Certification guidelines under India’s Natural Farming Mission were issued only four months ago.
Regional councils say they are under pressure to register thousands of farmers within months.
Targets apply even to non-scheme farmers, with councils expected to absorb certification costs.
Practitioners warn rushed certification could dilute credibility and farmer trust.
Scientists and senior experts have written to the government flagging risks to the system’s integrity.
It has been barely four months since certification guidelines under India’s Natural Farming Mission were issued, but the programme is already showing signs of turning into a target-chasing exercise. Certification bodies say they are under pressure to rapidly register thousands of farmers — often without funding — raising questions about the credibility and integrity of the process.
Earlier this month, the government issued a circular directing regional councils to mandatorily register between 5,000 and 10,000 non-scheme farmers (those not covered under any existing programme) under organic or natural farming within six months. The circular warned that the continuation and performance of these councils would be reviewed if targets were not met, and added that failure could even lead to cancellation of their authorisation.
The certification framework itself was finalised only in August, but pressure to demonstrate numbers followed almost immediately, by October. Down To Earth (DTE) spoke to 15 RCs across multiple states, many of whom said the National Centre of Organic and Natural Farming (NCONF) has been repeatedly asking them to register and certify increasing numbers of farmers under natural farming.
The December directive is not the first instance of such pressure. Ahead of a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in October 2025, certification bodies were asked to issue Natural Farming Certificates to 150,000 farmers — not merely to register them.
Regional councils, or RCs, are government-authorised certification bodies tasked with mobilising farmers, verifying natural farming practices and granting certification through a mix of online documentation checks and season-wise field inspections via local farmer groups. They also train farmers and support market linkages.
The RCs operate under Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) India, the government’s participatory certification framework for organic and natural farming that relies on peer review and local verification rather than third-party audits.
Several councils told DTE that the targets being imposed are disconnected from the realities of certification, which they describe as a time-intensive and trust-based process.
“There was a whole frenzy about getting some 50,000 farmers onboarded a few months ago. We used to receive threatening messages on the RCs’ WhatsApp group saying that if councils did not contribute at least 5,000 farmers to the database, they would be removed as RCs,” said Vishalakshi Padmanabham of the Sixteen Doddi Trust RC.
She said her organisation chose not to participate in that certification drive, arguing that rushing the process without adequate time, clarity or safeguards would undermine its integrity.
“A lot of farmers’ data is required to register them. It’s a trust relationship. Their consent is needed, and it is unclear how this consent was obtained under a rushed timeline,” she said.
For councils working closely with farmers, certification involves training, building understanding of standards, repeated field inspections and peer appraisal, all of which take time.
The approach has triggered concerns that shortcuts in certification could dilute the credibility of the system and erode confidence in natural farming certification labels.
“To ask us to certify farmers takes a microsecond, but at the field level it requires a lot of work,” said Rahul Kachhad, director of the Akhil Gujarat Vikas Trust RC, which works in Gujarat’s Saurashtra region.
Some RCs also said they were asked to shift farmers already undergoing organic certification into the natural farming certification system.
Even as RCs are being asked to expand registrations and complete verification within fixed timelines, many say the corresponding financial support for them is missing. While some councils said funds meant to support certification work have not yet been released, others said there is little clarity on whether or when such support will arrive.
The National Mission on Natural Farming (NMNF), approved in November 2024, has an outlay of Rs 2,481 crore and aims to bring 0.75 million hectares under natural farming, benefiting 10 million farmers, with the stated objective of promoting chemical-free agriculture.
Importantly, the December 2 directive applies specifically to non-scheme farmers. For such farmers, councils are expected to absorb the costs of field verification, travel, documentation and staff time from their own resources.
The costs involved are substantial and recurring. Councils said certification typically costs between Rs 500 and Rs 700 per farmer, or Rs 1,500 to Rs 2,000 per hectare per year, depending on geography and the intensity of engagement required. Expenses include staff salaries, repeated farm visits across cropping seasons, training sessions, preparation and translation of materials, documentation and data uploads, and in some cases soil and residue testing.
An organisation based in Dehradun that was recently authorised as an RC told DTE it plans to recover auditors’ travel costs directly from farmers. Asked how this would work for small and marginal farmers who may be unwilling or unable to pay, a representative said: “We would only ask people to shift to natural farming who are interested in paying this cost.”
Many councils said sustaining such expenditure over time would be difficult without dedicated financial support, particularly when working with small and marginal farmers.
“When we go to farmers, the first question they ask is what is their profit in this. To encourage them, the government should provide money to the farmers making the shift,” said Satish Jha of the Masum Foundation RC. “We have been working in organic farming for some time, so we manage by spreading awareness about natural farming as well.”
In Gujarat, Francis Macwan, director of Shrushti Organics RC, said the lack of assured funding has already taken a financial toll. His organisation, which works largely with Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and women farmers, incurred a loss of Rs 4.5 lakh last year while continuing certification and fieldwork.
“Even a target of 5,000 is difficult for us,” Macwan said, adding that smaller non-profits cannot indefinitely absorb the costs involved in the natural farming certification process.
Under NMNF, funds were to be released in a 60:40 sharing pattern between the Union government and states, with the Centre releasing its share only after states deposited their 40 per cent contribution. In several states, however, this state share has not yet been released, said G V Ramanjaneyulu, executive director of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), which is also a regional council working in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.
According to Ramanjaneyulu, the pressure on certification bodies reflects deeper problems in how the mission was rolled out. He said the programme was operationalised in haste, with responsibilities fragmented across multiple institutions, but little coordination between them.
While certification bodies were being pushed to deliver numbers, foundational elements — including training, farmer identification and funding — remained incomplete in many states.
Under the original design, the mission was to be rolled out in stages. State agriculture departments were expected to identify farmers. The National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management (MANAGE) was tasked with training master trainers, who would then train krishi sakhis — frontline workers responsible for farmer outreach and capacity building. These krishi sakhis were meant to support farmers as the programme expanded at the state level.
Ramanjaneyulu, however, said this model was implemented unevenly. While initial training took place in some states, the process did not progress uniformly across the country. For instance, many RCs told DTE that state agriculture departments have not yet identified farmers, even months after the programme was launched.
Councils also flagged confusion over the definition of natural farming itself — including whether it should be strictly cow-based or encompass a broader range of non-chemical practices — and how it differs from organic farming.
Senior practitioners and scientists have echoed these concerns. On December 22, 2025, in a letter to Gagnesh Sharma, director of NCONF, 16 individuals — including Padma Shri awardees Bharat Bhushan Tyagi, Subhash Sharma, Sabarmatee, Sathyanarayana Beleri and Babulal Dahiya, as well as experts Sultan Ismail and Debal Deb — warned that the current implementation risks undermining the certification regime.
“We are concerned that the current implementation process of Natural Farming Certification risks compromising the integrity of the certification regime,” the signatories wrote. They noted that PGS was conceived as a participatory, trust-based and community-driven system built on local collectivisation, peer learning and mutual accountability, but said the current rollout appears to be diverging from these principles.
The letter flagged reports of certificates being issued in haste “without adequate ground verification or genuine farmer transition to natural farming practices”, and raised concerns about corruption creeping into the system at various levels.
Such practices, they warned, risk undermining consumer confidence and normalising shortcuts within the farming community.