te

shim

CottonGenetically modied seedIndia

uenativcasendscheion

seeds. As a result, the conuence of the two initiatives has not intensied the organic concept as an

l produsinglynd Maffee isof Tra

standard requiring environmentally sustainable production prac-tices (see Nicholls and Opal, 2005) has directly and indirectlyencouraged participant farmers to adopt organic farming technol-ogy (Jaffee, 2007, pp. 138164; Bassett, 2010). Small farmers, how-ever, may not necessarily choose to pursue both certications astheir strategy because they balance between the biodiversity oftheir farms and a focus on a specic Fair Trade crop (Makita,2011). Compared with large farmers, marginal and small farmers

modied (GM) or Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) hybrid seeds has been

ination of non-GM cotton through cross-pollination jeopardizesboth the organic and fair-trade programs. Organic certicationsclearly ban the use of GM seeds (IFOAM, 2007). The Fair Trade stan-dard set by Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO),which was originally intended to help disadvantaged farmers im-prove their livelihoods, also prohibits Fair Trade-certied producer

1 In general, the transition to a more intensive form of management for theacquisition of an organic certication entails more land, labor and capital resourcesupon producers. These entry costs to organic production are too high for marginal andsmall producers.

Geoforum 43 (2012) 12321241

Contents lists available at ciVerse ScienceDirect

o um

lseE-mail address: rie.makita@rikkyo.ac.jporganic certications is understandable from the perspective ofNorthern buyers because double certication enables them to sellthe product to a wider range of markets more easily. Also, produc-ers in the South may feel that the two certications are compatible.Many small and marginal farmers targeted by Fair Trade are tradi-tionally organic farmers, who want to reduce production costs anddraw on locally available manures. Furthermore, the Fair Trade

controversial since the commercialization of rst Bt cotton varietiesin 1990 (Baffes, 2011, p. 3). Bt seeds have been introduced to in-crease cotton yields as well as to reduce the use of chemical inputs(see Tripp, 2009). This innovation is generally welcomed by cottonfarmers in the global South, which reminds us that the Green Rev-olution once spread rapidly among Southern farmers (e.g. Stone,2007). However, Bassett (2010, p. 52) anticipates that Bt contam-tion as well (Weber, 2007). Such a conuence of Fair Trade andwas also organic in 2005 (Lipson, 2007, p. 253). Fair Trade produc-ers are being increasingly encouraged to obtain organic certica-

vary from one crop to another and from one context to another. Anotable context is the cotton sector in which the use of genetically1. Introduction

In the trade of ethical agriculturaorganic initiatives are being increa2000; Bowes and Croft, 2007; Allen aroughly half of Fair Trade-certied co(Raynolds et al., 2007, p. 154); 87%0016-7185/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.03.009alternative accumulation strategy for agrarian capitalism, but neither has it released disadvantagedSouthern farmers from agrarian capitalism. Rather, it has led farmers into another form of agrariancapitalism.

2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

cts, the Fair Trade andfused (Browne et al.,lin, 2008). For example,also certied as organicnsfair USA-certied tea

are at a disadvantage in terms of access to organic certicationwhich, unlike Fair Trade certication, is open to any farmer (Brayet al., 2002, p. 442; Gomez Tovar et al., 2005).1 Emerging debateson the conuence of Fair Trade and organic certications are ex-pected to shed light on new aspects of the two initiatives that werenot identied when they were handled individually.

The implications of this conuence of the two initiatives canOrganicCertication

to assist small farmers. Fair Trades dilemma between helping poor farmers and promoting organic farm-ing may have indirectly allowed Fair Trade producers to tend towards conventional farming with BtFair Trade and organic initiatives confronIndia: A paradox

Rie MakitaGraduate School of Social Design Studies, Rikkyo University, 3-34-1 Nishi-Ikebukuro, To

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 7 September 2011Received in revised form 13 March 2012Available online 14 April 2012

Keywords:Fair Trade

a b s t r a c t

This paper explores a conIndia, using as an interpretthe Northern context. In acontrary to their ethical staTrade initiative, lacking aendure during the convers

Geof

journal homepage: www.ell rights reserved.d with Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh,

a-ku, Tokyo 171-8501, Japan

ce of Fair Trade and organic initiatives under the prevalence of Bt cotton ine framework Guthmans conventionalization thesis for organic farming instudy conducted in Andhra Pradesh, the conuence of the two initiatives,

ards, contributed to the spread of genetically modied (GM) seed. The Fairme for compensating for the decrease in income that producers have toperiod, tends to take a more relaxed attitude toward GM crops in order

vier .com/locate /geoforumS

r

2.1. Organic farming in the context of the global South

43 (2012) 12321241 1233organizations from using GM seeds, albeit not as denitively asorganic certications do (Fairtrade Foundation, 2011). Accordingto the Fairtrade Foundation (2011), Fair Trade products are notguaranteed to be GM free:

Fairtrade does not test harvested crops for GM traits for tworeasons. First, the costs would be prohibitive in relation to thepotential risk. Secondly, if a Fairtrade-certied farm is acciden-tally contaminated by pollen from GM crops that crop wouldthen have to be excluded from the Fairtrade market. We believeit would be unfair to punish farmers for events like this that arebeyond their control.

It is possible to interpret this statement as an excuse for the intru-sion of Bt seeds into Fair Trade cotton. Although the organic initia-tive can judge the propriety of GM organisms only from theecological viewpoint, the Fair Trade initiative may not be able toneglect positive impacts of Bt seeds on poor farmers and laborersveried by scholars such as Ramasundarama et al. (2007), Subrama-nian and Qaim (2009, 2010) and Qaim (2010) as long as Fair Tradegives priority to its contribution to poverty reduction. This slightbut signicant difference between the two initiatives in terms oftheir attitude toward GM crops seems to make them incompatiblein real production settings. When a new technology such as Bt seedsis introduced, how do small farmers choose between the innova-tion, Fair Trade and organic farming? How should we interpretthe conuence of Fair Trade and organic initiatives in the contextof the innovation-inuenced cotton sector?

To explore these questions, this paper applies Guthmans(2004a,b) conventionalization thesis on organic farming in theGlobal North to the Southern context anddraws on a case study con-ducted in a major cotton-growing country, India. As detailed in thenext section, Guthman argues that agribusiness involvement hasmade organic farming more shallow or industrial, effectively less-ening some of the distinctiveness of organic vis--vis conventionalfarming (Guthman, 2004b, p. 307). The next section frames theapplication of this conventionalization thesis on the basis of aliterature review to interpret the conuence of the Fair Trade andor-ganic initiatives as well as plausible interactions between the two.The third section outlines the case for observation; and the fourthsection reveals how Fair Trade-certied small farmers adopt or donot adopt Bt seeds and organic farming in a real setting. By applyingthe theoretical framework to the interpretationof data from the casestudy, the fth section identies a paradox of the two initiatives asan outcome of the conuence. The nal section briey summarizesmajor ndings and policy implications from the research.

2. Theoretical propositions

The Fair Trade and organic initiatives are, in reality, practicedthrough the certication system. Although the certication systemdoes not necessarily convey the original purposes of the two initia-tives (e.g. Getz and Shreck, 2006; Jaffee and Howard, 2010), obser-vation of the conuence of the two initiatives needs to drawprimarily on the certied initiatives. Although the respective certi-cation systems for the two initiatives were designed commonlyfor Northern consumers, there is a clear distinction in terms ofmotive to purchase: Fair Trade was invented and is supported forthe benet of disadvantaged producers in the global South andthe organic certication is primarily for the benet of Northernconsumers (Gonzalez and Nigh, 2005, p. 450; Bowes and Croft,2007, pp. 278279). Therefore, it is in the rst place necessary toclarify the meaning of organic farming for small producers in the

R. Makita / GeoforumSouth. The rest of this section attempts to theorize plausible inter-actions between the two initiatives on the part of Southern produc-ers, also referring to the inuence of Bt cotton as a new technology.Although farmers in the global South have traditionally oper-ated organic farming, more precisely, natural farming, the valueof organic practices was realized and dened in the global North(Raynolds, 2004). The so-called conventionalization debate start-ing from Buck et al. (1997) is central to the organic discourse in theNorth. Guthman (2004a) documents how agribusiness corpora-tions have permeated the organic sector and how the conventionalindustrial model has been replicated in organics, enabling suchcorporations to capture more power and prot. This process iscalled conventionalization. In other words, the principle of or-ganic farmingthat ecologically healthy farm systems promoteagriculturehas been gradually transformed into an alternativemeans of capital accumulation through organic regulation andindustrial agriculture. As a result, agrarian dreams, such as work-ing with nature and small-scale production within localized econ-omies, have rarely been realized by producers (Guthman, 2002,2004a). Studies by Smith and Marsden (2004), Lockie and Halpin(2005), De Wit and Verhoog (2007), Best (2008) and Guptill(2009) basically support this conventionalization thesis, albeitnding the existence of non-conventionalized, pro-environmentfarmers as well. Others primarily criticize the simple linear trajec-tory of the conventionalization thesis, with divergent empiricalevidence in different settings (Coombes and Campbell, 1998; Halland Mogyrody, 2001; Pratt, 2009).

