INTRODUCTION:

Fair trade is an emerging global movement, which provides a better standard of living and quality of life to the farmers and workers in developing countries.

Fair trade emerged as an effort to support the smallholder producers in developing countries to compete profitably with the international trade market, creating better access to market facilities and steady income were the key principles for poverty eradication and stakeholder participation based on the ‘trade, not aid’. It is considered as a trading partnership, which involves exchange, clarity, and mutual respect by seeking equity in international trade, it depends on organized social movement advancing the quality of production and marketing, working environment and labour remuneration, environmental care and developmental policies in supply chains of agriculture produce. Fair trade is a global movement. About 1.65 million farmers and workers have been employed in fair trade organizations across 74 countries around the world. The Fair trade movement made the mainstream business socially and environmentally more responsible. A product with the fair trade mark means producers and business have met internationally agreed standards which have been independently certified (Fairtrade International, 2019). Small farmers in the state of Kerala were exposed to the Fairtrade movements under NGOs working with marginal and small farmers and about six small producer fair trade organizations are active in Kerala. Formed in 2006, FTAK is a farmer-led movement whose members are located in the Western Ghats of south India. Predominantly focused on cash crop cultivation which includes Coconut, Pepper, Cashew Nut, Rubber, Ginger, Turmeric, Areca Nut, Coffee, Nutmeg, Cocoa, and Cinnamon. Cashew is mainly cultivated in Kasaragod and Kannur followed by spice growers mainly in Kozhikode and Wayanad. FTAK enabled farmers to access the global market with a premium price for their agriculture produce. FTAK actively promotes organic farming for its economic and environmental benefits. FTAK also acts on behalf of its members to access government-aided programs such as crop insurance, provision of organic inputs, and farmer training. FTAK and 11 producer co-operatives in Malawi, Nicaragua, and Bolivia jointly account for 44% share in UK-based Fairtrade nut company Liberation Foods. By acknowledging the central role women play in farming and promoting homestead farming, women gain control over their families’ food, and the wide variety of food grown on small farms greatly increases their families’ food security. The study envisaged to understand the extent of farmer engagement and the opportunities and challenges for sustainable livelihood of small farmers in Kerala under Fair trade movement.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Fairtrade charter says that the objective of fair trade is ‘to create a world where justice and sustainable development are at the core of trade structures and practices so that everyone through their work can maintain a standard livelihood and build their human potential. Five principles to achieve this strategy are 1) Market access to marginalized producers; 2) sustainable and equitable trading relationships; 3) capacity building and empowerment; 4) consumer awareness-raising and advocacy and 5) fair trade as a ‘social contract’ between buyers (including final consumers) and producers. In short, fair trade is considered a partnership that utilizes fair trade as a vehicle of promoting progressive change and international development. Fair trade is focusing on the holistic development of the producers and those who practice it. Fair trade practice has its individuality. Compared to contemporary social movements it goes beyond in its efforts to go from vision to practice, seeking to demonstrate through example that more equitable and sustainable relations are possible (Raynolds and Greenfield, 2015). It shows that fair trade is looking at the holistic development of the practicing community with a long term vision of development in all sectors related to it.

A conceptual paper by (Strong, 1997) discusses the challenges to achieve sustainable development, recommending that fair trade play a key role to attain sustainable development. Specifically, the fair trade principle is promoting the idea of sustainable development. The relationship between the buyer and the environment are discussed within the context of sustainable development and how it can be achieved. Fair trade is a concept of trade which establishes a more direct relationship with the producers and consumers in the two worlds. And also it gives a clear image to consumers to provide support for the producers to create a platform for their independent development. Since the nature-friendly production process of fair trade is valued by the consumers that will add more benefits to the local economy and environment.

An article examining fair trade or the alternative trading system by its politics and practices can contribute innovative solutions to global food security. In the beginning, it assesses the 5 main challenges and problems faced by the global food system, then it explores the history, vision and certification standards of fair trade, then evaluating the impact of fair trade on the developing smallholders to understand different strengths and drawbacks of the fair trade, next analysing the how fair trade can positively contribute to the global food security and in the conclusion, it argues that the value of fair trade practice is giving more importance to it social and environmental priorities. Fair trade can influence international policies to create a sustainable transformation of the global food system (Friant, 2016).

In Nicaragua, low prices of green coffee commodities in December 2000 deepened the livelihood crisis of millions of coffee farmers and rural communities. To overcome the scenario, the coffee industry responded by scaling up several certification programmes, including fair trade. They conducted a study using household and community level research from 2000-2006 to assess the response to the post-coffee crisis in 1999. In 2006, a participatory action research team surveyed 177 households selling into conventional and fair trade markets. The results framed within the context of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. Findings of the study: household involved with fair trade cooperatives experienced several positive impacts such as education, infrastructure investment, monetary savings, and several important livelihood insecurities such as low incomes, high emigration and food security among all small-scale producers (Bacon et al., 2008).

