What is the future of Auroville Farms?
From Auroville Wiki
Contents |
What is the future of Auroville Farms?
Some time ago the Economy Group (EG) invited the Farm Group’s participation in investigating the best way of supporting Auroville farms while also making some suggestions as to how this could best be achieved. In response members of the Farm Group produced a discussion document setting out what they thought were the main issues related to farming in Auroville together with proposals for what they thought was the best way of supporting the farms.
This was at a time when there were also changes being made in the Auroville economy. These include a different ‘in kind’ distribution system from the new Pour Tous at the Solar Kitchen, the creation of a ‘Unity Fund’ to make the collective income and distribution of money within Auroville more transparent, and changes suggested by the Economy Group for the better management of services.
The discussion paper
The aim of this discussion paper about Auroville Farms is to consider some of the questions related to the financial viability of farming in Auroville. The three questions which need to be addressed are:
- Where are we now with regard to farming in Auroville? – Answers to this question come from The Farm Assessment Process carried out in 2003/4. This research project examined the history of farming and where the farms stand in terms of viability. This was followed with a series of strategic planning meetings made suggestions as to how the farms could serve the community better.
- What will our farms look like if we go according to the ideas suggested by the Economy Group? – Recently, the Farm Group received suggestions from the Economy Group as to how Auroville farms might become more financially independent and self-supportive. The farm group explored what the implications for the farms would be if we followed these suggestions.
- How can farms be supported and organised for the mutual benefit of farmers and the community they serve? - In the context of the New Pour Tous (PT) and changes within the economy of Auroville, both as it is now and as it is envisaged for the future, the question of the farms and how they can be supported and organised for the mutual benefit of the farms and the community has to be examined.
Where are we now with regard to farms in Auroville
The Farm Assessment Research found that:
- Farming in Auroville is a very difficult enterprise as the soil is very poor and the climate is one of extremes where it is either impossible or difficult to grow the food that Aurovilians like to eat. Potatoes, cauliflower, broccoli and wheat are impossible to grow and vegetables like tomatoes and salad can only be grown easily for a few months in the year. Auroville products have to compete with a heavily subsidized subsistence economy although anyone who thinks Indian farmers are being feather bedded by the government should look at the suicide figures, the economics of farming being tough on all small farms. In the last five years increasing numbers of large organic farms, run on the ‘agribusiness model’ have come into being, some of which are attached to sophisticated marketing organizations. A wide variety of organic food is thus more available and at a reasonable price than ever before.
- Most of the Auroville farms are under-resourced, suffering as they do from too little investments that come in small amounts over long periods of time. As a result the farms are not set up for optimal production because of lack of infrastructure. In addition farmers struggle with high upkeep costs (because of not having sufficient money to invest in low maintenance infrastructure) and frequently have to try and fund infrastructure from current income. Often farmers have to take on additional activities, such as food processing or having guests/volunteers to make the farm financially viable.
- In the majority of Auroville farms only the farmer is supported by an Auroville maintenance (a maintenance being a regular amount of money that some Aurovilians receive to cover basic needs) with the farm work being carried out by paid labourers. In general these workers do hard physical work for low wages, often $2/day or less which the UN defines as ‘poverty wages’ - providing enough for basic needs but little else. The Farm Assessment Research showed that labour costs are proportionately the highest costs which the farmer has to bear, but trying to lower these in this situation is very difficult and some would say morally indefensible. One possibility would be for more Aurovilians to do the actual farm work, but whether Aurovilians could or would be able and willing to do this work is debatable.
- Beyond this the farms are limited by the size and fluctuations of the Auroville market. A catch 22 is in operation: low demand leads to low output with high unit costs and resulting high prices which many Aurovilians on a maintenance cannot afford. This further restricts demand which further restricts output, keeping unit costs high. If AV farms were able to supply basic vegetables like okra to the whole Auroville market, unit costs could be reduced, but this vicious circle makes this very difficult. It’s a bit like the public transport where nobody uses it because it is too expensive, hence the busses run empty and finally to cover costs fares go up, and eventually even fewer people catch the bus.
As a result of the Farm Assessment Research and a number of strategic planning meetings the Farm Group decided that the way ahead for them would be as follows:
The collective vision for the Farm Group is as follows:
A healthy and conscious farming system, integrated with and providing food for the community.
To achieve our vision for the AVFG, the following goals were specified:
- Serving the community by growing healthy produce in response to the needs of the community; Informing and involving them in the process.
- To improve quality and increase production, whilst sustaining the environment by farming ecologically.
- To efficiently manage the farms with transparent and detailed record keeping, and to make farms financially viable with support from the community and outside interested parties, while moving towards a collective economy.
