Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of policies favouring organic inputs on small farms in Karnataka, India: a multicriteria approach

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over 56% of the population of Karnataka state in India depends on agriculture for its livelihood. A majority of these are small and marginal farmers, with land under 2 ha, responsible for nearly half the food production in the state. The increasing rate of farmers’ suicides in the state is reportedly fuelled among others, by increasing input costs, crop failure and accumulating debt. This triggered several policy measures, intended to improve the sustainability of farm livelihoods including those promoting organic practices in farming. The paper presents the results of a multicriteria analysis conducted to comprehend the effects of two different practice–policy scenarios on smallholders in Karnataka—one scenario ‘with policy’ (WP) to support organic agricultural practices and the other a ‘business as usual’ (BAU) scenario that continues to stress on market-based, synthetic inputs for cultivation. The paper integrates results from quantitative and participatory techniques to compare and project effects on ecological, economic and socio-cultural indicators. Ecological and economic indicators in WP are projected to be significantly higher than BAU in a majority of the study sites, while socio-cultural indicators show mixed outcomes, depending on regional and social characteristics. Across the study sites, small and rain-fed farms are benefitted better in WP compared to large and irrigated farms, respectively. Among small and rain-fed farms, soil fertility, water quality, agro-diversity, net income and freedom from indebtedness improve considerably, while there is slight reduction in collective activities and no perceivable change in land-based subsistence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://raitamitra.kar.nic.in/kda_booklet.pdf. Accessed on 21 Nov 2010.

  2. In fact the non-certified organic area has been much more than area under certified organic farming (Bhattacharyya and Chakraborty 2005).

  3. http://www.kar.nic.in/finance/bud2010/budhig10e.pdf and Karnataka State Annual Budget 2011–2012.

  4. The quality of irrigation water depends on the amount of salts dissolved. The greater the dissolved salts, greater the EC (measured in deciSiemens/meter) and poorer the quality of water.

  5. No formal existing market for farm yard manure.

  6. The probability of being free from overdue loans is measured using a binary logistic function for each district. Most common determinants of this probability were Cropping intensity, Gross agricultural income, Landholding size, area under commercial crops and irrigation. Equation explaining probability of being free from overdue loans is given in “Appendix 3”.

  7. Comparison of mean values of other key variables for WP and BAU groups is presented in “Appendix 1”.

  8. Especially since it was not feasible to get enough sample farms following strictly the selected practices for a comparable time period.

  9. Regression equations determining indicators values are provided in “Appendix 3”.

  10. For most indicators, the threshold is given by the minimum and maximum values in the data, so that they can be normalized and compared. SOC and WQ were normalized using standard threshold levels of 0.5–2 and 2–0 respectively.

References

  • Bhalla, G. S., & Singh, G. (2009). Economic liberalisation and indian agriculture: A statewise analysis. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(52), 34–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharyya, P., & Chakraborty, G. (2005). Current status of organic farming in India and other countries. Indian Journal of Fertilizers, 1(9), 111–123.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cai, Y., & Smith, B. (1994). Sustainability in agriculture: A general review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 49, 299–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R., Pacey, A., & Thrupp, L. A. (1989). Farmer first: Farmer innovation and agricultural research. London: Intermediate Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chand, R., Prasanna, P. A. L., & Singh, A. (2011). Farm size and productivity: Understanding the strengths of smallholders and improving their livelihoods. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(26–27), 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • DES. (2006). Agricultural census. Directorate of Economics and Statistics.

  • DES (2011). Karnataka at a Glance (2009–2010). Directorate of Economics and Statistics.

  • Deshpande, R. S. (2002). Suicides by farmers in Karnataka: Agrarian distress and possible alleviatory steps. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(26), 2601–2610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deshpande, R. S. (2007). Emerging issues in land policy. Asia Development Bank. INRM Policy Brief No. 16.