Among small coffee farmers in Nicaragua, fair trade played an important role to provide an alternative economic approach. The producers only got a fair trade price between ½ and ⅔ of fair-traded price. Due to the deduction for a community fund, processing cost, export cost, capitalization fund and repayment, this was still sufficient for them even though others were losing their properties (Utting-chamorro, 2005) Fair trade is previously known as alternative trade, which creates trade between the geopolitical North and South by creating more direct producer-consumer linkage. The study opened the field of agro-food initiatives in fair trade. Profiled such initiative, five from U.S and two from Mexico. In the U.S more than a fair market, they preserve the family farming and in Mexico, they are focusing on fair trade marketing of the product. Both initiatives are making efforts through fair trade as a moral charge to improve the living conditions of small farmers and workers who are directly experiencing the impact of economic globalization (Jaffee et al., 2004)

FLOCERT- is the certification body of fair trade. To get this certification, specific standards in each step of production should be maintained according to the criteria given by the FLOCERT. A study related to the FLOCERT certification says that rapid expansion of certification and voluntary standards for sustainability programmes nowadays focused on attempting to assess the lived experiences of fair trade practising producers. Reviewing the effect of certification programmes on coffee smallholder livelihood assets and presenting an 8 initial framework that conceptualizes and analyses the changes in the livelihood assets because of certification. Various studies proved that improved livelihood arising from certain institutional and environmental settings, but causation was difficult to establish. Most of the studies revealed neutral or mixed impact and few studies showed negative impacts. Mainly the study reflecting the widely reported impact. More findings from the study, 1) stronger preexisting institutions within the producer's community resulting in more likely to result in benefits for individual households, 2) the value chain structure through which the certification programmes are implemented are highly influencing the livelihood outcomes and 3) methodologically, rarely existing studies are presenting reliable baseline data which making the causation more difficult to establish (Bray and Neilson, 2017).

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY:

The Indian food industry is poised for tremendous growth, increasing contribution to world food trade every year due to its immense potential for value addition, particularly within the food processing industry. Indian food and grocery market is the world’s sixth-largest, with retail contributing 70 per cent of the sales. The Indian food processing industry accounts for 32 per cent of the country’s total food market, one of the largest industries in India, and is ranked fifth in terms of production, consumption, export, and expected growth. The Indian agriculture sector is predominately unorganized and dominated by players from the unorganized sector with the exploitation of producers by market participants. The current paper tries to study the prospects of Fairtrade practice in Kerala by making a critical analysis of the problems and prospects of the Fair trade Alliance of Kerala. About a 1.65million farmers and workers have been employed in Fair-trade organizations across 74 countries around the globe. In India, about 2.5 lakhs farmer producers are organized by 121 support organizations in fair- trade (FTF-I, 2015). The Indian Fair-trade movement initiated in 2000, has shown initial advantages for small farmers by way of fair-trade premium for their products from global sales. The UK Fair- trade market is doubling every two years, and in sectors such as coffee and bananas According to the Fair Trade Foundation, more than 6 million people in 60 countries worldwide directly benefit from the international Fair- trade certification system. The findings and inferences of the proposed study about the farmer engagement in fair-trade practices in Kerala shall be helpful for the government to make suitable fair-trade policies to enhance the welfare of small and marginal farmers in Kerala.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Fair-trade has emerged as an alternative approach to conventional trade and is based on a partnership between producers and consumers. Fair-trade certification provides primary producers with a premium price for their agriculture produce (FLO, 2018). Several Fair-trade organizations have emerged with different marketing strategies over the last twenty years to facilitate higher prices and better social and environmental standards for the products of small farmers (Kristen, 2011). The small farmers in the state of Kerala are exposed to the Fair- trade movements under NGOs working with marginal and small farmers and about six small producer fair trade organizations are active in Kerala. This provides an alternative approach to conventional trade and is based on a partnership between producers and consumers. There is a need to understand the farmers' active participation concerning fair trade and how its impact on socio-economic status. The study is envisaged to understand the extent of farmer engagement and the opportunities and challenges for sustainable livelihoods for small farmers in Kerala under the fair-trade movement.

