Ardent promoters of organic farming consider that present day organic agriculture, which is a mix of traditional wisdom and modern science, can herald the complete development of rural areas, especially in developing countries like India where the large chunk of farmers are small, with minimal resources and limited access to water. As per the International Federation for Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) “Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people; combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved”. Organic agriculture is thus based on four principles:
Principle of health: It should sustain and enhance the health of soil, plant, animal, human and planet as one and indivisible.
Principle of ecology: It should be based on living ecological systems and cycles, work with them, emulate them and help sustain them.
Principle of fairness: It should build on relationships that ensure fairness with regard to the common environment and life opportunities.
Principle of care: It should be managed in a precautionary and responsible manner to protect the health and well-being of current and future generations.
The World of Organic Agriculture: According to latest FiBL-IFOAM survey by H Willer, et al., 2013, ‘The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends’, organic agriculture is being practiced on 37.2 mha in 162 countries (0.9 per cent of total agricultural land). Apart from agricultural land, there are further organic areas, most of these being areas of wild collection—aquaculture, forests, and grazing areas on nonagricultural land. They constitute 32.5 mha. In total, 69.7 mha (agricultural and non-agricultural areas) are organic. There were 1.8 million producers in 2011. Thirty-four per cent of the world’s organic producers are in Asia, followed by Africa (30 per cent), and Europe (16 per cent). The countries with the most farmers are India (547591, 2012), Uganda (188625, 2010), and Mexico (169570, 2010) (ibid.). Organic food and beverage market was worth 63 billion US dollars in 2011. Demand for organic products is mainly in North America and Europe; these two regions comprise more than 90 per cent of sales with US being the single largest market.
Organic Agriculture in India: By March 2012, India had brought approximately 5.56 mha land under organic certification process with major share of 4.48 mha under wild harvest collection in forests and 1.08 mha under regular cultivation, spread over almost all states and union territories. In all 5.47 lakh farmers and wild collectors have produced approximately 2.8 mt of more than 250 organic commodities valued at Rs. 5000 crores. Organic cotton and its value added products, basmati rice, soybean, sugar, tea, honey, spices and dry fruits are important categories being exported to other countries. During the year 2011, India was the second largest exporter of organic tea, after China, 6th largest exporter of organic soybeans and 7th largest exporter of organic sugar.
Organic Agriculture and Productivity: Since the advent of organic farming in the recent years there had been concerns on the production potential of the system. But the results of long term experiments released during the last 10 years from world over have proved otherwise. In irrigated conditions organic farming may be yielding 5 to 12 per cent less than their conventional counterparts but under rain-fed and water deficit conditions organic system yields 7 to 15 per cent more.
Six years of experimenting, comparing two models of organic management with only-chemical and chemical-and-organic combination under 4 crop husbandry systems was undertaken at International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). The study titled ‘Evaluation of crop production systems using locally available biological inputs’, by O P Rupela, et al. in 2006, published in Biological Approaches to Sustainable Soil Systems, revealed that although, maximisation of yields can be achieved by the combined use of chemical fertilisers and organic inputs/practices (integrated agriculture), but this combination may not be affordable for small and marginal farmers in rain-fed areas (Fig. 1 and 2).
The low cost organic approaches can be an attractive choice, particularly when their strategic application results in yield levels at par with conventional system. The two organic models studied in the experiment yielded comparable results, and were in fact 25 per cent more profitable than the conventional system. Pest and disease management was also effective and low cost with biological approaches. Soil fertility and soil nutrient balance was certainly on a significantly higher side in organic system and offer longer sustainability under Indian conditions, typical of small and marginal farmers.
Reviewing 154 growing seasons’ worth of data (B Halweil, 2006, ‘Can Organic Farming Feed Us All?’, World Watch Magazine) on various crops grown on rain-fed and irrigated land in the United States, University of California, agricultural scientist Bill Liebhardt found that organic corn yields were 94 per cent of conventional yields, organic wheat yields were 97 per cent, and organic soybean yields were 94 per cent. Organic tomatoes showed no yield difference. More importantly, in the poorer nations where most of the world’s hungry live, the yield gaps completely disappear. University of Essex researchers Jules Pretty and Rachel Hine looked at over 200 agricultural projects in the developing world that converted to organic and ecological approaches, and found that for all the projects—involving 9 million farms on nearly 30 mha, yields increased an average of 93 per cent.