  • Deshpande, R. S., & Prabhu, N. (2005). Farmers’ distress proof beyond question. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(44), 4663–4665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson, J. S., Spackman, M., Pearman, A. & Phillips, L. D. (2009). Multi-criteria analysis: A manual. Department for Communities and Local Government: London, UK. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/12761/. Accessed December 30 2011.

  • Ellis, F., & Biggs, S. (2001). Evolving themes in rural development 1950s to 2000s. Development Policy Review, 19(4), 437–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, S., & Chan-Kang, C. (2005). Is small beautiful? Farm size, productivity, and poverty in Asian agriculture. Agricultural Economics, 32, 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giovannucci, D. (2005). Evaluation of organic agriculture and poverty reduction in Asia. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development, Office of Evaluation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Limón, J. A., & Sanchez-Fernandez, G. (2010). Empirical evaluation of agricultural sustainability using composite indicators. Ecological Economics, 69(5), 1062–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government of Karnataka. (2007) Improving the economic condition of farmers. Report of the Official Group of Government of Karnataka. http://raitamitra.kar.nic.in/Karnataka%20Mission.pdf. Accessed August 12 2011.

  • Gulati, A., Joshi, P. K., & Landen, M. (Ed.) (2008). Contract farming in India: A resource book. http://www.ncap.res.in/contract_%20farming/Resources/2.1%20Ashok%20Gulati.pdf. Accessed September 22 2011.

  • Ikerd, J. E. (1993). The need for a systems-approach to sustainable agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 46(1–4), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • König, H. J., Schuler, J., Suarma, U., McNeill, D., Imbernon, J., Damayanti, F., et al. (2010). Assessing the impact of land use policy on urban-rural sustainability using the FoPIA approach in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Sustainability, 2, 1991–2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mani, G., & Sinha, V. K. (2010). Credit absorption capacity of farmers in Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(4), 677–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, J. F. (2007). The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50), 19680–19685.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G., Nijkamp, P., & Rietveld, P. (1994). Qualitative multicriteria evaluation for environmental management. Ecological Economics, 10, 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NCRB. (1999–2009). Accidental deaths and suicides in India. National Crime Records Bureau Ministry of Home Affairs. Government of India.

  • NSSO. (2003). Situation assessment survey of farmers. Indebtedness of farmer households. NSS 59th round. National Sample Survey Organisation. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. Government of India.

  • Offermann, F. & Nieberg, H. (1999). Economic performance of organic farms in Europe. In Organic farming in Europe: Economics and policy 5. Hohenheim: University of Hohenheim. https://www.uni-hohenheim.de/i410a/ofeurope/organicfarmingineurope-vol5.pdf. Accessed September 25 2011.