OBJECTIVES:

1. To understand the Socio-Economic status of the farmers engaged in Fair Trade practices.

2. To identify the opportunities and challenges experienced by farmers engaged in Fair Trade practices.

3. To explore the significance of Fair-Trade alliance.

METHODOLOGY:

Sampling Procedure and Sample Size:

For the study 600 fair trade practicing farmers are selected purposively based on the selection criteria (office-bearers in various levels of FTAK, women leaders, and ordinary fair-trade members) from three different districts in Kerala. This selection was from a total of 4087fair trade members, which represents 15% of the total members in the fair trade organization.

Tools of Data Collection:

The primary data collection was done by using an interview schedule prepared based on inputs from related works of literature and insights from experts and other people who are working in the sector. The researcher had conducted a preliminary discussion with experts in the area of fair trade practice in March 2020. Initial discussions were helped the researcher to understand more about the various aspects of fair trade practice. The researcher carried out the pre-test with ten members to assess the tool in May 2020. Based on the response received from the pre-test certain questions are reframed to make them more appropriate to the context of the study.

Data Collection:

The primary data for the research study was collected from the selected members of FTAK in June 2020.

The Source of Data:

Primary data was collected and used in this study. The source of primary data collected was the members of FTAK.

Analysis and Interpretation:

The primary data collected for the study were quantified, categorized, and tabulated. The data analysis was done using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Version 25 (IBM SPSS). Frequency Tables, Multiple Response Tables, Tables based on the Kuppuswamy Socio-Economic Status (SES) Scale, and Classification of Farmers based on the Operational Landholding according to the Agriculture Census 2015-2016 were used to represent the data.

Ethical Consideration:

The researcher had obtained the necessary permission from the fair trade organization FTAK for conducting the study. The respondents were informed about the purpose of the study and their consent was assured before the data collection.

Analysis and Interpretations:

Fair Trade is an organized social movement that aims to help producers in developing countries for better trading conditions and sustainable farming. This implies certification that advocates premium prices and better social and environmental standers (Benjamin, 2000). Fairtrade is an emerging marketing concept that ensures the producers get maximum benefits without any kind of fleecing market practice and interventions. The current study on “Farmer Engagements in Fair Trade Practices: Opportunities and Challenges for Sustainable Livelihoods” tries to review the problems and prospects keeping three prominent objectives of the study viz. Socio-Economic Status of the farmers engaged in Fair Trade practices and Identifying the opportunities and challenges experienced by the resource-poor farmers in Kerala engaged in Fairtrade practices and to recommend appropriate policies for scaling up Fair trade practices in Kerala. The current chapter represents the analysis and interpretation of the study through a scientific approach keeping in mind the objectives of the study.

Hereafter Fair Trade is referred to as “FT”.

The majority (51.2%) of respondents were from Kannur followed by Wayanad (25%) and Kasaragod (23.8%) of which the majority of respondents (32%) fall in the age group of 50-60, followed by 28 percent in between 60-70 and 25 percent is in between 40-50. It was visible that youngsters are not interested in farming practice. The majority of respondents were male (88.7%) and preponderant (95.8%) of the study participants are married and settled with their family. The majority (76.5%) of the respondents stay in a nuclear family structure of which, less than 1 percent stay alone, and 77 per cent of families contain a minimum of two male members in their family and 79.3 percent family consists of at least two women members in the family. It was observed that 8 families existed without male members and 2 families existed without female family members.

It was observed that 34.8 percent of respondents qualified High School, 3.2 percent qualified Profession/ Honours (Post Graduation) and 0.5 percent are illiterate. The majority (87.3%) of the respondents engage in skilled Agriculture and Allied activities, followed by 9.8 percent working as skilled workers and shop and market sales workers, and 2.8 percent work as clerks in Government and Private Sector. It was evident that most of the respondents are engaged in agriculture and allied activities for their main source income. Evident that most of the respondents engaged in FT are literate. Preponderant (50.5%) of respondents have farming experience more than 25 years, 44 percent up to 25 years and 5.5 percent have the farming experience above 50 years which substantially help them to formulate sound and informed decision based on past experiences.

The majority (81.3%) of respondents are FT Self Help Group members. It was observed that the majority of the respondents engaged in FT cultivated Coconut, followed by Pepper, Rubber, Cashew Nut, and least priority was given for Cinnamon. There are 11 major crops cultivated by the respondents and procured by the FT organization. Crops are collected in two ways. Former at ‘Collection Centre’ and Later at ‘Farm Gate’. Based on the quantity of crop produced and the number of farmers in a panchayat or locality, the members will decide a place where everybody can reach and supply there produce. Crops like pepper are harvested twice in a year, hence it’s procured directly from farmers, referred to as ‘Farm Gate’ procurement. The fair trade organization offers a better market facility and price for the agriculture produce compared to the market value.

The majority (99.7%) of the respondents engage in organic farming and rest 0.3 per cent do farming making an ideal composition of organic and chemical fertilizers. It was evident that farmers engaging FT maintain Fairtrade standards while doing farming.

Table 1: Monthly Income of Respondents Family

Variable	Category	Frequency	%
	<=3907	144	24.0
	3908-11707	240	40.0
	11708-19515	71	11.8
Monthly Income (in Rupees)	19516-29199	74	12.3
Monthly Income (in Rupees)	29200-39032	26	4.3
	39033-78062	33	5.5
	>=78063	12	2.0
	Total	600	100.0

Source: Kuppuswamy Socioeconomic Scale, 2019.

Table 4 shows the monthly income of families engaged in FT. The majorities (64%) of the respondents have a monthly income lower than 11708 rupees and 2 percent have an income of rupees greater than or equal to Rupees 78063.

Table 2: Socio-Economic Status (SES) of the Respondents Family.

Variable	Category	Frequency	%
	Upper Middle Class	69	11.5
Socio Economic Status (SES)	Lower Middle Class	375	62.5
Socio Economic Status (SES)	Upper lower Class	156	26.0
	Total	600	100.0

Source: Kuppuswamy Socioeconomic Scale, 2019.

Table 2 shows the Socio-Economic Status (SES) of the respondent's family and it was observed that 62.5 per cent of the respondents hail from lower-middle-class families, followed by 26 percent from upper lower and least (11.5%) from upper-middle class. It was evident that none of the respondents represented from under lower socio-economic classes.

Table 3: Economic Status and Type of Ration Card

Variables	Category	Frequency	%
	APL	550	92
Economic Status	BPL	50	8
	Total	600	100.0
	White Card	303	50
	Blue Card	247	41
Type of Ration Card	Pink Card	34	6
	Yellow Card	16	3
	Total	600	100.0

Source: Primary Data.

Prevalent (92%) of respondents are from the APL category and rest 8 percent from the BPL category. It was observed that 50 percent of respondents were from the higher income category and the remaining 41 per cent are from the middle-income category as per the norms of the Civil Supplies Department, Government of Kerala. The majority of farmers practicing FT have abundant farmlands and because of this, they are coming under the higher economic class. The remaining 9 per cent of farmers are from extremely poor economic category.

Table 4: Monthly Expenditure

Variable	Category	Frequency	%
	<=30000	564	94.0
	30001-60000	23	3.8
Monthly Expenditure (in Rupees)	60001-90000	5	.8
	>=90001	8	1.3
	Total	600	100.0

Source: Primary Data.

Table 4 depicts the monthly expenditure of respondents' families. Majority (94%) of the respondents have a monthly expenditure of Rupees <=30000 and rest 6 per cent have a monthly expenditure of more than 30000 Rupees.The majority (96.8%) of the respondents opined that their major source of income is generated from the sale of farm produce, followed by the sale of livestock and least from rental income. It was quite evident that a sizable (22.2%) number of respondents are eligible for pension who engages in FT.

Table 5: Land Holding Status of the Family (Operational holdings)

Variable	Category	Frequency	%	Descriptive
	Marginal	197	32.8	Mean 406.76
	Small	211	35.2	Mean 406.76
Total Landholding of the family (in ha)	Semi-Medium	156	26.0	Std. Deviation 300.990
Total Landholding of the family (in ha)	Medium	36	6.0	Std. Deviation 300.990
	Total	600	100.0	Min – 12 Max - 1850

Source: Classification based on the Agriculture Census 2015-2016, Agriculture Census Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Government of India (2019).

A sizeable portion (35.2%) of respondent’s small farmers with operational land holding, followed by marginal farmers (32.8%), 26 percent are semi-medium farmers and rest 6 percent of respondents are medium farmers. It was observed that the average landholding of the respondents engaging in FT is 1.64 Hectors.

Table 7: Reasons for Joining Fair Trade (Multiple responses,

(N=600)

Statement	Interaction	Frequency	%
Meet the financial needs	Yes	523	87.2
Personal Income	Yes	209	34.8
Social Recognition	Yes	209	34.8
Skill Development	Yes	197	32.8
Leisure	Yes	30	5.0

Source: Primary Data

It was observed that 87.2 percent of respondents engaged in FT resumed to agriculture to meet the financial need of the family, followed by personal income (34.8%) and social recognition (34.8%) and 5 percent opined that they engage in FT to spend their Leisure time.

Table 8: Fair-Trade (FT) Awareness Level of Respondents.

Variable	Category	Frequency	%
Do you know	Know	589	98.2
about FT	Don't know	11	1.8
	Total	600	100.0
Level of	Slightly Aware	22	3.6
Awareness about	Moderately Aware	358	59.7
FT	Very much aware	209	34.8
	Total	589	98.2

Source: Primary Data.

Preponderant (98.2%) of respondents are aware of FT and of the same 59.7 percent moderately aware, 34.8 per cent very much aware, and 3.6 percent slightly aware. From the response from the respondents, it was quite evident that farmers practicing FT are not completely aware of the true sense of FT.

Table 9: Opinion on Financial Benefits of Respondents Participate in Fairtrade Practice.

Variable	Category	Frequency	%
	Loss	10	1.7
	Low Profit	77	12.8
Financial Status	Average Profit	376	62.7
	Good profit	137	22.8
	Total	600	100.0

Source: Primary Data.

From the total sample, 62.7 percent of respondents opined that they receive average profit; followed by 22.8 percent reported reasonable profit and 1.7 percent incurred operating loss. Operating profit is declining due to market fluctuations on accord of Kerala Flood 2018, 19 and unpredicted decline in the aggregate demand due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of the farmers engaging in FT are flood- affected and incurred huge capital expenditure to reinstate the operation similar to the pas.

It was evident that the FT organization supports farmers by equipping them to be skilled by various training and seminars. Prevalent (85.3%) of respondents have attended various seminars organized by the FT organization and 46 percent of respondents have attended Short Term Training.

The various program offered by the FT organization included guidance on agriculture and allied programs, measures in the protection of biodiversity, program for animal protection, medical support, and support value-added products through training and workshops.

Table 10: Natural Calamity

Variable	Category	Frequency	%
	No	354	59.0
Natural Calamity	Yes Total	246	41.0
		600	100.0

Source: Primary Data.

A large (41%) percent of respondents opined that recent floods and land sliding in recent years 2018, 19 have affected agriculture production and sizeable farmers lost their farmland, crops, livestock, and personal property. Most (41%) of respondents opined that recent floods and land sliding in recent years 2018, 19 have affected the agriculture production and sizeable farmers lost their farmland, crops, livestock, and personal property. 54(n=600) respondents received financial support from Government and 41(n=600) received funds/benefits received from FT organization. 89 respondents belonged to a region marked as a region of socio-economic shocks. It was observed that one of the major challenges (51.2%) faced by respondents included continuous wild animals attacks in their farms mainly by elephant, feral pig, monkey, and peacock followed by financial constraints (17.8%) such as incremental cost of production, declining profit, crop loss due to the climate change and wild animals attacks, high labor cost, the financial crisis in the family due to various circumstances and loan and the least challenge was associated with pest disease (11.2%). Limited availability of superior seeds and fertilizers and the unavailability of laborers constitute 2.3 percent challenges faced by the respondent. X2=1259.701 with 432 degrees of freedom significant at 5% level. For analyzing the Human Capital, the factors, viz. Home Management, Education of Children, Self Confidence, Decision-making Capacity, Engagement of Family members in Farming, Knowledge, and Skill about Farming, Training received for Farming and Adaptability to the changes happening to the Market Trends. It was observed that the major impact was reflected in “Knowledge and skill about farming” which was ranked as first followed by “Decision-making capacity” and Education of Children was ranked last in the post fare trade practice. It was observed that the self-confidence and decision-making ability of respondents ranked as same before and after the fair trade practice because most of them are household heads. It is revealed that there is a significant difference in the human capital after engaging in fair trade practice since P values .000 which is lesser than the .05 level of significance

X2=1110.168 with 169 degrees of freedom significant at 5% level.

The table shows the major impact on Financial Capital after engaging in fair trade practice. For analyzing the Financial Capital, the factors, viz. Cost getting for your product/crop, Income, Savings, Loan availability. It was observed that the major impact was reflected in Cost getting for your product/crop ranked as first, followed by loan availability, saving was ranked last in the post fair trade practice. It was observed that the income and savings of respondents ranked as same before and after the fair trade practice because even though the respondents are getting a better price for their crops compared to market price day by day the cost of leaving is increasing. It is revealed that there is a significant difference in the financial capital after engaging in fair trade practice since P values .000 which is lesser than the .05 level of significance.

The unique services offered by fair-trade organizations comforting small-scale farmers to a great extent for sustaining their livelihood. A large number (68.5%) of respondents are decided to continue with the existing farming method and 31 percent planning to extend the activities since they receive a better price for crops compared to the actual market price, fair-trade premium, market access, loan with no interest, democratic nature of the organization and benefits offered by the fair trade organization. Only .5 percent of fair-trade farmers would discontinue from FT practice, which is quite negligible.

