Family Farms in India and their Future

Seema Purushothaman

Small holder farmers are quite a common presence in India. To a general reader in urban areas, any mention of small farmers summons imageries of a tiny piece of land where a family struggles to eke out a living. Popular perception is that they are not financially viable and hence these families should either scale up or liquidate their farmland and/ or join other sectors[1]. But literature also urges us to not be so hasty; it establishes that there are many social purposes that these small farm families in India fulfil that are important to recognise[2]. 

Data on land holding patterns attribute a specific extent of land area to the small farm holdings. This land size bracketing of ‘Small & Marginal Holdings (SMH)’ often camouflages the diversity that exists within this group. An obvious divergence within this class of farmers arises out of their varying size attributable to agro-ecological variations. Small holdings in very different agroecologies like hilly terrains and plain lands obviously differ in their average size. But they also differ in the kind of farming undertaken. Field crops of staple food grains are common in the flood plains and the vast dry hinterlands, while diverse crops ranging from short duration herbaceous plants to large perennials dot the hilly terrains.  Both these landscapes also host distinct animal & bird components too.  Small farmsteads in the hilly regions are known to host high agro biodiversity. 

However, certain other differences within small holders are not as obvious as the size of holding, or crop-animal combinations aligned to their terrain or bio-geography. These factors constitute the criteria that distinguish family farms from other small holders. How distinct is this entity – ‘Family Farm’ (FF) from the usual typology of SMH? The characteristic features of Family Farms are unpacked in the next paragraph, before dwelling on the future of this entity.

What characterises a Family Farm (FF)?

Even though the presence of purely market/profit oriented small farmers is quite visible, for many family farms in the rural landscapes, agriculture is equally important as a way of life. For many of them, often (-not always) the livelihood element is subsidiary. Family farming continues to be crucial as a familiar occupation, culture, skill, and identity. The second distinguishing feature of family farms is the high proportion of family labour in production activities, though hiring and sharing of labour available within the locality are also prevalent. Their third distinguishing feature is the relatively high share of household consumption from what they produce, though these farm families will continue to be net consumers of agricultural produces, given the small size of operational land with them, relative to family size.

The fourth characteristic is that even when a family farmer owns the agricultural land (-mostly inherited), she may also be leasing land or will be engaged in wage labour; the latter spread across off farm and/or non-farm engagements. The fifth and the more significant fact about family farmers as a class, is that they are invisible in the popular and political discourse, while being omnipresent.   

With the above five features, it shouldn’t be difficult for the reader to distinguish FFs from other SMHs. In contrast to the FF, a non-FF SMH could be a) capital intensive enterprise operating exclusively for profit making, b) too marginal holding of a family engaged in other occupations or c) urban hobby farmers conscious about healthy food. 

Small farm enterprise in a poly house located in the outskirts of Bangalore

Family farms – a glimpse into their Past and Present

This essay distills pertinent conclusions drawn from studying 168 farmers and 32 farmer migrants from 16 villages across five districts that were identified systematically following selected criteria from the book – City and the Peasant – Urbanisation and Agrarian Change in South India (Purushothaman and Patil (2019)).

Historically SMH used to be  producing exclusively for subsistence and for paying tax to the government concerned. Their plight across the tenurial and governance history of respective regions is an interesting study and analysis. For such an exploration into the history of small agriculturists in the old Mysore and Gulbarga regions please see Purushothaman and Patil (2019). A birds’ eye view into the history of small family holdings identified in the previous section reveals that they belonged largely to marginalised social groups. They lived on small parcels of land with insecure tenure and without much ex-situ engagements for livelihood. But a notable proportion of such FFs in history also were engaged in other livelihood options present in the rural landscapes itself, like weaving, pottery, metal/ clay works etc. Towards the second half of the 20^th century, the process of settlement of tenurial rights in favour of actual cultivators was started in parts of India. It is well accepted now that such progressive land reform measures were too weak to override rural power hierarchies in most agrarian landscapes.  Thus, unfinished land reforms left the agenda of equitable distribution of agricultural land largely unaddressed. The size and quality of land holdings that ultimately got distributed were inadequate to meet the essential needs of a farm family.   

Even then, the persistence of FF in India is notable (though their exact numbers are hidden under the larger category of SMH coming to more than 125 million in Agriculture census 2015-16). That poses the question – why and how do they persist through centuries into this era of neo-liberal economies? Is it a resilient persistence against all odds, or is it just a desperate survival? Answers to these questions have been explored in detail for the state of Karnataka in Purushothaman and Patil 2019. They reinforce the argument mooted in the first para of this essay, on why we shouldn’t underestimate the crucial role of FFs.

