Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T05:21:31.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Potential and limitations of organic and fair trade cotton for improving livelihoods of smallholders: evidence from Central Asia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2011

Felicitas Bachmann
Felicitas Bachmann*
Affiliation:
Centre for Development and Environment CDE, University of Bern, Hallerstrasse 10, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
*
Corresponding author: felicitas.bachmann@cde.unibe.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cotton is a leading agricultural non-food commodity associated with soil degradation, water pollution and pesticide poisoning due to high levels of agrochemical inputs. Organic farming is often promoted as a means of addressing the economic, environmental and health risks of conventional cotton production, and it is slowly gaining ground in the global cotton market. Organic and fair trade cotton are widely seen as opportunities for smallholder farmers to improve their livelihoods thanks to higher returns, lower input costs and fewer risks. Despite an increasing number of studies comparing the profitability of organic and non-organic farming systems in developing and industrialized countries, little has been published on organic farming in Central Asia. The aim of this article is to describe the economic performance and perceived social and environmental impacts of organic cotton in southern Kyrgyzstan, drawing on a comparative field study conducted by the author in 2009. In addition to economic and environmental aspects, the study investigated farmers’ motivations toward and assessment of conversion to organic farming. Cotton yields on organic farms were found to be 10% lower, while input costs per unit were 42% lower; as a result, organic farmers’ cotton revenues were 20% higher. Due to lower input costs as well as organic and fair trade price premiums, the average gross margin from organic cotton was 27% higher. In addition to direct economic benefits, organic farmers enjoy other benefits, such as easy access to credit on favorable terms, provision of uncontaminated cottonseed cooking oil and cottonseed cake as animal feed, and marketing support as well as extension and training services provided by newly established organic service providers. The majority of organic farmers perceive improved soil quality, improved health conditions, and positively assess their initial decision to convert to organic farming. The major disadvantage of organic farming is the high manual labor input required. In the study area, where manual farm work is mainly women's work and male labor migration is widespread, women are most affected by this negative aspect of organic farming. Altogether, the results suggest that, despite the inconvenience of a higher workload, the advantages of organic farming outweigh its disadvantages and that conversion to organic farming improves the livelihoods of small-scale farmers.