  • Padel, S., & Lampkin, N. H. (1994). Farm-level performance of organic farming systems: An overview. In N. H. Lampkin & S. Padel (Eds.), Economics of organic farming. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Soba, M., Petit, S., Jones, L., Bertrand, N., Briquel, V., Omodei-Zorini, L., et al. (2008). Land use functions: A multifunctionality approach to assess the impact of land use change on land use sustainability. In K. Helming, P. Tabbush, & M. Pérez-Soba (Eds.), Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretty, J. N. (1995). Regenerating agriculture: Policies and practice for sustainability and self-reliance. London: Earthscan Publications Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purushothaman, S. (2005). Land-use strategies for Tribals: A socio economic analysis. Economic and Political Weekly, 53, 5611–5619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purushothaman, S., & Kashyap, S. (2010). Trends in land use and crop acreages in Karnataka and their repercussions. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 23(2), 330–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramesh, P., Panwar, N. R., Singh, A. B., Ramana, S., Yadav, S. K., Srivastava, R., et al. (2010). Status of organic farming in India. Current Science, 98(9), 1190–1194.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ramesh, P., Singh, M., & SubbaRao, A. (2005). Organic farming: Its relevance to the Indian context. Current Science, 88(4), 561–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, C. H. H., & Gulati, A. (2005). Indian agriculture: Emerging perspectives and policy issues. New Delhi: Academic Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, R. V., & Galab, S. (2006). Looking beyond the debt trap. Economic and Political Weekly, 41(19), 1838–1841.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reenberg, A., & Paarup Laursen, B. (1997). Determinants for land use strategies in a Sahelian agro-ecosystem: Anthropological and ecological geographical aspects of natural resource management. Agricultural Systems, 53(2–3), 209–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadok, W., Angevin, F., Bergez, J. E., Bockstaller, C., Colomb, B., Guichard, L., et al. (2008). Ex ante assessment of the sustainability of alternative cropping systems: Implications for using multi-criteria decision-aid methods. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 28, 163–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidhu, R. S., & Gill, S. S. (2006). Agricultural credit and Indebtedness in India: Some issues. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(1), 11–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, R. B. (2000). Environmental consequences of agricultural development: A case study from the Green Revolution state of Haryana, India. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 82, 97–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinu, P. A., Kent, S. M., & Chandrashekara, K. (2012). Forest resource use and perception of farmers on conservation of a usufruct forest (Soppinabetta) of Western Ghats, India. Land Use Policy, 29, 702–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suri, K. C. (2006). Political economy of agrarian distress. Economic and Political Weekly, 41(16), 1523–1529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirado, R., Gopikrishna, S. R., Krishnan, R., & Smith, P. (2010). Greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential from fertilizer manufacture and application in India. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 8(3), 176–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari, D. N., Loof, R., & Paudyal, G. N. (1999). Environmental-economic decision-making in lowland irrigated agriculture using multi-criteria analysis techniques. Agricultural Systems, 60, 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Calker, K. J., Berentsen, P. B. M., Giesen, G. W. J., & Huirne, R. B. M. (2005). Identifying and ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming. Agriculture and Human Values, 22, 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasavi, A. R. (1999). Agrarian distress in Bidar. Market, state and suicides. Economic and Political Weekly, 34(32), 2263–2268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verma, B. N., & Bromley, D. W. (1987). The political economy of farm size in India. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 35(4), 791–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viswanathan, P. K., Thapa, G. B., Routray, J. K., & Ahmad, M. M. (2012). Agrarian transition and emerging challenges in Asian agriculture: A critical assessment. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(4), 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zander, P., & Kachele, H. (1999). Modelling multiple objectives of land use for sustainable development. Agricultural Systems, 59(3), 311–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zendehdel, K., de Keyser, W., & van Huylenbroek, G. (2008). A deliberative multi-criteria approach to environmental valuation. In C. Zografos & R. B. Howarth (Eds.), Deliberative ecological economics. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of EU FP6 project “Land use policies and sustainable development in developing countries (LUPIS)”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Royal Enclave, Srirampura, Jakkur Post, Bangalore, 560064, India

    Seema Purushothaman, Sheetal Patil & Ierene Francis

Authors
  1. Seema Purushothaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sheetal Patil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ierene Francis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seema Purushothaman.

Additional information

Readers should send their comments on this paper to BhaskarNath@aol.com within 3 months of publication of this issue.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 5

Table 5 Mean values of key variables in WP and BAU for 2009
Full size table

Appendix 2

See Table 6

Table 6 Scenario assumptions for projecting indicator variables to 2015
Full size table

Appendix 3

See Table 7

Table 7 Regression equations determining indicator values for 2009
Full size table

Appendix 4

See Table 8

Table 8 Projected mean values of indicators (in 2015)
Full size table

Appendix 5

See Table 9

Table 9 Difference in CDP values between WP and BAU
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Purushothaman, S., Patil, S. & Francis, I. Impact of policies favouring organic inputs on small farms in Karnataka, India: a multicriteria approach. Environ Dev Sustain 14, 507–527 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9340-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9340-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation