..................................................................... 32 Table 3.21: Rating response summary for Surendranagar District ....................................................... 32 Table 3.22: Rating response summary for both (Combined) Districts. ................................................. 33 Table 3.23: Perceived Difference in Yield ............................................................................................ 34 Table 3.24: Contamination free cotton .................................................................................................. 35 Table 3.25: Perceived Difference in Occurrence of crop disease and pests .......................................... 36 Table 3.26: Perceived improvement in Soil quality .............................................................................. 37 Table 3.27: Perceived Improvement in Water Quality .......................................................................... 38 Table 3.28: Perception about the Crop Rotation ................................................................................... 38 Table 3.29: Responses about Alternate Crops ....................................................................................... 39 Table 3.30: Benefits of Crop Rotation .................................................................................................. 40 Table 3.31: Problems faced in adopting Organic Farming ................................................................... 40 Table 3.32: Perceived Improvement in Social Standing ....................................................................... 41 Table 3.33: Perceived improvement in Social status of labourers/co workers ..................................... 42 Table 3.34: Perceptions of effects of OF/FT on personal and social life .............................................. 43 Table 3.35: Indebtedness at Initial stage ............................................................................................... 43 Table 3.36: Reduction in Indebtedness ................................................................................................. 44 Table 3.37: Perceived change in Working conditions ........................................................................... 44 Table 3.38: Income Sufficiency ............................................................................................................ 45 Table 3.39: Occurrence of Reverse Migration ...................................................................................... 46 Table 3.40: Sustainability of OF/FT ..................................................................................................... 46 Table 3.41: Future prospects of OF/FT ................................................................................................. 47 Table 3.42: Facilities provided by Agrocel ........................................................................................... 47 Table 5.1: Awareness and Training Work Provided by Agrocel ......................................................... 53 Table 5.2: Agricultural Assistance Provided by Agrocel ..................................................................... 53 Table 5.3: Community Work done using Fair Trade Premium by Agrocel .......................................... 54



Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 5

1 Introduction

1.1 About The Client

Agrocel Industries limited, was earlier a Joint venture company, between the Shroff Group of

Companies who held 89% stake in the company and Gujarat Agro Industries Corporation (GAIC- a

Gujarat Government Enterprises), who held the remaining 11% stake. It has now become a wholly

owned subsidiary of the Shroff Group of companies, after they bought off GAIC’s 11% share in the

year 2006. Agrocel Industries is a unique example of a successful private venture in the field of

providing agricultural extension services to remote rural areas of the country.

Agrocel Industries Limited, hereafter referred to as Agrocel, was established in 1989, with the

primary objective of serving the farming community and in particular the small and marginal farmers

by providing them high quality technical advice, agricultural inputs and guidance at a fair price and

also supporting the farmers in the agricultural output marketing with value addition. Agrocel has

established a chain of 19 Agrocel Service Centres across the country with a team of agronomists based

at each centre to interact with the farmers and provide them with appropriate services. Out of 19

service centres, 9 are situated in Gujarat. Locations of Agrocel service centres in Gujarat and India are

summarized in following table 1.1. and 1.2. Locations in Gujarat are also shown on the Map of

Gujarat in Figure 1.1.

Table 1.1: Location of Agrocel Service Centre’s in Gujarat

Sr. No Location

1 Koday –Kutch 2 Mundra- Kutch 3 Nakhatrana-Kutch 4 Kothara- Kutch 5 Kukma-Kutch 6 Rapar- Kutch 7 Dhabhoi-Vadodara 8 Sayla- Surendranagar 9 Dhrangadhra- Surendranagar

Source: Agrocel –Koday office.

Table 1.2: Locations of Agrocel Service Centre’s na tionwide

Sr. No Location State

1 Rayagada Orissa 2 Kaital Haryana 3 Kaushalgung Uttar Pradesh 4 Salur Andhra Pradesh




Sr. No Location State

5 Zolarpet Tamilnadu 6 Nimpith West Bengal 7 Sangli Maharashtra 8 Kudal Maharashtra 9 Sanksheswar Karnataka 10 Belgam Karntaka


Figure 1-1: Agrocel Service Centres In Gujarat

Today Agrocel has a network of more than 25,000 farmers, which include approximately 7000

farmers in Gujarat, whom they provide services through their service centres. Agrocel has a long term

of goal of ensuring a sustainable livelihood for these farmers in an environmentally friendly way; it

aims to structure the entire supply chain in a manner which enables the farmers to receive the

maximum profit from their produce and maintain accurate documentation of the same.

1.2 About the Consultants

Mott MacDonald Private Limited (MM India) is a leading multi-disciplinary management and

engineering consultancy based in India, with offices nationwide.

As part of the global Mott MacDonald Group headquartered in U.K., MM India is able to draw on

world-class technical and managerial resources comprising more than 50 strategic centres world-wide.




MM India is engaged in planning and development touching many aspects of everyday life–from

water, energy, industry, environment and transport, to building, healthcare, tourism and social

development. Across these sectors MM India works for national and local governments, public and

private utilities, industrial and commercial companies, investors, developers, banks and financial

institutions, international and bilateral funding agencies and private entrepreneurs. MM India’s

strengths enable our clients to realize their projects optimally from concept to commissioning. With

more than 1100 professionals, MM India takes care of the entire process – including providing advice

on the best procurement route and the optimum approach for maintaining the project, once the Client

enters for service with it.

1.2.1 Services

(i) Management Consultancy

MM India provides business planning and project management services for a wide spectrum of clients

in industry, infrastructure and social development, including international development banks and

funding agencies. MM India also help clients such as accountancy practices, financial institutions and

industrial companies in making a realistic appraisal of their fixed assets, and in preparing for

disinvestment, mergers or de-mergers, acquisitions, takeovers, insurance or liquidation, collaborations

and joint ventures.

(ii) Social Solutions

MM India has undertaken numerous studies and advisory roles for leading development banks and

funding agencies. Projects range from implementing vital AIDS eradication programmes and pro-poor

initiatives to studies for institutional strengthening, sector reform and impact evaluation. MM India

also offers specialist expertise in assisting with public consultation.

(iii) Engineering Services

MM India’s range of engineering services enables clients to realise optimal implementation of

projects. MM India takes care of every stage – site evaluation, basic and detailed engineering, contract

preparation, project management, procurement, equipment inspection and testing, site supervision and

commissioning.

(iv) Infrastructure

One of the key strengths of MM India lies in large-scale integrated urban infrastructure development,

encompassing water supply, drainage, and solid waste, roads, sanitation, and community buildings.




Here our services range from planning and advisory assistance to detailed engineering and

construction management.

(v) Industry

MM India’s skills and experience have earned it a leading reputation – especially in Chemicals,

Textiles, Oil and Gas, Agriculture - Food processing and Life sciences, as well as bulk drugs,

pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. MM India is known particularly for its expertise in process

engineering and licensing for speciality chemical production based on laboratory/pilot plant know-

how developed by R&D centres.

(vi) Buildings

MM India’s business covers all sectors from commercial and leisure to industry, education and

healthcare. MM India provides the full range of architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical

design skills, along with planning and project management expertise. Building services are a special

capability, notably building management systems, vertical transportation, telecommunications and

security.

1.3 Project Background

During the course of its work, Agrocel came across the cotton farmers of the Western Gujarat regions

of Kutch - Mandvi and Surendranagar districts, who were facing difficult times due to following

reasons,

a) Cotton farmers were facing difficulties in selling their produce due to the unstable crop prices

caused by the US and EU dumping cheap and subsidised cotton in the world markets.

b) The high use of chemical pesticides in the industry leading to not only increase in the debt

burden on the farmers, and as the supplier of the pesticides Agrocel many times acted as

creditors.

c) Use of chemical pesticides also leading to the degradation of the environment and inevitably

harming the agricultural communities working in the cotton farms.

To overcome these perennial problems, Agrocel came up with an innovative concept of converting

these farmers, into producers of pure and high quality organic cotton and providing them access to the

high-end European Markets through Fair trade. The Organic cotton fibre so produced has a variety of

applications; such as personal care items like sanitary products, make–up removal pads, cotton puffs

etc; children’s products such as toys, diapers etc; and clothes of all kinds and styles, be it loungewear,




sportswear or workplace attire. Agrocel is providing end to end solution for Organic cotton growers of

the area.

The seed capital required for this project was provided by the Shell Foundation, U.K., which is a

charitable organisation, which focuses on providing enterprise solutions to poverty and environmental

challenges. It acts like an investor, identifying financially sustainable solutions to these challenges that

can be taken to scale and replicated to achieve global impact. The first project was aptly named

“Straight from the cotton fields of India” and was initially started with a 3 year time frame. It was

designed to primarily improve the environmental, economical and social standards of the cotton

farmers participating in the project and provide them with a stable livelihood through means of

sustainable organic farming.

The other broad objectives specified at the start of the project were for addressing the problems of

bankruptcy, rural-urban migration, checking the deterioration in worsening soil and water quality, crop

vulnerability to pest attack and tackling the problems of adverse climatic conditions, as well as

providing better market access for their agriculture produce.

The other extremely significant stakeholders in this project are Vericott (Vertical integration in cotton)

Ltd. UK and Traidcraft Exchange. UK. Vericott stepped in to work with Agrocel to design, add value

to the garments made from organic and fairly traded cotton and create markets for them in high-end

segments in UK and Europe. Whereas Traidcraft; the leading fair trade organisation in the UK, has

played the key role in helping Agrocel, establish relations in the export market, providing relevant

Market Information and helping in managing export market assistance for the project.

On completion of the first three years period of the project, the first Agri Impact Assessment was

undertaken in the year 2004, by then Dalal Mott MacDonald (DMM), and the findings of that Agri

Impact Assessment were very positive. The overwhelming success of first 3 years of “Straight From

the Cotton Fields”- SFCF program had prompted the concerned parties to extend the project further

for next 3 years period, with the appropriate new name given to it as “More From the Cotton

Fields”- shortly named as MFCF - by Agrocel and all concerned.

This project was designed to more or less reinforce the objectives of the earlier project, besides to

address certain additional aspects, such as a year round economic utilization of the land, development

of additional organic products from the alternate crops taken in the same land as crop rotation and also

adding value added processing, Supply chain creation etc; for these alternate crops.

The second project has also completed in September 2007, and Agrocel Industries Ltd has approached

IMM again, with the desire to get assessed the project gains, in a scientific manner as it was done




earlier, by getting a new Agri Impact Assessment II done. This will also help Agrocel and all the

stake holders, to understand the gains from this program in quantifiable manner, when they compare

against the benchmarking done earlier, in the form of Baseline studies done at the start of second

phase project implementation as well as against the findings of first Agri Impact Assessment done in

the year 2004.

It is important to mention here that Agrocel has made substantial progress in terms of spreading this

novel concept to larger geographical areas and involving more number of cotton growers from their

first program level. They are active not only in specified districts of Gujarat, but also in Orissa.

1.3.1 Project Objectives

At the start of this project, “Overall objectives and indicators” for this project were clearly defined by

Vericott & Agrocel, in consultation with their partner organization, Traidcraft Exchange, U.K, and the

funding agency Shell Foundation.

The prime objective of this study is to assess the overall impact the second phase project has made on

the beneficiary cotton farming community, with respect to:

� economical aspects

� Agricultural aspects

� Environmental aspects

� Social aspects

The study aims to explore that to which extent the objectives of the project have been met, keeping in

view above specific aspects and assess such achievements, in a quantifiable manner, through primary

and secondary research methods. The primary research is mainly focussed to collect facts and figures

regarding above aspects, by having personal interviews using structured questionnaire (The copy of

the Questionnaire is enclosed as Appendix-A to this report).

The study will also encompass a detailed analysis of available secondary and primary data about the

project and its impact, in order to assess the scope and areas of improvement, also to identify any

specific problem or hurdles faced during the implementation of the project.

1.3.2 Purpose and Indicators of the Project

The contribution made by this Organic Cotton growing project will be evidenced by following

Indicators and keeping in view these indicators, measurable responses will be obtained from actual

beneficiaries using close ended questions.

Economic indicators –




• Stabilization of overall numbers employed

• Increasing incomes,

• Increasing value of cotton,

• Functioning market access,

• Year wise Sales figures (From Agrocel)

Environment/health indicators

• Stabilization of water /soil quality (Analysis records from Agrocel)

• Health of Farmers and Farm workers.

Social indicators

• Reduction in migration to cities (Through individual & Group discussions)

• Less indebtedness.

In short, the study will provide the Client with an extensive analysis and Impact assessment, in a

report form, along with salient observations regarding the Organic cultivation program implemented

by them. This will provide a specific insight and overview of the gains and short falls of the proposed

program and also bring out further expectations / aspirations of member farmers from Agrocel.

1.3.3 Scope of Work

The main objectives of the study are as follows:

• Based on the secondary information regarding their member farmers, to be given by Agrocel,

define stratification of beneficiary farmer groups for fairly distributed sample selection purpose.

• Based on given Objectives and indicators of MFCF project, develop Quantifiable (measurable)

Indicators for making objective evaluation between different stratified groups.

• Define objectives of field survey and data to be obtained from various stake holders of the project

• Undertake field survey of smallholder cotton growers (the ultimate beneficiaries) for collecting

direct information, through structured questionnaire, as well as informal discussions regarding the

MFCF (Phase-2) project.

• Make analysis of field data to clearly bring out the impact of phase-2 project, as regards defined

objectives and indicators of the MFCF (Phase-2) project on beneficiary groups and in project

areas.




• Provide this Impact analysis in report form to client, with salient observations emerged from this

Agri Impact Assessment-II study, as regards the said project.

1.4 Approach and Methodology

Our approach for carrying out this study was to utilize a combination of both, desk as well as field

research in order to get a thorough understanding of the impact of the project for the beneficiaries.

Primary activities consisted were:

• Development of an effective work plan for execution of the assignment based on a clear

understanding of the nature and scope of work.

• Gathering all available secondary data from Agrocel’s Koday- office regarding the project and the

beneficiary farmers.

• Defined the objectives of the field survey and the data to be obtained from the various

stakeholders of the project.