Keywords

organic cottonfair tradelivelihoodseconomic performanceimpactKyrgyzstan
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 138 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Environmental Justice Foundation. 2007. The Deadly Chemicals in Cotton. EJF, London.Google Scholar
2Eyhorn, F., Ratter, S.G., and Ramakrishnan, M. 2005. Organic Cotton Crop Guide. A Manual for Practitioners in the Tropics. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, Frick, Switzerland.Google Scholar
3Rasoul, G.M.A., Abou Salem, M.E., Mechael, A.A., Hendy, O.M., Rohlman, D.S., and Ismail, A.A. 2008. Effects of occupational pesticide exposure on children applying pesticides. Neurotoxicology 29:833–838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Maumbe, B.M. and Swinton, S.M. 2003. Hidden health costs of pesticide use in Zimbabwe's smallholder cotton growers. Social Science and Medicine 57:1559–1571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Myers, D. and Stolton, S. 1999. Organic Cotton: From Field to Final Product. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Jales, M. 2010. How would a WTO agreement on cotton affect importing and exporting countries? ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development Issue Paper No. 26. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Ferrigno, S., Ratter, S.G., Ton, P., Vodouhê, D.S., Williamson, S., and Wilson, J. 2005. Organic Cotton: A New Development Path for African Smallholders? Gatekeeper Series 120. IIED, London.Google Scholar
8Overseas Development Institute. 2004. Developed country cotton subsidies and developing countries: unraveling the impacts on Africa. ODI Briefing Paper. ODI, London.Google Scholar
9Eyhorn, F. 2007. Organic Farming for Sustainable Livelihoods in Developing Countries? The Case of Cotton in India. vdf Hochschulverlag AG, Zürich.Google Scholar
10Rao, N.C. 2004. Suicides of farmers and cotton cultivation in India. The ICFAI Journal of Applied Economics 3(5):28–46.Google Scholar
11Ingram, M. 2002. Producing the natural fiber naturally: Technological change and the US organic cotton industry. Agriculture and Human Values 19(4):325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Ton, P. 2004. The international market for organic cotton. In Baier, A. (ed.). 04 Cotton: A European Conference on Developing the Organic Cotton Market. 17. PAN-Germany, Hamburg.Google Scholar
13Organic Exchange 2010. Organic Cotton Market Report 2009. Organic Exchange, O'Donnell, Texas.Google Scholar
14Ferrigno, S., Lizarraga, A., Nagarajan, P., and Tovignan, S. 2010. Organic Cotton Farm and Fiber Report 2009. Organic Exchange, O'Donnell, Texas.Google Scholar
15Eyhorn, F., Ramakrishnan, M., and Mäder, P. 2007. The viability of cotton-based organic farming systems in India. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 5(1): 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Nemes, N. 2009. Comparative Analysis of Organic and Non-Organic Farming Systems: A Critical Assessment of Farm Profitability. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
17Pineau, M. 2009. Etude d'impact du programme coton bio et équitable d'Helvetas au Burkina Faso. CDE, Bern, Switzerland (unpublished). Available at Web site http://www.organicandfair.org/oftcc/Publications/Reports/CDE-2009_Impact-coton-bio-Burkina_final.pdf(accessedSeptember18,2010).Google Scholar
18International Crisis Group. 2005. The curse of cotton: Central Asia's destructive monoculture. Asia Report No. 93. International Crisis Group, Bishkek/Brussels.Google Scholar
19Basset, T.J. 2010. Slim pickings: Fairtrade cotton in West Africa. Geoforum 41:44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20International Trade Centre 2007. Cotton Exporter's Guide. ITC, Geneva.Google Scholar
21Bachmann, F. 2010. Impact Assessment—Organic Cotton in Jalalabad Oblast, Kyrgyzstan. CDE, Bern, Switzerland (unpublished). Available at Web site http://www.organicandfair.org/oftcc/Publications/Reports/BioCotton_ImpactAssessment_Kyrgyzstan_final.pdf(accessedSeptember18,2010).Google Scholar
22Rice, R.A. 2001. Noble goals and challenging terrain: Organic and fair trade coffee movements in the global marketplace. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14:39–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Tovignan, S.D. and Nuppenau, E.A. 2004. Adoption of organic cotton in Benin: Does gender play a role? In Proceedings of the Conference on Rural Poverty Reduction through Research for Development and Transformation. Deutscher Tropentag, Berlin, 5–7 October 2004.Google Scholar
24International Fund for Agricultural Development. 2005. Organic agriculture and poverty reduction in Asia: China and India focus. Report No. 1664. IFAD, Rome.Google Scholar
25Clark, M.S., Horwath, W.R., Shennan, C. and Scow, K.M. 1998. Changes in soil chemical properties resulting from organic and low-input farming practices. Agronomy Journal 90:662–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Martini, E.A., Buyer, J.S., Bryant, D.C., Hartz, T.K. and Denison, R.F. 2004. Yield increases during the organic transition: Improving soil quality or increasing experience? Field Crops Research 86:255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Food and Agriculture Organization, World Food Programme 2010: FAO/WFP Crop and food security assessment mission to Kyrgyzstan. Special Report, 7 December 2010. FAO, WFP, Rome. Available at Web site http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/al970e/al970e00.pdf(accessedJanuary18,2011).Google Scholar
28International Monetary Fund. 2009. IMF Executive board concludes 2009 article IV consultation with the Kyrgyz Republic. Public Information Notice (PIN) No. 09/69, May 29, 2009. Available at Web site http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2009/pn0969.htm(accessedJanuary10,2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Akramov, K.T. and Omuraliev, N. 2009. Institutional change, rural services, and agricultural performance in Kyrgyzstan. IFPRI Discussion Paper 904. IFPRI, Washington.Google Scholar