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY:

The majority (76.5%) of the respondents stay in a nuclear family structure of which, less than 1 percent stay alone, and 77 percent of families contain a minimum of two male members in their family and 79.3 percent family consists of at least two women members in the family. It was observed that 8 families existed without male members and 2 families existed without female family members.

It was observed that 34.8 percent of respondents qualified High School, 3.2 percent qualified Profession/ Honours (Post Graduation) and 0.5 percent are Illiterate. It was evident that most of the respondents engaged in FT are literate.

The majority (87.3%) of the respondents engages in Skilled Agriculture and Allied activities, followed by 9.8 per cent working as Skilled Workers and shop and market sales workers, and 2.8 percent work as clerks in Government and Private Sector. It was evident that most of the respondents are engaged in agriculture and allied activities for their main source income. The majority (64%) of the respondents have a monthly income lower than 11708 rupees and 2 percent have an income of rupees greater than or equal to Rupees 78063.

It was observed that 62.5 percent of the respondent’s hail from lower-middle-class families, followed by 26 per cent from upper lower and least (11.5%) from the upper-middle class. It was evident that none of the respondents represented from under lower socio-economic classes.

The majorities (94%) of the respondents have a monthly expenditure of Rupees <=30000 and the rest 6 percent have a monthly expenditure of more than 30000 Rupees.

The majority (96.8%) of the respondents opined that their major source of income is generated from the sale of farm produce, followed by the sale of livestock and least from rental income. It was quite evident that a sizable (22.2%) number of respondents are eligible for pension who engages in FT.

A sizeable portion (35.2%) of respondents small farmers with operational land holding, followed by marginal farmers (32.8%), 26 percent are semi-medium farmers and the rest 6 percent of respondents are medium farmers. It was observed that the average landholding of the respondents engaging in FT is 1.64 Hectors.

It was evident that the average financial liability of respondents who engage in FT is Rs. 3, 42, 743.33 Lakhs per family, and the majority (61.8%) of respondents have financial commitments <= 5 lakhs, 21 percent without any financial commitment, and 3.3 per cent respondents have taken loan above 15 lakhs. It was opined that most of the respondents have availed agriculture loans from the formal banking system The majority (68.3%) of respondents opined that the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the monthly income of respondents engaging in FT with an average decline in monthly income by Rs. 5685.83. Preponderant (50.5%) of respondents have farming experience more than 25 years, 44 percent up to 25 years and 5.5 percent have the farming experience above 50 years which substantially help them to formulate sound and informed decision based on past experiences.

The majority (81.3%) of respondents are FT Self Help Group members.

It was observed that the majority of the respondents engaged in FT cultivated Coconut, followed by Pepper, Rubber, Cashew Nut, and least priority was given for Cinnamon. There are 11 major crops cultivated by the respondents and procured by the FT organization. Crops are collected in two ways. Former at ‘Collection Centre’ and Later at ‘Farm Gate’. Based on the quantity of crop produced and the number of farmers in a panchayat or locality, the members will decide a place where everybody can reach and supply there produce. Crops like pepper are harvested twice in a year, hence it’s procured directly from farmers, referred to as ‘Farm Gate’ procurement. The fair trade organization offers a better market facility and price for the agriculture produce compared to the market value.

The majority (99.7%) of the respondents engage in organic farming and rest 0.3 percent do farming making an ideal composition of organic and chemical fertilizers. It was evident that farmers engaging FT maintain Fairtrade standards while doing farming.

From the total sample, 62.7 percent respondents opined that they receive average profit; followed by 22.8 per cent reported reasonable profit and 1.7 percent incurred operating loss. Operating profit is declining due to market fluctuations on accord of Kerala Flood 2018, 19 and unpredicted decline in the aggregate demand due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of the farmers engaging in FT are flood- affected and incurred huge capital expenditure to reinstate the operation similar to the past.

Most (41%) of respondents opined that recent floods and land sliding in recent years 2018, 19 have affected the agriculture production and sizeable farmers lost their farmland, crops, livestock, and personal property. 54(n=600) respondents received financial support from Government and 41(n=600) received funds/benefits received from FT organization. 89 respondents belonged to a region marked as a region of socio-economic shocks.

It was observed that one of the major challenges (51.2%) faced by respondents included continuous wild animals attacks in their farms mainly by elephant, feral pig, monkey, and peacock followed by financial constraints (17.8%) such as incremental cost of production, declining profit, crop loss due to the climate change and wild animals attacks, high labor cost, the financial crisis in the family due to various circumstances and loan and the least challenge was associated with pest disease (11.2%). Limited availability of superiority seeds and fertilizers and the unavailability of laborers constitute 2.3 per cent challenges faced by the respondents.