FFs in early literature referred to as ‘peasantry’, and later on mostly as SMH farmers have been mostly perceived as an unviable primitive mode of production. Some recent literature laud them as a model for sovereign food systems ensuring ecological and nutritional autonomy, or as a cultural value based circular economy[3].  Others locate them at the other end of the corporate food regime as the ‘need’ economy of reserve army consisting of footloose labour, for producing cities for the ‘greed’ economy.   The book reveals the gaps left collectively by these depictions of SMH in dis-ambiguating FFs of today. These gaps mainly pertain to the plural identity of FF and their embeddedness in the larger social-ecological commons – interconnected systems of forests, water bodies, soils and pastures.

The study sites were located in four different assemblages of urban and agrarian landscapes. Site specific chapters in the book tease out the out flow of land, labour, water, and farm produces from small farms to the urban areas as well as the flow of investments and effluents from urban areas to the production landscapes around the the city. The quantum and impacts of these flows vary between the four assemblages and determined the plight of small family farmers.

The concurrent impact of the above mentioned flows determined the plight of FFs, as rural agrarian life was getting choked by inadequate and low-quality public delivery systems of health care and education. Meanwhile, failing bore wells, drying irrigation canals, declining soil productivity, and mounting loans that came with the spread of irrigation and intensive monocropping to feed the urban demand, drove vulnerability among FFs in most study villages, in the medium to long term. This vulnerability of rural agrarian family farms desperately seeking short term advantages, was manifested in a) indebtedness (loans taken for a variety of reasons like health care or for customs related to death and weddings) and b) out-migration from rural areas as also from farming, with women & lower social strata getting pulled towards urban life, despite low-quality housing in the cities. 

The question that these FFs were trying to grapple with was mostly about when, and for how long to migrate. A pattern of vulnerability emerged from the ways in which FF tried to navigate this uncertainty. This pattern is briefly mapped in the section below.

A typology of Family Farms and their probable Future:  

As mentioned earlier, despite the challenges outlined, FFs are easy to spot, if you look for them. The FFs described in the book could be classified into the following types, based on the extent and nature of vulnerability in their continued existence. Persistence of FF in the study sites ranged from resilient long-term existence to types of economically vibrant but unsustainable existence, or existence as low yielding but environmentally sustainable systems.

FF persisting with resilience were found in mostly rainfed villages that had farming systems corresponding to their agroecology and local demand pattern. Typically, these families farmed staples (e.g., finger millets) intercropped with perennial cash crops (e.g., mango or coconut) along with suitable livestock (sheep, goat or dairy cattle). Here the quality of soil and water resources was intact and nutritional security of the families was ensured. These FFs found spare time and money to attain educational qualifications, that enabled them to take advantage of emerging non- farm, non-rural opportunities. This system that leveraged the nourishment and livelihood objectives of agriculture with non-farm engagements of various kinds, emerged as the lone model of FF in the study sites that seemed to have a future of its own.

FF trapped in poverty: Not all rainfed farms offered the above promise for future. Rainfed interior villages with monocropping of cash crops that too on unequally distributed land with exhausted soil, water, and biomass were trapped in poverty. These FF also reported high morbidity, medical expenses, and indebtedness. Outmigration was the only coping mechanism, if not an escape route for good.

FF with high capital turnover, commonly found in peri-urban Bangalore are profitable businesses. Profits are realised despite exhausted soil and water, heavy dependence on synthetic inputs and high interest credit. These small holders were found to be awaiting the arrival of real estate fortunes, ready for occupational migration to new informal engagements offered by the city.

FF locked in dependent, inefficient and unsustainable practices showcase a deceptive transient prosperity.  Canal irrigated monocultures heavily relying on input subsidies, credit and public procurement of outputs, maneuvering the declining productivity and shrinking choice in farming options are examples for this type of FF without a future of their own, unless retained on the public funded financial ventilators pumping producer and consumer subsidies. 

Gleaning the above typology, how to foresee the future of FF? The following are elicited as potential factors to enable continued harnessing of the social benefits of ecological and nutritional security offered by FFs. They are 1) secure access to minimum required land for a family farm to meet their basic needs 2) proximate and consistent buyers (consumers and processing units) for their small surpluses 3) ensuring quality of soil, water & biodiversity 4) effective public facilities for higher education and health care, and 5) rural nonfarm employment that does not undermine any of the above enabling factors.

