Natural farming and agroecological practices are no longer fringe ideas. They are being successfully practised across India — albeit unevenly and often without systemic support. There are strong proponents of natural farming, but also persistent sceptics who invoke food security as a reason for caution. Yet some of them now quietly and grudgingly acknowledge that the Green Revolution (GR) has left behind a trail of ecological stress and public health concerns.
The policy direction too is beginning to shift. The Prime Minister has repeatedly underscored that practising natural farming is akin to serving Mother Earth, and the approval of the National Mission on Natural Farming (NMNF) in November 2024, with an outlay of ₹2,481 crore, signals strong intent. But intent alone does not deliver transformation. The NMNF’s provision of ₹8,000 per farmer over two years for one acre is a start, but it is unrealistic to expect farmers to shift from entrenched GR practices on the basis of such a one-off payment.
The GR was underpinned by a comprehensive public policy framework — backed by sustained investment in irrigation, seeds, extension, credit, markets, and the public distribution system. Natural farming, by contrast, cannot be expected to scale on a token incentive in the absence of comparable systemic support. If it is to move from promising examples to widespread practice, the real question is how that transition will be financed. And public policy must state this clearly — and act on it. Transition support is not another subsidy — it is bridge finance for a public good. Farmers shifting away from input-intensive GR practices incur immediate costs: learning new practices, rebuilding soil biology, managing yield uncertainty, and reorganising labour and preparing botanical inputs.
Sharing the costs
These costs are upfront, while the benefits — healthier soils, lower input dependence, and climate resilience — accrue over time. A rational policy cannot expect farmers to finance this ecological correction on their own. If society benefits from the ecosystem services they generate, it must also share the cost. Transition support should invest in capacity building, field-level support, local resource systems, and market linkages, with incentives tied to measurable ecological outcomes. Priority must go to small and marginal farmers, tenant farmers, and women farmers, who bear the highest transition risk.
First, the State must anchor the transition. Public finance should support what are clearly public goods — extension, training, community institutions, demonstration farms, monitoring systems, and certification where necessary. These constitute the infrastructure of adoption. If ecological farming is a public priority, the institutions that enable it must be publicly funded. The burden cannot rest on farmers, nor on a narrow segment of consumers paying premiums. While the benefits of ecosystem services — healthier soils, safer water, and reduced chemical exposure — accrue to society at large, the costs of transition cannot be left to those least able to bear them. Without this, natural farming will not move beyond announcements.
Second, transition finance must be blended. Government alone cannot carry the entire load, nor will public budgets suffice. Corporate social responsibility, philanthropic capital, climate finance, ecosystem-service incentives, and credit-linked instruments must be aligned towards a common outcome. A catalytic Green Transition Fund can serve as the anchor — pooling resources, directing them towards verified outcomes, and bringing coherence to what is otherwise a fragmented landscape of schemes and pilots. This framework must also recognise programme delivery costs — farmer facilitation, local institutions, and certification — as core public investments. Emerging instruments such as carbon markets and payments for ecosystem services can further strengthen the transition over time.
Third, transition support must be anchored in incentive reform. As long as policy continues to reward input-intensive GR agriculture, financial support will only soften — not resolve — the underlying contradiction. Procurement and price signals must shift to support crops grown through natural farming — millets, pulses, oilseeds — and other locally suited cropping systems.
Without this alignment, transition will remain partial and reversible. India already has the ingredients — farmer institutions, public finance, CSR, climate funds, and emerging ecosystem-service markets. What is missing is coherence and commitment.
Natural farming cannot remain a boutique intervention; it must be treated as a national development strategy.
Suryakumar is former Deputy Managing Director, NABARD, and Ramanjaneyulu is Executive Director, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture. Views are personal
Published on April 16, 2026