Although the conventionalization debate has not yet beenconcluded, when the organic movement entered the global South,people had agrarian dreams again. The organic movement cantheoretically benet Southern producers in two ways. First, theirsmall-scale natural farming with unsophisticated technologiesmay be evaluated as a positive sales point by Northern buyersand consumers (Nigh, 1997). Second, organic farming may revital-ize the soil and farmers health that have been exhausted andharmed by conventional farming with chemical inputs under theGreen Revolution (Shiva, 1991). Many non-governmental organiza-tions (NGOs) and some ofcial development agencies promoteorganic farming, expecting benecial impacts on both naturalresource management and farm incomes (Scialabba and Hattam,2002; McNeely and Scherr, 2003).

Because organic markets have not yet been developed in theSouth, Southern organic producers have from the beginning soughtaccess to Northern markets (Wynen, 2003, pp. 214216). In termsof entry to Northern markets certication plays a signicant role.Inevitably, producers in Latin America, Africa, and Asia havejoined with exporters and certifying organizations to form organictrade associations which work with Northern distributors to createSouthNorth trade circuits; organic trade associations in theSouth have been required to support local certication systemswhich adhere to importing Northern standards (Raynolds, 2004,p. 730). As a result, Nelson et al. (2010) view mainstream organiccertication as a means of increasing the dependency of Southernproducers on rich consumers and buyers in the North. In otherwords, the organic concept in the South was easily linked withthe organic concept in the North as the alternative accumulationstrategy for agrarian capitalism rather than as an alternativeframework for working the rural environment (Woods, 2011,p. 89).2

Does the involvement of Southern small farmers in the North-ern conventionalization process bring any benets to them? Or-ganic agriculture is originally dened as a production systemthat sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people, [relying]2 Woods (2011) himself uses these terms regarding Guthmans conventionalizationthesis in the Northern context.

on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to localconditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects(IFOAM, 2011). As many authors argue (Raynolds, 2000; Guthman,2004b; Mutersbaugh, 2005), however, the basic tenets of organicagriculture have been gradually solidied in the process of estab-lishing and enforcing standards, resulting in the simplicationof the operational meaning toward a single variable: allowable ver-sus prohibited inputs in organics (Jaffee and Howard, 2010, p.397). If organic standards are weakened and simplied, naturalfarming traditionally operated with emphasis on biodiversity bysmall and marginal farmers in the South may not be evaluatedproperly (Earnstman and Wals, 2009). In reality, in conversionfrom conventional into certied-organic farming, small producersare less advantaged than large producers (Mutersbaugh, 2002; Go-mez Tovar et al., 2005; Raynolds, 2008). Although organic farmingitself has a high potential for poverty reduction and more sustain-able livelihoods in developing countries (Scialabba and Hattam,2002; Pretty et al., 2003), it is not easy for many small farmers,who are the target of Fair Trade certication as well, to enjoy thebenets of organic farming under the certication system.

2.2. Plausible interactions between Fair Trade and organic initiatives

Albeit Fair Trade and organic initiatives practiced through the

many cases in which small farmer associations obtain organiccerticationdemanding a 3-year conversion period from all asso-ciation membersbefore obtaining Fair Trade certication.

In the latter direction (b), although Fair Trade certication byitself does not enable Fair Trade-certied farmers to obtain an or-ganic certication, Fair Trade may contribute to organic farming intwo ways. First, Fair Trade certication is sometimes obtained stra-tegically as a rst step to organic certication. In the process ofpursuing an organic certication, Fair Trade certication helpsproducers perceive the monetary value of organics specicallyand tangibly by enabling them to sell a specic Fair Trade product(Makita, 2011, p. 215). Owing to the absence of local organic mar-kets in most developing countries, farmers usually cannot realizethe organic value before obtaining an organic certication. Byaccessing the Fair Trade marketthe most easily accessible exportmarket for small farmers in the Souththey may be able to per-ceive the organic value. In brief, Fair Trade can be used as an incen-tive to organic farming. Second, as Jaffee (2007, pp. 138164),Frundt (2009, pp. 8081), Bassett (2010) respectively report inthe cases of coffee, bananas and cotton, Fair Trade certicationtends to promote the diffusion of organic farming technologiesthrough the demonstration effect of certied association memberspractices. Fair Trade may encourage Fair Trade and non-Fair Tradeconventional farmers to convert into organic farmers even if they

00),

theited

p

r

on

1234 R. Makita / Geoforum 43 (2012) 12321241respective certication systems have general principles in com-mon, as Table 1 summarizes, there are clear differences: the organ-ic puts more emphasis on environmental regulations and FairTrade on benets for small producers. When the two certicationsare combined, more benets and more burdens are anticipated forsmall farmers. The certication processes interact with each otherin two directions: (a) from organic to Fair Trade and (b) from FairTrade to organic. Interactions may not work equally in both direc-tions because of the differences between the two certications.

In the former direction (a), organic certication enablesorganic-certied farmer cooperatives easily to obtain Fair Tradecertication because the organic certication guarantees the envi-ronmental requirements that Fair Trade producers should meet. Aspointed out above, however, small producers have less access toorganic certication than large producers. There might not be

Table 1Major differences between Fair Trade and organic certications. Sources: Raynolds (20

Fair Trade

Time required beforecertication

Acceptance process takes about 6 months

Certication costs Born by buyers

Type of producer Must be smallholders as members of a democraticallyorganized associationa

Agro-ecologicalstandards

The use of chemical fertilizers, synthetic pesticides, andgenetically engineered planting materials is restricted;use of herbicides and some specied pesticides is prohib

Social standards More specic labor conditions are stipulated

Producer prices Guaranteed minimum above the world price, moving uwith the market

Credit Up to 60% of the purchase price is given to the produceorganizations

Social premiums The buyers must pay US$ 5 cents per kilo for seed cott

Trade relations Must be as direct as possible and aimed at long-termtrading relationsa There is another set of standards for hired labor in plantations different from that fb This is the case for cotton. The Fair Trade organic premium varies according to theare not ofcially certied as organic.What outcomes do such interactions result in? As mentioned

above, it is possible to view the organic initiative in the globalSouth as an exploitation of small producers because of Northernagribusiness players alternative accumulation strategy for agrar-ian capitalism; the tendency to weaken standards for organicsseem to intensify this strategy, which eventually hinders smallfarmers from taking advantage of organics. When combined withthe Fair Trade initiative, does the nature of such organics change?Jaffee and Howard (2010, p. 397) also argue, however, that throughthe process of establishing and enforcing standards, the opera-tional meaning of Fair Trade, like that of organics, has been reducedto a single variable: payment of a minimum price in fair trade, thelevel of which is no longer linked to actual family livelihoods. IfFair Trade does not give sufcient power to certied farmers, does

IFOAM (2007), FLO (2011a,b) and INDOCERT (2011).

Organic Double

Two years for annual crops and 3 years forperennial crops after conversion

Same as organic or longer

Born by producers Born by producers andbuyers

Unspecied Same as Fair Trade

The use of chemical and genetically engineeredplanting material, non-organic fertilizers andsynthetic herbicides and pesticides is prohibited

Same as organic.