A seven-year study from Maikaal project in Khargone District in central India (J Frank et al., 2009, ‘The Impact of Organic Cotton Farming on the Livelihoods of Smallholders – Evidence from the Maikaal bioRe project in Central India’, Organic Farming Newsletter) involving 1,000 farmers, cultivating 3,200 hectares found that average yields for cotton, wheat, chili, and soybean were as much as 20 per cent higher on the organic farms than on nearby conventionally managed ones. Farmers and agricultural scientists ascribed the higher yields in the dry region to the emphasis on cover crops, compost, manure, and other practices that increased organic matter, helping the retention of water in the soils apart from providing adequate nutrients.
Organic Agriculture and Profitability: Recently a study was conducted in Maharashtra to assess the impact of organic farming on economics of sugarcane cultivation in Maharashtra (K G Kshirsagar, 2007, ‘Impact of Organic Sugarcane Farming on Economics and Water Use Efficiency in Maharashtra’, Artha Vijnana). The research was based on primary data collected from two districts covering 142 farmers, 72 growing organic sugarcane and 70 growing inorganic sugarcane. The study found that organic cultivation enhances human labour employment by 16.9 per cent and cost of cultivation is lower by 14.24 per cent as compared to conventional farming. Although the yield from the organic crop was 6.79 per cent lower than the conventional crop, it was more than compensated by the price premium received and yield stability observed on organic farms.
In a paper by Tej Pratap et al., 2009, titled ‘Organic Farmers Speak on Economics and Beyond’, Westville Publishing House; based on a nationwide survey of organic farmers indicates favourable economics through a cost-benefit analysis. Farmers in 5 out of 7 states are better placed so far as organic farming is concerned. The returns are higher in Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Rajasthan. In Karnataka organic farmers had 4-35 per cent higher returns. In Kerala the differentials ranged between 4-37 per cent in favour of inorganic farmers. In Maharashtra the difference in net profit was more than 100 per cent in case of soybean. Cotton farmers were enjoying a comfortable profit margin. The profit differential in Rajasthan ranged from 12-59 per cent in favour of organic farmers. In another study by Ramesh et al., 2010, ‘Status of organic farming in India: Productivity vs Profitability’, Current Science; it has been reported that, although the productivity of crops in organic farming is lower by 9.2 per cent compared to conventional farming, there was a significant reduction in the average cost of cultivation by 11.7 per cent compared to conventional farming.
Conventionalisation of Organic agriculture: Since its re-emergence during the last decade of the twentieth century, organic agriculture was promoted as a self generating and self sustaining enterprise with total reliance on on-farm resources coupled with practices like crop rotations, inter-cropping, multi-cropping, integration of legumes in cropping systems and integration of cattle. But of late, in its quest to compete with the conventional agriculture in terms of productivity and to make the practices relevant to present day scenario, the system has started accepting the importance of off-farm inputs and use of industry produced inputs in the form of commercially produced composts, biostimulants, botanical extracts, biofertilisers and biopesticides etc. To cater to the growing demand, a new set of organic input industry has started to grow. The trend might have added to the acceptability of the system by farmers and policy makers, but it is a matter of concern for the original promoters of the organic, in whose wisdom it is a natural cycles based, natural resource dependent and self generating production enterprise.