• On the basis of these data defined, selection of an evenly distributed sample of the beneficiary

farmers for field survey purposes.

• Developed a structured questionnaires and check lists for field investigations

• Field survey was undertaken for the collection of all relevant data through primary research (field

survey) conducted in Surendranagar and Kutch district, covering three main Taluka of Agrocel

project area.

• Processing, collating, interpreting and analyzing the data generated from the study so as to provide

objective recommendations and observations regarding Impact of MFCF project implementation

by Agrocel in their project areas.

• Proper generation of output tables through active interaction between data analyst and the

Consultant, interpreting the output of data analysis.

• Based on the objectives of “More From the Cotton Field” project, developed quantifiable

indicators to evaluate the progress of the project and impact it has made on the member farmers’

economic, agriculture, environmental and social aspects.

The Field Survey

A Field survey was undertaken to collect the relevant and appropriate data.




From the records of the participating farmers available from Agrocel, the list of potential respondents

for the field survey was prepared.

Both structured questionnaire as well as unstructured interview- a kind of informal discussions, will be

used to collect the first hand information from the project beneficiaries, regarding targeted Impact

assessment aspects of the project.

A comprehensive analysis of the data obtained form the field survey will be done to quantify the gains

and measure the impact of the project on relevant aspects, by using the earlier defined quantifiable

indicators of the objectives of the project.

1.4.1 Questionnaire Design

Keeping in view the objectives of the study the questionnaire as designed. The questionnaire is framed

in such a manner that it can be easily understood by the respondents (Farmers and their family

members). Most of the questionnaires are pre-coded with fixed response categories; however certain

open ended questions have also been included to encourage discussion with the respondents. The

questionnaire is designed so as to cover all the important issues related to the study.

Major aspects covered in the questionnaire are:

• Demographic details of the farmer, including his family size, Ownership of house, type of house, other facilities in house and changes if any since adoption of organic farming and Fair Trade.

• Land Holding particulars of the Farmer including total land and land under Organic Cotton cultivation, other crops taken as alternate or inter crops in the same land and changes if any

• Facilities available for farming and changes if any in the same.

• Increase/ Decrease in yield of Cotton and the same in terms of actual quantities and percentage

• Changes if any in the quality of cotton, and visible parameters of quality

• Changes if any in the Price realisation of the yield.

• Improvement in Soil and Water quality farmers; perceptions and visible parameters

• Farmers’ perception about reduction in indebtedness,

• Farmers’ perception regarding checking in migration from family and Village

• Farmers’ perception about financial and social conditions

• Over all determination about adoption of Organic Cotton farming and Fair Trade

The questionnaire used for the Field Survey has been attached as Appendix-A.




1.4.2 Data Entry, Processing and Report Preparation

After editing of the questionnaires, the data is processes and analysed using Tailor-made software

made in Oracle-SQL. Sufficient validation checks are provided for elimination of inconsistent records

due to errors inflowing at field level or errors at the time of data entry.

Inspite of initial examination of the completed questionnaires by the field officers on the field itself,

the questionnaires will be re-edited at the IMM office as well. Besides this, a computer based check is

also conducted to clean the data and remove any inconsistencies or redundancies in the data and

eliminating all such incorrect questionnaires. Only questionnaire which pass through all the checks

will be finally processed and used for analysis. The pre-coded questions present in the questionnaires

facilitate generation of required output tables.

1.5 Limitations of the Study

Like all other such studies, this study also has a few limitations, which should be kept in mind while

evaluating the outcome of the field survey responses and inferences derived from such responses.

A base line survey of beneficiary farmers was conducted at the start of this project, by two French

students, Ms.BESSON Béatrice & Ms.ROBIN Cécile in July 2005. However, the number of farmers

participating in the programme around that time was approximately 750 which have now increased on

completion of the programme to about 1020 farmers in Gujarat. This addition of farmers gradually

over the operation of the programme in the span of last three years, as well as the change in the

geographical distribution of the farmers limits the findings of the field study to a small extent. There

could be a difference in using the findings of this baseline survey for this study as its purpose and

intensity is not very clear from the study details available. Furthermore, there are chances of

miscommunication or misinterpretation due to language limitations of surveyors and respondents and

also between the Agrocel staff assisting the surveyors and Farmers.

There will be difference due to different baseline and project time period used by the surveyors and

IMM in this field survey.




2 Organic Farming and Fair trade

2.1 Organic Farming

(i) The Concept

The concept of organic farming is not a new to Indian farmers in general and farmers in the project

areas in particular, as the traditional farming done up to approx. 50-60 years before was very close to

Organic farming, however the Organic Farming that we know now began with the Organic movement

in the 1930s as a response to the increasing dependence of agriculture on chemical fertilizers and

pesticides.

Organic farming in essence is a holistic approach towards agriculture, where the main objective is to

sustain and enhance the health of the ecosystem. It follows the principle of exclusion of use of

synthetic /chemical fertilizers and pesticides. It relies almost entirely on natural methods and processes

such as crop rotation and Integrated Pest Management (IPM), naturally available renewable resources

such as crop residue and compost (Farm Yard Manure), vermi-compost, provide crop nutrition with

the concept of Integrated Nutritional Management (INM), and also providing simultaneously

protection to respective crop from pests and diseases.

Sustainability and enhancing soil fertility (productivity) are the two main pillars of Organic Farming.

Sustainability here is used to encompass not just environmental sustainability in terms of conservation

of non-renewable resources such as soil, energy and minerals but economic and social sustainability as

well.

As per the recent estimates available from the secondary search, approximately 31 million hectares,

that is 75 million acres is grown organically, worldwide.

Certification

Organic farming in its current form is regulated by formal standards. These standards could be

voluntary or legislated. Where such legislation regarding Organic Farming exists, organic certification

to farms or farmers is available for a fee, after a thorough inspection of the practices undertaken by the

farmers and examining the soil, water and crop analysis details for consecutive 3 years period.

Farms certified as organic farms are regulated and detailed records of them are kept by the regulating

authorities, thereby facilitating traceability as well as establishing quality control systems which

include keeping records of water and soil tests conducted regularly.




In India, standards for organic agriculture were announced in May 2001, and the National Programme

on Organic Production (NPOP) is administered under the Ministry of Commerce. In the said SFCF

and MFCF programs farmers’ certification has been coordinated by Agrocel and subsequently also all

the documentation and records of farmers’ produce are maintained by Agrocel to provide most

important aspect of such certification-traceability.

(ii) Relevance

Organic Farming is of overwhelming relevance to MFCF, as MFCF is primarily a project in which

farmers are converted from intensive /conventional farming to Organic Farming. The reasons for the

same are amply obvious, sustainability and enhancement of the ecosystem, as well as its positive

impact on the economic and social conditions of the farmers participating in the project.

Agrocel Industries Ltd has played a pivotal role in the project; it has done the basic groundwork to

implement this project. Due its existing rapport with the farmers it has been able to convince farmers

to convert to Organic Farming by demonstrating to them various advantages of Organic Farming.

Agrocel has also paid for the Organic certification of farms besides providing the farmers with

agricultural inputs supply and technical advice.

2.2 Fair Trade

(i) Concept

Fair trade differs from standard trade in five principal ways, which are:

• Fair trade focuses on trading with poor and marginalised producer groups, helping them

develop skills and sustainable livelihoods through the trading relationship

• It pays fair prices that cover the full cost of production and enable a living wage and other fair

rewards to be earned by producers.

• It provides credit when needed to allow orders to be fulfilled and pays premiums to be used to

provide further benefits to producer communities.

• It encourages the fair treatment of all workers, ensuring good conditions in the workplace and

throughout the supply chain.

• It aims to build up long-term relationships, rather than looking for short-term commercial

advantage.




Sales of fair trade products have been gaining momentum in the UK in recent years, and they are now

more widely available than ever before.

(ii) Relevance

Most of the farmers participating in the MFCF project have also been certified for Fair Trade after

close inspection of the practices followed by the farmers. The farmers who are certified as Fair Trade

farmers receive a Fair Trade premium on the sale of their produce. This premium is then used in

various community development activities for the farmers. Fair Trade in this manner plays a special

role in the lives of these farmers and is significantly relevant to this project as it our objective to assess

the impact of the project which includes both Organic Farming as well as Fair Trade.

2.3 Geographical distribution of the Programme

It is imperative to mention here before proceeding further that though for the purpose of the survey the

Project population has been taken as 560 farmers in Kutch and 460 in Surendranagar, this is done on

account of this being the figure at the end of the year 2006-07. Farmers added in the project in the year

2007-08, have not been included as since this being their first year of participation, they will not have

experienced any effect of Organic Farming or Fair Trade. Hence their inclusion would distort the

findings of the survey.

The Geographical distribution of the Project is thus greater than that of the survey. The actual and

latest figures and geographical distribution of the Project is given in the following table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Geographical Distribution of the Program me

Sr.No Centre State Old Farmers Total Farmers Villages

1 Mandvi Kutch 8 8 1

2 Rapar Kutch 560 710 14

3 Dhrangadhra Surendranagar 460 757 19

4 Sayla Surendranagar - 125 4

5 Rayagada Rayagada - Orissa 392 1960 72

Total 1420 3560 110





3 Survey Findings

3.1 Geographical distribution of the survey

The distribution of farmers participating in the project has changed since the first Agri Impact

Assessment conducted in the year 2004. To give the overview of the changes in the composition of

farmers in Kutch and Surendranagar districts over the period of two projects SFCF and MFCF, farmer

member details are summarised in the following table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Member Farmers Number Details of Kutch A rea

Sr.No Year Running Farmers

New Farmers

Sanctioned Farmers

Total Farmers

(Year End) 1 2001-02 35 0 0 35 2 2002-03 35 121 0 156 3 2003-04 156 0 0 156 4 2004-05 156 10 4 162 5 2005-06 162 243 15 390 6 2006-07 390 170 0 560


Table 3.2: Member Farmers Number Details of Surendr anagar Area

Sr.No Year Running Farmers

New Farmers

Sanctioned Farmers

Total Farmers

(Year End) 1 2001-02 24 0 0 24 2 2002-03 24 70 0 94 3 2003-04 94 413 43 464 4 2004-05 464 134 90 508 5 2005-06 508 20 62 466 6 2006-07 466 139 145 460


At the end of year 2007, the distribution of the farmers participating in the project stood at 560 farmers

in the Kutch Area and 460 in the Surendranagar Area. Taking the sum of these figures 1020 as the

total farmers’ population size, we arrived at a samples size of 125, constituting 10% of the population

(102) and adding further to it approx.20 % of the sample size(23), as error margin on account of any

incomplete questionnaires, contradictory answers etc. It has been tried to keep the geographical

distribution of the sample size is as per the geographical distribution of the farmers population and as

far as possible include 10% sample size of each location and also include approx. 50 % of the farmers




from the original SFCF program to maintain the continuity in their assessment for comparing the

overall performance of these programs within them selves. The geographical distribution of selected

sample size from respective project areas and also village wise is summarized in following table 3.3

and 3.4.

Table 3.3: Sample Size and Geographical distributio n

No. Taluka District No. of contacts 1 Rapar Kutch 75 2 Mandvi Kutch 05 3 Dhrangadhra Surendranagar 45 TOTAL 125

Source: IMM interpretation from Agrocel farmers’ Information.

Table 3.4: Villages covered in the Survey

No. Villages Taluka District 1 Navalgadh Dhrangadhra Surendranagar 2 Chandrasar Dhrangadhra Surendranagar 3 Ramgadh Dhrangadhra Surendranagar 4 Dhrumath Dhrangadhra Surendranagar 5 Padampar Rapar Kutch 6 Bhimasar Rapar Kutch 7 Bhangera Rapar Kutch 8 Kidiyanagar Rapar Kutch 9 Bhutakiya Rapar Kutch 10 Pragpar Rapar Kutch 11 Koday Mandvi Kutch

Source: IMM selection from Agrocel farmers’ Information.

3.1.1 Year of joining the Project

The SFCF project started in the year 2001-02 from Kutch district and later on started in Surendranagar

district, hence in Agri Impact Assessment both these districts were included. Farmers currently

participating in the project are located largely in the Dhrangadhra Taluka of Surendranagar district and

the Rapar Taluka of Kutch district. The number of farmers participating in the Mandvi Taluka of

Kutch has reduced drastically, due to increase in salinity of water in the region and large scale

conversion of farmers to BT Cotton cultivation for immediate economic benefits. Thus, in the present

field survey for Agri Impact Assessment-II, majority of farmers in the Kutch region are farmers

located in Rapar Taluka, who joined during the project period of MFCF program. Year wise/ District

wise distribution of Farmers surveyed are given in following table 3.5.




Table 3.5: Year of joining the Project

Sr. No. Year No. of Farmers % of District % of Total Kutch 1 2001-02 17 21.25 13.6 4 2004-05 43 53.75 34.4 5 2005-06 18 22.5 14.4 6 2006-07 2 2.5 1.6 Surendranagar 1 2002-03 45 100 36.00

Source: IMM selection from Agrocel farmers’ Information.

As indicated in the Terms of reference of this assignment the survey team has tried to incorporate an

equal amount of farmers from both SFCF and MFCF, to gain a holistic view on the impact of Organic

Farming on the participating farming community over an entire project period. Out of the total

surveyed farmers, a total of 63 (50.4%) are with this project and Agrocel since SFCF and have

continued in MFCF as well and a total of 62(49.6%) farmers are those who has joined latter in the

MFCF project.

3.1.2 Average distance from Agrocel Service centre

It has been one of the primary objectives of Agrocel to provide ready accessibility to the farmers in

order to provide better services to them, with agricultural inputs and technical guidance. Agrocel thus

considered it imperative to locate its service centres such that it can facilitate close interactions with

the farmers, educating them about various aspects of organic farming practices, pest and disease

control, harvesting etc. The District wise distribution of average distance of an Agrocel Service Centre

is summarised in the following table 3.6.