Acknowledgement

Inputs on the earlier draft of this write-up from Gayatri Menon are greatly appreciated. Usual disclaimers apply.

---

[1] See George V.K. 2018 or Fan and Chan-Kang 2005, for popular arguments on why small holders should either move out of farming or scale up. Discussion in Nair et al. 2020 on contract farming indicates how most farm policies do not benefit small holders.

[2] See Purushothaman (2019). The Science and Economics of Family Farms. Current Science.

[3] See the discussion in Ploeg 2013. Food Sovereignty – a Critical Dialogue.

Weak Land Use Policies and Human Development: Insights from Kerala

Seema Purushothaman and Amrita C – Azim Premji University, Bengaluru

Fresh Farm Produces for Bengaluru: Trends and Implications

Seema Purushothaman, Vidya P.S. and Dhanush K.M. (Azim Premji University, Bengaluru)

The poster intends to reveal the changing demand for fresh produces in the city of Bengaluru, and its implications for producers and consumers.

One Part Farmers: Villages two decades after land acquisition for the Bengaluru International Airport

Purushothaman, Seema and Vanjari, Raghvendra S. (2022) One Part Farmers: Villages two decades after land acquisition for the Bengaluru International Airport. Working Paper. Azim Premji University, Bengaluru.

Full paper available here

Intensive cultivation of roses in patches of farmland remaining just outside the airport boundary wall

Abstract

Constitutional measures to ensure fair compensation and livelihood security to the land losing refugees of development processes, overlook the complexity of ‘public purpose’ – the dominant rationale behind operationalizing ‘eminent domain’ of the state. Popular perception of public purpose as urbanization muffles the de facto social citizenship around plural values of agricultural landscapes. Ignoring the enduring public purposes served by agrarian landscapes aids in underestimating the long-term welfare impacts on displaced farmers. This essay presents the impact of land acquisition for the Bengaluru International Airport on the agro-pastoral communities of Devanahalli. Visible changes in the landscape came with major uncertainties in their lives and livelihoods for over two decades now. The paper aims to contribute to the recent and connected theses around agrarian urbanism and plural values of landscapes, with narratives from Devanahalli. In what was almost a non-controversial choice of location for the airport, people from 11 villages to the north of Bengaluru city lost their land fully or partly, along with their habitat, village community and food cultures. In this study, narratives of representative cases of impact inflicted on different groups were collated and synthesized through short term longitudinal interviews. It showcases prolonged struggles to find secure livelihoods amidst persisting caste and gender divides, weakening cultural fabric and a loss of identity. Together they precipitate one-part farmers in the displaced and scattered people who still find a weak but persistent identity in agriculture. The paper concludes by deriving pointers on avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating potential impacts of projects involving inevitable displacement of agro-pastoral communities.

Growing cities and shrinking agriculture

Background

The history of urbanisation in Bengaluru that changed the face of the city can be viewed through three major waves. The first wave was the establishment of a cantonment area in the year 1807 to house the Mysore Division of Madras Army of the East India Company. The growth of cantonment with the expansion of European regiments in the 1840s further led to more migration to this region and people building their lives around it.

This growth in the northern direction of present-day Bangalore was soon followed by the establishment of the City Market, known today as Krishnaraja Market, in 1921. This became a functional and accessible area for all people in the then Bangalore.

Source: Report of the Bengaluru Development Committee: 14 (1954)

The second wave that came about in the history of Bangalore’s expansion is associated with the establishment of many Public Sector Undertakings in the city. They include Indian Space Research Organisation, Bharat Electrical Limited, and Hindustan Machine Tools, etc. This was followed quickly by the emergence of textile and other industries that further pushed the expansion.

The third and major expansion of Bangalore happened by the 1980s around the Information Technology wave. More and more people migrated to the city that transformed itself from a garden city that was pensioners’ paradise to a buzzing hub of neo-liberal economy thriving on IT and BT, along with educational institutions, long-established markets, public sector units and private industries. This dynamic city attracted investment from other countries and became the fourth largest technology cluster in the world.

Bangalore became Bengaluru in 2014. Today, 12 million people call Bengaluru their hometown. Along with the city population, the land area of the city also increased from 69 sq km in 1949 to 2190 sq km in 2019.

Source: Various Census of India reports.