It is revealed that there is a significant difference in human capital after engaging in fair trade practice. It is revealed that there is a significant difference in financial capital after engaging in fair trade practice.

The unique services offered by fair-trade organizations comforting small-scale farmers to a great extent for sustaining their livelihood. A large number (68.5%) of respondents are decided to continue with the existing farming method and 31 percent planning to extend the activities since they receive a better price for crops compared to the actual market price, premium price, market access, loan with no interest, democratic nature of the organization and benefits offered by the fair trade organization. Only .5 percent of fair-trade farmers would discontinue from FT practice, which is quite negligible.

CONCLUSION:

FT is an emerging global movement, which provides a better standard of living and quality of life to the farmers and workers who are engaged in FT to compete profitably with the international trade market, better market access and steady income, were the key principles for poverty eradication and stakeholder participation is fulfilled with a motto ‘To Trade, Not To Aid’. FTAK played a pivotal role in enhancing the socio-economic standard of farmers and workers engaged in FT by making available steady income, premium price for the produce, soft loans, better market access, minimizing the financial complexities, ensuring higher productivity due to adopting better agriculture practice, making available adequate superior quality seeds and fertilizers. Competency programs like workshops and training programs helped the farmers to overcome challenges and Financial aid during natural disasters motivated them to continue with FT. Collective efforts at the FTAK will enhance productivity and help us retain the legacy and competency of India in the international markets, overcome the challenges of upcoming of food security, underutilization of rural land and motivate the younger generation foot step in to continue with agriculture. An organization like FTAK preserves the historical legacy of Indian cash crops by creating sustainable livelihood for producers engaged in FT and helps them to calibrate the food security for a growing population and developing nation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

This paper was prepared under the Minor Research Project entitled "Farmer Engagements in Fair Trade Practices: Opportunities and Challenges for Sustainable Livelihoods", funded by ICSSR under IMPRESS project (F No. IMPRESS/P451/275/2018-19/ICSSR)

REFERENCES:

1. Bacon, C. M., Méndez, V. E., Gómez, M. E. F., Stuart, D., and Flores, S. R. D. (2008). Are Sustainable Coffee Certifications Enough to Secure Farmer Livelihoods? The Millenium Development Goals and Nicaragua’s Fair Trade Cooperatives. Globalizations, 5(2): 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14747730802057688

2. Bacon, C. M., Sundstrom, W. A., Flores Gómez, M. E., Ernesto Méndez, V., Santos, R., Goldoftas, B., and Dougherty, I. (2014). Explaining the ‘hungry farmer paradox’: Smallholders and fair trade cooperatives navigate seasonality and change in Nicaragua’s corn and coffee markets.Global Environmental Change, 25, 133-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.005

3. Becchetti, L., Castriota, S., and Solferino, N. (2011). Development Projects and Life Satisfaction: An Impact Study on Fair Trade Handicraft Producers. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(1): 115-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9179-9

4. Beuchelt, T. D., and Zeller, M. (2011). Profits and poverty: Certification’s troubled link for Nicaragua’s organic and fair trade coffee producers. Ecological Economics, 70(7): 1316-1324.

5. Bray, J. G., and Neilson, J. (2017). Reviewing the impacts of coffee certification programmes on smallholder livelihoods. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and amp; Management, 13(1): 216-232. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 21513732.2017.1316520.

6. Enelow, N. H., (2012). (PDF) Fair Trade, Agrarian Cooperatives, and Rural Liveli hoods in Peru|Noah Enelow Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/27848505/Fair_Trade_Agrarian_Cooperatives_and_Rural_Livelihoods

7. Fairtrade International. (2020). Retrieved 30 April 2020, from https://www.fairtrade.net/

8. Fair Trade Certified|Fair Trade Certified. (n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2020, from https://www.fairtradecertified.org/

9. Fairtrade International. (2019, April 19). Fairtrade International. https://www.fairtrade.net/

10. Friant, M. C. (2016). Fairtrade, Food Security and Globalization: building alternative food systems? https://www.academia.edu/ 39926019/Fairtrade_Food_Security_and_Globalizatio n_building_ alternative_food_systems.

11. Fair Trade, (2019), “Fairtrade: Sustainable trade for sustainable development”, Retrieved Gender equality”, Retrieved May 27, 2020, from https://www.fairtrade.net/issue/sdg5.

