Selling ‘organic’ produce

Organic farming is being practised by about 3.7 million growers worldwide, with India accounting for 1.6 million. The Agriculture Corridor under the Namami Gange project has covered 1.23 lakh hectares for organic farming. In light of significant policy interventions and market drivers, the organic food market is estimated to grow at a healthy CAGR of 25.27 per cent in the period 2022-27.

Producers can register for organic certification in two ways — third-party certification and the Participatory Guarantee System (PGS). In terms of market development, there is a dedicated ‘Jaivik Kheti’ portal with a registration of about 6.09 lakh farmers ( Parliament data).

In contrast to conventional farming, organic farming often yields less, but the price premium compensates for the deficit, ensuring its profitability.

Lessons can be drawn from the Sikkim experience, where despite transitioning to organic farming and the presence of devoted organic outlets, the growers faced marketing challenges. An agriculture policy that merely focuses on budget allocations will hardly serve the purpose unless accompanied by proper utilisation of the funds in a self-sustainable mode. So, a critical examination of the gestation period must be carried out to checkmate the unviability of organic programme.

Other side of the coin

In 2022, the US terminated India’s organic recognition agreement due to anti-dumping countermeasures for soyabeans. Such actions can potentially dent India’s hopes for success in the export market for organic produce. Scale and quality are vital for commercialisation of organic produce. Contract farming, perhaps, can be a way towards this.

Another debatable issue is whether a producer must choose certification or not. There are producer groups in developed countries like the US who don’t opt for organic certifications due to high registration/renewal costs and the strict and complex procedures that are difficult to comply with. However, nothing prevents a producer from utilising organic production practices and marketing their products as conventional ones without obtaining formal certification. Thus, the decision to become ‘certified organic’ can be seen from the production and marketing angles. Though interrelated, both these are distinct business choices. Those foregoing formal certification can still command good prices by marketing through hybrid farm tours, and sharing farm-to-plate stories on social media among the target audience. Encouraging this direct approach between producers and buyers is crucial, avoiding complex, unsustainable systems.

India also needs to strengthen awareness on such aspects among the growers. Capacity building and sensitisation of growers registered under organic clusters need to be reinforced, as there is evidence of low awareness regarding traceability norms among growers registered in the TraceNet scheme of APEDA, a vanguard for exports.

Similar issues emerged with past certification schemes like GLOBAL-GAP, where exporters dominated producer documentation. This mechanism must be critically examined, else rejection of export consignments will become frequent and developed nations will continue to impose quality barriers, restricting Indian agricultural trade. A case in point is, consumers in the US prefer the Kent variety of mango from Mexico than the irradiated Alphonso variety from India.

There is a need to strengthen ties with global hypermarkets through complete transparency, especially for organic clusters, and by focusing on the price premium for producers. For that, domestic organic clusters, in the light of ODOP (One District One Product), should be linked strategically. Extending connectivity with global hypermarkets can pave the way for a brighter future for organics.

The writer is Faculty (Agribusiness), Dr Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Bihar. Views are personal

COMMENT NOW