Content uploaded by Panneerselvam Peramaiyan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Panneerselvam Peramaiyan on Dec 12, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
[DEFF]
On:
1 December 2010
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 910491762]
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306915
Food Security of Small Holding Farmers: Comparing Organic and
Conventional Systems in India
P. Panneerselvama; John Erik Hermansena; Niels Halbergb
a Department of Agro Ecology and Environment, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Aarhus University,
Tjele, Denmark b International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems (ICROFS), Tjele,
Denmark
Online publication date: 01 December 2010
To cite this Article Panneerselvam, P. , Hermansen, John Erik and Halberg, Niels(2011) 'Food Security of Small Holding
Farmers: Comparing Organic and Conventional Systems in India', Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35: 1, 48 — 68
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10440046.2011.530506
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2011.530506
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:48–68, 2011
Copyright ©Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1044-0046 print/1540-7578 online
DOI: 10.1080/10440046.2011.530506
Food Security of Small Holding Farmers:
Comparing Organic and Conventional
Systems in India
P. PANNEERSELVAM1, JOHN ERIK HERMANSEN1,
and NIELS HALBERG2
1Department of Agro Ecology and Environment, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences,
Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark
2International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems (ICROFS),
Tjele, Denmark
This study compared farm production, crop yield, input cost, and
income in organic and conventional farming systems in three
states of India: Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu.
The results showed that organic farming reduced the input cost
without affecting the net margin in all three states. Total food pro-
duction was found to be comparable for the two systems in two
of three states. While yield of rice and wheat generally was lower
under the organic systems, yield from intercropping food crops was
generally higher. The number of agro-ecological methods and per-
centage of farms practicing different agro-ecological methods were
higher under organic systems than conventional systems. These
results suggest that organic farming has the potential to improve
food security of small farmers by reducing indebtedness due to the
lower cost of production without affecting total farm production
and farm income.
KEYWORDS food security, organic farming, conventional
farming, smallholding farmers, food security dimensions, India
Address correspondence to P. Panneerselvam, Department of Agro Ecology and
Environment, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Aarhus University, Blichers Alle, Postbox 50,
Tjele DK-8830, Denmark. E-mail: panneer.peramaiyan@agrsci.dk
48
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
Food Security of Organic and Conventional Farms in India 49
INTRODUCTION
Global food production has grown considerably in the past few decades.
The daily average calorie consumption of the world has likewise risen con-
siderably from 2550 kcal per person per day in 1981 to 2800 kcal per person
per day in 2003 (FAOSTAT, 2005). In simple terms, the existing global food
production would be sufficient to provide everyone with the minimum calo-
rie needs if the available food could be distributed according to need (Von
Braun et al., 2003). However, a recent report on food insecurity in the world
showed that there are still 848 million undernourished people in the world,
of whom 830 million live in developing countries and most of them in rural
areas (FAO, 2008). India is home to 231 million undernourished people (175
million concentrated in rural areas), which is more than the number of mal-
nourished in Sub-Saharan Africa (FAO, 2008). India, home to one sixth of
the world’s population, has achieved self-sufficiency in food grain produc-
tion because of the introduction of high-yielding crop varieties, the use of
chemical fertilizers and extension of irrigation facilities, which is commonly
referred to as the green revolution. Despite the green revolution, India has
not been able to achieve the next quantum leap in the production potential
of domestically important crops like rice, wheat and pulses for the past two
decades.
The green revolution has also been associated with environmental prob-
lems. Water logging, salinity, alkalinity, soil erosion, resurgence of pests,
loss of biodiversity and increased emissions of greenhouse gases due to the
indiscriminate use of nitrogenous fertilizers are some of the common con-
cerns in India’s so-called ‘rice and wheat bowls’ (Singh, 2000; Evans, 2009).
The success of the green revolution, which was based on large-scale culti-
vation of single, high-yielding and fertilizer-responsive semi-dwarf varieties,
has proved to be difficult to sustain ecologically and economically over
a long period of time and has consequently led to widespread indebted-
ness among the small and marginal farmers of India (GTZ Sustainet, 2006).
Further, the benefits of the green revolution have been unequally distributed
with large farms reaping the major benefits and leaving the majority of small
and marginal rain fed farm holdings untouched (Evans, 2009). Therefore,
the small and marginal farmers, who were left out of the green revolution
process, are highly vulnerable and as a result food insecure in India as in
the other developing countries. Therefore, to make any suitable progress in
addressing the issue of food insecurity, it is necessary to concentrate on how
small and marginal farmers can improve their situation.
In India the number of food-insecure people remains high, not only
because of insufficient food production, but also due to lack of access to
food. Under such a scenario the provision of better access to food is a vital
component of any strategy devised to address food insecurity. It has been
suggested that organic agriculture improves local food security by producing
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
50 P. Panneerselvam et al.
diverse products at a low input cost compared with conventional farming
(IFAD, 2007). The recent UNEP-UNCTAD (2008) report also recommends
organic agriculture as a means of ensuring food security in Africa. In India
organic agriculture has already taken off with a large number of NGOs and
private companies promoting it to improve income and livelihood security
among small and marginal farmers in India. As a result, a large number of
farmers are already adopting organic practices in India and a recent report
suggests that some 45,000 farms in India practice organic agriculture (Willer
et al., 2008). The area under organic farming increased to 1 million ha in
2007 (APEDA, 2008).
According to the World Food Summit (1996), food security has four
dimensions: food availability, food accessibility, food utilization and food
stability. Organic agriculture is a holistic production system based on active
agro-ecosystem management rather than external inputs (UNEP-UNCTAD,
2008) and is suggested to have a positive influence on all the four dimen-
sions of food security (Scialabba, 2007). However, there is very little
information available in the public domain on organic agriculture in relation
to food security of smallholder farms in India. Therefore, the present study
was conducted to investigate the potential of organic farming to improve the
food security of small farms in three states of India—Madhya Pradesh, Tamil
Nadu, and Uttarakand. The central research questions on which the study
focused were:
1. To what extent can organic agriculture contribute to food production on
smallholder farms in India?