The video ‘Growing cities and shrinking agriculture’ showcases two case studies around Bangalore – how such a city usurps land and how it fouls the water, both of these impacting agriculture and society in direct and indirect ways. Both these are typical impacts/ aftermaths of any growing city. Let’s look at the cases one-by-one.

Land conversion for the new airport –

Bengaluru International Airport, established in the year 2008 provides a good example for displacing people and land from agriculture and allied activities, for the sake of urbanisation. It was renamed as Kempegowda International Airport in 2013. The airport is spread across an area of 4009 acres of land in Devanahalli Taluk (KIADB). Land acquisition for the airport was carried out by KIADB between the years 1991 to 2001 when 11 villages lost their land either wholly or partially to this project. Two villages of these 11, namely; Arisinakunte and Gangamuthanahalli were completely displaced. From nine other villages (Bhoovanahalli, Doddasonne, Anneswara, Bettakote, Hunchur, Mylanahalli, Begur, Yerthiganahalli and Chikkanahalli), partial farmland acquisition happened. 

Our calculations based on the land records data provided by the village accountants of these villages show that 36 percent of the acquired land was village commons and 50 percent were private lands. The rest 14% was from forests and other kinds of land. Loss of private land ranged from one to ten acres per family in the study villages. A compensation of Rs 5 lakh per acre was fixed for the land acquired.

Village	Commons	Forest	Private land	Other	Total
Bhoovanahalli	23.08	–	60.19	–	83.27
Doddasonne	279.36	20.3	56.64	–	356.3
Anneshwara	511.19	–	171.13	–	682.32
Gangamutanahalli	222	3.17	353.34	3.39	581.9
Bettakote	–	354.19	154.26	29.14	537.59
Hunchur	226.27	–	58.6	–	284.87
Arasinakunte	41.8	–	740.6	–	782.4
Mylanahalli	39.2	–	148.02	3.18	190.4
Begur	–	–	88.32	–	88.32
Yerthiganahalli	19.24	–	73.57	–	92.81
Chikkanahalli	12	–	87.15	–	99.15
Total area of land acquired	1374.14	377.66	1991.82	35.71	3779.33

Land Acquired (in acres)

Note: calculated area of 3779 is 230 acres less than the KIADB data of 4009 acres.

Land acquisition included that for the airport operations, industrial property development and special economic zones as a means of financing the airport project between 1997-2001. Coming of the Airport brought with it an ongoing increase in demand for land in the surroundings for upper-class residential layouts and industries. During our field visits, we heard of many new land conversions for setting up industries.

Let us focus on the livelihood and agricultural patterns in the acquired villages and other surroundings of the Airport. People from the completely acquired villages were relocated in another village as a new single hamlet. They were given small housing sites without farmlands. Most farmers from the villages that lost partial agricultural land continue to farm the patches remaining with them. They shifted to cultivating roses from the diverse set of crops that they used to grow – vegetables, paddy, mulberry and ragi. Rose flowers fetch them good income but cause health complications from the usage of excessive chemicals in its cultivation. A few farmers are still engaged in sericulture, growing mulberry in the little piece of the remaining land. A few villages still have shepherds grazing their sheep through the day.

Jobs available for most people are in short-term informal non-farm occupations. Around 130 youngsters from the 11 acquired villages work in the Airport, shops inside the airport campus and some nearby industries. At the Airport, they are generally in gardening, driving, security keeping, housekeeping, loading and unloading.

The compensation money for the acquired land was used by many to build single building apartments for renting out to migrant labour coming to work in the new industries around.  Rental income from these tenements has become a new source of livelihood for the well-to-do in the partially acquired villages.

Let us now focus on the two villages that were fully displaced; Arisinakunte and Gangamuthanahalli. Around 140 households were displaced from these two villages. They were given compensation not just for their farmland, but also for the houses lost and also for other assets like wells, trees and livestock owned. People from the two villages were moved to the village commons of a village named Balepura, far from their original village as also from the airport. They received housing sites as mentioned before, depending on the size of their families. This hamlet was named after one of the two acquired villages, as Arisinakunte colony.

For most resettled families, the compensation money was just enough for building a house and/or spending on marriages, health care, buying automobiles, pilgrimage and loan repayment. Hence most of the 140 displaced families have not been in farming since 2001 – 2002. Older people still try to cultivate in the little patches around the colony. Women seem to have no external engagement except a few younger women who work at the airport. Older women search for work as farm labour while others try running small business enterprises like a grocery store, milk agency, etc. A few of them bought one or two cows for supplying milk to the dairy society in the colony. With grazing areas acquired for the airport, milk production has declined drastically in the area. Many say they would like to get back to farming if they had access to a piece of land somewhere in the surroundings.