Basic labor conditions are stipulated Same as Fair Trade

Tend to be higher than non-organic, moving upand down with the market

Twenty percent higherthan the Fair Tradeconventional minimumpricesb

Unspecied Same as Fair Trade

None Same as Fair Trade

Unspecied Same as Fair Tradeor small producer organizations.product.

the organic initiative contribute to agrarian capitalism, regardless

erates more employment and increases returns to labor, especiallyin the case of hired female workers. Bt seeds do not, however, nec-

R. Makita / Geoforu 43 (2012) 12321241 1235of the interactions between the two?Whether the organic concept as an alternative means of capital

accumulation is promoted or not eventually depends on the con-text regarding the conuence of the two initiatives. In theory, theconuence has both possibilities of strengthening the organicconcept as an alternative accumulation strategy for agrarian cap-italism and of eliciting the original nature of organics as an alter-native framework for working the rural environment (Woods,2011, p. 89). Drawing on these two contrasting concepts as aframework for interpreting the conuence of the Fair Trade andorganic initiatives, this paper observes how the organic conceptvaries in response to a context.

2.3. Bt cotton as a given context

The context given here is the cotton sector inwhich the introduc-tion of Bt seeds has aroused vigorous controversy for the last decade(e.g. Baffes, 2011). On one hand, anti-GM organism movements arereported from India, SouthAfrica andBrazil (Herring, 2005; Scoones,2008) and there are authors who argue that Bt cotton may not beeconomically viablewithout accessible support servicesinput sup-plies, technical advice and nanceand reliable output markets(Gouse et al., 2008) or in the long termbecause of the increased needfor pesticides to cope with the emergence of secondary pests or thehigh levels of pest resistance to the Bt toxin (Dowd-Uribe and Bin-gen, 2008). On the other, scientic and policy consensus regardsGM crop technology as a pro-poor technology that contributesto agricultural and economic development (Scoones, 2002; Glover,2010). In fact, the use of GM cotton seeds has spread rapidly in theglobal North and South. Theworlds total area of Bt cotton increasedfrom 0.8 million hectares in 1996 to 13.4 million hectares in 2006(GMO Compass, 2011); and Bt cotton accounted for an estimated52% of theworlds total cotton-cultivated area in 20092010 (Baffes,2011, p. 14). As Srinivas (2002) argues, technological and economicfactors may outweigh environmental concerns.

Whether it is pro-poor or not, this new biotechnology hasdoubtless worked as an accumulation strategy for seed companies.Even when transgenic varieties are developed by public re-search, . . . the seed will be delivered by private seed companies(Tripp, 2001, p. 259). Expressing consequent ethical concern aboutGM crops, many authors point to Northern or transnational corpo-rations excessive dominance and control of Southern markets(Gibbs, 2000; Srinivasan, 2003; Zerbe, 2004; Reece, 2006; Newell,2009; Weale, 2010). In the context of Indian cotton, Shah (2005)regards the spread of Bt seeds as the result of the alliance betweenlocal and global elites. Such elites include not only transnationalcorporations but also local seed companies supplying pirate orillegal seeds and wealthy farmers with access to land and water.According to these perspectives, small farmers are exploited bylocal and global elites accumulation strategies.

Bt cotton affects small farmers in two aspects: as a new technol-ogy and as a new cash crop. First, those who had been sufferingfrom pest attacks with non-Bt seeds adopted Bt seeds as a newlyintroduced technology for alleviating the pest problem (Royet al., 2007). Second, farmers who had no experience in cotton cul-tivation hitherto were attracted by higher yields from Bt seeds andbegan cotton cultivation with them (Stone, 2007, p. 76). When or-ganic farming is introduced to a cotton-growing area, the formergroup of farmers are required to make a decision as to whetheror not they should switch from conventional farming with Bt seedsto organic farming with non-Bt seeds.3 The second group of farmers3 Although organic certication prohibits the use of Bt seeds (IFOAM, 2007), Royet al. (2007) and Roy (2010) report that some non-certied organic farmers in Gujaratwestern India consider Bt cotton to be compatible with organic farming.m,essarily work as a panacea in all situations. Morse et al. (2007)point out that there are distinctions between Bt adopters andnon-adopters: adopters tend to specialize more in cotton andspend more money on irrigation. Subramanian and Qaim (2009)themselves concede that the total household income effects of Btcotton adoption are bigger for larger farmers. Although a studyby Narayanamoorthy and Kalamkar (2006) suggests that Bt cottoncultivation is substantially better than cultivation with non-Btvarieties in terms of both productivity and prot, it also revealsthat quite a few farmers cultivate Bt cotton without distinguishingbetween Bt and non-Bt varieties and thus continue to use the samequantity of pesticides as they did in the past. On the basis of theircase studies from Gujarat and Maharashtra, Lalitha et al. (2009, p.167) also point out that [d]espite the widespread accesscould have two options, conventional and organic, at the same time.Each farmers experience before the introduction of organic farmingwill inuence his or her decision on the adoption of organic cottoncultivation.

Conversely, Fair Trade appears to be substantially free from thecontroversies surrounding Bt seeds for two reasons. One reason isthat Fair Trade does not strictly examine Bt contamination, as men-tioned in Section 1. The other is that Fair Trade itself does not offerany equivalent to an organic price premium that testies to theGM-free nature of the product but guarantees the minimumfarm-gate price, regardless of local price trends which may reectthe prevalence of Bt seeds. Given the spread of Bt cotton, a case ofsmall farmers in central India is studied to see how they performwith regard to the conuence of Fair Trade and organic initiatives.

3. Outline of the case study

3.1. Cotton cultivation in India

India is the second largest cotton producer and consumer in theworld (Osakwe, 2009). Three states, Gujarat, Maharashtra and And-hra Pradesh, account for about 70% of the total cotton production(Osakwe, 2009). In the world cotton sector, India, albeit havingthe largest area under cotton cultivation, is known for its low pro-ductivity because of severe pest ravages and its predominant culti-vation under rain-fed conditions (Narayanamoorthy and Kalamkar,2006, p. 2716; Eyhorn, 2007, p. 24). The inevitable use of pesticidesnot only increases the nancial burden of the farmers but also cre-ates health hazards and environmental risks; such nancial burdenis related to a high incidence of poor farmers suicides in the cot-ton-growing areas (Patil, 2002; Narayanamoorthy and Kalamkar,2006, p. 2716). The introduction of Bt seeds was expected to im-prove this situation. The national average yield of cotton dramati-cally increased from 308 kg per hectare in 20012002 to 568 kgper hectare in the 20092010 season4: the remarkable increase inyield is mainly attributed to Bt seeds which were rst commercial-ized in 2002 (Choudhary and Gaur, 2010, p. 10).

Bt seeds have spread rapidly: only one company dealt withthree Bt hybrids in 2002, but 35 companies received approval tosell 522 Bt hybrids by 2009 (Choudhary and Gaur, 2010, p. 16).Consequently, Bt cotton was estimated to cover 86% of the nationalcotton area in 2010 (Choudhary and Gaur, 2011). As regards thebenets of Bt cotton, in addition to the increase in crop yield andreduction in pesticide use, Ramasundarama et al. (2007) empiri-cally verify an increase in net prot, and analyses by Subramanianand Qaim (2009, 2010) and Qaim (2010) show that Bt cotton gen-4 In India, the planting period takes place from March to September and harvestsfrom October to February (Osakwe, 2009).

(b) conventional with non-Bt hybrid seeds, (c) certied organic and(d) non-certied organic.5 The Fair Trade initiative entered such a

.3. Data collection in a focus village

Primary data were collected in December 2010 and in Febru-ryMarch 2011, focusing on members living in one village (here-after, K village) in one of the eight clusters. This cluster waselected because it had the highest dependence on cotton. Theluster members owned on average 3.4 acres of arable land, smal-r than the association average, and about 70% of their land wasllocated to cotton cultivation. Groups in three villages made up

1236 R. Makita / Geoforum 43 012) 12321241cotton sector. Although there are no statistical data showing thescale of Fair Trade cotton production in India, it must be smaller thanorganic cotton: there were 275,300 organic cotton farmers versus85,000 Fair Trade cotton farmers in the world in 20092010 (ICAC,2011). The fact that 30% of the world Fair Trade seed cotton produc-tion was also organic in 20082009 suggests the existence of FairTrade-cum-organic cotton farmers in India (ICAC, 2011).

3.2. Organization of small farmers in Andhra Pradesh, India

The case study draws on an association of cotton farmers orga-nized in a district close to the Marahashtra border, in the state ofAndhra Pradesh (AP). A local NGO called Agriculture and OrganicFarming Group India (AOFG) has supported the formation of thefarmers association. AOFG started their cotton project with the fol-lowing vision: to increase the power, negotiating position andknowledge base of small and marginal farmers in India by eradicat-ing exploitation in agricultural production and supply chains, andby mainstreaming the farmers [into the] economic prosperity ofthe country (taken from AOFGs project document). The NGO isinterested in organic farming as a means of poverty reduction. Ithas provided the associations members with technical assistancein organic cotton production and has tried to link the associationwith ethical markets in the North.

AOFG chose this district because of the high incidence of suicideamong cotton farmers living there. In December 2010, about 2700small farmers had been organized into eight clusters primarily forthe purpose of obtaining Fair Trade and organic certications.AOFGs record shows 4.6 acres as the members average landhold-ing for 20102011. The livelihoods of farmers depend solely onrain-fed farming in the district. The attempt to convert to organicfarming began in 2006, and 1017 members had already survivedthe 3-year conversion period in December 2010. The associationwas certied as Fair Trade in 2007.to. . . transgenic cotton, there are few mechanisms that allow farm-ers to learn how to use the new technology as part of more rationalapproach to insect control. The lack of pest management suitablefor Bt seeds may reduce small farmers net income. The currentdominance of Bt seeds does not mean that all cotton farmers eval-uate the effect of Bt seeds properly.

Another countermeasure against the indiscriminate use of pes-ticides is organic cultivation. Whereas organic cotton accounted foronly 1.1% of global cotton production in 20092010, the global or-ganic cotton market jumped from under 300 million US dollars in2002 to over 4.3 billion dollars in 2009; and the majority, 81%, wasproduced in India (Truscott et al., 2010). In other words, it is esti-mated that about 3% of cotton produced in India was certied asorganic in 20092010 (Truscott et al., 2010; Choudhary and Gaur,2011). A case study conducted by Eyhorn (2007) on organic cottonfarmers in the state of Madhya Pradesh shows that smallholderorganic farming systems can produce similar yields to those ofconventional farming after the completion of a transitional periodof 34 years. His conclusion is that organic farming is a suitableoption, particularly for small and marginal farmers who cannotbenet from Green Revolution technologies; such farmers are, atthe same time, most vulnerable to decreased yields and incomesin the initial years and consequently nd it most difcult toconvert to organic farming.

In todays India, theoretically, four types of cotton cultivationcan be observed in parallel: (a) conventional with Bt hybrid seeds,5 The fourth type (d) includes natural farming with Bt or non-Bt seeds and organicfarming in transitional periods.the cluster, but only those in K village had actually used Fair Tradepremiums according to the members plans.6 In K village, therewere three groups consisting of 35 members in total (13 members,13 members, and 9 members respectively). According to a surveythe District Rural Development Agency conducted in the year20032004, there were 341 households in this village, and all ofthem were regarded as below the national poverty line. Another sur-vey conducted by the mandal revenue ofce in 2001 showed thatabout half of the villagers belonged to scheduled castes or tribes.7

Although there were no statistical data about the villagers economicactivities, the villagers themselves agreed that there were more than200 agricultural households cultivating cotton, about 100 house-holds cultivating other crops only, and some landless householdsequivalent to about 10% of the village population. Therefore, the35 members who had at least attempted organic cotton cultivationwere a minority in this village. For an understanding of the realityof cotton farmers involved in the conuence of the two initiatives,primary qualitative data were collected from the 35 members and13 non-member farmers in the same village for comparison, throughin-depth interviews and observation of their farm and off-farm activ-ities.8 Supplementary interviews were held with some memberfarmers in other clusters, the staff of AOFG, local cotton buyers, localinput traders and government ofcials in charge of K village.Although organic farming has a wide range of aspects, this casestudy pays particular attention to the use of inputs regarded asminimum organic standards in major markets (Raynolds, 2000,p. 299).

Because the 35 members belonged to a single community in Kvillage, I selectively approached non-member neighbors in thesame community for comparative purposes. Some non-membersI accessed refused to be interviewed: being afraid that my collecteddata would be reported to the government. All 13 non-membersinterviewed cultivated Bt cotton with chemical fertilizers and pes-ticides. Although no signicant difference was observed betweenthe members and non-members in terms of economic and educa-tional levels, the non-members were more conservative and risk-averse than the members in terms of changing a signicant partof their livelihoodfrom conventional to organic cottoncultivation.

To my surprise, cotton produced by the association was ex-ported to the Fair Trade market only for three seasons. Duringthe last two seasons, 20092010 and 20102011, member farmerscould not sell any part of their produce to the marketing division ofAOFG but instead sold all harvests, both organic and non-organic,to local traders. Without an organic certication, Fair Trade cotton

6 Plans submitted by groups in the other two villages had not yet been approved bythe association.

7 Mandal is the administrative unit below the district unit. Scheduled castes havebeen at the lowest end of the Hindu social caste hierarchy based on birth; the socialsystem-ascribed occupations of this group are generally characterized by very lowproductivity. Social tribes have been socially and economically underdevelopedbecause of their long-time habitation in geographically isolated areas; Lack ofexposure to education and isolation from the social mainstream made themvulnerable to exploitation by non-tribals (Sundaram and Tendulkar, 2003, p. 5263).3

ainsclea

(28 A 1-hour interview with each respondent was repeated at least twice althoughsome respondents had more meetings with me than others. All interviews wereconducted with the assistance of an interpreter.

4.1. Motives of the two initiatives

pend strongly on other constraints that the initiatives cannot elim-inate on their own.

Another important point is that one member clearly answeredthat he had joined the association to start cotton cultivation. Inreality, 5 out of the 35 members did not have experience of cot-ton cultivation before participating in the association, although

43 (2012) 12321241 1237As Table 2 shows, the three groups members joined the associ-ation for a variety of reasons. Although the majority of the mem-bers understood what the Fair Trade premium was and what thepremium was used for in these groups, only one member referredto Fair Trade as a motive for joining. Because the local marketprices of cotton remained fairly high after they joined the associa-tion, they never had an opportunity of enjoying the benet of aminimum guaranteed price. Unlike the Fair Trade premium thatproducers had to wait several months for after shipping, the organ-ic price premium delivered at the farm gate strongly motivatedfarmers to join the association and practice organic cotton cultiva-tion. The members valued organic farming highly, not only becausetraders did not offer the association better-than-local marketprices for the recent two seasons. Although member farmers weresatised with the recent trend of high local market prices, thosewho had just completed the 3-year conversion period were disap-pointed at having missed the organic price premium. Furthermore,it turned out that the three groups in the focus village had not beenorganized at the earliest stage: under the association, 28 out of the35 members had experienced the last three seasons of cotton cul-tivation; seven members experienced two seasons only. Thismeans that 28 members sold their cotton to the Fair Trade marketonly once. The remaining seven members had never experiencedFair Trade sales since joining the association.

4. Real approach of small farmers to the Fair Trade and organicinitiatives under the prevalence of Bt cotton

Table 2Motives for participation in the cotton association (three groups in K village, AndhraPradesh). Source: Collected by the author.

Motives Number ofrespondents

Access to group saving and loans 12Collective action 6Organic farming for the soil 6Organic farming to save on production costs 6Organic farming for a higher selling price 17Organic farming for the health of self, own family and

animals3

Fair Trade premium 1For starting cotton cultivation 1Expecting some material benets 4

Note: Some members cited more than one motive.

R. Makita / Geoforumof its price incentive but also for a variety of other reasons (seeTable 2). Although 2 of the 35 members had already practiced or-ganic cotton cultivation individually, 33 members started onlyafter joining the association. In this case, the organic initiative at-tracted small farmers attention more positively than Fair Trade.

Although the two initiatives were the main attributes of theassociation, the members expected other different benets as wellfrom their participation. Group saving and future access to com-mercial bank loans through the group saving were particularlyattractive to many of the members. This seems to be a reasonwhy they kept their membership even if they could not export tothe Fair Trade organic market. Others expected to take collectiveaction against the local government, through the groups or theassociation, demanding irrigation facilities for the area. We shouldremember that the high incidence of suicide committed by cottonfarmers is attributed not only to heavy expenditure on chemicalsbut also to the decrease of yields caused by uncertain rain-fedfarming, both resulting in heavy indebtedness (Patil, 2002). Thesuccess or otherwise of Fair Trade and organic initiatives may de-they did not mention cotton cultivation itself as a motive for par-ticipation. Some farmers may have been induced to try cottoncultivation not by Bt seeds but by the Fair Trade and organicinitiatives.