2. To what extent can organic agriculture improve food security for small
farming households in India?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Design of the Investigation and Study Area
The research was designed as a study covering three states of India—Madhya
Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand—and a total of 240 farms. Eighty
farms (40 organic and 40 conventional) were sampled from each of the
three states for data collection (Figure 1) during 2008. The approach was
to investigate the farms that had converted from conventional to organic
farming and those still practicing conventional farming, thus allowing a
comparison of two farming methods based on a few established scientific
parameters.
In Uttarakhand, organic and conventional farmers were selected from
four districts—Dehradun, Tehri garwal, Uttarkashi, and Rudraprayag—which
are classified under the agro-ecological region/subregion-14.4/A3 (B/A) 9
Kumaun Himalayas as warm per humid to per humid ecosystems with red
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
Food Security of Organic and Conventional Farms in India 51
FIGURE 1 Location of the surveyed states in India.
and yellow soils and a growing period of 270 to 300 days, low available
water-holding capacity with an annual rainfall of 2000 to 2500 mm and mean
temperatures of 15 to 20 ◦C (Velayutham et al., 1999). Uttarakhand was cho-
sen for the study because it is a pioneering state in organic agriculture in
India. It is the first state to be declared as organic and is moving systemat-
ically towards organic farming development with full government support.
Data were collected from Uttarakhand state with the help of Navdanya, an
NGO working with small and marginal farmers to improve the livelihood of
farmers through bio-diverse organic farming.
In Madhya Pradesh, organic and conventional farmers were selected
from three districts—Barwani, Khargaon and Khandwa—which are classi-
fied under the agro-ecological region/subregion-5.2/I5Dm4 as hot semiarid
ecosystems with deep black soils (shallow and medium black soils as inclu-
sions) and a growing period of 120 to 150 days with medium to high
water-holding capacity. The average annual rainfall is 800 to 1000 mm with a
mean temperature of 24 to 25 ◦C (Velayutham et al., 1999). Madhya Pradesh,
which lies in the central part of India, was selected because of a larger
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
52 P. Panneerselvam et al.
number of poor people living in this state. Data were collected from this
state with the help of bioRe India, which promotes organic cultivation of
cotton in a sustainable crop rotation with wheat, soybean, maize, pigeon
pea and peanut.
In Tamil Nadu, organic and conventional farms were selected from four
districts—Kanchipuram, Tiruvannamalai, Nagappattinam and Dindugal—
which are classified under the agro-ecological region/subregionof8.3/
H1Dm4 eastern ghat as a hot semi-arid ecosystem with red loamy soils and
a growing period of 120 to 150 days with low available water-holding capac-
ity. The average annual rainfall is 550 to 1000 mm with a mean temperature
of 23 to 25 ◦C (Velayutham et al., 1999). Tamil Nadu, the southernmost state
of India, was selected because it is one of the agriculturally most productive
states in the country. Data collection in Tamil Nadu was carried out with
help of an NGO called CIKS (Centre for Indian Knowledge System), which
promotes organic farming to improve the livelihood security of small and
marginal farmers all over Tamil Nadu. Major crops in this region are rice,
maize and peanut.
Data Collection
A representative sample of organic and conventional farms was selected
from each of comparable villages in terms of farm resources, area, and
crop types. The farmers were questioned using a semi-structured question-
naire designed for the purpose. Pre-testing of the questionnaire was done in
December 2007 by the first author in all three states. Questions were asked
about general household information, farm activities, farm production, and
farm income. Direct questions such as food consumption and hunger status
of the household in the last 12 months (Nord et al., 2002) were also asked to
assess the food security status of small farms. Many farmers responded that
these questions were very difficult to answer and some even felt that these
hunger-related questions were not directly relevant to them. Therefore, the
direct questions that were not relevant were omitted and the final question-
naire was set up with questions mainly focusing on household information,
farm production and income. The information thus generated was then used
to assess the status of food security of small farms in all the three states
studied. Three people in total, one from each state, were trained in using
the questionnaire by the first author by interviewing a few farmers in each
state. The questionnaire was prepared in a Hindi version for data collection
in Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand, whereas the original version of the
questionnaire in English was used for Tamil Nadu. Data were collected by
these three trained people. The data was further screened to avoid inad-
vertent inclusion of incomplete data or the data from large farms in the
study. After preliminary screening, the data were used for further statistical
analysis.
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
Food Security of Organic and Conventional Farms in India 53
Statistical Methods
The data collected from the three states was finally analyzed by the GLM
procedure using SAS software. The dependent variables were input cost,
farm production, yield and income, and independent variables were system
and state. The basic model used was:
Yij =μ+αj+εij
Where:
Yij =observation of farm i within system j
i=farms (i =1, 40)
j=system (organic and conventional)
μ=intercept
In most cases analyses were performed by state. In some cases analyses
were performed across states, thus including state and state x system inter-
action terms in the model. Also, when analyzing farm yield, the cultivated
land (ha) was included in the model as a covariate
Framework for Interpretation of Indicators in Relation to Food
Security
Four dimensions of food security were assessed as detailed below:
The food availability dimension of food security was assessed based on
indicators such as farm food production in a year from yield of different
crops grown as main crop and intercrops, yield of rice, wheat and peanut,
and intercrop yield.
The food access dimension was assessed based on the input cost, the
gross margin and net margin from the farm and also from various main
crops such as rice, peanut, and cotton. The input cost in this study included
only the money spent by the farmers on buying seeds, fertilizers, pesticides
and other organic inputs. Input costs did not include the labor costs, since
small farms used family labor for all the farming activities. We also tried to
study labor involvement in farming activity on an individual farm basis, but
were not able to do so due to the use of family labor and also the highly
irregular nature of their employment (varied between 2 and 9 hours per day
according to need).