Even after two decades of land acquisition, displaced people are yet to adapt to the changing landscape, livelihoods and social mix. Farming lost its primacy as the sole or main source of income either as farmers or as wage labour. Still, agriculture seems to be a preferred option among middle-aged villagers (especially women) as a secure and dignified livelihood. They say money comes and goes from their hands, more than the pre-airport times. Individualisation, alcoholism and health issues are more persistent outcomes in their lives.

Wastewater in the river stream

Having seen changes brought out by the expansion of urban infrastructure for and around the airport, let us now turn to the aftermath of Bengaluru’s expansion on the quality of water in its surroundings. We examine this impact of the city through its impact on its’ sole river – Vrishabhavathi.

Originating in the Bull Temple in Basavanagudi in the south-western part and the Kaadumalleswara temple in Malleswaram to the North of the city, Vrishabhavathi flows through localities like Jnana Bharathi, Rajarajeshwari Nagar and reaches Bangalore’s outskirts at Kengeri.  Winding around Kengeri and Bidadi, the river enters Byramangala reservoir to join Suvarnamukhi river later, at Kurubarahalli. Both together flow as river Vrishabhavathi and then joins Arkavathy at Ganalu, and flows till Mekedatu to join Cauvery. Before Vrishabhavathi enters the Byramangala Dam, it is intercepted at two STPs.

This river with several temples on its bank had major religious importance till about two decades ago. People used the river water to bathe, cook and drink as well. Villages on its bank used this water for cultivating vegetables, paddy, sugarcane, flowers, mulberry and ragi. Bengaluru expanded and so did the waste it accumulated and dumped. This water body is being treated as a sink to dispose of wastewater from the city’s dwellings, shops, offices, educational institutions, hotels, industries and other establishments. The industries dispose of their effluents into Vrishabhavathi with minimal or no treatment. Its’ water with toxic effluents is no longer fit for human consumption. Effluents from industrial estates deteriorate the living environment and farming conditions in the downstream areas.

Let us take a look around 12 villages among the many that use Vrishabhavathi water for agricultural needs today. The stretch we are going to cover is from Byramangala reservoir to Kurubarahalli to the south of the reservoir.

The first impact of sewage water from the city is the change in crops cultivated. Farmers are now forced to limit their crops to what can be grown with the water: fodder, mulberry, coconut and baby corn. Food crops like paddy, ragi and vegetables have been reduced drastically. For meeting their requirement of staples and vegetables, they are dependent on the Public Distribution System and markets. With the increasing area under fodder as that grows well in the polluted water, dairy farming has taken over as the major source of farm livelihood. Each house around the irrigation channels from Byramangala has an average of 3 to 4 cows. Dairy cattle take away many hours of their everyday life, forcing the whole family to engage in it in some way or the other. Many women stay home just for dairy farming. Milk and mulberry silk are being touted as the two livelihood pillars in this region. Off late, they both suffer from declining quality and price. Baby corn is another crop that is grown by many in this region, on contractual arrangements with retailers and aggregators from the city. Thanks to the absence of food safety tests in the city’s vegetable and fruit shops and food joints, baby corn and other crops grown in polluted water find a regular market.

Though a majority of villagers in this region are engaged in agriculture, youngsters are moving towards the industries in Bidadi and Harohalli region. Thus, while polluting the water bodies, industries also pull agricultural labourers from their surroundings.

The sewage water has not only impacted farming in this region but also has given rise to health issues like skin rashes, allergies and diseases spread by mosquitoes. Socio-cultural impacts are also common. Villagers hesitate to offer drinking water to visitors, they no more do the customary river worship and young men complain about the difficulty in getting brides to come and live here.

Despite some conflicts and protests about this issue, efforts from the concerned government departments have not been effective so far.  A new dimension has been added to the pollution issue in terms of a diversion of Vrishabhavathy water after effective treatment. There has been a diversion of water from the Byramangala dam and further talks of water treatment, but farmers were not informed about the same. Lack of convergence among various government departments has left the farmers in this region perplexed. If they will have to trade off their available access to (polluted) water, is haunting the farmers of Byramangala.

Concluding remarks

These two impacts of Bangalore acquiring rural land for its airport and dumping city sewage in Vrishabhavathi are typical examples of what an expanding city can do to farming in the peripheries. The impact doesn’t confine to the land, water and people in the peripheries, but also on the people living in the cities, since they end up consuming the produce from the city peripheries – like milk, coconuts, baby corn all with residues of toxic heavy metals.

Lack of dialogue between consumers in the city and producers of their food is hampering possible harmonious integration of the city’s expansion with rural livelihoods.

Urbanisation process should involve collective informing and deliberating processes for urban and rural societies on their mutual impacts. If consumers and producers feel responsible for the impact of extracting land and dumping waste as also of producing unsafe food respectively, the process of urbanisation could be smoother and more rewarding to the larger society.

For more information about the two case studies discussed in this blog please visit –

Urban wastewater for Agriculture: Farmers’ perspectives from peri-urban Bengaluru (APU Working Paper 20)

One-part farmers – villages two decades after land acquisition for Bengaluru Airport (forthcoming)

(The video is an output from the project titled “Ecosystem Services, Agricultural Diversification and Small Farmers’ Livelihoods in the Rural-Urban Interface of Bengaluru” implemented at Azim Premji University, Bengaluru under the Indo-German Collaborative Research project (FOR2432). Financial support from the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India is duly acknowledged.)

Can Fair Trade Movements Help Small Holders? – Anu Priya Babu*

The late 1990s witnessed severe distress in parts of agrarian Kerala due to a steep fall in commodity prices and crop failures leading to indebtedness. ‘There is no alternative but to sell cheaply’ was the slogan that echoed across countries in order to survive in a globalised world. Various organisations emerged to support farmers through protests against neoliberal policies of free trade, but that did not solve the dilemma. Free trade is still considered as a universal good though some refer to it as “socialism of the rich”.

Responsible consumers in search for innovative alternatives in post war USA and Europe concerned about their own health as also about farmer producers had begun working towards making trade relations fairer. Different strands of Fair Trade movement came together around the 1980s and the current form of the movement emerged. Consumers partaking in such movements were willing to pay fair prices to farmers if the products are safe to consume and sustainable in production practices, especially in nurturing biodiversity. This is a small note based on my experience with a grassroots organisation that explored this possibility – Fair Trade Alliance Kerala (FTAK). Established in 2005, FTAK is currently working with thousands of small farmers in the Malabar districts of Kerala, to address the adverse impact of fluctuating market prices.

Fair Trade Alliance Kerala (FTAK)

The working principle of FTAK is Fair Trade plus – Biodiversity, Food security and Gender Justice. The organisation promotes homestead farming as well as regenerative methods in order to ensure integrated development among farming communities. Various social, environmental or sustainability standards including organic certification have been adopted to enhance the intrinsic quality of the produce so as to meet the requirements of a wider set of consumers. The organic agricultural produce from certified farmer members of FTAK are procured at panchayat level and sold via its partner organisation (Elements Homestead Products Pvt Ltd) to exporters as well as local customers. A minimum price is assured to farmer members of the Alliance based on factors like average estimated labour wages, cost of inputs and prevailing market price.

While encouraging certified organic farming, FTAK was conscious of the prospect of indirectly driving monocropping of cash crops like coffee, cashew and spices. Considering this risk, FTAK regarded crop diversity and food crops as mandatory requirements for membership in the Alliance. Beyond improved incomes and nutritional security, farmer members of FTAK acknowledged intangible benefits like collective identity, work satisfaction, hope, confidence and reliability of farm income. Women’s participation, knowledge sharing, as also management of seed banks and procurement depos are ensured by SHGs organised by the Alliance at panchayat level.

“Men used to handle cash flows, selling output and buying inputs, while women did invisible agricultural activities. After joining FTAK, we got a chance to learn and experiment with activities usually handled by men. Group farming and running depots gave us confidence”. – Woman farmer, Wayanad

Amidst the pandemic of Covid19 and ensuing lockdown in 2020, FTAK members experienced high levels of insecurity due to disruptions in export of coffee, cashew and other cash crops to fair trade markets in Europe and other countries. During this period, even though FTAK could procure crops from farmers at reasonable prices, it faced immense difficulty in selling these produce abroad. Dependence on external markets appears tough to be sustained consistently in the long run. Nevertheless, the presence of FTAK was a great relief for farmers as FTAK identified local markets for both inputs and outputs. FTAK also facilitated weekly procurement of vegetables and connected farmers with urban consumers. Nearly 3500 farmers took part in a march organized by the Alliance in three Malabar districts for seed exchange. Alliance has started conducting meetings of district level executive committees through online platforms.