4.2. Bt seeds as a matter of course

A notable nding from this case study is that many farmers,both members and non-members, in K village were not cognizantof the difference between Bt and non-Bt seeds. The majority offarmers started cotton farming only after ofcial Bt seeds were re-leased; local input-trading shops that mushroomed for the last 3 or4 years in the nearest town had dealt with Bt seeds only. It wasphysically difcult to buy non-Bt seeds. For the majority of farm-ers, except the group members, Bt seeds were synonymous withcotton seeds. A few farmers who had cultivated cotton for morethan 10 years switched from non-Bt to Bt seeds simply becausethe local input shops changed their merchandise. Although mostfarmers realized better yields from Bt seeds, they rarely had knowl-edge of GM organisms.9 In brief, Bt cotton was not a special innova-tion but the only available option for cotton producers outside theAOFG project.

For organic cotton cultivation, AOFG distributed non-Bt hybridseeds only to members of the association. Membership of theassociation afforded the only opportunity to obtain non-Bt hybridseeds in the locality.10 AOFG provided members with non-Bt seedsat the price of 435 rupees (Rs.) per packet, which was lower thanthe average retail price thanks to bulk purchase by the association.This price was also appealing to some non-member farmers whosuffered as a result of the high price of Bt seeds, which cost anaverage of Rs. 750 per packet. A few of the members confessedto me that they sometimes resold non-Bt seeds they had boughtthrough AOFG to non-member neighbors to gain a small protmargin.11 Although AOFG used the number of non-Bt seeds packetsdistributed to each member as an indication of the acreage underorganic cotton cultivation, the existence of such resold seeds hidthe real organic practice.12

Even if most of the members were interested in organic cottoncultivation, they did not adopt organic practices all at once. AsTable 3 shows, in the rst season after joining the association, only14 out of the 35 members cultivated all their cotton organically.Fifteen members cultivated part of their land organically, keepingthe other parts under conventional tillage. This action came fromtheir risk-averse strategy: they were afraid of reducing yields sud-denly by full-scale conversion to organic. The remaining six mem-bers tried to cultivate at least part of their land organically at thebeginning of the season, but could not restrain themselves fromusing chemical pesticides when insects increased in the rainyseason.

As observed elsewhere (Eyhorn, 2007), it was not easy for themembers to survive low yields during the conversion period. Only

9 This seems to be caused by the lack of proper information rather than by farmerslow education level. Exceptionally, however, a non-member farmer with 12 years ofeducation had experimentally planted a variety of seeds on his own eld.10 Otherwise, farmers had to take a bus to a large seed market 26 kilo meters awayfrom the village.

11 Non-members who obtained non-Bt seeds through members planted both Bt andnon-Bt seeds together.12 One standardized packet of hybrid seeds, Bt or non-Bt, is used for one acre.

uted to the promotion of organic cotton cultivation through FairTrade premiums. Although not all the members participated inthe sales to the Fair Trade market in the 20082009 season, FairTrade premiums were shared equally by all. In all the eight clus-ters, Fair Trade premiums were, rst of all, used as interest-free

Table 3 able 4

1238 R. Makita / Geoforum 43 012) 12321241eight members could continue organic cotton cultivation afterparticipation (see Table 4). Some members again started to useBt seeds with chemical inputs on part of their land; and some com-pletely gave up organic cotton cultivation. Many of those whostarted to cultivate cotton in both conventional and organic waysdecreased the acreage for organic and increased that for conven-tional cultivation. Although two of the members who could notpractice organic methods in the rst season adopted organicmethods in the second or third season after witnessing the othermembers sales to the Fair Trade market, the majority of membersgradually lost interest in organic cotton cultivation. In correspon-dence with these changes, AOFGs ofcial record of the sales ofnon-Bt seeds to the three groups showed a decrease from 69 pack-ets in the 20082009 season to 35 packets in the 20102011 sea-son. Under these circumstances, although Fair Trade certicationcould be maintained, it was unlikely that the association wouldbe certied as organic in the near future.

4.3. Two dimensions of organic farming: tradition and innovation

Organic farming itself was nothing new, either to the groupmembers or to non-member farmers in this locality. No respon-dents, members and non-members alike, had ever used chemicalfertilizers on their farms before starting cotton cultivation. Aftercotton came to the village as a new cash crop, they began to applychemical fertilizers only for cotton and red gram (pigeon pea)planted with cotton as a refuge crop in the same plot,13 continuingto cultivate other food crops such as sorghum and vegetables organ-ically. Therefore, they had fully understood the ecological value andpractical techniques of organic farming; they wanted to make theirfarming as organic as possible.

Concerning cash crops such as cotton, however, economic valueis liable to surpass ecological value. The importance attached toeconomic value was more obvious in relation to leased-in land.Even members who adopted organic practices on their own landusually applied chemical inputs with Bt seeds on leased-in land.Such farmers gave priority to the maximization of prots fromthe leased-in land with more reliable technologies. A member liv-ing in K village explained his strategy:

The lease period is one season. During the limited time I paid

Patterns of cotton cultivation by the focus group members in the rst season (threegroups in K village, Andhra Pradesh). Source: Collected by the author.

Patterns Number ofmembers

1. Organic with non-Bt seeds only 142. Organic with non-Bt and conventional with Bt in parallel 153. Conventional with Bt and non-Bt seeds* 6

Total 35

* Includes one member who leased out all his land plots.for, I want to harvest as much cotton as possible with Bt seeds.But on my own land, it is important to maintain the soil fertilityby organic farming. I will continue both conventional cultiva-tion on leased-in land and organic cultivation on my own land.

Although organic farming was in general a traditional technology,organic cotton cultivation was a new technology for all the groupmembers except the two that started organic cotton cultivationbefore joining the association. Although it is comparatively easyto show the economic benet of Bt seeds, it is difcult to show

13 Cultivating nontoxic. . .crops (refuges) in the proximity to transgenic crops thatproduce Bt toxins is widely recommended to delay pest adaptation to these toxins(Vacher et al., 2004, p. 913).the economic benet of organic cotton unless it is purchasedwith a price premium. In the case of the association, Fair Tradecertication did not work as a benet that could compensatefor loss incurred during the conversion period. The high marketprices for conventional cotton also made organic farming lessattractive, allowing farmers to buy expensive Bt seeds and otherinputs.14 After their 3-year attempt at organic cotton cultivation,most of the members realized afresh that conventional farmingwith Bt seeds was the only option for protable cotton cultivation.

5. A real conuence of Fair Trade and organic initiatives

This section rst analyzes interactions between the two initia-tives identied in the case study in two directions: (a) from organicto Fair Trade and (b) from Fair Trade to organic (see Section 2.2),and then discusses the consequent impact the conuence of thetwo initiatives has on the nature of the organic concept.

5.1. Interactions between the two initiatives

In the case of this farmers association, the two initiativeslook compatible in terms of direction (a). The attempt to pursuean organic certication began before the Fair Trade certicationwas given to the association. Although the association had notbeen certied as organic, the fact that the majority of membersstarted organic cultivation must have contributed to theacquisition of Fair Trade certication. The reality observed in thiscase study corresponds to the rst direction of theoreticalinteractions.

In the opposite direction (b), the Fair Trade initiative contrib-

Patterns of change in cotton cultivation by the focus group members (three groups inK village, Andhra Pradesh). Source: Collected by the author.

Patternsa Number ofmembers

1-A. Continued organic only 81-B. From organic to both organic and conventional 31-C. From organic to conventional 32. Continued both organic and conventional 153-A. Continued conventional only b 43-B. From conventional to both organic and

conventional2

3-C. From conventional to organic 0Total 35

a The three patterns in Table 3 changed into seven different patterns.b Includes one member who leased out all his land plots.T

(2loans for purchasing non-Bt seeds for organic cultivation. Pay-ment for production inputs at the beginning of each season isusually a nancial burden on small and marginal farmers, whichcauses their indebtedness. Therefore, member farmers welcomedthe cashless purchase of cotton seeds through AOFG and repay-ment of the loan without interest after harvest. This scheme facil-itated member farmers to start organic cotton cultivation withnon-Bt seeds distributed from the NGO. If all members can repaythe loan regularly, the same money can be used as a revolvingfund for purchasing seeds every year. The use of the remaining

14 Truscott et al. (2011) also note better prices for conventional cotton in India,which continued at least until June 2011, tempting contract growers to abandonorganic cotton.

how farmers grow crops and Fair Trade to how farmers gain fromcertied crops. In other words, the organic puts less emphasis on

43 (2012) 12321241 1239Fair Trade premiums was discussed and decided by therespective groups: some groups started the making of vermicom-post (organic fertilizer including worm manure) collaboratively;one group purchased a pipeline for drinking water; and anothermade a drainage facility. The three groups in K village purchasedsix sprayers so that the group members could use them alter-nately when spraying organic liquid pesticides. Overall, it appearsthat the Fair Trade premiums were used for the promotion of or-ganic practices.

At the same time, however, the Fair Trade premiums may alsohave contributed to the promotion of conventional farming withBt seeds. As mentioned above, the member farmers did not haveto save money for purchasing non-Bt seeds at the start of a newseason. Ironically, this tentative nancial surplus enabled themembers to purchase Bt seeds in cash. In the local shops, therewere two different prices for a single packet of Bt seeds: for in-stance, Rs. 700 in cash and Rs. 750 on credit. Poor farmers tendedto buy seeds on credit, which increased their indebtedness. Most ofthe member farmers planting both Bt and non-Bt seeds purchasedBt seeds from a local shop in cash and non-Bt seeds from the NGOon credit without interest. In other words, the interest-free loansfor non-Bt seeds enabled the members to get Bt seeds cheaper thanbefore. Furthermore, some of the members confessed that theyused the sprayers which had been purchased originally for organicliquid pesticides for spraying chemical pesticides. It is undeniablethat the Fair Trade premiums indirectly helped conventional farm-ing with Bt seeds as well.

Unfortunately, the association members sales to the Fair Trademarket did not work as an incentive to continue organic farmingduring the conversion period. If the local market price had beenlow, the members might have realized the benet of the mini-mum farm-gate price guaranteed by Fair Trade certication. For-tunately or unfortunately, however, the local market prices wereconstantly higher than the minimum price after the membersjoined the association. For them, selling to the Fair Trade marketwas no more advantageous than selling to conventional localtraders. Arguably, Fair Trade certication by itself cannot supportthe conversion period of pre-organic farmers. As the experience oforganic cotton projects in Sub-Saharan Africa shows (Dowd,2008), a strong price incentive, in addition to Fair Trade certica-tion, will be required in order to keep attracting farmers toorganic practices.

Regarding the second way of theoretical interaction in direc-tion (b), what was the demonstration effect of Fair Trade-certiedfarmer groups? In the beginning, non-member farmers in thesame village were very interested to see how the members wouldbenet from participation in the association, and especially howorganic cotton cultivation would improve the livelihood of themembers. Most of the non-members whom I interviewed con-fessed that they had intended to start organic cotton cultivationif the members had been successful in keeping the same levelof yields and obtaining price premiums. In reality, non-membersjudged the associations attempt unsuccessful not because of thelower yields of organic cotton but because of the cottons organicnature that could not be valued in monetary terms during thetransitional period under Fair Trade. The non-member farmersalso reached a conclusion that organic cotton cultivation wasnot a good choice. Unexpectedly, the conuence of Fair Tradeand organic initiatives may have offered a majority of farmersin K village, both members and non-members, an opportunityto conrm the comparative advantage of Bt cotton rather thanto perceive the value of the two initiatives.

On the whole, the interactions between the two initiatives did

R. Makita / Geoforumnot lead to the promotion of organic cotton cultivation. Althoughthis result obviously conicts with the organic standard, it is notnecessarily against the Fair Trade standard.how farmers gain during the conversion period; Fair Trade paysless attention to how farmers live their lives outside the initiative.This trend seems to be getting more and more distinct, as the stan-dards for the two initiatives weaken (see Section 2.1). If two certi-cations are obtained at the same time and put into practice inparallel, the two initiatives may be able to complement eachothers weak points to some extent. In reality, however, there isusually a time difference in the acquisition of the two certica-tions: for small farmers, obtaining group organic certication is alonger process than obtaining Fair Trade certication, as shownin this case study. Such a time difference will make the positiveinteractions between the two initiatives inefcient or unworkable.A likely outcome would be a failure in terms of complete conver-sion to organics or a mere pretence at Fair Trade.

The nal question is whether the conuence with the Fair Tradeinitiative promotes the organic concept as an alternative accumu-lation strategy for agrarian capitalism or helps to retrieve its ori-ginal nature as an alternative framework for working the ruralenvironment. Northern buyers idea of double certication canbe interpreted as a way of reinforcing the nature of both organicsand Fair Trade as an alternative means of capital accumulationon the part of Northern buyers.15 From the perspective of Southernproducers, organic farming combined with Fair Trade certicationcould become not a conventionalized concept conducive to largernumbers of rms entering the [organic] market place (Allen andKovach, 2000, p. 224) but a new concept for helping marginal andsmall farmers. This new concept means in part an alternativeframework for working the rural environment and partly releasingdisadvantaged farmers from the existing agrarian capitalism thatimpose nancial burdens on them. This was, at least, the intentionof AOFG when the NGO started the organization of small farmers.

Unfortunately, the new concept of organic farming was notrealized in the observed case of the cotton sector in India. In thiscontext, Bt cotton cultivation was more conventionalized than or-ganic cotton cultivation. The case study shows that the use of Btseeds, appealing not only to large farmers but also to small farm-ers, increasingly pushes both into agribusiness players alternativeaccumulation strategy for agrarian capitalism. This alternativeaccumulation strategy is more powerful than the conuence ofFair Trade and organic initiatives. Given the lowering of standardsfor both initiatives, the conuence is likely to strengthen the nat-ure of Bt seeds as an alternative means of capital accumulation,diluting organics use as an alternative accumulation strategyfor agrarian capitalism and an alternative framework for workingthe rural environment.

6. Conclusion

This paper has explored the conuence of Fair Trade and organ-ic initiatives in the context of the prevalent Bt cotton production inIndia, applying Guthmans conventionalization thesis as an inter-pretative framework to the Southern context. In the case study inAP, the conuence of the two initiatives, contrary to their stated5.2. Impacts of the conuence

As this case study suggests, although both initiatives areopposed to GM organisms, the conuence of the two initiativescould paradoxically have prompted the spread of Bt cotton. Thisseems to be related to a clear difference between the two in termsof their primary objective: the organic initiative gives priority to15 The concept of Northern buyers may include some Southern exporters andmiddlemen linking Southern producers with Northern buyers.

initiative. Fair Trade does not have a scheme for compensating

Bt seeds or organic cultivationthe outcome is obviously different

43from the original purpose of organic or Fair Trade or both.Finally, can we say that the conuence of the two initiatives is

better than a single certication? If the farmers association in thiscase had pursued organic certication only, many of the memberfarmers might have chosen to continue organic practices in orderto decrease production costs. However, it is not easy for smallfarmers to obtain and maintain organic certication and competewith larger farmers in organic markets. If the association hadpursued Fair Trade certication only, Fair Trade on its own mightnot have attracted members interest because the Fair Trade certi-cation itself guarantees neither stable markets nor better prices.For future organic price premiums, the members accepted enroll-ment in the association and complying with all the Fair Trade stan-dards. The conuence of the two initiatives seems to be a necessarystrategy not only for Northern buyers but also for disadvantagedSouthern producers. Through the conuence, however, the differ-ence between the two initiatives appears more clearly. Whereasthe organic is concerned with how farmers operate their land, FairTrade is concerned with how farmers gain from the target crop.There is a gap between farming practice and income generation.It may be this gap that allowed Bt seeds to intrude in the livelihoodof small farmers. The only way to ll the gap is to provide convert-ing farmers with nancial support such as pre-organic price premi-ums during the conversion period if organic cash crop productionis to be used as a means of poverty alleviation.