The food utilization dimension of food security was addressed based
on the yield from diverse intercrops and the amount of farm produce kept
for home consumption from intercrops in Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand.
However, in Tamil Nadu intercrop yield could not be assessed since most of
the farms studied were cultivating rice without any intercrop.
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
54 P. Panneerselvam et al.
The food stability dimension of food security was addressed based on
the average number of agro-ecological methods practiced under organic
and conventional systems. Further, the percentage of each agro-ecological
method used for improving soil fertility and controlling pests and diseases
was calculated to assess the food stability of food security.
RESULTS
Overall Farming Practices
In two out of three states (Uttarakhand and Tamil Nadu) there was no
significant difference in livestock numbers between organic and conven-
tional farms, whereas in Madhya Pradesh, the organic farms had significantly
more livestock than conventional farms. The cultivated area was significantly
higher under the organic system than the conventional system in Madhya
Pradesh, whereas no such difference could be found in the other two states
(Table 1). The proportion of area under rain-fed conditions was highest in
Uttarakhand and lowest in Tamil Nadu. There was no difference in area
between rain-fed and irrigated systems within states.
In Uttarakhand the interviewed farmers had an average landholding
of 0.40 ha under the conventional system and 0.56 ha under the organic
system. Eighty-five percent of the organic farms were non-certified, having
been organic for six years. The major crops grown were rice, maize, millet
and pulses from June to October, and wheat, oats, mustard and potatoes
from November to April. Most of the farms grew diverse crops using locally
available resources and preserved some of the harvest for seed purposes
for the next crop season. Conventional farmers used synthetic chemicals in
the form of fertilizers, pesticides, etc., for soil nutrient management and pest
and disease management. Organic farmers used compost, farmyard manure,
green manure and crop rotation for soil nutrient management, and natural
pesticides along with physical traps, crop rotation, etc., for managing pests
and diseases.
In Madhya Pradesh the interviewed farmers had an average landholding
of 1.2 ha under the conventional system and 1.5 ha under the organic sys-
tem. All organic farmers were certified, having been organic for 3 to 5 years.
Cotton was sown in May-June and most of the cotton intercropped with soy-
bean, pigeon pea, and urad bean. Wheat was sown in November-December
and harvested in March-April. Conventional farmers used fertilizers and
manures for soil nutrient management, and pesticides for managing pests
and diseases. Organic farmers used biodynamic inputs such as DOC (castor
de-oiled cake), BD500 (cow horn manure) and CPP (cow pat pit manure)
besides farmyard manure, compost and neem cake for soil fertility man-
agement. Organic farmers used bio-pesticides such as beevicides, neemzal
and veralac for managing pests and diseases in cotton and other crops.
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
TABLE 1 Livestock, Cultivated Area, Production1and Income1from Conventional and Organic Systems in Three States of India
State Uttarakhand Madhya Pradesh Tamil Nadu
Systems ConaOrgbpvalue Con Org pvalue Con Org pvalue
Number of farms 28 34 37 35 37 38
Livestock keeping, numbers
per farm
Cow 1.43 2.05 NS 1.02 1.45 NS 1.95 2.89 ∗
Buffalo 0.76 0.62 NS 0.65 0.87 NS 0.32 0.10 NS
Oxen 0.60 0.42 NS 1.42 2.05 NS 0.42 0.51 NS
Goat 0.33 0.45 NS 0.9 1.45 NS 0.35 0.10 NS
Sheep, 0.16 0.27 NS 0.1 0.1 NS 0.07 0.10 NS
Total livestock number 3.30 3.82 NS 4.1 5.92 ∗3.12 3.72 NS
Crop production
Cultivated area (ha) 0.40 0.56 NS 1.2 1.5 ∗1.0 1.0 NS
Irrigated area 0.18 0.24 NS 0.81 0.90 NS 0.88 1.00 NS
Rain fed area 0.22 0.32 NS 0.40 0.60 NS 0.14 0.05 NS
Food crops2(kg/farm/yr) 1195 1225 NS 1768 966 ∗3023 2874 NS
Cereals 965 1080 NS 1625 822 ∗2387 2265 NS
Pulses 189 111 NS 18 42 NS 288 364 NS
Oilseeds 40 33 NS 124 101 NS 348 244 NS
Cash crops (kg/farm/yr)397 456 ∗1789 1110 ∗∗∗ –– –
Economic comparison (Indian
rupees/farm/yr)
Input cost for crops4775 0 ∗∗∗ 9824 2592 ∗∗∗ 4738 3946 NS
Gross margin from crops55620 5811 NS 42696 27948 ∗∗ 36200 37068 NS
Net margin from crops64845 5811 NS 33395 25295 NS 31462 33122 NS
1Least square means adjusted for differences in cultivated area.
2Food crops harvested, either kept for home consumption or sold.
3Cash crops comprised mostly vegetables in Uttarakhand and cotton in Madhya Pradesh.
4The cost spent for purchase of inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and manures.
5Calculated by multiplying total yield of food and cash crops with its market price.
6Calculted by subtracting input cost of crops from gross margin of crops.
aConventional farming system.
bOrganic farming system.
Level of statistical significance.
∗p<0.05, ∗∗p<0.01, and ∗∗∗p<0.001.
55
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
56 P. Panneerselvam et al.
Conventional farmers bought seed from the market and organic farmers
bought seed from bioRe India, Ltd.
In Tamil Nadu the interviewed farmers had an average landholding of 1
ha in both systems and all organic farmers were non-certified. Most of them
had been under conversion for 2 to 3 years. Rice was the major crop sown
in July–August and harvested in November–January. Pulses and peanut were
grown from January to April. Similar to the other two states studied here,
conventional farmers also used fertilizers and manures for soil nutrient man-
agement and pesticides for managing pests and diseases. Organic farmers
used inputs such as farmyard manure, vermicompost, biofertilizers, green
manure and neem cake for soil fertility management. Organic farmers used
bio-pesticides like amirtha karaisal, five-leaf extract, pheromone traps and
panchakaviyam for controlling pests and diseases in rice and other crops.