FTAK has been successful in helping small farmers receive ‘less unfair and more predictable prices’ for their produce compared to the prevailing market trend that is often influenced by volatile changes in weather and international trade. Reaching the next milestone of reliable markets that offer stable and fair prices would require moulding responsible customer communities who value the multi-functionality of small-scale regenerative agriculture. Removal of internal barriers, a watchdog to see that smallholder interests are not sacrificed in international agreements and transparency in price determination of agricultural produce are changes that can complement grassroots interventions like FTAK, in bringing systemic changes to small farmers’ plight.

*Anu Priya Babu is a student at Azim Premji University, Bangalore pursuing MA Development.

How farmers in Mandya are faring in the aftermath of COVID-19 and lockdown

Mandya’s agriculture attracts media attention for three reasons – its dispute with the neighbouring states on sharing Cauvery water, farmers’ agitation for release of payment against cane procured by factories, and farmer suicides. This year’s pandemic and lockdown posed a new crisis for the illustrious farmers of Mandya. We wanted to see how this played out amidst other challenges that we’ve been keenly following.

Read more about this post at – https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/how-farmers-mandya-are-faring-aftermath-covid-19-and-lockdown-134311

Tackling Covid: Overcoming pandemic despair

Amidst the challenges posed by Covid, a tribal forest village in Madhya Pradesh seems to have reinforced the realisation that farms, forests, village commons and collective knowhow together buffer tribals against vulnerability

By Seema Purushothaman, Saurabh Singh & Sheetal Patil

Please follow this article at – https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/tackling-covid-overcoming-pandemic-despair/2075285/lite/

Resilience during the pandemic – lessons from the family farms of Yadgir

Small farmers appeared to be more resilient during the lockdown compared to medium and large farms that cater to commercial demands.

Read the full article on The News Minute page

Life and Livelihood – what a virus taught us (by Seema Purushothaman)

Any work that can pay us is considered as ‘livelihood’. Livelihoods that pay better are more attractive to most of us. Whether they actually enhance the quality of life in a sustained manner, seems to be a moot question. Some livelihoods trigger large scale disasters, while others slowly harm human health and yet others divert people, resources, and institutions away from life-supporting livelihoods. In the present circumstances of a virus-induced pause in all economic activities and livelihoods, it will be worthwhile to look at the interfaces of life and livelihoods.

Virus spillover from animals to the human body has been a result of our interference in natural landscapes and making merchandise out of wild animals and their body parts. To be able to buy anything anywhere, anytime, and doing anything to earn the money needed for that, is a legitimate goal in the present times. What some communities living close to natural landscapes would have harvested occasionally, started making regular appearance in markets, for consumers far away. Communities with functional institutions to know and manage their social-ecological systems are supposed to be aware of the potential impacts of indiscriminate extraction and trade in natural resources. But fading social institutions and value systems even among such communities made space for universalised materialistic view of livelihoods. Once market invasion into such an institutional vacuum became the norm, many livelihood options built on specific aspects of nature became just money earners.

Nature- agriculture- food- health- livelihood- wellbeing, is an organic flow that is obvious and easy to comprehend. Nature is slightly modified for agriculture in order to support a healthy meaningful life that includes pursuing livelihoods as also tending nature and society in some way or the other. However, we generally host an atomized understanding of each one of these links interconnected as a single thread.  Nature comes to our mind as wilderness in some distant mountains, farming as an occupation of the unskilled, food as what market can provide irrespective of seasons and locations, and health as ensured by capital seekers in the sector. Such segregated notions are instrumental in breaking the chain between human well being and nature, though it may not be visible right away, as in the case of wildlife trade. This short-circuiting of the chain of life by profit chasers and consumers co-opted livelihood seekers too in the process.

Agriculture, as critical connect between nature and human well-being, was an occupation that harmonized life and livelihood.  Making it just another enterprise meant measuring it exclusively in terms of monetary outcomes. Fading cultural-ecological institutions including the know-how and skills around agriculture facilitated this paradoxical makeover of a creative occupation on which the lifeline of humanity is rooted.   Donning the mantle of an enterprise, it started to be life-threatening for both consumers and producers through mindless practices at various stages. Despite transforming from a culture to a business, it also became non-remunerative as a norm than exception. Indebtedness as well as weakening health of ecosystems and society came to be the trademarks of an occupation that could play an affirmative role in the longevity of human civilization.