12. Fairtrade International, (2020), “SDG16: Peace, justice and strong institutions”, Retrieved September 4, 2020, from https:// www.fairtrade.net/issue/sdg16.

13. https://www.fairtradeforum.org. (2014, August 6). Retrieved 30 April 2020, from Fair Trade Forum—India website: http:// www.fairtradeforum.org/fair-trade-forum-india/

14. https://www.flocert.net/. Retrieved 30 April 2020, from https:// www.flocert.net/

15. Jaffee, D., Kloppenburg Jr., J. R., and Monroy, M. B. (2004). Bringing the “Moral Charge” Home: Fair Trade within the North and within the South. Rural Sociology, 69(2): 169–196. https:// doi.org/10.1526/003601104323087561

16. Krantz, L. (2001). The Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Poverty Reduction (pp. 1). SIDA

17. Lim M.K, Mak H.O, and Park S.J. (2019). Money well spent? Operations, mainstreaming, and fairness of fair trade - ORA - Oxford University Research Archive. 28(12): 3023-3041.

18. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation http:// mospi.nic.in/49-land-holdings-and-agricultural-censu

19. Moberg, M. (2016). Markets’ End: Fair-trade Social Premiums as Development in Dominica. American Ethnologist, 43(4): 677. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12383

20. Philpott, S. M., Bichier, P., Rice, R., and Greenberg, R. (2007). Field-testing ecological and economic benefits of coffee certification programs. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 21(4): 975–985. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00728.x

21. Pirotte, G., Pleyers, G., and Poncelet, M. (2006). Fair-trade coffee in Nicaragua and Tanzania: a comparison. Development in Practice, 16(5): 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09614520600792390.

22. Qiao, Y., Halberg, N., Vaheesan, S., and Scott, S. (2016). Assessing the social and economic benefits of organic and fair trade tea production for small-scale farmers in Asia: a comparative case study of China and Sri Lanka. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 31(3): 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1742170515000162

23. Ranjan, J. P., and Grote, U. (2017). Fairtrade certification and livelihood impacts on small- scale coffee producers in a tribal community of India. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 39(1): 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppw006

24. Raynolds, L. T., and Greenfield, N. (2015). Fair trade: Movement and markets. Handbook of Research on Fair Trade, 3–23. Cheltenham, UK. Northampton, MA, US: Edward Elgar Publishing House. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783474622

25. Raynolds, L. T., (2009). Mainstreaming fair trade coffee: from partnership to traceability. World Development, 37(6): 1083–93

26. Report of World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) Our common future. (1987)

27. Ronchi, L. (2002). The Impact of fair trade on producers and their organization: A case study with the coocafe in Cost Rica. 31. Ruerd Ruben (Ed.). (2008). The impact of Fair Trade. Wageningen Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-647-2

28. Ruben, R., Fort, R., and Zúñiga-Arias, G. (2009). Measuring the impact of fair trade on development. Development in Practice, 19(6). 777-788. http://doi: 10.1080/09614520903027049

29. Sarah Layon. (2007). (PDF) Fair Trade coffee and human rights in Guatemala|Sarah Lyon-Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/ 2380964/Fair_Trade_coffee_and_human_rights in_Guatemala

30. Sen, D. (2014). Fair Trade vs. Swachh Vyāpār: Women’s Activism and Transnational Justice Regimes in Darjeeling, India. Feminist Studies, 40(2): 444–472

31. Sheikh Mohd Saleem. Modified Kuppuswamy socioeconomic scale updated for the year 2019. Indian J Forensic Community Med 2019; 6(1): 1-3

32. Silver, C. (2020). The Top 20 Economies in the World. Retrieved 24 April 2020, from Investopedia website: https:// www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/

33. Smith, A. M. (2013). Fairtrade governance and diversification: The experience of the National Smallholder Farmers’ Association of Malawi - Science Direct. Geoforum, 48: 114-125

34. Stellmacher, T., U. Grote, 2011. Forest coffee certification in Ethiopia: Economic boon or ecological bane? ZEFWorkingPaper Series76, Bonn. https://www.zef.de/fileadmin/user_upload/ wp76.pdf

35. Strong, C., (1997). The role of fair trade principles within sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 5(1): 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099- 1719(199703)5:1<1::AID-SD58>3.0.CO;2-2

36. Thi Minh Chi, Naguyen; Li-Hsien Chien, and Shwu-En Chen. (2015). Impact of Certification System on Smallholder Coffee Farms’; Income Distribution in Vietnam. 13

Received on 11.04.2021 Modified on 24.04.2021

Asian Journal of Management. 2021; 12(3):327-336.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5763.2021.00050