Ardent promoters of organic farming term it as conventionalisation of organic agriculture and caution that with such developments, organic farming may transform into a slightly modified version of modern conventional agriculture, replicating the same history, resulting in many of the same social, technical and economic ills. Conventionalisation of organic farming is now increasingly seen as problematic, since organic farming has received public support for its potential to contribute to environmental protection and rural development. However, if organic farming increasingly comes to resemble conventional farming and this potential contribution is jeopardised, organic farming may lose the support it currently receives from both consumers and policy makers.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
On March 31, the World Economic Forum (WEF) released its annual Gender Gap Report 2021. The Global Gender Gap report is an annual report released by the WEF. The gender gap is the difference between women and men as reflected in social, political, intellectual, cultural, or economic attainments or attitudes. The gap between men and women across health, education, politics, and economics widened for the first time since records began in 2006.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]No need to remember all the data, only pick out few important ones to use in your answers.
The Global gender gap index aims to measure this gap in four key areas : health, education, economics, and politics. It surveys economies to measure gender disparity by collating and analyzing data that fall under four indices : economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment.
The 2021 Global Gender Gap Index benchmarks 156 countries on their progress towards gender parity. The index aims to serve as a compass to track progress on relative gaps between women and men in health, education, economy, and politics.
Although no country has achieved full gender parity, the top two countries (Iceland and Finland) have closed at least 85% of their gap, and the remaining seven countries (Lithuania, Namibia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Rwanda, and Ireland) have closed at least 80% of their gap. Geographically, the global top 10 continues to be dominated by Nordic countries, with —Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Sweden—in the top five.
The top 10 is completed by one country from Asia Pacific (New Zealand 4th), two Sub-Saharan countries (Namibia, 6th and Rwanda, 7th, one country from Eastern Europe (the new entrant to the top 10, Lithuania, 8th), and another two Western European countries (Ireland, 9th, and Switzerland, 10th, another country in the top-10 for the first time).There is a relatively equitable distribution of available income, resources, and opportunities for men and women in these countries. The tremendous gender gaps are identified primarily in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia.
Here, we can discuss the overall global gender gap scores across the index’s four main components : Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival, and Political Empowerment.
The indicators of the four main components are
(1) Economic Participation and Opportunity:
o Labour force participation rate,
o wage equality for similar work,
o estimated earned income,
o Legislators, senior officials, and managers,
o Professional and technical workers.
(2) Educational Attainment:
o Literacy rate (%)
o Enrollment in primary education (%)
o Enrollment in secondary education (%)
o Enrollment in tertiary education (%).
(3) Health and Survival:
o Sex ratio at birth (%)
o Healthy life expectancy (years).
(4) Political Empowerment:
o Women in Parliament (%)
o Women in Ministerial positions (%)
o Years with a female head of State (last 50 years)
o The share of tenure years.
The objective is to shed light on which factors are driving the overall average decline in the global gender gap score. The analysis results show that this year’s decline is mainly caused by a reversal in performance on the Political Empowerment gap.
Global Trends and Outcomes:
– Globally, this year, i.e., 2021, the average distance completed to gender parity gap is 68% (This means that the remaining gender gap to close stands at 32%) a step back compared to 2020 (-0.6 percentage points). These figures are mainly driven by a decline in the performance of large countries. On its current trajectory, it will now take 135.6 years to close the gender gap worldwide.
– The gender gap in Political Empowerment remains the largest of the four gaps tracked, with only 22% closed to date, having further widened since the 2020 edition of the report by 2.4 percentage points. Across the 156 countries covered by the index, women represent only 26.1% of some 35,500 Parliament seats and 22.6% of over 3,400 Ministers worldwide. In 81 countries, there has never been a woman head of State as of January 15, 2021. At the current rate of progress, the World Economic Forum estimates that it will take 145.5 years to attain gender parity in politics.
– The gender gap in Economic Participation and Opportunity remains the second-largest of the four key gaps tracked by the index. According to this year’s index results, 58% of this gap has been closed so far. The gap has seen marginal improvement since the 2020 edition of the report, and as a result, we estimate that it will take another 267.6 years to close.
– Gender gaps in Educational Attainment and Health and Survival are nearly closed. In Educational Attainment, 95% of this gender gap has been closed globally, with 37 countries already attaining gender parity. However, the ‘last mile’ of progress is proceeding slowly. The index estimates that it will take another 14.2 years to close this gap on its current trajectory completely.