We can, and are attempting to counter catch 22 situations by:
- Improving management capacities as well as marketing. This includes setting up a central marketing facility at the Farm Group Office as well as a library and information database for farmers.
- Using a pricing system that reflects market price + an ‘organic premium’ of about 25% although we have been unable to implement this as we have been unable to get market prices from PT.
What will the farms look like if we follow the ideas of the Economy Group?
Recently, the EG suggested that farms become more self-supporting and respond more to market forces. If we did this, what type of farm would we have in AV? And would those farms that survive best serve the community’s interests?
The farms would consider the following strategies for survival:
Increase production of the basic crops and try and sell into Auroville. The choice for those sourcing fruit & vegetables for use or distribution within Auroville is that it is cheaper and often more convenient to source outside AV. When the budget is tight (as the Farm Assessment Research showed) this becomes a major issue. The new Pour Tous assumes that they will use more Auroville produce, but has the increased cost of doing this been thought through? The new system assumes that there will be a limit – measured in rupees - which each individual can be offered. If individuals are to be offered the choice of having Auroville produce and knowing that it would mean receiving less how many people on a low income would opt for that? Would the restaurants, operating on less than 30 rs/meal buy farm produce? Perhaps those committed to organic/healthy food would, but it would be more difficult to organise. Already the solar kitchen is subject to the market and applies downward pressure on farm prices (viz., milk).
While a lot of goodwill exists between the farms and the distribution group, there will be pressure to reduce prices. The new Pour Tous is asking the providers of goods to distribute at cost price. We are not quite sure how anyone defines cost price but by any reasonable definition the farms are probably already supplying at below this level (again milk, for example). One danger for farms trying to produce basic fruit and vegetables within a competitive market is the inherent pressure to cut corners on standards. A farmer with debts can’t afford a crop loss and when for a few paise he can prevent it by spraying with chemicals. Thus Auroville farms will only be able to take this route if they can produce high volume low price products and this will only be possible if they receive a lot more investment.
Develop niche products and market in and outside of AV. The financial pressure would be to grow ‘luxury’ goods and to develop high value added products. These would not be appropriate for the new distribution centre and so would therefore be for self-supporting Aurovilians, guests, and capitalist consumer markets in Pondicherry and Chennai. There is a strong likelihood that the farms would end up like many of the community’s textile and handicraft units whose products ordinary Aurovilians cannot afford to buy. To be really successful AV farm products would need organic registration, and investment which is expensive and would, therefore, add to the ultimate cost.
Commodity cropping (such as cashews and hibiscus). It makes financial sense for a farm to specialize in a crop for which it has a guaranteed market and a known, preferably high, price. There are many such markets but often these are for the luxury market (organic herb and flower teas for example) which is unrelated to local needs.
Diversify, into guest accommodation, food processing, educational activities. In some cases this can fit well into a farm and the wider community. Food processing can use up spare capacity while volunteers and paying guests have the opportunity to experience Auroville. Relying on guests, however, has its own problems; last year’s tsunami prevented many guests from coming. Investing and running these extra activities can divert energies from the core business with subsequent drops in production.
Thus if farms are left to respond to market forces they will be forced to focus on products that make them financially viable rather than those needed by the community.
How can farms be supported in Auroville for the mutual benefit of farms and the community?
To move the farms from the vicious circle of low outputs/high prices to the more virtuous circle of high outputs/low prices some kind of support is needed by the community. At present support comes by way of maintenance for farmers, but this does not encourage best management practices. Taking this support away from the most financially viable, and therefore presumably best managed farms, (as recently suggested by the EG) merely penalises those who are doing a good job.
One way of doing this would be to subsidise the crop which has the advantage of paying farmers for output rather than just for being farmers. In other words for every kg of (say) rice that a farmer produces the farmer receives a certain amount from selling the product in the market and a certain amount as subsidy. The price of the product can be less than production costs but with the subsidy, the farmer receives enough to cover all his/her costs. It has the advantage that the farmer is paid according to production, thus encouraging the farmer to manage the farm well. The problem is that it can lead to over-production with farmers growing large amounts in order to receive the subsidy rather than what is needed by the market. This can lead to all sorts of ‘food mountains’ which no one wants and which often have to be thrown away.
Within the Auroville situation such subsidies could be created as a form of community supported agriculture (CSA). Worldwide many variations exist, but all share the same basics in that there is a shared risk between the farmer and the consumer. Obviously such systems are based on a close relationship between the farm and its community. We suggest that this be translated to the Auroville situation with a price support mechanism from Central Fund that would enable farms to supply to Auroville basic foods at the same ‘cost’ to Aurovilians as the Pondicherry market. Initially, considerable financial support would be needed, but this should diminish over time as farm efficiencies improve and the high productivity and lower unit costs are established.