Farm Input-Output
In terms of total food produced from the farm within a year, no signifi-
cant differences could be found between conventional and organic farms
in Uttarakhand and Tamil Nadu (Table 1). However, the conventional sys-
tem produced significantly higher yields of food crops in Madhya Pradesh.
In contrast, in Uttarakhand organic farms produced significantly more cash
crops (vegetables) compared to conventional farms. Input expenditure per
farm per year was found to be significantly lower under the organic farming
system in two of the three states. In Uttarakhand, organic farmers were able
to totally avoid any input costs by using locally available resources and using
the saved seeds for subsequent sowing. However, conventional farms had a
significantly higher gross margin in Madhya Pradesh, where the net margin
was on par with the organic system due to a lower input cost for organic
farms. Gross margin and net margin from organic systems were on par with
the conventional systems in Uttarakhand and Tamil Nadu regions.
Major Crops
Rice is a major crop in Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand, while wheat is an
important crop in Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The yields of these
crops are presented in Table 2. Rice yield was significantly higher in conven-
tional system compared to organic system in Tamil Nadu, whereas no such
difference could be found in Uttarakhand. Wheat yield was significantly
higher in conventional system both in Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh.
The average yield of wheat in the organic system was found to be only
58% and 60%, respectively, of total wheat yield from conventional farms in
Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh (Table 2).
In Tamil Nadu, it was possible to quantify the costs and revenue for
rice and peanut production (Table 3). Although it was under conversion, the
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
Food Security of Organic and Conventional Farms in India 57
TABLE 2 Yield of Rice and Wheat under Different State in
Organic and Conventional Systems in India
Conventional Organic pvalue
Rice yield (kg/ha)
Tamil Nadu 4270 (26) 3392 (24) ∗
Uttarakhand 2044 (15) 2510 (24) NS
Wheat yield (kg/ha)
Madhya Pradesh 2080 (24) 1250 (14) ∗
Uttarakhand 2840 (20) 1647 (30) ∗∗∗
Values in ( ) indicates number of farms with each crop out of total
farms in each state.
Level of statistical significance.
∗p<0.05, ∗∗p<0.01, and ∗∗∗p<0.001.
TABLE 3 Rice and Peanut Production from Organic and Conventional System (Tamil Nadu)
Crop Rice Peanut
Systems Conventional Organic pvalue Conventional Organic pvalue
Number of farms 26 24 12 13
Crop area(ha) 0.76 0.82 NS 0.7 0.6 NS
Yield (kg/ha) 4270 3392 ∗1432 1246 NS
Input cost (Indian
Rupees/ha)
3976 2682 ∗5496 3621 NS
Fertilizer nitrogen
(kg N/ha)
68 0 7 0
Organic nitrogen
(kg N/ha)
07 02
Price/unit (Indian
Rupees/kg)
7.31 7.68 NS 24 24 NS
Gross margin (Indian
Rupees/ha)
29886 24517 ∗34723 30862 NS
Net margin (Indian
Rupees/ha)
25900 21835 NS 29228 27241 NS
Level of statistical significance ∗p<0.5, ∗∗p<0.01, and ∗∗∗ p<0.001.
organic system could produce 80% of the rice yield realized on conventional
farms. The cost of producing organic rice (2682 Rs/ha) was significantly
less than conventional rice (3976 Rs/ha). Hence, the net margin did not
differ significantly between organic and conventional rice, although the gross
margin was higher under the conventional system. Yield and income from
peanut in the organic system was comparable with the conventional system,
despite it being under conversion (Table 3). Conventional farmers applied
68 kg N/ha in chemical fertilizers and organic farmers applied 7 kg N/ha in
compost and neemcake in rice. Peanut is a leguminous crop and therefore
received negligible amounts of nitrogen in both systems.
In Madhya Pradesh, the major cash crop was cotton. The cotton yield
was comparable between systems both in irrigated and rain-fed conditions
(Table 4). The cost of conventional cotton seed was found to be higher
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
58 P. Panneerselvam et al.
TABLE 4 Production Comparison from Cotton under Organic and Conventional System
(Madhya Pradesh)
Cotton under irrigated condition Cotton under rain fed condition
Systems Conventional Organic pvalues Conventional Organic pvalues
Number of farms 25 20 8 14
Crop area (ha) 1.2 1.1 NS 1.2 1.0 NS
Yield (kg/ha) 1694 1322 NS 1187 1044 NS
Input cost (Indian
Rupees/ha)
6127 2237 ∗∗∗ 6525 3423 ∗∗
Cost of seed (Indian
Rupees/ha)
852 480 ∗990 892 NS
Fertilizer nitrogen
(kg N/ha)
137 0 143 0
Organic nitrogen
(kg N/ha)
0 7.5 0 13
Price/unit (Indian
Rupees/kg)
21 21 NS 21 21 NS
Gross margin (Indian
Rupees /ha)
35100 28843 NS 25425 22965 NS
Net margin (Indian
Rupees /ha)
28974 26605 NS 18900 19541 NS
Net margin with
premium1(Indian
Rupees/ha)
28974 31927 NS 18900 24134 NS
120 percent of the gross margin was included as premium.
Level of statistical significance ∗p<0.5, ∗∗p<0.01, and ∗∗∗ p<0.001.
than the organic cotton seed under irrigated conditions. In general, organic
cotton had significantly lower production costs than conventional cotton
under both irrigated and rain-fed conditions. Conventional farmers applied
around 140 kg N/ha in chemical fertilizers, whereas organic farmers applied
around 10 kg N in organic fertilizers. The price of cotton output per kg was
the same for organic and conventional cotton for both irrigated and rain-fed
conditions. The gross margin and net margin (without premium) did not
differ significantly between irrigated and rain fed conditions. At the end of
the season, organic farmers received 20% of their gross margin as premium.
