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]
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 6
Sr. No Location State
5 Zolarpet Tamilnadu 6 Nimpith West Bengal 7 Sangli Maharashtra 8 Kudal Maharashtra 9 Sanksheswar Karnataka 10 Belgam Karntaka
Source: Agrocel –Koday office.
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 7
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 8
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,
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 9
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 10
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 –
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 11
• 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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 12
• 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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 13
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 14
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 15
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 16
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 17
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
Source: Agrocel –Koday office.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 18
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
Source: Agrocel –Koday office.
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
Source: Agrocel –Koday office.
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 19
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 20
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 21
� 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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses.
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 22
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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses.
� 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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses.
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 23
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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses.
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,
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 24
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
In Number In Number % of District % of
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 25
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 26
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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 27
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
In Number In Number % of District % of
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 28
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 29
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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses,
� 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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 30
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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses,
� 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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 31
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
Sr. No. District In Number % of District Avg. % Difference Yes No Yes No
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 32
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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
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
1 Better Price realisation 9.09 40.91 34.09 4.55 4.55 4.55 2.27 0.00
2 Greater Market Accessibility 35.56 31.11 15.56 8.89 4.44 4.44 0.00 0.00
3 Stability of crop and prices 11.11 28.89 26.67 6.67 8.89 6.67 8.89 2.22
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 33
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
7 Reduction in cost of production 13.33 24.44 22.22 13.33 15.56 2.22 4.44 4.44
8 Low cost agricultural inputs 11.90 21.43 26.19 16.67 14.29 7.14 0.00 2.38
9 Technical guidance 28.95 21.05 21.05 7.89 15.79 2.63 2.63 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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
� 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
1 Better Price realisation 29.51 39.34 22.13 3.28 2.46 2.46 0.82 0.00
2 Greater Market Accessibility 37.19 28.10 19.83 9.92 2.48 1.65 0.83 0.00
3 Stability of crop and prices 18.18 35.45 27.27 6.36 3.64 2.73 4.55 1.82
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
7 Reduction in cost of production 10.08 17.65 18.49 25.21 16.81 5.04 5.04 1.68
8 Low cost agricultural inputs 13.00 12.00 21.00 18.00 25.00 9.00 1.00 1.00
9 Technical guidance 13.73 14.71 17.65 17.65 17.65 13.73 3.92 0.98
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 34
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
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
Sr. No. District In Number % of District Avg. % Difference Yes No Yes No
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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
� 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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 35
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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
� 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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 36
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
Sr. No. District In Number In Percentage
Yes No Yes No 1 Kutch 70 10 87.50 12.50 2 Surendranagar 28 17 62.22 37.78 Total 98 27 78.40 21.60
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
� 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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 37
� 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
following table 3.26.
Table 3.26: Perceived improvement in Soil quality
Sr. No. District In Number In Percentage
Yes No Yes No 1 Kutch 77 3 96.25 3.75 2 Surendranagar 44 1 97.78 2.22 Total 121 4 96.80 3.20
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
� 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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 38
� 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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
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
1 Kutch 79 1 98.75 1.25 2 Surendranagar 44 1 97.78 2.22 Total 123 2 98.40 1.60
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 39
� 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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
� 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”.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 40
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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 41
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
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
following table 3.32.
Table 3.32: Perceived Improvement in Social Standin g
Sr. No.
District In Number % of District Yes No Yes No
1 Kutch 79 1 98.75 1.25 2 Surendranagar 42 3 93.33 6.67 Total 121 4 96.80 3.20
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
� 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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 42
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.
District In Number % of District Yes No Yes No
1 Kutch 79 1 98.75 1.25 2 Surendranagar 40 5 88.89 11.11 Total 119 6 95.20 4.80
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 43
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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
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
following table 3.35.
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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 44
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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 45
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
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
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.
District In Number % of District Yes No Yes No
1 Kutch 77 3 96.25 3.75 2 Surendranagar 42 3 93.33 6.67 Total 119 6 95.2 4.80
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 46
� 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.
District In Number % of District Yes No Yes No
1 Kutch 9 71 11.25 88.75 2 Surendranagar 12 33 26.67 73.33 Total 21 104 16.8 83.20
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.
District In Number % of District Yes No Yes No
1 Kutch 79 1 98.75 1.25 2 Surendranagar 45 0 100.00 0.00 Total 124 1 99.2 0.80
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 47
� 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.
District In Number % of District Yes No Yes No
1 Kutch 10 70 12.5 87.50 2 Surendranagar 11 34 24.44 75.56 Total 22 104 17.6 83.20
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 48
4 Others 9 15 11.25 33.33 19.20
Source: IMM analysis from total field survey responses
� 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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 49
(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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 50
� 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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 51
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 52
� 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,
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 53
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 54
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 55
Figure 5.3: Drinking Water Tanks in Schools with Wa ter Conservation Slogans
Figure 5.4: Compost Pit Assistance by Fair trade
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 56
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 57
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 58
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 59
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 60
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 61
6.6 Shri Parvatbhai Sauji Ravariya
Location: Kutch – Rapar (Padampar) Family: Joint family with 9 members Organic Farming: Since 2002-03 Land: Total – 11 Acres;
11 Acres – Organic
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 62
6.7 Shri Dhanabhai Ambavi Nor
Location: Kutch – Rapar (Padampar) Family: Joint family with 8 members Organic Farming: Since 2001-02 Land: Total – 20 Acres;
20 Acres – Organic
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 63
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 64
6.9 Shri Karsanbhai Manji Chaudhary
Location: Mandvi (Koday) Family: Nuclear family with 4 members Organic Farming: Since 2001-02 Land: Total – 14 Acres;
14 Acres – Organic
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 65
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 66
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 67
� 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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 68
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India 69
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.
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India A-2
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?
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India A-3
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?
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India A-4
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India A-5
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India B-1
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
Agri Impact Assessment -II- II Mott MacDonald India
‘More From the Cotton Fields’ Agrocel Industries Ltd
Impact Assessment_Cotton II_ Gujurat_India B-2
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
Top Related