Acknowledgments

I acknowledge the funding supplied by KAKENHI, Japan Societyfor the Promotion of Science (No. 22830092) which made this re-search possible. I thank Mr. Edappallil M. Koshy, Mr. Stan Bonagri,Mr. Govindula Venkat Raman, Mr. Mathew J. Mathai and Mr. N.Ramakrishna Rao for their eld support. I must also pay a greatdebt of gratitude to farmers in the study village who took timeto meet with me and felt anxious about damage from the 2011tsunamiearthquake that had hit my home country during myeldwork in India. For the sake of anonymity I must withholdthe names of informants. I also appreciate three anonymousreviewers and Dr. Padraig Carmody for helpful comments.

References

Allen, P., Kovach, M., 2000. The capitalist composition of organic: the potential ofmarkets in fullling the promise of organic agriculture. Agriculture and Humanfor the decreased income that producers have to endure duringthe conversion period. Instead, Fair Trade premiums were usedfor the intrusion of GM seeds, reecting Fair Trades laxer attitudetoward GM traits (see Section 1). Fair Trades dilemma betweenhelping poor farmers and promoting organic farming may haveindirectly allowed the Fair Trade farmers to incline to conventionalfarming with Bt seeds. As a result, the conuence of the two initia-tives did not intensify the organic concept as an alternative accu-mulation strategy for agrarian capitalism, but it did not releasedisadvantaged Southern farmers from existing agrarian capitalism,either. Rather, the conuence, contrary to its expectation, led farm-ers into another form of agrarian capitalism. Although the scope ofthis research does not enable us to judge which option is morebenecial to small cotton farmersconventional cultivation withprinciples, contributed to the spread of GM seeds. Although thehigh market price trend for conventional cotton contributed to thisparadox, it is also caused by factors embedded in the Fair Trade

1240 R. Makita / GeoforumValues 17 (3), 221232.Allen, J.C., Malin, S., 2008. Green entrepreneurship: a method for managing natural

resources? Society and Natural Resources 21, 828844.Baffes, J., 2011. Cotton, Biotechnology, and Economic Development (Policy ResearchWorking Paper 5896). The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Bassett, T.J., 2010. Slim pickings: Fairtrade cotton in West Africa. Geoforum 41 (1),4455.

Best, H., 2008. Organic agriculture and conventionalization hypothesis: a case studyfrom West Germany. Agriculture and Human Values 25 (1), 95106.

Bowes, J., Croft, D., 2007. Organic and Fair Trade crossover and convergence. In:Wright, S., McCrea, D. (Eds.), The Handbook of Organic and Fair Trade FoodMarketing. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 262283.

Bray, D.B., Sanchez, J.L.P., Murphy, E.C., 2002. Social dimensions of organic coffeeproduction in Mexico: lessons for eco-labeling initiatives. Society and NaturalResources 15, 429446.

Browne, A.W., Harris, P.J.C., Hofny-Collins, A.H., Pasiecznik, N., Wallace, R.R., 2000.Organic production and ethical trade: denition, practice and links. Food Policy25, 6989.

Buck, D., Getz, C., Guthman, J., 1997. From farm to table: the organic vegetablecommodity chain of northern California. Sociologia Ruralis 37 (1), 320.

Choudhary, B., Gaur, K., 2010. Bt Cotton in India: A Country Prole. TheInternational Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA),New Delhi.

Choudhary, B., Gaur, K., 2011. Adoption and Impact of Bt Cotton in India, 2002 to2010. ISAAA, New Delhi.

Coombes, B., Campbell, H., 1998. Dependent re-production of alternative modes ofagriculture: organic farming in New Zealand. Sociologia Ruralis 38 (2), 127145.

De Wit, J., Verhoog, H., 2007. Organic values and the conventionalization of organicagriculture. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54 (4), 449462.

Dowd, B.M., 2008. Organic cotton in Sub-Saharan Africa: a new developmentparadigm? In: Moseley, W.G., Gray, L.C. (Eds.), Hanging by a Thread: Cotton,Globalization, and Poverty in Africa. Ohio University Press, Athen, OH, pp. 251271.

Dowd-Uribe, B.M., Bingen, J., 2008. Debating the merits of biotech crop adoption insub-Saharan Africa: distributional impacts, climatic variability and pestdynamics. Progress in Development Studies 11 (1), 6368.

Earnstman, N., Wals, A.E., 2009. Interfacing knowledge systems: introducingcertied organic agriculture in a tribal society. NJAS Wageningen Journal ofLife Sciences 56 (4), 375390.

Eyhorn, F., 2007. Organic Farming for Sustainable Livelihoods in DevelopingCountries?: The Case of Cotton in India. Vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH,Zurich.

Fairtrade Foundation, 2011. Q&A: Fairtrade Standards and Genetically ModiedOrganisms (GM). (accessed 14.06.11).

Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO), 2011a. Benets of Fairtradefor Producers. (accessed01.12.11).

FLO, 2011b. Generic Fairtrade Standard for Small Producer Organizations. FLO,Bonn.

Frundt, H.J., 2009. Fair Bananas! Farmers, Workers, and Consumers Strive to Changean Industry. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.

Getz, C., Shreck, A., 2006. What organic and Fair Trade labels do not tell us: towardsa place-based understanding of certication. International Journal of ConsumerStudies 30 (5), 490501.

Gibbs, D., 2000. Globalization, the bioscience industry and local environmentalresponses. Global Environmental Change 10 (4), 245257.

Glover, D., 2010. Exploring the resilience of Bt cottons pro-poor success story.Development and Change 41 (6), 955981.

GMO Compass, 2011. GM Crop Production: GMO Cultivation Area by Crop. (accessed 12.12.11).

Gomez Tovar, L., Martin, L., Gomez Cruz, M.A., Mutersbaugh, T., 2005. Certiedorganic agriculture in Mexico: market connections and certication practices inlarge and small producers. Journal of Rural Studies 21, 461474.

Gonzalez, A.A., Nigh, R., 2005. Smallholder participation and certication of organicfarm products in Mexico. Journal of Rural Studies 21, 449460.

Gouse, M., Shankar, B., Thirtle, C., 2008. The decline of Bt cotton in KwaZulu-Natal:technology and institutions. In: Moseley, W.G., Gray, L.C. (Eds.), Hanging by aThread: Cotton, Globalization, and Poverty in Africa. Ohio University Press,Athen, OH, pp. 103120.

Guptill, A., 2009. Exploring the conventionalization of organic dairy: trends andcounter-trends in upstate New York. Agriculture and Human Values 26 (12),2942.

Guthman, J., 2002. Commodied meanings, meaningful commodities: re-thinkingproductionconsumption links through the organic system of provision.Sociologia Rulais 42 (4), 295311.

Guthman, J., 2004a. Agrarian Dreams: The Paradox of Organic Farming in California.University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.

Guthman, J., 2004b. The trouble with organic lite in California: a rejoinder to theconventionalisation debate. Sociologia Ruralis 44 (3), 301316.

Hall, A., Mogyrody, V., 2001. Organic farmers in Ontario: an examination of theconventionalization argument. Sociologia Ruralis 41 (4), 399422.

Herring, R.J., 2005. Miracle seeds, suicide seeds, and the poor: GMOs, NGOs, farmersand the state. In: Ray, R., Katzenstein, M.F. (Eds.), Social Movements in India.Rowman & Littleeld Publishers, New York, Toronto, pp. 203232.

(2012) 12321241International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC), 2011. Descriptions of ProductionPrograms: Organic, Fair Trade, Cotton Made in Africa, and the Better CottonInitiative (Attachment III to SC-N-509). ICAC, Washington, DC.

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), 2007. TheIFOAM Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing (Version 2005).IFOAM, Bonn.

IFOAM, 2011. Denition of Organic Agriculture. (accessed 10.12.11).

INDOCERT, 2011. FAQ: Agriculture. (accessed 10.12.11).

Jaffee, D., 2007. Brewing Justice. Fair Trade Coffee, Sustainability, and Survival.University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.

Jaffee, D., Howard, P.H., 2010. Corporate cooptation of organic and fair tradestandards. Agriculture and Human Values 27 (4), 387399.

Lalitha, N., Ramaswami, Bharat, Viswanathan, P.K., 2009. Indias experience with Btcotton: case studies from Gujarat and Maharashtra. In: Tripp, R. (Ed.),Biotechnology and Agricultural Development: Transgenic Cotton. RuralInstitutions and Resource-Poor Farmers, Routledge, Oxon, UK, pp. 135167.