As a result, the organic farmers had a higher net margin (premium added)
under both irrigated and rain-fed condition, although it was non- significant
between systems. Moreover, the organic farmers incurred almost no debts
due to a low expenditure on inputs.
Intercrops
Yield of food crops grown as intercrops in Uttarakhand showed a significant
difference with a higher yield from organic systems than conventional ones
(Table 5). The yield of intercrops kept for home consumption showed a sig-
nificant difference with organic farms keeping a significantly larger amount
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
Food Security of Organic and Conventional Farms in India 59
TABLE 5 Intercrop Yield and Kept for Home Consumption in Organic and Conventional
Systems (kg per farm)
Yield from intercrop Kept for home consumption
Conventional Organic pvalues Conventional Organic pvalue
Uttarakhand
Food crops 189 355 ∗112 261 ∗∗
Cereals 106 225 NS 72 176 ∗
Pulses 58 96 NS 27 55 NS
Oilseeds 24 33 NS 13 30 ∗
Others 15 47 NS 5 26 ∗
Madhya Pradesh
Food crops 105 212 NS 80 175 NS
Cereals 65 166 NS 65 147 NS
Pulses 16 25 NS 9 22 NS
Oilseeds 24 20 NS 5 6 NS
Level of statistical significance ∗p<0.5, ∗∗p<0.01, and ∗∗∗ p<0.001.
of crop produce than conventional farms in Uttarakhand, whereas the yield
of intercrops and the produce kept from intercrops for home consumption
were found not to differ between systems in Madhya Pradesh.
Agro-Ecological Methods
Organic and conventional farms from all the three regions practiced some
kind of agro-ecological methods to maintain soil fertility and ecosystems.
However, more agro-ecological methods were practiced under organic sys-
tem than conventional systems (Table 6). There was a larger difference
between systems in the number of agro-ecological methods practiced in
Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh.
The percentage of farms practicing each agro-ecological method was
higher under organic systems than conventional systems in all three regions
(Table 6). The major agro-ecological methods such as application of farm-
yard manure or compost, green manure, crop residue return, crop rotation
and mulching were used for soil fertility management in organic systems,
whereas crop rotation and application of farmyard manure or compost were
in general used under conventional systems in all three states.
The percentage of farms practicing agro-ecological methods to man-
age pests and diseases was higher in organic systems. For managing
pests and diseases, organic farms applied natural pesticides and practiced
intercropping in Uttarakhand, whereas intercropping, natural pesticides,
trap cropping and physical traps were used in Madhya Pradesh. Natural
pesticides, physical traps, pheromone traps, intercropping and trap crop-
ping were the major agro-ecological methods used in organic systems in
Tamil Nadu.
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
TABLE 6 Agro-Ecological Methods Practiced Under Organic and Conventional Systems in Three States of India
States Uttarakhand Madhya Pradesh Tamil Nadu
Systems Conventional Organic Conventional Organic Conventional Organic
Average number of methods practised 3.0 4.4 1.3 4.8 1.0 6.4
Soil fertility improvements∗
Mulching 0 22 0 3 0 20
Compost or farm yard manure 42 86 8 30 43 90
Green manure 14 36 0 13 13 60
Crop residue return 8 38 0 58 0 15
Crop rotation 28 48 90 60 35 63
Contour cropping 10 12 0 0 0 0
Pest and disease management∗
Trapcrop 0 0 3651035
Intercrops 30 48 25 88 13 60
Natural pesticides 8 64 8 65 0 87
Physical trap 0 0 0 60 0 77
Pheromone trap 0 0 0 3 0 65
Hedge rows 4 6 0 0 0 0
∗Values are expressed in percentage of farms practiced each agro-ecological methods for soil fertility and pest and disease management.
60
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
Food Security of Organic and Conventional Farms in India 61
DISCUSSION
The results discussed here are how organic agriculture can contribute to
food production and food security on smallholdings in three Indian states.
“Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and eco-
nomic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary
needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (World Food
Summit, 1996).The food security at farm household level is a matter of indi-
vidual households being able to meet their daily food needs from their own
production, or the means to obtain food from off-farm sources (FAO, 1997).
The commonly used indicators for measuring food security are undernour-
ishment, food intake, nutritional status and financial status (Migotto et al.,
2005). Other indicators include food consumption and hunger status of the
household in the last 30 days or 12 months (Nord et al., 2002). However,
the indicators such as land availability, soil quality, crop diversity, crop
productivity and food availability can also be used to address food security
of smallholdings (Ediriweera et al., 2007).
Household food security occurs when a sufficient quantity of food is
available for a family, either supplied through household production (food
availability), or because the family has adequate resources to buy food
(food access), and when available and accessible food is properly used
for a balanced diet for all household members (food utilization) and when
households have access to adequate food at all times (food stability).
Food Availability
Conventional indicators measuring the output of one single product per
unit area fail to assess the whole range of different products harvested in
complex farming systems (Shiva, 1995). Therefore, we have estimated the
yield of all crops grown as main crops and intercrops in a year under organic
and conventional systems. The results showed that total yield of all crops
in organic system was comparable with conventional system in Uttarakhand
and Tamil Nadu, while total yield was higher under the conventional system
than organic system in Madhya Pradesh
The Uttarakhand state is a low-input area. The organic system used
locally available resources and traditional rice varieties, which resulted in
23% higher rice yield compared to the conventional system. However, total
food production under the organic system was comparable with the con-
ventional system. The reason the organic system was not better in terms of
total food production was due to a lower wheat yield in the organic sys-
tem compared to the conventional system. The lower wheat yield in the
organic system could be due to the varieties and hybrids used, which were
responsive to fertilizers and pesticides.