Table 3.6: Average Distance from Agrocel Service Ce ntre

Sr. No

Distance In Kms In Number % of District % of Total

Kutch Surendranagar Kutch Surendranagar 1 Less than 10 5 21 6.25 46.67 20.80 2 11 to 15 4 12 5.00 26.67 12.80 3 16 to 20 12 1 15.00 2.22 10.40 4 21 to 25 51 11 63.75 24.44 49.60 5 More than 26 8 0 10.00 0 6.40 Total 80 45 100 100 100

Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses.

It can be observed from the findings of the survey that 40% of the times, an Agrocel Service Centre is

located within 20 Kms of a farmer and there is 50% probability that an Agrocel Service Centre is

locate within 21 to 25 Kms of a farmer, there is a less than 10% chance that an Agrocel Service Centre

is more than 26 Kms away from a farmer.




� It has also been noted that the Average distance to an Agrocel Service Centre is shorter in

Surendranagar district, than in Kutch, as 20% of farmers in Surendranagar are located at a

distance of less than 10Kms, whereas the same for Kutch is only 6%.

� Efforts should be made to take this situation into account and accordingly plan to provide

same level of services in both districts by engaging more number of field staff and provide

them vehicles for better accessibility in remote areas.

3.1.3 Family Type

The family type of the farmers helps in gaining insight into the farmer’s social life. The District wise

percentage distribution of the family type of the farmers is given in the following table.

Table 3.7: Percentage Distribution of Family Type

Sr. Family Type In Number % of District % of Total No Kutch Surendranagar Kutch Surendranagar 1 Joint Family 49 35 61.25 77.78 67.20 2 Nuclear Family 26 10 32.50 22.22 28.80 3 Cluster of Relatives 5 0 6.25 0.0 4.00 Total 80 45 100 100 100


The findings of the survey shows that 60% of farmers in Kutch and about 77% of farmers in

Surendranagar live in Joint families, however the phenomenon of living in a cluster of relatives is

almost completely absent in Surendranagar there are still 5% farmers in Kutch who live in a cluster of

relatives. 32.5% farmers in Kutch leave as nuclear family and in Surendranagar 22.22 % farmers leave

as nuclear family.

� One can infer from the above that Kutch being a resource constrained region, it has traditionally

undertaken organic farming which has helped to retain its traditional family structure. It was

observed during the survey that many farmers though functioning as nuclear families were

actually part of a cluster of relatives on near by farms, whereas in Surendranagar being a

comparatively resourceful district has historically been an intensive farming region, which led to

greater migration and lesser joint families, however the scenario has changed since the adoption of

organic farming and there seems to be a resurgence in joint families.




3.1.4 Family Size

Findings related to Family size are also incorporated to understand better the social and economical

situation of the farmer. District wise percentage distribution of family size details is given in the

following table 3.8.

Table 3.8: Percentage Distribution of Family Size

Sr. Members In Number % of District % of Total No Kutch Surendranagar Kutch Surendranagar 1 1 to 5 members 28 19 35.00 42.22 37.60 2 6 to 10 members 46 23 57.50 51.11 55.20 3 11 to 15 members 5 3 6.25 6.67 6.40 4 More than 15 members 1 0 1.25 0 0.80 Total 80 45 100 100 100


� The findings of family type corroborate here with more than 50% of families both in Kutch and

Surendranagar consisting of 6 to 10 members, generally comprising of a cluster of relatives such

as brothers with their respective families or a group of first cousins living together. One can

consider the fact that agriculture still being mainly manual labour oriented in both these districts,

the average numbers in family is generally higher than urban and semi-urban areas of the project

districts, so that they will be less dependent on outside labour forces.

3.2 Findings on the Economical Aspects

3.2.1 Alternate sources of Income

The purpose of adding this question was mainly to assess the extent of dependency of the respondents

on farming activities and income, i.e., the importance of farming as their primary source of income.

District wise percentage distributions of farmers who possess alternate sources of income are given in

following table 3.9

Table 3.9: Percentage Distribution of Farmers with Alternate Source of Income

Sr. No. District In Number % of District % of Total 1 Kutch 14 17.5 11.20 2 Surendranagar 9 20 7.20 Total 23 NA 18.4


The survey has found that approx.18.4 % of the farmers also have alternate sources of income. In

terms of district wise data in Kutch approx. 17.5 % farmers have alternate source of income and in

Surendranagar approx. 20% farmers have alternate income source.




It was also observed during the survey that among the farmers with alternate sources of income, 39%

(7% overall) of them had either a son or any other member of the family, had a job in the city, whilst

60% (11% overall) have side businesses or part time professions in the village itself, such as provision

stores, electric repairs, auto repairing, Panchayat activities, Carpenter, Drip Irrigation Agency etc;.

� It is clear from this analysis that agriculture and farming is still an important source of income in

rural areas in general and in project areas in particular. It is worth to note that overall

approximately 82% of the farmers are completely dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods

and it’s their prime source of income.

� Due to agriculture being prime source of income, it’s very crucial to make it a sustainable activity

in terms of economically, environmentally and socially.

� Realizing the importance of agriculture as their prime source of income these farmers have joined

with Agrocel and Fair trade activities to make their farming sustainable in long terms.

3.2.2 Change in type of house

In order to clearly measure the impact in the economic condition of the respondents, we selected the

basic indicator such as “The type of house’ they lived in, and any significant change in it, to assess

the change in the economic conditions of respondent farmers.

As it can be observed from the findings given in table 3.10 here below; there has been change in a

41% of the total respondents in the type of house they live in.

Table 3.10: Percentage Change in Type of House

Sr.

No. Type of House

In Number In Number % of District % of

Total Kutch Surendranagar Kutch Surendran

agar

Be

fore

Now

Cha

nge

Be

fore

Now

Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Avg

. %

Cha

nge

1 Kuccha House 26 13 -13 17 4 -13 -50.0 76.47 63.23

2 Pucca House 03 8 5 18 28 10 +166.6 +55.55 111.08

3 Semi Pucca 51 59 8 10 13 3 +15.68 +30.00 22.84

Total 80 80 26 45 45 26 32.50 57.78 41.60


As it can be clearly observed from the above table;

Out of total 26 people living in Kuccha house 13 have shifted to Semi- Pucca (8) and Pucca (5) houses

in Kutch district, i.e. almost 50 % have made positive change in type of house they live. Furthermore,

in Kutch there is also shift from semi Pucca to Pucca house as the number have increased from 3 to 8,




almost 166.6 % increase. Similarly, in Surendranagar also there has been shift from semi Pucca to

Pucca house as the total number has increased from 18 to 28, a rise of 55.55 %.

Out of total 17 persons living in Kuccha house previously, 13 persons have changed the type of house

they live in. This is almost 76.47 % have made positive change in type of house they live in.

� It is clearly indicated from these findings that there has been economic progress in the lives of

these farmers in the project areas, and this is clearly reflected in the change happening in the type

of house they live in, as that being the primary aspiration of all these farmers and also first priority

investment avenue from their farming income.

3.2.3 Change in Ownership of House

There has not been any significant change in the ownership of the houses in the project area, as most

of the respondents in this survey; they owned (Possessed) the house they live in, even before joining

the project. A very small number of respondents earlier lived in rented houses are now possessing their

own house and this also indicate their economic prosperity and stability.

3.2.4 Change in Facilities available in the house

Another quantifiable indicator (parameter) of economic development used in this survey is the change

in the facilities available in the houses of the respondents. The change in house hold facilities as

indicated by the respondents are summarized in following table 3.11.

Table 3.11: Percentage change in housing facilities

Sr.

No.

Housing

Facilities


Total Kutch Surendranagar Kutch Surendranagar

Be

fore

Now

Cha

nge

Be

fore

Now

Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Cha

nge

1 Potable Water 55 72 17 15 44 29 21.25 64.44 36.8

2 Electricity 56 68 12 40 43 3 15 6.67 12

3 Gas Connection 4 14 10 13 38 25 12.5 55.56 28

4 Bath & Toilets 15 29 14 16 45 29 17.5 64.44 34.4

5 Kitchen 61 73 12 36 44 8 15 17.78 16

6 Yard 67 75 8 31 39 8 10 17.78 12.8

7 Cattle Shed 31 52 21 27 36 9 26.25 20.00 24

8 Storage Facility 34 55 21 13 35 22 26.25 48.89 34.4

9 Total no. of

Rooms 80 NA 29 42 NA 13 36.25 28.89 33.6

Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses




The most significant change has been witnessed in the availability of potable water, bath and toilet

facilities and farm produce storage facilities and addition in number of rooms in the house. There has

been change in case of respondent farmers to the extent at 36%, 34%, 36% and 33% change in each of

these facilities respectively.

Since electricity, kitchen and yard were available earlier also in most households, there has not been

significant change observed in respondent farmers. Almost all respondents in Surendranagar have

toilets with an improvement of 64%; however the number is much lower in Kutch with only 36%

respondents in Kutch having appropriate toilet / bath facilities and correspondingly the improvement

here has also been much lower at 17%.

� It can be inferred from the above observations that there has been greater improvement in

housing facilities in Surendranagar in comparison to Kutch. Though, on the whole it can be

said that there is an increase in awareness regarding hygiene and standard of living, among the

respondents. On the basis of the above mentioned findings which shows that more than 60%

of respondents in Kutch and 40% in Surendranagar now possess electricity, potable water and

Kitchen facility, it can safely be said that in comparison to the farmers in other districts of the

state, farmers in Kutch and Surendranagar are more prosperous and economically more well –

off. One can consider that these farmers of both the districts are relatively prosperous and

economically well–off conditions.

� It was also observed during the survey that many farmers may not have added new facilities,

but have made some improvements in their houses such as concrete flooring in their Yards,

plastering the kitchens, painting their houses, adding facilities for storage and in cattle shed

etc.

� Similar situation is seen in the case of availability (access) to cooking Gas connection with an

improvement of 55% in Surendranagar and only 12% in Kutch. Primary reason for low Gas

connection facility in Kutch is the remote locations of farmers, mostly living on their farm and

this makes it difficult to get service from the supplier companies. Moreover, abundant

availability of cheap Farm / agriculture / dairy animal waste which is widely used as cooking

fuel in most of the places. It is worth to mention here that some respondent farmers have

procured Gobar Gas plant from the Fair Trade premium under community development

program and now this gas is available to them at much cheaper rate and also utilizing available

resources in optimum way. There are in total about 85 farmers benefiting from the Gobar Gas

plant in Navalgadh village of Surendranagar. They have procured this Gobar gas plant from

fair Trade premium under community development program and this gas is available to them




at much cheaper rate and also utilizing available resources in optimum way. The liquid slurry

coming out after getting gas can still be used as liquid organic fertilizer for crops being

cultivated by member farmers.

3.2.5 Land holding details

District wise details regarding total land held by the respondent farmers and also land under organic

farming has been collected in this survey. As observed from following table 3.12, in Kutch district, the

total land held by the respondents is 763.29 Acres of which 710.29 Acres (almost 93.0 %) is under

Organic Farming/Fair Trade. Whereas the total land held by respondents in Surendranagar district is

999 Acres of which 754 Acres (75.48 %) is under Organic Farming/Fair Trade.

Table 3.12: Land holding details

District Total Land (Acres) In Acres In %

OF/FT Conventional OF/FT Conventional Kutch 770.29 717.29 53 93.12 6.88

Surendranagar 993 748 245 75.33 24.67 Total 1763.29 1465.29 298 83.10 16.90


IMM has also carried out analysis based on the size of land holding and this will give insight

regarding the real beneficiary groups among the respondent farmers and also geographically. These

data are summarized in following table 3.13.

Table 3.13: Farmers’ distribution on the basis of L and holding size

Sr. Members In Number % of District % of Total No Kutch Surendranagar Kutch Surendranagar 1 1 to 5 Acres 16 1 20 2.22 13.6 2 6 to 10 Acres 36 6 45 13.33 33.6 3 11 to 15 Acres 21 10 26.25 22.22 24.8 4 15 to 20 Acres 7 10 8.75 22.22 13.6 5 20 to 25 Acres 0 7 0 15.56 5.6 6 More than 25 Acres 0 11 0 24.44 8.8 Total 80 45 100 100.00 100


It can be seen that while almost 45% of the respondents in Kutch hold 1 to 10 acres of land, only 15%

of respondents of Surendranagar hold the same. However the most striking difference is seen in the

percentage of farmers holding more than 20 acres of land, which is a mere 9% in Kutch and an

overwhelming 60% in Surendranagar. This fact is also corroborated in later findings regarding




agricultural facilities available with farmers, which shows that while only 8% farmers in Kutch

possess tractors the percentage for the same in Surendranagar is about 31%.

3.2.6 Change in Land Ownership

Similar to the ownership of house, there has not been any significant change in the ownership of land,

since most of the respondents of the survey already had ownership of the land, even before joining the

project. Land ownership data and its analysis are summarized in following table 3.14.

Table 3.14: Percentage change in Land Ownership

Sr.

No.

Land Ownership

Status

In Number In Number % of District Kutch Surendranagar Kutch Kutch

Be

fore

Now

Cha

nge

Be

fore

Now

Cha

nge

Cha

nge

1 Owned 78 78 0 45 45 0 0

2 Leased * 1 4 3 0 0 0 5.0

3 Partnership* 1 8 7 0 0 0 10.0

Total 80 80 +10 45 45 0 15.0

Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses, N.B. * This land is in addition to their owned

land and to expand their farming activities including organic farming.

Few respondents in Kutch have however taken additional land, either in partnership or on lease, which

has led to increase in their land availability. However, such number having taken land under

partnership is 5.0 % and land on lease is 10.0 %, is relatively very small as compared to total number

of respondents. Together this makes 15% of total respondents. It may be noted that such partnership/

leasing of land is done over and above their owning of land and hence total number is coming as 90.

3.2.7 Change in Agricultural facilities available

The facilities available for farming and improvement thereon are other quantifiable indicators of

economic development of the farmers, as it can be observed from the summary of responses given in

table 3.15 below.

Table 3.15: Percentage change in Agricultural facil ities

Sr.

No.

Agriculture

Facilities


Total Kutch Surendranagar Kutch Surendranagar

Be

fore

Now

Cha

nge

Be

fore

Now

Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Cha

nge

1 Tractor without

trolley 7 9 2 14 14 0 2.5 0.00 1.6




2 Tractor with

trolley 7 8 1 13 16 3 1.25 6.67 4

3 Tractor

attachments 7 8 1 10 17 7 1.25 15.56 6.4

4 Mechanized harvesting facilities

2 3 1 1 2 1 1.25 2.22 1.6

5 Water/Tube well 61 75 14 15 19 4 17.5 8.89 14.4

6 Electric/Oil engine pump 62 71 9 12 20 8 11.25 17.78 13.6

7 Drip Irrigation

facilities 4 8 4 2 9 7 5 15.56 8.8

Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses,

� As observed from above table, out of total 80 respondents in Kutch district only 8 (10%) own

tractor / tractors with trolley and other farm implements (attachments). In case of

Surendranagar district this is significantly different and out of 45 respondents 14 (31.11%) are

having tractors / tractors with trolley and other farm attachments.

� This corroborates with the landholding findings which show that there are more small holding

farmers in Kutch than in Surendranagar, due to which lesser farmers in Kutch require farming

equipments such as Tractors than in Surendranagar.

� As regards, mechanized harvesting facilities, in Kutch out of 80 respondents only 3(3.75 %)

are having such equipments. In case of Surendranagar, out of total 45 respondents, only 1

(2.22%) is having such facilities.

� It is worth noting here, that there is significant change in irrigation facilities as it can be seen

in the increase in the Water / Tube /Bore well facilities and the related Electric motor /Oil

engine facilities on these wells, specifically indicated by change percentage of total as 14%

and 13% respectively.

� There is also significant change in terms of adoption of drip irrigation facilities in both

districts. As it can be observed from the data about Kutch earlier 5 % farmers were using Drip

irrigation, which has increased to 10 % level and in terms of numbers from 4 people to 8

persons. Similarly, in Surendranagar, earlier only 2 (4.44 %) persons were having drip

irrigation and now 9 (20 %) persons are having drip irrigation facilities.

� Since 80% of the respondents are smallholding farmers, they feel that investment in farming

equipments such as tractors or mechanized harvesting are unjustifiable due to size of their land

holding. According to them, the area worth investing in is irrigation. The survey findings data

and analysis given above also substantiate these facts.




3.2.8 Change in Agricultural Income

The agricultural income which in most cases is the only source of income of these farmers is the

clearest unit of measuring the economic progress of these farmers. The District wise Percentage

distribution of the perception of farmers regarding change in their agricultural income is given in the

following table.

Table 3.16: Difference perceived in Agricultural In come

Sr. No. District In Number % of District Avg. % Difference Yes No Yes No

1 Kutch 78 2 97.50 2.5 16.75 2 Surendranagar 43 2 95.56 4.44 17.65 Total 121 4 96.80 3.20 17.08


As it can be observed from the above table 3.16, that more than 95% farmers in both Surendranagar as

well as Kutch region agree to having seen a positive change in their income, with the farmers in Kutch

perceiving on an average increase of 16% in their income and farmers in Surendranagar perceiving on

an average an increase of 17% in their agricultural income.

� Interactions with farmers during the survey also revealed that the farmers attributed the

increase in their income largely on reduced cost of production and increased in their income

from cotton selling.

3.2.9 Cost of production

The farmers’ responses from both districts, regarding the average percentage of their income, as input

cost for crop cultivation are summarized in following table 3.17.

Table 3.17: Average Percentage Cost of Production

Sr. No. District % Used as Input Cost 1 Kutch 54.75 2 Surendranagar 53.06 Total 54.14


� On an Average respondents of both Kutch and Surendranagar claim to spend approximately

54% of their income back into farming, termed here as the cost of production of the crop.




3.2.10 Percentage Distribution of Input Cost

The percentage distribution of the input cost was included to determine the major costs incurred by the

farmers and areas in which organic farming helps reduce costs. The percentage distribution of the

average distribution cost is given the table 3.18.

Table 3.18: Average Percentage Distribution of Inpu t Cost

Sr. No. Particulars Kutch Surendranagar Avg. % Distribution 1 Seed 14.95 12.22 13.97 2 Fertilizers 21.52 24.57 22.62 3 Pesticides 8.50 11.42 9.55 4 Irrigation 33.52 22.48 29.55 5 Labour 31.01 35.42 32.60


� It can be observed from the table that for farmers following organic farming practices

minimum expense is incurred on pesticides and seeds, contrary to conventional farming,

where maximum expense is incurred on pesticides. This accounts for the significant difference

in the cost of production in conventional and Organic Farming.

� The costs associated with conventional farming differs from those of organic farming mainly

with respect to fertilizers and pesticides, costs of labour and irrigation also differ slightly due

to associated facts, as organic farming is less labour and water intensive than conventional

farming.

� Cost of inputs varies across different regions depending on the type of soil conditions and the

extent of water resources available in the region. In the Mandvi Region, input costs are as high

as Rs. 10,000 per hectare44. On conversion to organic farming, costs fell to under Rs.

2,00045. Over time, organic farming means self-sufficiency and in-farm availability of various

agricultural inputs – manure and urine from livestock such as oxen/ cows and biomass and

residues from plants/ trees –crashes costs of production. Many Agrocel farmers rear oxen/

cows that could be a source of additional income in the future. There are instances of farmers

buying oxen/ cows for the first time to cater to their organic farming needs, and some buying

more; sale of organic inputs is also another source of revenue.

� Major difference between organic farming and conventional farming is seen in the cost of

chemical fertilizers and chemical pesticides use. In conventional farming chemical pesticides

and fertilizers are used, which are not only very expensive, but are also required in higher




quantities as time passes, whereas in organic farming pest control is done by bio-pesticides

like neem oil, cow urine, fermented buttermilk, bio pesticide etc. which is produced naturally

and readily available with farmers from their farm animals / trees and thus can be easily

procured at minimum cost, which helps in significantly reducing the input cost in organic

farming as mentioned in previous paragraph.

� The major expenses for farmers are Irrigation and Labour. Since most of the farmers use

motors or pumps to fetch water from the tube well or bore wells for irrigation purposes, the

electricity bill for the same forms a substantial portion; approximately 30% of the input cost.

Labour here encompasses labour used for harvesting purposes as well as during the cultivation

process, and thus cumulatively comprises of almost 32% of the input cost.

3.2.11 Change in Price realization or Yield

The price realization of the yield is one of the most important and direct instrument for measuring the

impact of organic farming or fair trade on the financial conditions of the member farmers. The

response to which has been overwhelmingly positive with only one farmer in Kutch replying in

negative, rest all of the respondents claim to have seen a positive change in the price realization

received for their yield. Farmers’ responses are summarized in following table 3.19.

Table 3.19: Perceived Difference in Price realizati on of yield


1 Kutch 79 1 98.75 1.25 13.19 2 Surendranagar 45 0 100.00 0.00 11.36 Total 124 1 99.20 0.80 12.54

Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses � It can be seen from the table above that farmers in Kutch perceived on an average 13%

increase in the price they received for their yield, whereas farmers in Surendranagar perceived

on an average a slightly lower increase of approximately 11% in their price realization.

3.2.12 Major Benefits of Organic Farming

By collecting comparative ratings on the various benefits as perceived by the farmers of Organic

Farming, an effort is made to discover the benefits which are more eminent to farmers and those which

are not of much significance to them. An Average percentage rating of each benefit for Kutch is given

in table 3.20 and similarly that for Surendranagar in table 3.21 and overall for both districts in table

3.22.




Table 3.20: Rating response summary for Kutch Distr ict

Sr.

No. Particulars

Rating (Kutch)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Better Price realisation 41.03 38.46 15.38 2.56 1.28 1.28 0.00 0.00

2 Greater Market Accessibility 38.16 26.32 22.37 10.53 1.32 0.00 1.32 0.00

3 Stability of crop and prices 23.08 40.00 27.69 6.15 0.00 0.00 1.54 1.54

4 Improvements of soil and water quality

68.75 16.25 8.75 3.75 1.25 1.25 0.00 0.00

5 Improvement in quality of cotton produced

17.72 25.32 25.32 15.19 13.92 2.53 0.00 0.00

6 Improvement in financial strength 9.33 14.67 18.67 30.67 18.67 2.67 5.33 0.00

7 Reduction in cost of production 8.11 13.51 16.22 32.43 17.57 6.76 5.41 0.00

8 Low cost agricultural inputs 13.79 5.17 17.24 18.97 32.76 10.34 1.72 0.00

9 Technical guidance 4.69 10.94 15.63 23.44 18.75 20.31 4.69 1.56

10 Use of Fair Trade premium in social projects

16.36 10.91 14.55 16.36 23.64 7.27 9.09 1.82


In Kutch, an overwhelming 68% of farmers have rated improvement in soil quality as the most

important benefit of Organic Farming, followed by better price realization with 41%. It can thus be

inferred that even though financial profits are of significance to the farmers, they are more concerned

with the long term well being of their land and thus consider improvement in their land to be greatest

benefit of Organic Farming.

Close observation of the ratings given by farmers of Kutch also reveals that the farmers also consider

Market accessibility and the stability of crop and prices that has taken place since undertaking Organic

Farming to be a benefit more significant than the reduction in cost of production and agricultural

inputs.

It also worth noting here that the farmers in Kutch do not consider improvement in the quality of

cotton produced or the technical guidance provided by Agrocel as substantial benefits of Organic

Farming and have given them much lower ratings than the earlier stated benefits.

Table 3.21: Rating response summary for Surendranag ar District

Sr.

No. Particulars

Rating (Surendranagar)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8







Sr.

No. Particulars

Rating (Surendranagar)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

4 Improvements of soil and water quality 60.00 17.78 15.56 4.44 0.00 0.00 2.22 0.00

5 Improvement in quality of cotton produced 22.22 24.44 24.44 8.89 13.33 4.44 2.22 0.00

6 Improvement in financial strength 6.82 22.73 20.45 29.55 11.36 4.55 4.55 0.00




10 Use of Fair Trade premium in social projects 3.23 9.68 3.23 19.35 22.58 22.58 12.90 6.45


� In line with the findings of Kutch, farmers in Surendranagar have also decreed improvement

in Soil and Water quality as the most eminent benefit of Organic Farming. Findings of

Surendranagar are by large similar to that of Kutch except farmers here have rated Market

Accessibility higher than better Price realization, which suggests that farmers in this region

have in the past inspite of having good crops suffered due lack of Market Access or have been

subjected to exploitation by Market forces.

Table 3.22: Rating response summary for both (Combi ned) Districts.

Sr.

No. Particulars

Rating (All District)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8




4 Improvements of soil and water

quality 65.60 16.80 11.20 4.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00

5 Improvement in quality of cotton

produced 19.35 25.00 25.00 12.90 13.71 3.23 0.81 0.00

6 Improvement in financial

strength 8.40 17.65 19.33 30.25 15.97 3.36 5.04 0.00




10 Use of Fair Trade premium in

social projects 11.63 10.47 10.47 17.44 23.26 12.79 10.47 3.49





3.3 Findings on the Agricultural/Environmental Aspe cts

3.3.1 Perception about increase in Yield

The difference in production yield of the crop is a direct impact of organic farming and thus ideal

measure for assessment of impact due to adoption of organic farming. The response here has also been

overwhelmingly positive with only one farmer in Surendranagar replying in negative, rest all of the

respondents claim to have seen a positive change in the yield of their crop. Farmers’ perceptions are

summarized in following table 3.23.

Table 3.23: Perceived Difference in Yield


1 Kutch 80 0 100 0 15.47 2 Surendranagar 44 1 97.78 2.22 18.97 Total 124 1 99.20 0.80 16.71


� Majority of farmers both in Kutch and Surendranagar professed to have witnessed an increase

in the average yield of their crop since adopting organic farming. It can be seen from the

column no.3 and 4 in table 3.23 above, there was a 100% consensus among the respondents in

Kutch. As shown in last column Kutch farmers indicated 15.47% an average increase in their

annual crop yield, whereas farmers in Surendranagar indicated that they get an average yield

increase of 18.97 % slightly higher than Kutch. The weighted average of both districts

combined is 16.71 % increase in yield.

� However a report on Organic farming in Kutch prepared by Geoff Jackson for Agrocel

substantiates the above mentioned finding and states that organic cotton farmers have

witnessed yields similar to and sometimes in excess of those they obtained before turning

organic. And because they obtain the organic premium and have far lower input costs, their

net earnings are on average far higher.

� This defies the conventional wisdom which has it that under organic farming systems yields

are reduced, and perhaps quality also, but this is compensated for by lower input costs and

higher prices for the harvested product so that net earnings are similar.

� It should be noted here however that in the first year of conversion to Organic Farming, all

farmers experienced a some drop in their annual yield, on account for their land becoming




hard and sterile due to intensive application of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Organic

Farming is a gradual process and shows results year on year, which required the farmers to

have a holistic view and be patient. It is to the credit of Agrocel and the faith it has instilled in

the farmers that the member farmers persisted with Organic Farming practices and have

reaped the benefits thereafter.

3.3.2 Perception about Contamination in Cotton

One of the pre requisites of Organic cotton is its being contamination free. In order to fulfil this

condition, the Organic Farming practices must be rigorously monitored. Information was thus

collected on whether the farmers perceived their cotton to be contamination free. The District wise

percentage distribution of the responses is given in the following table 3.24.

Table 3.24: Contamination free cotton

Sr. No. District In Number In Percentage

Yes No Yes No 1 Kutch 67 13 83.75 16.25 2 Surendranagar 40 5 91.11 8.89 Total 77 48 86.40 13.60


� It is to be noted here that farmers here have included occurrence of pests and crop disease as a

kind of contamination. 16% respondents in Kutch and 9% in Surendranagar have responded in

the negative, from which we can infer that largely majority of the respondents from both the

districts feel their crop is contamination free.

� Agrocel records show that participating farmers rigorously follow contamination free cotton

practices, Agrocel organizes many training programs and also distributes a kit for collecting

contamination free cotton from the fields, consisting of head scarf to prevent human-hair

contamination with the cotton, cotton aprons for men and women labours and a cotton

collecting cloth to keep the collected cotton contamination free. As a result of these measures

the program farmers have very good awareness with respect to keeping their cotton crop

contamination free. The use of this kit is shown in following picture in Figure 3.2 taken in the

cotton filed during cotton crop harvesting.




Figure 3-1: Use of Kit given for Cotton Cont amination Prevention

3.3.3 Perception about occurrence of crop disease a nd pests in cotton crop

Taking matters forward from the previous question, to further understand the conditions of the crop

and the impact on it due to Organic Farming, information has been collected on the occurrence of

pests and crop diseases in their crops since adopting organic Farming. Farmers’ response regarding

occurrence of diseases and pest are summarized in table 3.25.

Table 3.25: Perceived Difference in Occurrence of c rop disease and pests




� Farmers’ response analysis show that 12% farmers in Kutch and 37% farmers in

Surendranagar perceive little or no change in the occurrence of pests and crop diseases,

whereas in all around 78% respondents feel that the occurrence of pest diseases has either has

reduced or become negligible.

� Agrocel records also show that occurrence of diseases and pest is lesser in organic farming as

compared to conventional farming. Organic farming being a knowledge intensive activity, it is

more essential to provide the farmers with the right training and proper information to prevent

such occurrences using bio pesticides.




� This is done by Agrocel on a regular basis through its various training programs, seminars and

its field staff, due to which such occurrences are reduced considerably. This is evident from

the fact that more than 60% of the program farmers undertake composting in a scientific way

and get very good manure which they apply to their soil.

� A report on Organic farming in Kutch prepared by Geoff Jackson for Agrocel states that pest

occurrences in Kutch is much lower than are found in Punjab, Haryana, N.E. Rajasthan,

Andhra Pradesh etc. Conventional crops are generally fertilised with Urea and fertilisation

with urea, particularly in excess, as often happens, increases the vegetative growth and general

succulence of the crop making it more attractive to pests. The organically grown cotton plant

is smaller, tougher and hardier.

� For instance, the Desi varieties comprising most of the organic cotton have a high silica

content and hairy leaves which are known to deter jassids, aphids and whiteflies. They also

have high gossypol content and a hard pericarp to the boll, which deter bollworms.

� Around 10 farmers in Kutch and a few farmers in Surendranagar complained of having their

crops infested this year by pests such as Thrips, Machariyo etc. In such situations the farmers

are immediately advised by Agrocel field officers on the remedial actions and preventive

measures for the future.

3.3.4 Perception about Improvement in Soil quality

As has been observed from the findings of Q.22 according to the respondents the greatest benefit from

Organic Farming is the improvement in the Soil quality of their land. Those findings have been

reinforced here with more than 96% and 97% respondents in Kutch and Surendranagar respectively

have claimed that the soil quality of their land has improved. Farmers’ perception is summarized in


Table 3.26: Perceived improvement in Soil quality




� Majority of the respondents felt that there land has become more fertile, as it has become

softer than before and has greater water retention capacity than earlier. The District wise

percentage distribution of the responses has been given in the table above.




� A report on Organic farming in Kutch prepared by Geoff Jackson for Agrocel also states that

due to the attention paid to proper fertilisation in Organic farming and the resultant

improvement in soil fertility, organic farmers have got higher yields than non – organic

farmers.

� This finding is line with Agrocel records which shows that as a result of the various practices

subscribed by Agrocel under organic farming, there is seen a gradual improvement in the soil

quality.

3.3.5 Perception about Improvement in Water qualit y

The impact of Organic Farming on water quality is ideally assessed scientifically; the information

collected here simply states the perception of the respondents on the effect of Organic Farming on

Water Quality. In comparison to the unanimously positive response given regarding improvement in

Soil quality, the response to improvement to Water quality is more modest with only 65% and 48% of

respondents in Kutch and Surendranagar respectively responding in positive. Farmers’ response is

summarized in following table 3.27.

Table 3.27: Perceived Improvement in Water Quality

Sr. No. District In Number In Percentage Yes No Yes No

1 Kutch 28 52 35.00 65.00 2 Surendranagar 23 22 51.11 48.89 Total 51 74 40.80 59.20


3.3.6 Perception about the Crop rotation

Crop Rotation is a widely adopted practice in the farming community and this has reflected in the

findings of information collected on Crop rotation. The same are distributed district wise and given in

the following table 3.28.

Table 3.28: Perception about the Crop Rotation

Sr. No. District In Number % of District Yes No Yes No






� It can be observed from the table that in both the districts all respondents, but one, claim to

rotate their crops and consider it a beneficial and necessary farming practice. The major

reasons behind this widespread awareness among the respondents are manifold and include

traditional wisdom passed on by elders as well as training and seminars conducted by Agrocel

on the benefits of Crop rotation.

3.3.7 Information about Alternate crops

The information collected on the various alternate crops cultivated by farmers in both the districts,

reveals subtle differences in the pattern of alternate crops preferred in each region. The District wise

Percentage distribution of the alternate crops is given in table 3.29.

Table 3.29: Responses about Alternate Crops

Sr. No Alternate Crop Kutch Surendranagar

1 Sorghum – Juvar (Fodder) 48.75 77.78 2 Bajri-Pearl millet 50.00 15.56 3 Sesame Seed – Tal (Oil seed) 43.75 77.78 4 Castor seed – Eranda (Oil seed) 45.00 0.00 5 Wheat 13.75 22.22 6 Mung – Green Gram- Pulse crop 52.50 2.22 7 Math – Pulses 13.75 0.00 8 Guar seeds (vegetable & animal feed) 23.75 2.22 9 Jira (Cumin seeds) 2.50 4.44 10 Rajko ( Green fodder) 15.00 13.33 11 Lasan – Garlic 0.00 11.11 12 Others 3.75 2.22


� It is clearly visible from the above table that sesame and sorghum are the alternate crops most

preferred in the Surendranagar district, compared to which while sesame and sorghum area

also relatively popular in Kutch, Pulses, Bajri and Castor are also cultivated on an equally

large scale, whereas a negligible amount of respondent in Surendranagar grow pulses and

Castor.

� As it can be observed from above data, almost 45 % farmers grow Oilseeds (Sesame or

Castor) as alternate crop in Kutch district. Similarly, almost 78 % farmers grow Sesame as an

alternate crop. Keeping in view this aspect, Agrocel has already taken initiatives to provide

market support to such farmers and they are also co-ordinating value added processing to get

maximum returns for these growers. Thus, in true sense Agrocel is getting “More From the

Cotton Fields”.




3.3.8 Benefits of crop rotation

Farmers’ response was also obtained regarding the various benefits of crop rotation and these responses have been tabulated in following table 3.30.

Table 3.30: Benefits of Crop Rotation

Sr. No

Family Type In Number % of District

% of Total Kutch Surendranagar Kutch Surendranagar

1 Increase In Crop Yield 49 31 61.25 38.75 64.00 2 Reduction In Pest 17 8 37.78 17.78 20.00 3 Soil Improvement 58 30 46.40 24.00 70.40 4 Reduce Labour Cost 0 4 0.00 3.20 3.20 5 Better Fertility 41 2 32.80 1.60 34.40 6 Reduction In Water Usage 6 2 4.80 1.60 6.40


According to the findings of the survey, the farmers feel that the greatest benefit of crop rotation is the

improvement in the soil (70%) followed closely by the increase in the yield (64%). The respondents

were all well aware of that by rotating the crops, they are able to replenish the nutrients of the soil and

hence improve the quality of the soil which subsequently results in increase in the yield of the ensuing

crop. Many respondents have equated soil fertility with improvement in soil quality and thus together

these two benefits constitute the most significant benefit of crop rotation

� It can also be inferred from the findings that the farmers are not much concerned with the

indirect benefits of crop rotation such as reduction in labour cost or usage of water. The

respondents feel that all these benefits are interrelated and that crop rotation is altogether a

beneficial and requisite framing practice.

3.4 Findings on the Social Aspects

3.4.1 Findings on road blocks and obstacles faced i n the Project

Information was also collected on the problems faced by the respondents during the transition from

Conventional to Organic Farming and or Fair Trade (OF/FT). The findings are quite self explanatory

and are given in the following table 3.31.

Table 3.31: Problems faced in adopting Organic Far ming

Sr. No

Problem Type In Number % of District

% of Total Kutch Surendranagar Kutch Surendranagar

1 Low Yield In Initial Years 7 7 8.75 15.56 11.2 2 Family Resistance 1 3 1.25 6.67 3.2 Total 8 10 18 10 22.22





It can be observed from the table that there were major two obstacles, which the respondents faced in

adopting Organic Farming, which were Low yield in the initial years and resistance from family for

economic reasons. Of which it can be seen that there was greater family resistance in Surendranagar

than in Kutch, this could be because Surendranagar has historically been an intensive farming region

and there was bound to be more resistance to change than in Kutch which on account of being bereft

of resources has been a traditionally organic farming region.

� It is also worth noting that only 22% of the respondents have claimed to have experienced any

kind of problem in adopting Organic Farming, which reveals that they were well prepared and

well informed for the conversion, which again is a credit to Agrocel for hand holding the

farmers so ably during their transition period and even thereafter.

3.4.2 Social Standing

To gain insight into the social lives of the farmers, information on the social status of the farmers as

perceived by them was collected. The findings of the same are very heartening as more than 90%

farmers in both Kutch and Surendranagar have perceived a positive change in their social status.

However the percentage is higher in Kutch with approximately 98% of the respondents considering

their social standing to have risen compared to 93% in Surendranagar. Farmers’ perception is given in


Table 3.32: Perceived Improvement in Social Standin g

Sr. No.

District In Number % of District Yes No Yes No



� It can thus be inferred from the above findings that Organic Farming had a striking impact on

the social lives of the member farmers. Many farmers, who pioneered Organic Farming in

their villages, claim to have become opinion leaders, with other farmers now coming to them

for advice on other matters as well besides farming practices.

� Other aspect worth mentioning here is that the respondents especially in Kutch felt that

Organic Farming facilitated them in being able to fulfil all their social obligations in a very

respectable manner, which has led to increase in their social status in their community.




3.4.3 Social status of labourers/co-workers

The Labourers working in the fields for the farmers are also indirectly participants of the project and

thus information was also collected on their social status. This information was collected from the

respondents, so it in essence their perception regarding the social lives of the labourers or co workers

working on their farms. The findings are given in Table 3.33.

Table 3.33: Perceived improvement in Social status of labourers/co workers

Sr. No.




The findings here collate with those of the previous section. The respondents believe that along with

the improvement in their own social conditions, those of their labourers and co-workers have also

improved.

� The respondents claim that they now pay more to their labourers than they did before. We can

infer from this that the benefits of Organic Farming are being passed down to the farthest end

of the supply chain and fair and ethical practices are being followed by the farmers.

� It is learnt from Agrocel that the average labour wages paid to farm labourers in Kutch are in

the range of Rs.80 to 120/-per day and in Surendranagar it is in the range of Rs. 80 to 125/-

per day. It is worth mentioning here that the according to the Minimum Wage Act,

Government of India, Ministry of Labour, for Kutch and Surendranagar areas, the minimum

wages payable to agriculture labour is Rs.50/- per day and thus the Agrocel member farmers

actually pay 1.6 to 2.5 times higher than stipulated in the Minimum Wages Act. This indicates

that the labourers working with the participant farmers are paid better wages than other

labourers and thus they have higher social status than others.

� Due to adoption of organic farming it is also not affecting their health due to harmful effects

of chemical pesticides and improves their health condition over a period.

3.4.4 Perception of OF/FT with regards to personal and social life

To learn more about the impact of Organic Farming on the personal lives of the respondents, they

were further probed regarding their family life as well financial strength. District wise percentage

distribution of the responses given by the respondents is shown in the following table




Table 3.34: Perceptions of effects of OF/FT on pers onal and social life

Sr. Family Type In Number % of District % of Total No Kutch Surendranagar Kutch Surendranagar 1 Greater Financial Strength 76 38 95 84.44 91.20 2 Better Family Life 74 44 92.5 97.78 94.40 3 Others 19 0 23.75 0.00 15.20


In line with the trend seen in the above sections, the answers have here too been largely positive.

However the respondents felt that there was a greater improvement in their family life than in their

financial conditions.

� We can infer from this that even though Organic Farming may not be as remunerative as BT,

it provides a more relaxing livelihood. Respondents claim that they are able to give more

attention and time to their families, and are more relaxed as they are relieved from the anxiety

of bad crops, high costs of pesticides, Market access. They are also confident about obtaining

assistance from Agrocel whenever required.

3.4.5 Indebtedness at initial stage

At the onset of the SFCF Programme, indebtedness was a serious concern for majority of the farmers

participating in the project. Thus information regarding indebtedness was collected to understand the

current scenario of the farmers with regards to indebtedness. The findings of the same are given in the


Table 3.35: Indebtedness at Initial stage

Sr. No. District

In Number % of District Yes No Yes No 1 Kutch 22 58 27.5 72.50 2 Surendranagar 10 35 22.22 77.78 Total 32 93 25.6 74.4


The findings regarding indebtedness are most encouraging as it shows that more than 74% of the

respondents are debt-free and currently only 27% of respondents in Kutch and 22% respondents in

Surendranagar are in debt. Also the Average of the debt is less than Rs 5000 and the duration of the

debt is 1-2 years.

� It is obvious from the findings that indebtedness has largely been controlled and most farmers

are now in a much improved financial condition than before.




3.4.6 Reduction in Indebtedness

To further study the relation between Organic Farming and the reduction in indebtedness of the

respondents, information was collected on various impacts of Organic Farming with regards to debt.

The findings of the same are presented in table 3.36.

Table 3.36: Reduction in Indebtedness

Sr. Family Type In Number % of District % of Total No Kutch Surendranagar Kutch Surendranagar

1 No, OF/FT has not reduced by

Burden at all 5 4 6.25 8.89 7.20

2 Yes, It has helped me repay Some of my existing debt.

15 11 18.75 24.44 20.80

3 Yes, I have been able to repay all

My debts 11 12 13.75 26.67 18.40

4 Yes, I no longer need to take any Debts as my income suffices my

Expenses 6 11 7.5 24.44 13.60

5 Others 1 2 1.25 4.44 2.40


It can be observed form the above table that 20% of the respondents claim that Organic Farming has

helped them in repaying some of their existing debt, whereas 18% believe that they have been able to

repay all of their debt with the help of Organic Farming. The finding which is most indicative of the

progress of the respondents is that more than 13% of them feel that they no longer need to take debt to

meet their regular expenses

� Its is obvious from the above findings that Organic Farming has helped the farmers combat

indebtedness in varying degrees and the farmers have acknowledged that fact.

3.4.7 Change in Working Conditions

The Working condition of the farmers is a very important aspect with respect to the impact of Organic

Farming in their progress. The findings on it are given in the following table 3.37.

Table 3.37: Perceived change in Working conditions

Sr. Family Type In Number In Percentage % of Total No Kutch Surendranagar Kutch Surendranagar

1 No, the working conditions are

The same as before 1 1 1.25 2.22 1.60

2 Yes, I have more help (labourers)

To help in my work 52 23 65 51.11 60.00




3 Yes, I have greater amenities

(Tractors, irrigation etc.) to help in My work

27 16 33.75 35.56 34.40

4 Yes, my health is better due to the

Reduction is use of chemical Pesticides

69 34 86.25 75.56 82.40

5 Yes, the improvement in soil and

Water quality has helped my Working conditions

76 34 95 75.56 88.00


The impact of Organic Farming on the working conditions of the respondents is clearly visible, with

86% respondents in Kutch claiming that their has been improvement in their health on account of

reduced usage of chemical pesticides and a staggering 95% respondents believe that due to

improvement in the soil and water quality they now need to put in lesser hard work thus helped

improve their working conditions. The figures for the same in Surendranagar are 75%.However one

should note that only few respondents attribute improvements in the amenities they possess to Organic

Farming.

� One can infer from the above finding that according to the respondents Organic Farming has

helped improve their working conditions largely from an agricultural, environmental and

health aspect, however financially Organic Aspect has not contributed greatly to the

improvement in their working conditions.

3.4.8 Income Sufficiency

Information regarding whether the respondents feel that the income generated by Organic Farming is

sufficient to fulfil al their expenses was collected as a prelude to the subject of Migration. The District

wise distribution of respondents regarding income sufficiency is given in the following table3.38.

Table 3.38: Income Sufficiency

Sr. No.




The findings are self explanatory with 96% respondents in Kutch and 93% in Surendranagar asserting

that the income from Organic Farming suffices all their expenses.




� It stands to reason from these findings that the respondents would be less prone to migrate into

cities looking fir livelihoods, when they feel that their existing income is more than adequate.

3.4.9 Reverse Migration

Besides collecting information on checking of migration, information on the effect of Organic

Farming with respect to Reverse migration was also collected. The findings of the same are in table

3.39 given below.

Table 3.39: Occurrence of Reverse Migration

Sr. No.



Respondents were asked whether they had witnessed any case of reverse migration on account of

Organic Farming, and the response to the question has been surprisingly much higher than expected.

Especially in the Surendranagar region 12 respondents have claimed to know at least one case of

reverse migration, which translates into 26% of the respondents. Overall 21% of the respondents claim

to know of one case of reverse migration on account of Organic Farming.

3.4.10 Perceptions about long term sustainability o f OF/FT

It is important from a strategic point of view to know the perceptions of the farmers regarding the long

term sustainability of Organic Farming/ Fair Trade. Only if the farmers consider Organic Farming/Fair

Trade to be sustainable in the long run will they continue with it and would also be a deciding factor

when considering migration. Farmers’ response is summarized in table 3.40.

Table 3.40: Sustainability of OF/FT

Sr. No.




A staggering 99% of the respondents believe in the sustainability of Organic Farming, as a matter of

fact many respondents claimed that Organic Farming is the only sustainable for of agriculture for the

future.




� One can infer from this that the respondents have reaped the benefits of Organic Farming are

aware of the difference it has made in their lives, especially agriculturally and environmentally

and thus believe in its sustainability.

3.4.11 Perceptions about future prospects of OF/FT

This is a further extension of the previous section, used simply to probe the farmers further, regarding

how they financially perceive the future prospects of Organic Farming and Fair Trade. The District

wise percentage distribution of the responses has been shown in the following table 3.41.

Table 3.41: Future prospects of OF/FT

Sr. No.




It can be observed from the table above that the respondents in Kutch are more positive about the

future prospects of Organic Farming than the respondents in Surendranagar. Also to be noted is the

fact that though the current crop pf farmers are largely positive about farming, most of them have

expressed that their children do not share views.

� It has been noticed that on being asked about the future prospects of Organic Farming most

respondents have taken it in a generic sense and have expressed their opinions regarding

farming on the whole and seem to consider it as a viable occupation in the future as well,

though as mentioned earlier their children generally do not subscribe to this view.

3.4.12 Facilities provided by Agrocel

In the end information was collected from the respondents regarding the importance they gave to the

various services Agrocel provided to them. The findings are stated below in table 3.42.

Table 3.42: Facilities provided by Agrocel

Sr. Family Type In Number % of District % of Total No Kutch Surendranagar Kutch Surendranagar 1 Agricultural Inputs 80 40 100 88.89 96.00 2 Buy backs 73 42 91.25 93.33 92.00 3 Fair Trade premiums 78 34 97.5 75.56 89.60




4 Others 9 15 11.25 33.33 19.20


� It can be seen from the above table that according to the respondents, that they attach a lot of

importance to the facilities Agrocel provides to them, of which they consider the agricultural

inputs, such as advice on crops, bio- fertilizers, seeds etc as the most important, with 96%,

closely followed by the Buy back and Fair Trade premiums.

3.4.13 Suggestions given by farmers regarding the p roject

There has been a wide variety of suggestions made by the respondents regarding the other activities

that can be undertaken under the Project. That is not to say that the farmers are not satisfied with the

ongoing project. Most farmers have expressly conveyed that they are extremely pleased with the

assistance and facilities they have been provided under the project. These suggestions are to simply

increase the coverage of the work done under the project. The suggestions can be divided into three

categories:

(i) Agricultural Assistance

It is Agrocel’s primary objective to provide the farmers with various types of agricultural assistance

and this need has been reiterated by the respondents. Many farmers have suggested arranging more

training and work shop programmes to educate them on topics such as new farming techniques for

improving soil fertility, prevention of crop diseases and pest occurrence, cultivation of crops in scarce

water conditions, animal farming, crop storage etc. The respondents also want Agrocel to undertake

various water conservation projects such as deepening of local ponds, which Agrocel has already done

in Rapar.

The farmers also want Agrocel to buy the alternate crops that they grow or provide marketing

assistance for them. Many farmers feel that Agrocel should set up its own ginning and storage facility.

Agrocel has already taken this suggestion into account and has built its own ginning, storing,

packaging and grading facility in Dhrangadhra which will begin functioning in 2008.

(ii) Financial assistance

Besides acquiring knowledge about new farming techniques, the respondents also seemed equally

eager to implement these practices. However, they for this they require financial assistance. Most

farmers have suggested providing subsidies or soft loans for various purposes like installing new

irrigation facility, purchasing farming equipment, building animal shelters, levelling their land, adding

crop storage facilities etc.




(iii) Community development

Lastly the farmers have given suggested a plethora of activities for the development of the entire

community such as providing guidance and monetary assistance in getting crop insurance, group

personal and accident insurance.

However, the suggestion most respondents have stressed upon is providing assistance for their

children’s education. It could be through scholarships, monetary help given to purchase books,

uniforms etc, or assistance to build a primary school in the village. The respondents have also

suggested running computer classes for children. Many have also suggested sewing classes and

knitting for the women. These suggestions clearly indicate that the farmers are eager to progress from

all aspects and are open to imbibe new mediums to get there.

4 Key Findings of the Field Survey

The key findings of the field survey are mentioned briefly in the following paragraphs of this section.

4.1 Demographic

� The Average distance to an Agrocel Service Centre is shorter in Surendranagar, than in Kutch,

Efforts should be made to take this situation into account and make amendments in present

operating system and providing support for field services.

� Being a resource constrained region Kutch has traditionally undertaken organic farming,

which has helped it retain its traditional family structure. Many farmers in Kutch though

functioning as nuclear families are actually part of a cluster of relatives staying on nearby

farms, in comparison Surendranagar being a resourceful has historically been an intensive

farming region which led to greater migration and lesser joint families, however the scenario

has changed, since the adoption of organic farming and there seems to be a resurgence of joint

families.

� Findings of Both the family type and number of members in the family show that more than

fifty percent of the farmers still live in joint families of about 6 to 10 members. This also

supports the fact that still agriculture is requiring more human labour as important input, and

majority people prefers to have larger family living together.

4.2 Economic Impact

� The farmers have progressed on the economic front which is most evident from the change

that has taken place in the type of houses they live in.




� There has been greater improvement in housing facilities in Surendranagar in comparison to

Kutch. Though, on the whole it can be said that there is an increase in awareness regarding

hygiene and standard of living among all the respondents. One can consider the farmers of

both the districts to be in relatively prosperous and economically well –off conditions.

� There are more smallholder farmers in Kutch than Surendranagar as 90% of respondents of

Kutch own less than 20 acres land while the figure for Surendranagar is 60%.

� Collectively more than 80% of the respondents are smallholding farmers; hence they feel that

investment in farming equipments such as tractors and mechanized harvesting are

unjustifiable. According to them, the area worth investing in is irrigation, this is substantiated

by the 14% increase in Tube/Bore well facility and corresponding 14% increase in Oil/Engine

pumps required for the wells.

� 95% of respondents believe their agricultural income has risen since adopting Organic

Farming, most of them have attributed this largely to the reduced cost of production and cost

of selling

� Farmers practising organic farming incurred minimum expense on pesticides and seeds,

contrary to conventional farming, where maximum expense is incurred on pesticides. This

accounts for the significant difference in the cost of production in conventional and Organic

Farming

� Respondents of both Kutch and Surendranagar deemed improvement in Soil and Water quality

as the greatest benefit of Organic Farming followed by greater price realisation of yield, better

market accessibility and stability of crops and prices.

� Farmers feel that due to the direct purchase of their crop by Agrocel, they are spared the

exploitation by Market forces that they faced earlier where even good crops did not yield

appropriate prices. The reduction in crop failure on account of improvement in the soil quality

has brought about a feeling of stability in the farmers.

� More than 80% of farmers are solely dependent on farming for their livelihoods but there

seems to be a shift in this trend with the next generation, who prefer jobs to farming. This

trend needs to be watched closely to ensure that farming does not become a lost cause with the

next generation.




4.3 Environmental Impact

� In the first year of conversion to Organic Farming, all farmers experienced some drop in their

annual yield as their land has become hard and sterile due to intensive application of chemical

pesticides and fertilizers. Organic Farming is a gradual process and shows results on a year by

year basis, which required patience on part of the farmers. It is to the credit of Agrocel and the

faith it has instilled in the farmers that the member farmers persisted with Organic Farming

practices and have subsequently reaped its benefits.

� Majority of the respondents from both the districts feel their crop is contamination free;

however there have been some occurrences of crop diseases, the number of which has been

higher in Kutch than in Surendranagar.

� Most of the respondents felt that there land has become more fertile, as it has become softer

than before and has greater water retention capacity than earlier.

� All respondents of both the districts except one claim to rotate their crops and consider it a

beneficial and necessary farming practice. The major reasons behind this widespread

awareness among the respondents are manifold and include traditional wisdom passed on by

elders as well as training and seminars conducted by Agrocel on the benefits of Crop rotation.

� Sesame and sorghum are the alternate crops most preferred in the Surendranagar district,

compared to which while sesame and sorghum area also relatively popular in Kutch, Pulses,

Bajri (pearl millet) and Castor seeds are also cultivated on an equally large scale, whereas a

negligible amount of respondent in Surendranagar grow pulses and Castor

4.4 Social Impact Aspects

� Only 22% of the respondents have claimed to have experienced any kind of problem in

adopting Organic Farming, which reveals that they were well prepared and well informed for

the conversion, which again is a credit to Agrocel for hand holding the farmers so ably during

their transition period and even thereafter

� Organic Farming has had a striking impact on the social lives of the member farmers. Many

farmers, who pioneered Organic Farming in their villages, claim to have become opinion

leaders, with other farmers now coming to them for advice on other matters as well besides

farming practices.




� Respondents especially in Kutch felt that Organic Farming facilitated them in being able to

fulfil all their social obligations in a very respectable manner, which has led to an increase in

their social status.

� The respondents claim that they now pay more to their labourers than they did before. We can

infer from this that the benefits of Organic Farming are being passed down to the farthest end

of the supply chain and fair and ethical practices are being followed by the farmers.

� Even though Organic Farming may not be as remunerative as BT, it provides a more relaxing

livelihood. Respondents claim that they are able to give more attention and time to their

families, and are more relaxed as they are relieved from the anxiety of bad crops, high costs of

pesticides and Market access. They are also confident about obtaining assistance from Agrocel

whenever required.

� Organic Farming has helped the farmers to combat indebtedness in varying degrees and the

farmers have acknowledged that fact that they are now in a much improved financial condition

than before.

� Organic Farming has helped improve the working conditions of the respondents, primarily

from an agricultural, environmental and health aspect; however from the financial aspect

Organic Farming has not contributed greatly to the improvement in their working conditions.

� Respondents are now less prone to migrate into cities looking fir livelihoods as they feel that

their existing income is more than adequate.

� Most farmers are aware of the difference Organic Farming has made in their lives, especially

agriculturally and environmentally and believe it is sustainable and consider it as a viable

occupation,




5 Work done by Agrocel on the Social front

Agrocel has always taken the initiative to provide the farming community with as much assistance as

it can, be it through various awareness and training programs and seminars, or by providing the

farmers with agri inputs such as bio fertilizers, or assisting the farmers in obtaining farming

equipments, as well as providing credit facility of above Rs 12 Lacs ever year.

Below given are two tables tabulating the different kinds of community development and Awareness

and Training Programmes carried out by Agrocel.