In Health and Survival, 96% of this gender gap has been closed, registering a marginal decline since last year (not due to COVID-19), and the time to close this gap remains undefined. For both education and health, while progress is higher than economy and politics in the global data, there are important future implications of disruptions due to the pandemic and continued variations in quality across income, geography, race, and ethnicity.
India-Specific Findings:
India had slipped 28 spots to rank 140 out of the 156 countries covered. The pandemic causing a disproportionate impact on women jeopardizes rolling back the little progress made in the last decades-forcing more women to drop off the workforce and leaving them vulnerable to domestic violence.
India’s poor performance on the Global Gender Gap report card hints at a serious wake-up call and learning lessons from the Nordic region for the Government and policy makers.
Within the 156 countries covered, women hold only 26 percent of Parliamentary seats and 22 percent of Ministerial positions. India, in some ways, reflects this widening gap, where the number of Ministers declined from 23.1 percent in 2019 to 9.1 percent in 2021. The number of women in Parliament stands low at 14.4 percent. In India, the gender gap has widened to 62.5 %, down from 66.8% the previous year.
It is mainly due to women’s inadequate representation in politics, technical and leadership roles, a decrease in women’s labor force participation rate, poor healthcare, lagging female to male literacy ratio, and income inequality.
The gap is the widest on the political empowerment dimension, with economic participation and opportunity being next in line. However, the gap on educational attainment and health and survival has been practically bridged.
India is the third-worst performer among South Asian countries, with Pakistan and Afghanistan trailing and Bangladesh being at the top. The report states that the country fared the worst in political empowerment, regressing from 23.9% to 9.1%.
Its ranking on the health and survival dimension is among the five worst performers. The economic participation and opportunity gap saw a decline of 3% compared to 2020, while India’s educational attainment front is in the 114th position.
India has deteriorated to 51st place from 18th place in 2020 on political empowerment. Still, it has slipped to 155th position from 150th position in 2020 on health and survival, 151st place in economic participation and opportunity from 149th place, and 114th place for educational attainment from 112th.
In 2020 reports, among the 153 countries studied, India is the only country where the economic gender gap of 64.6% is larger than the political gender gap of 58.9%. In 2021 report, among the 156 countries, the economic gender gap of India is 67.4%, 3.8% gender gap in education, 6.3% gap in health and survival, and 72.4% gender gap in political empowerment. In health and survival, the gender gap of the sex ratio at birth is above 9.1%, and healthy life expectancy is almost the same.
Discrimination against women has also been reflected in Health and Survival subindex statistics. With 93.7% of this gap closed to date, India ranks among the bottom five countries in this subindex. The wide sex ratio at birth gaps is due to the high incidence of gender-based sex-selective practices. Besides, more than one in four women has faced intimate violence in her lifetime.The gender gap in the literacy rate is above 20.1%.
Yet, gender gaps persist in literacy : one-third of women are illiterate (34.2%) than 17.6% of men. In political empowerment, globally, women in Parliament is at 128th position and gender gap of 83.2%, and 90% gap in a Ministerial position. The gap in wages equality for similar work is above 51.8%. On health and survival, four large countries Pakistan, India, Vietnam, and China, fare poorly, with millions of women there not getting the same access to health as men.
The pandemic has only slowed down in its tracks the progress India was making towards achieving gender parity. The country urgently needs to focus on “health and survival,” which points towards a skewed sex ratio because of the high incidence of gender-based sex-selective practices and women’s economic participation. Women’s labour force participation rate and the share of women in technical roles declined in 2020, reducing the estimated earned income of women, one-fifth of men.
Learning from the Nordic region, noteworthy participation of women in politics, institutions, and public life is the catalyst for transformational change. Women need to be equal participants in the labour force to pioneer the societal changes the world needs in this integral period of transition.
Every effort must be directed towards achieving gender parallelism by facilitating women in leadership and decision-making positions. Social protection programmes should be gender-responsive and account for the differential needs of women and girls. Research and scientific literature also provide unequivocal evidence that countries led by women are dealing with the pandemic more effectively than many others.