Lipson, E., 2007. Organic and Fair Trade marketing in the USA. In: Wright, S.,McCrea, D. (Eds.), The Handbook of Organic and Fair Trade Food Marketing.Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 239261.

Raynolds, L.T., 2004. The globalization of organic agro-food networks. WorldDevelopment 32 (5), 725743.

Raynolds, L.T., 2008. The organic agro-export boom in the Dominican Republic:maintaining tradition or fostering transformation? Latin American ResearchReview 43 (1), 162184.

Raynolds, L., Murray, D., Heller, A., 2007. Regulating sustainability in the coffeesector. Agriculture and Human Values 24 (2), 147163.

Reece, W., 2006. Crime, bio-agriculture and the exploitation of hunger. The BritishJournal of Criminology 46 (1), 2645.

Roy, D., 2010. Of choices and dilemmas: Bt cotton and self-identied organic cottonfarmers in Gujarat. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review 12 (1), 5179.

Roy, D., Herring, R.J., Geisler, C.C., 2007. Naturalising transgenics: ofcial seeds,loose seeds and risk in the decision matrix of Gujarati cotton farmers. Journal ofDevelopment Studies 43 (1), 158176.

Scialabba, N.E., Hattam, C., 2002. Organic Agriculture, Environment and FoodSecurity. Environment and Natural Resources Series. FAO, Rome.

Scoones, I., 2002. Can agricultural biotechnology be pro-poor? A sceptical look at

R. Makita / Geoforum 43 (2012) 12321241 1241Lockie, S., Halpin, D., 2005. The conventionalisation thesis reconsidered: structuraland ideological transformation of Australian organic agriculture. SociologiaRuralis 45 (4), 284307.

Makita, R., 2011. A conuence of Fair Trade and organic agriculture in southernIndia. Development in Practice 21 (2), 205217.

McNeely, J.A., Scherr, S.J., 2003. Ecoagriculture: Strategies to Feed the World andSave Wild Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Morse, S., Bennett, R., Ismael, Y., 2007. Isolating the farmer effect as a component ofthe advantage of growing genetically modied varieties in developingcountries: a Bt cotton case study from Jalgaon, India. The Journal ofAgricultural Science 145 (5), 491500.

Mutersbaugh, T., 2002. The number is the beast: a political economy of organic-coffee certication and producer unionism. Environment and Planning A 34 (7),11651184.

Mutersbaugh, T., 2005. Fighting standards with standards: harmonization, rentsand social accountability in certied agrofood networks. Environment andPlanning A 37 (11), 20332051.

Narayanamoorthy, A., Kalamkar, S.S., 2006. Is Bt cotton cultivation economicallyviable for Indian farmers? An empirical analysis. Economic and Political Weekly41 (26), 27162724.

Nelson, E., Gomez Tovar, L., Rindermann, R.S., Gomez Cruz, M.A., 2010. Participatoryorganic certication in Mexico: an alternative approach to maintaining theintegrity of the organic label. Agriculture and Human Values 27 (2), 227237.

Newell, P., 2009. Bio-hegemony: the political economy of agriculturalbiotechnology in Argentina. Journal of Latin American Studies 41 (1), 2757.

Nicholls, A., Opal, C., 2005. Fair Trade: Market-Driven Ethical Consumption. Sage,London.

Nigh, R., 1997. Organic agriculture and globalization: a Maya associativecorporation in Chiapas, Mexico. Human Organization 56 (4), 427436.

Osakwe, E., 2009. Cotton Fact Sheet India. (accessed 23.06.11).

Patil, R.R., 2002. An investigative report on circumstances leading to each amongIndian cotton farmers. International Journal of Occupational Medicine andEnvironmental Health 15 (4), 405407.

Pratt, J., 2009. Incorporation and resistance. Analytical issues in theconventionalization debate and alternative food chains. Journal of AgrarianChange 9 (2), 155174.

Pretty, J.N., Morison, J.I.L., Hine, R.E., 2003. Reducing food poverty by increasingagricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems &Environment 95, 217234.

Qaim, M., 2010. Benets of genetically modied crops for the poor: householdincome, nutrition, and health. New Technology 27 (5), 552557.

Ramasundarama, P., Vennila, S., Ingle, R.K., 2007. Bt cotton performance andconstraints in central India. Outlook on Agriculture 36 (3), 175180.

Raynolds, L.T., 2000. Re-embedding global agriculture: the international organicand fair trade movements. Agriculture and Human Values 17 (3), 297309.the emerging consensus. IDS Bulletin 33 (4), 114119.Scoones, I., 2008. Mobilizing against GM crops in India, South Africa and Brazil. In:

Borras, S.M., Jr., Edelman, M., Kay, C. (Eds.), Transnational Agrarian MovementsConfronting Globalization. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, pp. 147176.

Shah, E., 2005. Local and global elites join hands: development and diffusion of Btcotton technology in Gujarat. Economic and Political Weekly 40 (43), 46294639.

Shiva, V., 1991. The Violence of the Green Revolution. Zed Books, London.Smith, E., Marsden, T., 2004. Exploring the limits to growth in UK organics: beyond

the statistical image. Journal of Rural Studies 20, 345357.Srinivas, K.R., 2002. Bt cotton in India: economic factors versus environmental

concerns. Environmental Politics 11 (2), 159164.Srinivasan, C.S., 2003. Concentration in ownership of plant variety rights: some

implications for developing countries. Food Policy 28 (56), 519546.Stone, G.D., 2007. Agricultural deskilling and the spread of genetically modied

cotton in Wagangal. Current Anthropology 48 (1), 67103.Subramanian, A., Qaim, M., 2009. Village-wide effects of agricultural biotechnology:

the case of Bt cotton in India. World Development 37 (1), 256267.Subramanian, A., Qaim, M., 2010. The impact of Bt cotton on poor households in

rural India. Journal of Development Studies 46 (2), 295311.Sundaram, K., Tendulkar, S.D., 2003. Poverty among social and economic groups in

India in 1990s. Economic and Political Weekly 38 (50), 52635276.Tripp, R., 2001. Can biotechnology reach the poor? The adequacy of information and

seed delivery. Food Policy 26 (3), 249264.Tripp, R., 2009. Biotechnology and Agricultural Development: Transgenic Cotton,

Rural Institutions and Resource-Poor Farmers. Routledge, Oxon, UK.Truscott, L., Lizarraga, A., Nagarajan, P., Tovignan, S., Currin, A., 2010. 2010 Farm &

Fiber Report: Organic by Choice. Textile Exchange, ODonnell, TX.Truscott, L., Lizarraga, A., Nagarajan, P., Tovignan, S., Denes, H., 2011. 2011 Midyear

Farm & Fiber Predictions Report: Organic by Choice. Textile Exchange,ODonnell, TX.

Vacher, C., Bourguet, D., Rousset, F., Chevillon, C., Hochberg, M.E., 2004. High doserefuge strategies and genetically modied crops reply to Tabashnik et al.Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17 (4), 913918.

Weale, A., 2010. Ethical arguments relevant to the use of GM crops. NewBiotechnology 27 (5), 582587.

Weber, J., 2007. Fair Trade coffee enthusiasts should confront reality. Cato Journal27 (1), 109117.

Woods, M., 2011. Rural. Routledge, London, New York.Wynen, E., 2003. What are the key issues faced by organic producers? In:

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Ed.), OrganicAgriculture: Sustainability, Markets and Policies. Cabi Publishing, Oxfordshire,pp. 207220.

Zerbe, N., 2004. Feeding the famine? American food aid and the GMO debate inSouthern Africa. Food Policy 29 (6), 593608.

Fair Trade and organic initiatives confronted with Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh, India: A paradox1 Introduction2 Theoretical propositions2.1 Organic farming in the context of the global South2.2 Plausible interactions between Fair Trade and organic initiatives2.3 Bt cotton as a given context

3 Outline of the case study3.1 Cotton cultivation in India3.2 Organization of small farmers in Andhra Pradesh, India3.3 Data collection in a focus village

4 Real approach of small farmers to the Fair Trade and organic initiatives under the prevalence of Bt cotton4.1 Motives of the two initiatives4.2 Bt seeds as a matter of course4.3 Two dimensions of organic farming: tradition and innovation

5 A real confluence of Fair Trade and organic initiatives5.1 Interactions between the two initiatives5.2 Impacts of the confluence

6 ConclusionAcknowledgmentsReferences