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
62 P. Panneerselvam et al.
These results show that small farms have the potential to improve
the food availability of the household through increased total farm pro-
duction, in accordance with the findings that small farmers increased total
farm production under organic farming in Africa (Gibbon and Bolwig, 2007;
UNEP-UNCTAD, 2008). Pretty et al. (2003) analyzed 208 projects from 52
developing countries and found low cost, locally available and environ-
mentally practices improved household food production. The results also
corroborate that conversion to organic practices of low-input, traditional
farming systems often results in increased yield (Halberg et al., 2006).
There is a myth that the conversion of a high-input region will have a
severe, negative impact on yield. The yield of food crops and peanut under
the organic system was comparable with the conventional system in Tamil
Nadu, which is considered a high-input area in India, although on a per
hectare basis the organic system produced 80% of the conventional system
for rice and 87% for peanut. The reason for the comparable yield for rice and
peanut in the organic system even at conversion period is probably due to
the use of traditional rice varieties instead of hybrids, to the use of farmyard
manure, compost, green manure and various plant and animal products
to control pest and diseases. This implies that even in high-input areas,
organic farming has the ability to produce comparable yields and income
with appropriate inputs of knowledge and organic inputs. A study from
Bangladesh showed that the yield for organic rice was 99% of conventional
rice for a local variety and 94% for a high-yielding variety (Rasul and Thapa,
2003). Other studies showed that conversion of high-input areas resulted in
a 20% to 40% decline in yield (Halberg et al., 2006) over a short period of
time (IFAD, 2007; Padel and Lampkin, 1994).
The highest yield of food and cash crops under the conventional system
was from Madhya Pradesh. The reason could be that organic farms from this
region were not input intensive, which resulted in a lower total farm food
production. We could see that organic farms spent less than one third of the
input cost of conventional systems through biodynamic inputs purchased
from bioRe India. Wheat as an input-intensive crop showed no promise
for conversion to organic farming in Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand, as
the yield under organic agriculture was only 60% of the conventional yield.
This yield reduction could be because high-yielding Indian wheat cultivars
have been bred specially for high-input management conditions. The use
of traditional varieties of wheat and a higher organic input may be a way
of increasing wheat yield. In Europe, the relative yield of wheat is often
lower (50% to 60% of conventional) compared with other crops (Halberg
and Kristensen, 1997; Sanders, 2007).
Smallholders generally grow intercrops to get additional yield for home
consumption and sell surplus produce to the market to get additional
income. So we assessed the yield of various intercrops grown on a farm.
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
Food Security of Organic and Conventional Farms in India 63
The yield of various intercrops from Uttarakhand state showed that organic
farms produced more from intercrops and kept more for home consumption
than conventional farms. The same trend was observed in Madhya Pradesh.
Organic farmers grew intercrops such as soybean, red gram, maize, sorghum
and green gram in between cotton rows in Madhya Pradesh. Conventional
farms also had intercrops, but they tended to sell more in order to meet the
higher costs of a higher input use or debt.
Food Access
Access to food involves entitlements to produce and acquire food. Increasing
the income of farmers by reducing input costs or increasing the price of the
produce will improve food access. Small farmers are generally resource-
poor and use family labor to carry out various cultivation practices in
these regions. They also lack access to credit from the public sector and
often borrow from moneylenders at substantially higher rates of interest.
Moreover, expensive fertilizers and chemicals have led some farmers into a
vicious cycle of dept and many farmers who are unable to repay these loans
commit suicide (Nagarajan, 2006). Therefore, for small farmers it is just as
important to minimize input costs as it is to maximize the income.
The estimated total farm input cost in the organic system was less than
in the conventional in all three states. Besides, the results showed that
organic farmers spent less than conventional farmers on the input cost of
the various main crops. This would significantly enhance the ability of the
organic farmers to recover from the economic hardships caused by crop
failures due to droughts, floods and other natural calamities.
Increasing the income of farmers is another means of improving food
access. The results of farm net margin were found to be non-significant
between the systems in all three states. Although the farm gross margin was
higher under the conventional system in Madhya Pradesh, the net margin
turned out to be similar in the two systems due to a significant reduction of
the input cost under the organic system.
Organic farming produced comparable net margins for rice, peanut and
cotton. However, the income from wheat under organic farming was found
to be lower due to a low yield. Food security of small farmers was not
improved by means of food purchase, but in reality, organic farming helps
to reduce debts through lowering input costs. The study by Carpenter (2003)
found that rice net economic yields improved by 48% after conversion,
mainly because of savings on fertilizers, which translated into improved food
security and reduced debts. Several case studies and surveys have shown
that small farms increased their income with price premium after the con-
version period (Scialabba and Hattam, 2002; Onduru et al., 2002; Mendoza,
2004; Eyhorn et al., 2007; Parrot et al., 2006).
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
64 P. Panneerselvam et al.
Food Utilization
This dimension was not really tested directly, but is addressed here as
improved nutritional efficiency by producing diverse food at farm level.
Organic farmers grew a variety of crops as intercrops and retained a signifi-
cant amount of the harvest for home consumption. Organic farmers probably
consume a more balanced and diverse diet compared to conventional farm-
ers (Rasul and Thapa, 2004; Parrott and Marsden, 2002; Walaga and Hauser,
2005). A number of studies show that organic farming promotes crop and
other enterprise diversification, which increases the availability of diversi-
fied food at household level (Lyngbæk et al., 2001; Scialabba and Hattam,
2002; Kilcher, 2006; Parrot et al., 2006; Lopez et al., 2008; Shekinah et al.,
2005). Results from Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh showed that organic
farmers grew a variety of crops as intercrops and produced more for home
consumption.