Table 5.1: Awareness and Training Work Provided by Agrocel

Sr. No Particular Year Place No. of Participant Farmers

1 Lokbharati Organic Seminar 2002 Sanosara 13 2 Drip awarness Tour 2003 Kutch 12

3 Organic Farming Seminar 2004 Vandhay 15

4 Demonstration & Meeting on cotton seed-Gujarat-23

2004 Dhrumath 300

5 ICM Seminar- Dr. O.P. Sharma 2005 Ramgadh 200

6 Organic Farming Training for staff 2005 Malvan Chokdi 15

7 Seminar on Organic Farming 2005 Vardha 12

8 Sugar beet Seminar 2006 Mangadh 200

9 Drip Seminar 2006 Navalgadh 700

10 Fair-trade Seminar 2007 Navalgadh 400

11 Training for Fair-trade 2007 Rapar 15

12 Seminar on Vegetable 2007 Chotila 150

13 Ajeet Demonstration Tour 2007 Dhrangadhra 15

14 Demonstration & Meeting on cotton seed- Ajeet-11

2007 Chandrasar 900

15 Seminar on Drip & Organic Farming 2007 Thoriyali-Sayala 500

Source: Information provided by Agrocel-Koday office.

Table 5.2: Agricultural Assistance Provided by Agr ocel

Sr. No Particulars of Agricultural Assistance Provided

1 Distributed Sonthary -50 KG 2 Distributed Rock Phosphate-50 kg 3 Distributed Neemcake-50 kg 4 Field Service support to farmers 5 Drip Instrument (Rewinder) No.s

6 Biogas Plants - 85 Cubic MTRS




Sr. No Particulars of Agricultural Assistance Provided

7 Inputs :- Credit facility above Rs.12 Lacs every year Source: Information provided by Agrocel-Koday office.

Table 5.3: Community Work done using Fair Trade Pre mium by Agrocel

Sr. No Particular 1 Deepening of local lakes in the Rapar region for better water conservation

2 Solar Street lights in villages in Rapar 3 Donation of drinking water tanks in local schools 4 Preparation of composting pit and farmers’ training.

Source: Information provided by Agrocel-Koday office.

Figure 5.1: Deepening o f Village Lakes in Rapar Taluka

Figure 5.2: Solar Street Lighting From Fare Trade P remium




Figure 5.3: Drinking Water Tanks in Schools with Wa ter Conservation Slogans

Figure 5.4: Compost Pit Assistance by Fair trade




6 Case Studies

6.1 Shri Laljibhai Ramji Patel

Location: Surendranagar – Navalgadh Family: Nuclear family with 5 members Organic Farming: Since 2001-02 Land: Total – 23 Acres;

18 Acres – Organic 15 Acres – Conventional

Brief: Laljibhai is one of the pioneers of Organic Farming in the Navalgadh village of Surendranagar

district. He lives there with his wife and three children. Being one of the biggest land owners in

the region, Laljibhai’s opinion has influenced many others in the village, which helped the cause

of Organic Farming in Navalgadh. Today the farmers in Navalgadh have purchased a Gobar Gas

plant from the premium of Fair Trade, which provides Gas connection to the farmers of the

village, which they did not have earlier. Laljibhai has been instrumental in spreading Fair Trade

concept amongst these farmers.

Laljibhai had joined the SFCF project in 2001-02, the first year itself. The economic prosperity of

his family since adopting Organic Farming is quite noticeable. Recently he bought a television and

refrigerator for his house, besides adding new rooms and a storage facility in the house. Laljibhai

claims to have witnessed a 25% increase in his income due to Organic Farming from which he has

purchased more land for Organic Farming. This is the result of the conviction Laljibhai had in

Organic Farming which made him stick with it. Laljibhai’s four brothers, who took up service as

alternate source of income, are also impressed by his progress and prosperity, after his adopting

Organic Farming and joining Fare Trade program.




6.2 Shri Praveenbhai Varmora

Location: Surendranagar – Ramgadh Family: Joint family with 10 members Organic Farming: Since 2001-02 Land: Total – 21 Acres; 9 Acres – Organic 12 Acres – Conventional

At Praveenbhai’s farm with Agrocel and Filed survey team

Brief: Praveenbhai is an innovative farmer, who lives in the Ramgadh village of Surendranagar in a joint

family. Besides farming Praveenbhai also does carpenter work-his family profession in his spare

time to supplement his income.

Praveenbhai decided to convert to Organic Farming inspite of resistance from his family and

joined the SFCF project in 2001-02, however today his family are happy about the decision he

made. Through this project Praveenbhai has learnt various farming techniques and has set up a

Vermicompost preparation facility on his farm. According to him the greatest benefit of Organic

Farming has been the improvement in the quality of life and improvement in soil quality.




6.3 Shri Kedabhai Madheva Mali

Location: Kutch – Rapar Family: Joint family with 7 members Organic Farming: Since 2002-03 Land: Total – 14.5 Acres;

14.5 Acres – Organic

Shri. Kedabhai with his family at his house

Brief: Shri. Kedabhai lives in the Rapar district of Kutch with his wife, two sons; both of whom are

married and daughter. With the proceeds of Organic Farming Mr. Kedabhai has got his uneven

land levelled and put sprinkler irrigation in place for his farm. Kedabhai makes optimum use of

the facilities provided by Agrocel such as the contamination kit, agri inputs etc and also does

extensive crop rotation; he grows castor, pulses and Bajri as alternate crops.

It is obvious from Kedabhai’s actions that he is a very progressive farmer and has shown great

acumen for Organic Farming, so much so that he has become an opinion leader in his village and

surrounding areas regarding Organic farming.




6.4 Head of household: Shri. Gelabhai Dosabhai Mor

Respondent: Shri Babubhai Mor (Son of Shri Gelabhai, the land owner) Location: Kutch – Rapar (Padampar) Family: Joint family with 8 members Organic Farming: Since 2001-02 Land: Total – 20 Acres;

20 Acres – Organic Brief: At first glance, few will suspect Shri. Babubhai of being a farmer. However, after close interaction

and you will realise that this educated and well spoken man is besides being the farmer practising

Organic Farming, also the principal of the village school – The Modern School and an opinion

builder in community.

Shri. Babubhai responded our questions and his father Shri. Gelabhai owns 20 Acres of land in the

Padampar village of Kutch has been doing Organic Farming since 2001-02. Babubhai has seen a

30% increase in his agricultural income and attributes it largely to the reduction in the cost of

production. He also feels that the project has helped in arresting the exploitation of the farmers, as

participant farmers get paid premium prices for their produce and are assured of a buyer for their

product.

Babubhai also believes that the seminars, awareness programs and tours arranged by Agrocel

under the programme have helped them learn of more efficient ways of farming and made them

more knowledgeable.




6.5 Shri Ravajibhai Devaji Bangali

Location: Kutch – Rapar (Padampar) Family: Joint family with 4 members Organic Farming: Since 2002-03 Land: Total – 14 Acres;

14 Acres – Organic

Ravajibhai sitting on the parapet of his Bore well recharging pit Brief:

Ravajibhai lives in the Rapar region of Kutch and is doing Organic Farming since 2002-03. He

believes that the Project has helped provide the farmers with greater market access than ever

before and that the assistance and guidance given to the farmers regarding Organic and general

farming such as the financial assistance given to him under the project to acquire bore well

recharging equipment has helped increase their yield by 5% - 10%. He has also introduced a

variety of alternate crops such as gram, sesame, pearl millet, sorghum etc with the guidance from

Agrocel.




6.6 Shri Parvatbhai Sauji Ravariya



Parvatbhai standing beside a solar street light in Padampar Brief: Shri. Parvatbhai is the President of the local farmer’s Association in the Padampar village of

Kutch, where he lives in a joint family with 20 members. Parvatbhai joined the project in 2002-03

and has been one of the fore runners of Organic Farming in his village. Today the village of

Padampar has got 8 solar street lights in their village from the Fair Trade premium they received.

Shri. Parvatbhai was given assistance under the project to build a cow urine collection platform in

his cattle shed for preparing bio-fertilizers. According to Parvatbhai in the project you are not only

given advice on the different farming practices, but you are also shown how to implement them as

well as given assistance in implementing it.




6.7 Shri Dhanabhai Ambavi Nor



Dhanabhai with Field Survey Team member from Mott MacDonald

Brief: Shri. Dhanabhai’s case is one of the remarkable success stories of the reverse migration made

feasible using Organic farming as the project. Dhanabhai moved to Mumbai in search of better

means of livelihood, where he worked in as a diamond cutter. However, the income and the living

conditions there were sub marginal and in an accident Dhanabhai had his right arm paralyzed.

Things were looking very bleak for him and he returned back to his village.

On returning back to his village Dhanabhai took up Organic Farming under the Project and says

that since then his hardships have eased greatly. Today he is able to provide his family with a

healthy and stable income. According to Dhanabhai, he has been able to conduct all his social

occasions in a dignified manner and that has been the greatest benefit of joining the project




6.8 Head of household: Shri. Aayabhai Teja Parmar

Respondent: Shri. Ramabhai Aaya Parmar (Son of Aayabhai, the land owner) Location: Kutch – Rapar Family: Joint family with 7 members Organic Farming: Since 2002-03 Land: Total – 8 Acres;

5 Acres – Organic 3 Acres – Conventional

Brief: Shri. Aayabhai lives in the Rapar region of Kutch as a member of a joint family of seven. His

father Ramabhai Parmar is the head of the household and owns 8 acres of land, of which 5 acres is

being used for organic farming since 2002–03. Aayabhai also runs a taxi (Toofan cruiser) besides

framing on his father’s land. Aayabhai’s family had suffered great losses in the 2001 earthquake in

Kutch, yet they did not despair and they have today with the help of Organic Farming built a new

and better home. Aayabhai also got filling and levelling done to improve his land.

Aayabhai is quite contemporary in his outlook and is open to modern and innovative methods of

farming if they are beneficial to him, which is why he joined the project in the first place.

Aayabhai makes full use of the agricultural inputs provided under the project, such as compost

fertilisers and bio pesticides like neem cake etc. He believes that the combination of a 5% - 10%

increase in price realisation of the yield as well as a decrease in cost of production has helped

increase their income and also save for a better future.




6.9 Shri Karsanbhai Manji Chaudhary

Location: Mandvi (Koday) Family: Nuclear family with 4 members Organic Farming: Since 2001-02 Land: Total – 14 Acres;


Shri. Karsanbhai showing Organic Cotton from his farm. Brief:

Karsanbhai is one of the first farmers to have the joined the project when it initially began in

Mandvi in 2001-02. Being a foresighted farmer Karsanbhai realised the advantages of Organic

Farming and has under the project adopted many beneficial farming practices on his farm, such as

using drip irrigation, preparing compost etc. He also cultivates crops such as castor, gram and

sesame as alternate crops and has also set up a Gobar Gas unit on his farm.

Karsanbhai believes that besides increase in the financial strength of the farmers, the improvement

in the soil is the most important aspect of Organic Farming, which will be beneficial for the

farmers in the long term.




6.10 Shrimati Narmadaben Harilal Chowdhary

Location: Mandvi- (Koday) Family: Joint family, with 5 members. Organic Farming: Since 2001-02 Land: Total – 8 Acres;

8 Acres – Organic Brief: Narmadaben is the only female respondent of the survey and on this basis alone deserves a special

mention. She lives in Mandvi in family of five and is the head of the household. Narmadaben had

to face a lot residence from her family when she decided to join the project. Inspite of this she

went ahead with her decision; she says that her family accepted her decision when they saw the

assistance provided to her under the project.

With the help of the guidance given under the project by Agrocel, Narmadaben has introduced

various new methods of farming on her farm. According to her, these factors have led to 10%

increase in her annual income, besides improvement in the working conditions on the farm on

account of not using chemical pesticides and fertilizers any longer. Narmadaben is convinced that

Organic Farming is the way for the future and that more projects like these should be implemented

to guide the farmers in the right direction.

7 Conclusions This Agri Impact Assessment- II, has been carried out to ascertain that the basic objectives set at the

start of this program “More From the Cotton filed” have been accomplished and to what extent.

On the basis of the secondary data about member farmers available from Agrocel Industries Ltd, and

limited field survey (primary research) was conducted in Surendranagar and Kutch districts to get one




to one response from the actual beneficiaries of this program in November, 2007. Farmers’ responses

have been compiled and analysed scientifically in previous sections of this report and discussed in

detail in this analysis. Based on this analysis, key findings about the respective impact assessment

targeted, have also been given in previous section. In the light of these discussions following

conclusions are made from this study.

7.1 Economic Impact Assessment

� There is majority perception amongst farmers that their income has increased after joining

organic farming and Fair Trade programme. This is due to increase in their crop yield and also

higher price available from Agrocel against their selling in market.

� Using different economic indicators about farmers’ economic condition at start and now, it is

clearly observed that farmers in both districts have positively gained due to their participation

in this program. This is reflected from the fact that there is mark improvement in their living

conditions, starting from improvement in type of house they live, improvement in basic

facilities like potable water, bath, toilet and electric connection, increase in rooms,

improvement in their existing facilities like kitchen, yard, cattle sheds and storage for farm

produce etc;.

� With the increase in economic prosperity farmers have also invested in improving the

irrigation facilities, by making new well / tube well / or putting electric motor/ oil engine and

also adopting modern concept of drip irrigation.

� Due to better economic conditions, either it has helped farmers to reduce their debt or has

prevented occurrences of indebtness. In fact many farmers have been able to invest in their

house hold facilities or improve their agriculture facilities, and their living condition.

7.2 Environment / Agriculture Impact

� As regards, environmental impact majority of farmers have perceived mark difference in

improvement of soil after adopting organic farming. It is their clear perception that this factor

has also helped them in increasing their crop yield , reducing their production cost ( due to less

efforts in ploughing) and increasing soil capacity to retain more moisture, and also allowing

plants to spread their roots more deeper and wider, resulting in higher growth and crop yields.

� These farmers have also clearly mentioned that after adoption of organic farming labours

working in the farm are more healthy and willing to work preferentially in such farms.