Since this year’s Ugadi – the new year day of the lunisolar calendar – 24^th March 2020 – life and livelihood appear to be at loggerheads with each other, in other ways too. Workers especially those in the unorganized sector, had to stop their work so as to save human life from the Covid-19 pandemic brought out by a zoonotic pathogen. Most workplaces fell silent. Some with secure jobs could continue to get paid, but a huge majority of those precariously employed in the informal sector lost their daily earnings.

‘Blue sheds’ as they are referred to are the shanties where migrant workers stay in Bengaluru. 

Is this trade-off between life and livelihood inevitable even during a pandemic? Estimates show that, of the informal sector workers (more than 90% of workers in the country), those in urban areas suffered more losses  than their peers in the rural (APU COVID survey, May 2020).  Large chunk of the unorganized sector workers are small and marginal landholders. To these workers, agriculture is not just part-time self-employment, but also nutritional autonomy and social security. For them, agriculture would have been a reliable basic needs provider , if market for their small surplus could be assured, along with safe and productive complementary employment in the neighborhoods. With some control over one’s own basic well being within reach of one’s village, and with functional institutions in health and education, the conflict and resultant out-migration would have been minimal.

An interior hamlet from where smallholders migrate to insecure jobs and abysmal living conditions in some distant city

The financial burden from an exclusively market-oriented small-scale farming and inadequate public health care system made migration a norm, diverting labour force towards building urban infrastructure and lifestyles. The precipitating question was that of food, and imports proved easy and often cheaper too. Whether imported food is unsafe for consumption or nourishing in their impact on the human body and whether they undermine farm livelihoods, are questions never asked in food security discourses. Food produced in ways unknown to the consumers (that include most farmers) travel far and wide, making the nature-well being nexus out of sight, for most of us.

The book – City and the Peasant: urbanization and agrarian change in southern India (Seema Purushothaman and Sheetal Patil, Springer Nature, 2019) reveals the fact that urban informal sector is not an aspirational workplace for rural migrants. Contrary to the common notion, it doesn’t even improve the quality of life of farmer migrants, as the book finds in Karnataka. While the urban informal jobs came to a grinding halt in this era of the pandemic, farmers continued their work, though earnings suffered as consumers and production landscapes are far from each other. Public food Distribution System was a savior in most places (APU COVID survey, May 2020; Dalberg, April 2020), keeping hunger  at bay from farm households, but much short of ensuring nutritional security.

The above is not a tirade against enterprise and trade altogether. Humans have always tried to know, interact, and transact with new places, products and people. It will always be the case; even though we are increasingly protective of the political and cultural boundaries. Virus crossed all borders and not one could we close by choice.  The profound and fundamental emerging fact is that ignoring nature’s value chain is suicidal for humanity.

With economic feedback loops set in motion, all human activities including disaster mitigation tasks, reinforced cumulative production processes and profiteering within and across borders. The cycle of depletive extraction, wasteful consumption, and pollution spurred economic growth, until a black swan event like COVID-19.  After all that din about marketization and globalization for the sake of livelihoods and poverty reduction through economic growth, the entire economy has to focus on a singular purpose- of saving human lives, simultaneously hand holding enterprises ravaged by the pandemic, for a notable time from now. About INR 20 lakh crore or 10% of India’s GDP has been earmarked for overcoming the economic loss. After all, only when human life is thriving, would livelihood generation make any sense.

The pandemic is mauling the so far mutually reinforcing capital – livelihood cycle, though all efforts are being made to be back soon on the self-defeating track. Economists are urging governments to mint more money and reduce the interest rate. The government is urging corporate bodies and civil society to spend more in humanitarian responses as wages, food, and medical care.  Some announcements on ‘being vocal about local’ and some move to ensure wage security (though dilution of labour laws also are reported) provide hope of fresh thinking. But a clear paradigm shift to an economic cycle with a shorter radius and bearable turbulence that could make the nature-well being nexus explicit, is not in sight.

The one simple and obvious lesson from the small but mighty virus is that modern superstitions like economic growth as the panacea for all problems and consequent belief in money as the only measure of livelihoods are hard to phase out, than age-old social evils. Diligent economic growth built on resilient social-ecological systems may be a slower but steadier companion to a healthy human race. Then, livelihoods will let us nurture nature and civilization, and may not cost lives.

Forthcoming posts will cover lived experiences and strategies of smallholders from different parts of Karnataka, in surviving the crisis during the Covid-19 pandemic.  Till then, as always,  we welcome your feedback and comments.