Food Stability
Food stability simply refers to the stability of all the three other dimen-
sions of food security over a period of time and not affected negatively by
natural, social, economic or political factors. This dimension addressed here
is the natural stability of the farm. Organic and conventional farms from all
the three regions practiced some kind of agro-ecological methods to main-
tain soil fertility and ecosystems. However, the number of agro-ecological
methods and percentage of each agro-ecological method practiced were
higher in the organic system than in the conventional system and proba-
bly led to an improvement in the natural stability of the farm. The use of
different agro-ecological methods improves soil fertility and resists pest and
disease attack (UNEP-UNCTAD., 2008; Scialabba and Hattam, 2002; Parrot
et al., 2006; Hartmann et al., 2007; Cobb et al., 1999; Schlecht et al., 2006).
However, more research is needed on the actual effect of agro-ecological
methods on the stability dimension.
CONCLUSION
The possible effect of organic agriculture on the food security dimension of
smallholders is summarized in Table 7 based on the results obtained from
three states.
Based on these results it is concluded that organic farming in most cases
is comparable to conventional farming in terms of yield in Uttarakhand
and Tamil Nadu. However, the yield was lower under organic farming in
Madhya Pradesh where farms focused on cash crop production (cotton).
Intercropping in organic systems helped farmers to increase food availability
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
Food Security of Organic and Conventional Farms in India 65
TABLE 7 Possible Effect of Organic Agriculture for Improving Food Security of Smallholders
in Three States of India
Food security
dimension Uttarakhand Madhya Pradesh Tamil Nadu
Food availability Total farm production
and yield of rice
were comparable
between systems
Total farm production,
yield of major crops
was lower under
organic system
compared to
conventional system
Farm food
production and
yield of peanut
comparable
More food produced
through
intercropping in
organic system
Yield of rice was
lower in organic
system
Food access Lower input cost.
Comparable net
margin
Lower input cost
Comparable net
margin
Lower cost for rice
production
Comparable net
margin
Food utilization Diverse food from
different intercrops
Diversified by
intercropping in
cotton
Food stability Diversity in crops
and more
agro-ecological
methods improve
soil fertility
(resilience to
climatic shocks)
Diversity in crops
and more
agro-ecological
methods improve
soil fertility and
ecosystems
More agro-ecological
methods improve
soil fertility and
resilience to
climatic shocks.
for home consumption in Uttarakhand state. Organic farmers from all three
states spent less on inputs without affecting net margin. This probably
reduces the risk of debt and would make organic farmers better able to with-
stand times of climatic and economic shocks, which are frequently encoun-
tered in India and also one of the main reasons for food insecurity in India.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank ICROFS for the funding this research through the GlobalOrg
project. Thanks in particular to the staff of Navdanya, CIKS and bioRe India
for their valuable contribution to this work.
REFERENCES
APEDA.2008. Current status of organic agriculture. Agricultural and Processed
food products Export Development Authority (APEDA). Available at
http://www.organic-world.net/35.html?&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=22
Accessed 2 Feb 2009.
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
66 P. Panneerselvam et al.
Carpenter, D. 2003. An investigation into the transition from technological to eco-
logical rice farming among resource poor farmers from the Philippine island of
Bohol. Agriculture and Human Values 20: 165–176.
Cobb, D., R. Feber, A. Hopkins, L. Stockdale, T.O. Riordan, B. Clements, L. Firbank,
K. Goulding, S. Jarvis, and D. MacDonald. 1999. Integrating the environmen-
tal and economic consequences of converting to organic agriculture: evidence
from a case study. Land Use Policy 16: 201–221.
Ediriweera, E.S., G. Lieblein, J.M.R.S. Bandara, and C. Francis. 2007. Organic
and conventional farming systems contribution to household food security in
Sri Lanka. In: Papers Submitted to the International Conference on Organic
Agriculture and Food Security, FAO, Rome, Italy, 3–5 May 2007. pp 119–120.
Evans, A. 2009. The feeding of the nine billion global food security for the 21st cen-
tury. Available at http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-
/id/694/ Accessed Jan 24, 2009.
Eyhorn, F., M. Ramakrishnan, and P. Mäder. 2007. The viability of cotton-
based organic farming systems in India. International Journal of Agricultural
Sustainability 5: 25–38.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 1997. Implications of Economic policy
for Food Security. Training Material for Agricultural Planning, 40, Rome.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2008. The state of food insecurity in
the world, Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0291e/i0291e00.htm
Accessed 15 Jan 2009.
FAOSTAT. 2005. FAO Statistical Database. Food and Agricultural Organization of the
United Nations. http://faostat.fao.org Accessed 15 Jan 2009.
Gibbon, P. and S. Bolwig. 2007. The economics of certified organic farming in
tropical Africa: A preliminary analysis. SIDA DIIS working Paper no 2007/3,
Subseries on Standards and Agro-Food-Exports (SAFE) No.7.
GTZ Sustainet. 2006. Sustainable agriculture: A pathway out of poverty for India’s
rural poor. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit, Eschborn.
Halberg, N. and I.S. Kristensen. 1997. Expected crop yield loss when converting to
organic dairy farming in Denmark. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 14:
25–41.
Halberg, N., P. Rosegrant, T. Sulser, M.T. Knudsen, and H. Høgh-Jensen. 2006.
The impact of organic farming on food security in a regional and global per-
spective. In: Halberg N., Knudsen, M. T., Alrøe, H.F., and Kristensen, E. S.,
(eds.), Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Prospects.
Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, pp. 277–322. Available at http://ecowiki.org/
GlobalPerspective/ReportOutline.
Hartmann, I., H. Araya, and S. Edwards. 2007. Food Security, Livelihoods and
Options for Organic Agriculture in Ethiopia. In: Papers Submitted to the
International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security, FAO,
Rome, Italy, 3–5 May 2007, pp. 34–36.
IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). 2007. Organic agriculture
and poverty reduction in Asia (2005): China and India Focus. Available at
http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/public%5Fhtml/eksyst/doc/thematic/organic/.
Kilcher, L. 2006. The contribution of organic farming to sustainable development. In:
Willer, H., Yussefi, M., (Eds.), The World of Organic Agriculture 2006 - Statistics
and Emerging Trends. (IFOAM) 91–95. Germany.