Gendered inequality, thereby, is a global concern. India should focus on targeted policies and earmarked public and private investments in care and equalized access. Women are not ready to wait for another century for equality. It’s time India accelerates its efforts and fight for an inclusive, equal, global recovery.
India will not fully develop unless both women and men are equally supported to reach their full potential. There are risks, violations, and vulnerabilities women face just because they are women. Most of these risks are directly linked to women’s economic, political, social, and cultural disadvantages in their daily lives. It becomes acute during crises and disasters.
With the prevalence of gender discrimination, and social norms and practices, women become exposed to the possibility of child marriage, teenage pregnancy, child domestic work, poor education and health, sexual abuse, exploitation, and violence. Many of these manifestations will not change unless women are valued more.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]2021 WEF Global Gender Gap report, which confirmed its 2016 finding of a decline in worldwide progress towards gender parity.
Over 2.8 billion women are legally restricted from having the same choice of jobs as men. As many as 104 countries still have laws preventing women from working in specific jobs, 59 countries have no laws on sexual harassment in the workplace, and it is astonishing that a handful of countries still allow husbands to legally stop their wives from working.
Globally, women’s participation in the labour force is estimated at 63% (as against 94% of men who participate), but India’s is at a dismal 25% or so currently. Most women are in informal and vulnerable employment—domestic help, agriculture, etc—and are always paid less than men.
Recent reports from Assam suggest that women workers in plantations are paid much less than men and never promoted to supervisory roles. The gender wage gap is about 24% globally, and women have lost far more jobs than men during lockdowns.
The problem of gender disparity is compounded by hurdles put up by governments, society and businesses: unequal access to social security schemes, banking services, education, digital services and so on, even as a glass ceiling has kept leadership roles out of women’s reach.
Yes, many governments and businesses had been working on parity before the pandemic struck. But the global gender gap, defined by differences reflected in the social, political, intellectual, cultural and economic attainments or attitudes of men and women, will not narrow in the near future without all major stakeholders working together on a clear agenda—that of economic growth by inclusion.
The WEF report estimates 135 years to close the gap at our current rate of progress based on four pillars: educational attainment, health, economic participation and political empowerment.
India has slipped from rank 112 to 140 in a single year, confirming how hard women were hit by the pandemic. Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only two Asian countries that fared worse.
Here are a few things we must do:
One, frame policies for equal-opportunity employment. Use technology and artificial intelligence to eliminate biases of gender, caste, etc, and select candidates at all levels on merit. Numerous surveys indicate that women in general have a better chance of landing jobs if their gender is not known to recruiters.
Two, foster a culture of gender sensitivity. Take a review of current policies and move from gender-neutral to gender-sensitive. Encourage and insist on diversity and inclusion at all levels, and promote more women internally to leadership roles. Demolish silos to let women grab potential opportunities in hitherto male-dominant roles. Work-from-home has taught us how efficiently women can manage flex-timings and productivity.
Three, deploy corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds for the education and skilling of women and girls at the bottom of the pyramid. CSR allocations to toilet building, the PM-Cares fund and firms’ own trusts could be re-channelled for this.
Four, get more women into research and development (R&D) roles. A study of over 4,000 companies found that more women in R&D jobs resulted in radical innovation. It appears women score far higher than men in championing change. If you seek growth from affordable products and services for low-income groups, women often have the best ideas.
Five, break barriers to allow progress. Cultural and structural issues must be fixed. Unconscious biases and discrimination are rampant even in highly-esteemed organizations. Establish fair and transparent human resource policies.
Six, get involved in local communities to engage them. As Michael Porter said, it is not possible for businesses to sustain long-term shareholder value without ensuring the welfare of the communities they exist in. It is in the best interest of enterprises to engage with local communities to understand and work towards lowering cultural and other barriers in society. It will also help connect with potential customers, employees and special interest groups driving the gender-equity agenda and achieve better diversity.