� There is no clear perception in majority of farmers about improvement in water quality. The

main reason for this response was not having any water analysis data with them.

� In majority cases there have not been any occurrences of plant diseases or pest after adopting

organic farming, and when ever such incident happens, technical advice from Agrocel is

solving such problem. However, recently in Surendranagar district at few places there are

incidents of pest infestation affecting the crop adversely.

7.3 Social Impact

� Majority farmers, nearly 80 % have not faced any problems in adopting organic farming and

joining fair trade programme.

� Many farmers have clearly expressed that after joining Organic farming and fair trade program

their social status has improved. They are working as opinion leaders for other farmers.

Farmers in both districts have agreed that by joining in this program of Agrocel they have

been able to fulfil most of their social obligations and this has given them respectable position

in their society.

� It is clearly evident that organic farming has helped to check migration from rural areas to

urban areas, mainly happening earlier due to problems of sustainability. In fact, in Kutch there

are incidences of reverse migration from urban areas, to their native places and improving

their economic conditions than before.

� There are no incidences of farmer’s suicide due to indebtness, amongst the member farmers in

both districts.

7.4 Overall Impact of Organic Farming and Fair trad e Program

� There is increase in total number of farmers from 650 at the start of this program to

approx.1500, mainly in two districts of Gujarat, Surendranagar and Kutch. Agrocel has also

spread this organic cotton cultivation in Rayagada district of Orissa. Thus, the objective of

spreading this concept in small and marginal cotton growers of Gujarat and Orissa have been

attained.

� Due to availability of community development funds from Fair trade, majority farmers have

expressed their feelings that such funds have helped them in carrying out projects of

community development, such as deepening of village lakes, providing drinking water




facilities in schools, building approach roads to villages, and organizing farmers’ training

programs, building community Gobar gas plant to get cheaper, cleaner fuel for cooking etc;.

� In short, Agrocel has shown the way to member farmers for carrying out the sustainable

agriculture in successful manner in the project areas.

7.5 Farmers’ Aspirations from Agrocel

Though, in general all the respondent farmers are happy with support provided by Agrocel, through

their service centres and field officers, on asking what further aspiration they have from Agrocel, they

came out with following responses:

� Many farmers in Surendranagar still expect higher returns of their produce from Agrocel to

make their farming more remunerable like cultivation of BT Cotton. They also expect that

Agrocel should support them in certification process and also in marketing of other organic

produce from the same land.

� In Kutch, district many farmers have expressed their desire to have soft loans from Agrocel

for development of their farming activities, like installing drip irrigation and purchasing of

farm implements.

� During the informal discussions with these farmers, few have also requirement of Agrocel

support for education of their children and Agrocel providing them more information about

improved farm practices in other parts of the state and country.

7.6 Suggestions for Agrocel

After having interactions with member farmers and Agrocel officials, the consultants have few

relevant suggestions for the Agrocel to adopt or implement in the project area. These are as below:

� Agrocel should take initiatives in organizing cultivation of other short terms Organic crops like

seasonal and off-season vegetables and spices, and provide market support to farmers in such

organic crops, by having market tie-up with retail chains dealing in fresh vegetables and food

items.

� In Gujarat, Agrocel is mainly working in Kutch and Surendranagar districts, which are now

proven earthquake prone zones. As emerged from this survey, residential house is the prime asset

and investment priority for all member farmers. Agrocel should provide some kind of group




insurance facilities to cover such risk of member farmers, using the funds available from Fair trade

programme and educate farmers about importance of such risk cover.

� Agrocel may organize health check up camps for member farmers and their families, through

participation of some voluntary organizations from the project area, from time to time in different

villages. Agrocel can also spread awareness about different insurance schemes available from

various government agencies and cashless Medi-claim insurance facilities, in their member

farmers, so that they can minimise such risk, which is at time putting stress on their economic

resources.

� Agrocel can create some funds from the community development funds available from Fair trade

premium, to provide support to the family members of member farmers in primary and higher

education, and can consider providing prizes, scholarships, and other incentive and support to

children and also spreading awareness in the project areas about importance of women education.



Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India A-1

Appendix A: Field Survey Questionnaire

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR AGRI IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF “MORE FROM THE COTTON FIELDS PROGRAMME”

Questionnaire #

1. Name of Respondent Name of Head of household( If other than respondent) 2. District Kutch Surendranagar

3. Taluka Code: 4. Access to Village: 1 – State Highway 2 – District Highway 3 – Village Road 4 – Kuccha Road 5. Distance from Agrocel Office: In Kilometres 6. Gender: Male Female 7. Marital Status: Married Unmarried 8. Family Type: 1 – Joint Family 2 – Nuclear Family 3 – Cluster of Relatives 8a. No of Members in the family: 9. Started Organic Farming in:

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

10. Apart from agriculture, what are your major sources of income? If any 1. 2. 3.

I. Economic Impact Aspects

11. Type of house you live in? Before Now A Kuccha House B Pucca House C Semi Pucca 12. Ownership of the house? Before Now A Owned




B Rented C Others (specify)

13. Facilities available in your house? Before Now Improvements A Potable Water B Electricity C Gas connection D Bath & Toilets E Kitchen F Yard G Cattle Shed Before Now Improvements H Storage facility I Total no of rooms J Others (specify) 14. Land holding details: ( In hectares) A Total cultivable land B Land under Organic Farming / Fair Trade C Land under BT cotton 15. Ownership of the land? Before Now A Owned B Leased C Partnership 16. Which agricultural facilities do you have? Before Now Improvements A Tractor without trolley B Tractor with trolley C Tractor attachments D Mechanized harvesting facilities E Water/Tube well F Electric/Oil engine pump G Drip Irrigation facilities H Others (specify) 17. Has there been a noticeable difference in your agricultural income since adopting

Organic Farming / Fair Trade Programme? Yes No If Yes, in what % 18. What approximate percentage of your income is used as input cost?




19. Approximate percentage distribution of the input cost: A Seed B Fertilizers C Pesticides D Irrigation E Labour 20. Has there been a noticeable difference in the price realization of your yield since

adopting Organic Farming / Fair Trade Programme? Yes No If Yes, in what % 21. What difference has Organic Farming made in terms of Market accessibility? 1. 2. 3. 22. What according to you have been the major benefits of Organic Farming / Fair Trade

Programme? Rate from 1 to 5 ( 1=Highest and 10=Lowest) A Better price realization B Greater Market accessibility C Stability of crop and prices D Improvements in soil and water quality E Improvement in quality of cotton produced F Improvement in financial strength G Reduction in cost of production H Low cost agricultural inputs I Technical guidance J Use of Fair Trade premium in social projects

II. Agricultural Impact Aspects

23. Has there been a noticeable difference in your actual yield since adopting Organic Farming/Fair Trade?

Yes No If Yes, in what % 24. Is the cotton cultivated by Organic Farming contamination free? Yes No 25. Have you noticed any difference in the occurrence of crop disease since adopting

Organic Farming? Y No If Yes, what? 26. Has there been a noticeable difference in the soil quality since adopting Organic

Farming? Yes No If Yes, how? 27. Has there been a noticeable difference in the water quality since adopting Organic

Farming? Yes No If Yes, how?




28. Do you do undertake crop rotation? Yes No 28.A If yes, then which are the other organic crops you cultivate under crop rotation? 1. 2. 3. 29. Benefits of crop rotation, if any, according to you? 1. 2. 3.

III. Social Impact Aspects

30. Problems faced, if any, in participating in Fair Trade Programme? 1. 2. 3.

31 Has your social status benefited from participating in Fair Trade Programme? Yes No

32. Has the social and financial status of your labourers benefited from participating in Fair Trade Programme?

Yes No

33. What difference has Fair Trade Programme made in your personal and social life? A Greater financial strength B Better family life C Others (specify) 34. Due have any unpaid debts? Yes No 35. Has Fair Trade Programme helped you to reduce debt burden? A No, the Fair Trade programme has not reduced my debt burden at all. B Yes, It has helped me repay some of my existing debt. C Yes, I have been able to repay all my debts. D Yes, I no longer need to take any debts as my income suffices my expenses, E Others (specify) 36. Has Fair Trade Programme helped improve your overall working conditions? A No, the working conditions are the same as before B Yes, I have more help (labourers) to help in my work C Yes, I have greater amenities (tractors, irrigation etc) to help in my work. D Yes, my health is better due to the reduction is use of chemical pesticides E Yes, the improvement in soil and water quality has helped my working conditions F Others (specify) 37. Is the income from Organic Farming/ Fair Trade Programme enough to fulfil all your




family’s expenses? Yes No 38. Do you think Organic farming/Fair Trade Programme is sustainable? Yes No

40. Have you witnessed anybody returning to the villages from cities due to the

sustainability and better livelihood provided by of Organic farming/ Fair Trade Programme than found in the cities?

Yes No 41. What kind of facilities does Agrocel provide to you? A Agricultural Inputs B Buy backs C Fair Trade premiums D Others (specify) 42. What is your overall perception about Fair Trade Programme? What further

development do you want from the programme? Date: Name of Interviewer:

39. Do you feel the need to go to cities in search of better future prospects? Yes No



Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India B-1

Appendix B: List of Respondent Farmers for Field Su rvey

List of Surendranagar Farmers

1. Harsinghbhai Tarshibhai Jadhav

2. Baldevbhai Ramjibhai Utadiya

3. Naranbhai Darjibhai Patel

4. Lalitbhai Babubhai Patel

5. Laljibhai Ramjibhai Patel

6. Chaturbhai Manabhai Makwana

7. Sanjaybhai Natwarbhai Devji

8. Nalinbhai Kunja

9. Kantibhai Patel

10. Dilipbhai Bhimabhai

11. Praveen Ranchhod Ramji

12. Ranabhai Ramji Rabari

13. Ishwarbhai Popatbhai Patel

14. Jatamalbhai Vanol

15. Ghanshyambhai Dhayabhai Patel

16. Vasudevbhai Harjibhai Patel

17. Bharatbhai Raghunathbhai Patel

18. Dhanabhai P Patel

19. Dhayabhai Patel

20. Shivabhai M Patel

21. Chikabhai S Patel

22. Chaturbhai P Patel

23. Prabhubhai M Patel

24. Mansukhbhai V Patel

25. Praveenbhai H Varmora

26. Jayrambhai N Patel

27. Parsottambhai G Patel

28. Narottambhai B Patel

29. Mahadevbhai V Patel

30. Jayantbhai D Patel

31. Bhagwanji J Jakasania

32. Khimjibhai N Patel

33. Jiteshbhai I Patel

34. Chamanbhai N Patel

35. Shantilal K Patel

36. Hirabhai V Jadhav

37. Ramabhai M Rabari

38. Baldevbhai M Patel

39. Rameshbhai B Patel

40. Ramjibhai R Kumbhari

41. Harilalbhai M Patel

42. Ramanikbhai A Patel

43. Arvindbhai D Patel

44. Valji A Patel

45. Prabhubhai M Patel




List of Kutch Farmers

46. Dineshbhai S Chauhan

47. Parbatbhai Sunjha Padhariya

48. Babubhai N Chavda

49. Meghabhai Dudha

50. Gelabhai J Chavda

51. Bhupatbhai K Makwana

52. Ratanbhai B Chauhan

53. Bababhai B Chauhan

54. Lakhmanbhai A Chavda

55. Khimabhai B Rathod

56. Pethabhai Chavda

57. Vasudevbhai B Chavda

58. Velabhai M Patel

59. Vasabhai K Bhimani

60. Jamalbhai K Bayad

61. Doyabhai D Lodani

62. Sargambhai R Bharwad

63. Vasafbhai H Nor

64. Navinbhai K Kali

65. Kedabhai Madheva Mali

66. Naghabhai K Bhimani

67. Virabhai D Lodani

68. Khimabhai J Chauhan

69. Savabhai B Chauhan

70. Raghabhai B Mali

71. Jemalbhai N Mali

72. Dineshbhai N Mali

73. Mansangh k Makwana

74. Mohan B Mali

75. Deepakbhai S Rathod

76. Bhikhabhai B Makwana

77. Ramjibhai S Vidiaya

78. Pethabhai K Verani

79. Dayabhai B Chauhan

80. Ratanbhai Gela Chauhan

81. Bhudabhai B Vidiya

82. Noghabhai G Parmar

83. Babubhai Jaisangh Vidiya

84. Rameshbhai Bhajak

85. Babubhai Parmar

86. Jogabhai Bayad

87. Pathabhai Makwana

88. Surabhai Makwana

89. Panchabhai Bharmal

90. Babubhai V Bhoya

91. Khimabhai R Makwana

92. Jesabhai krasan

93. Gelabhai D Mor

94. Ravaji D Bangali

95. Parvatbhai S Ravariya




96. Devrajbhai B Mor

97. Ketabhai B Ravariya

98. Hargovindbhai B Lodariya

99. Babubhai Bhandiya

100. Jagdishbhai Ravariys

101. Pethabhai C Koli

102. Karsanbhai R Ravariya

103. Ambavibhai R Ravariya

104. Veerabhai M Ravariya

105. Baljibhai B Bamaniya

106. Babubhai D Minaat

107. Ketabhai A Nor

108. Dhanabhai A Nor

109. Bambhaniyabhai H Bechara

110. Devrajbhai D Bharadiya

111. Hirjibhai H Meena

112. Bhavanbhai M Ravariya

113. Momayabhai K Chowdhary

114. Kimanabhai K Gadhvi

115. Lakshmanbhai Bera

116. Bhanabhai D Parjapati

117. Ambanibhai J Ghera

118. Govindbhai B Gadhvi

119. Bababhai L Harijan

Mandvi

120. Aayabhai R Parmar

121. Karsanbhai M Chawdhary

122. Narmadaben Chowdhary

123. Tulsibhai M Chowdhary

124. Harjibhai M Mukhi

125. Archanbhai L Gadhvi

Agri Impact Assessment -II ‘More from the Cotton Fields’ · 6.2 Shri Praveenbhai Varmora 57 6.3...

Documents

Transcript of Agri Impact Assessment -II ‘More from the Cotton Fields’ · 6.2 Shri Praveenbhai Varmora 57 6.3...