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
Food Security of Organic and Conventional Farms in India 67
Lopez, M. V., T. C. Mendoza, and E. R. Genio, 2008. Sustainable Agriculture in the
Philippines. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 31(3): 111–131
Lyngbæk, A. E., R.G. Muschler, and F.L. Sinclair, 2001. Productivity and prof-
itability of multistrata organic versus conventional coffee farms in Costa Rica.
Agroforesty Systems 53: 205–213.
Mendoza, T. C. 2004. Evaluating the benefits of organic farming in rice agro
ecosystems in the Philippines. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 24(2): 93–115.
Migotto, M., B. Davis, G. Carletto, and K. Beegle. 2005. Measuring Food Security
Using Respondents’ Perception of Food Consumption Adequacy. ESA Working
Paper No. 05–10, Agricultural and Development Economics Division, FAO.
Nagarajan, S. 2006. Crisis in arable crop farming-the issues of new seed and sluggish
production levels. In: Paper presented in International Conference on Social
Science perspectives in Agricultural Research and Development. Feb 15–18,
2006. Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India.
Nord, M., A.K. Satpathy, N. Raj, P. Webb, and R. Houser. 2002. Comparing
Household Survey-Based Measures of Food Insecurity Across Countries: Case
Studies in India, Uganda and Bangladesh. Discussion Paper No 7, Friedman
School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University.
Onduru, D. D., J.M. Diop, E. Van der Werf, and A. De Jager. 2002. Participatory
on-farm comparative assessment of organic and conventional farmers’ practices
in Kenya. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 19: 295–314.
Padel, S. and N.H. Lampkin. 1994. Farm-level Performance of Organic Farming
Systems: An Overview. In: Lamkin, N.H., Padel,S., (Eds.), The Economics
of Organic Farming: An International Perspective. CAB International.
Wellingford, UK.
Parrott, N. and Marsden, T. 2002. The real Green Revolution—Organic and agro
ecological farming in the South. Greenpeace, London.
Parrott, N., J.E. Olesen, and H. Høgh-Jensen, 2006. Certified and non-certified
organic farming in the Developing World. In: Halberg, N., Knudsen, M. T.,
Alrøe, H. F., Kristensen, E. S., (Eds.), Global Development of Organic
Agriculture: Challenges and Prospects. CABI publishing, Chapter6, 153–176.
Available on-line at http://ecowiki.org/GlobalPerspective/ReportOutline.
Pretty, J.N., J.I.L. Morison, and R.E. Hine, 2003. Reducing food poverty by increasing
agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 95: 217–234.
Rasul, G. and G.B. Thapa, 2003. Sustainability Analysis of Ecological and
Conventional Agricultural Systems in Bangladesh. World Development 31(10):
1721–1741.
Rasul, G. and G.B. Thapa, 2004. Sustainability of ecological and conventional
agricultural systems in Bangladesh: an assessment based on environmental,
economic and social perspectives. Agricultural Systems 79: 327–351.
Sanders, J. 2007. Economic impact of agricultural liberalization policies on organic
farming in Switzerland. PhD thesis, Aberystwyth University. In: Niggli, U., Slabe,
A., Schmid, O., Halberg, N., Schluter, M., 2008. Vision for an Organic Food and
Farming Research Agenda to 2025. Published by IFOAM-EU and FiBL.
Schlecht, E., A., Buerkert, E. Tielkes, and A. Bationo, 2006. A critical analysis of
challenges and opportunities for soil fertility restoration in Sudano-Sahelian
West Africa. Nutrient Cycling in Agro Ecosystems 76: 109–136.
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
68 P. Panneerselvam et al.
Scialabba, N. E. and Hattam, C. 2002. Organic agriculture, environment and
food security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, 2002. Environment and Natural Resources Series No. 4 from
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4137E/y4137e00.htm.
Scialabba, N.E. 2007. Organic agriculture and food security. In: International con-
ference on organic agriculture and food security, 3–5 May, 2007, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy. (OFS/2007/5), available
at www.fao.org/organicag.
Shekinah, D. Esther, C. Jayanthi, and N. Sankaran, 2005. Physical indicators of
sustainability—A farming systems approach for the small farmer in the rain fed
vertisols of the western zone of Tamil Nadu. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture,
25(3): 43–65.
Shiva, V. 1995. Biodiversity based productivity. A framework for an alterna-
tive assessment for sustainable agriculture. Research Foundation for Science,
Technology and Natural Resource Policy (RFSTE). Dehradun, India.
Singh, R.B. 2000. Environmental consequences of agricultural development: case
study from the Green Revolution state of Haryana, India. Agriculture, Ecosystem
and Environment 82: 97–103.
UNEP-UNCTAD. 2008. Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa
(UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2007/15), available at http://www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf
Accessed 25 Feb 2009.
Velayutham, M., D.K., Mandal, C. Mandal, and J. Sehgal. 1999. Agro-Ecological Sub
regions of India for Planning and Development. NBSS and LUP, Publ. No.35,
372p.
Von Braun, J., M.S. Bos, M.A. Brown, S.A. Cline, M.J. Cohen, R. Pandya-Lorch, and
M.W. Rosegrant, 2003. Overview of the world food situation-Food security: New
risk and new opportunities. IFPRI, brief. Available online (Accessed Nov 2004
at: www.ifpri.org).
Walaga, C. and M. Hauser, 2005. Achieving household food security through organic
Agriculture, Lessons from Uganda. Journal für Entwicklungspolitik XXI(3):
65–84.
Willer, H., M. Yussefi-Menzler, and N. Sorensen, 2008. The World of Organic
Agriculture—Statistics and Emerging Trends. IFOAM, Bonn and FiBL, Frick.
Available at http://orgprints.org/13123/.
World Food Summit. 1996. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World
Food Summit, Plan of Action. FAO, Rome.
Downloaded By: [DEFF] At: 10:18 1 December 2010
