Building Trust in India’s Organic Certification Systems: From Compliance to Credibility

Articles

Introduction: The Promise and the Paradox

India today hosts one of the largest organic farming networks in the world — with over 2.8 million hectares under certified organic cultivation and nearly 45 lakh farmers involved. Yet, despite these achievements, our certification systems often fail to inspire confidence among farmers, markets, and consumers.

The Participatory Guarantee System (PGS-India) and the National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP)were established with complementary aims — the former to empower smallholders through peer-based assurance, and the latter to meet international export standards. But as both systems evolved separately, fragmentation, redundancy, and confusion have crept in.

To make India’s certification systems both trustworthy and functional, we must shift focus from compliance paperwork to building credibility, transparency, and inclusiveness at every level.

1. Fragmented Governance and the Need for Convergence

India currently operates two parallel certification regimes — PGS-India (under the Ministry of Agriculture) and NPOP(under the Ministry of Commerce through APEDA). While this dual system serves different market segments, the lack of alignment has created duplication and inefficiencies. In addition the changes in the international regime moving from equivalence to compliance model make everyone to comply with country specific organic certification systems which complicates the system and requires additional costs.

Farmers moving from local to export markets often face multiple certifications, while consumers encounter multiple organic logos and unclear credibility.

What’s Needed:

  • Harmonization of Standards: A National Organic Coordination Council that aligns standards, audit protocols, and recognition mechanisms across ministries.
  • Mutual Recognition: Data from PGS-India should be interoperable with NPOP’s TraceNet for seamless farmer upgrading.
  • Unified Organic Mark: A single, consumer-facing organic label that represents both systems under one credible identity.

This convergence will reduce bureaucratic overheads and restore clarity in the marketplace.

2. Verification, Transparency, and Data Integrity

Certification credibility rests on verification — and both systems face challenges in maintaining data integrity. Field-level inspection remains inconsistent, digital tools are underutilized, and the audit trail is often weak.

The PGS-India portal and TraceNet were significant steps toward digitization, but they function as closed, non-interoperable silos.

What’s Needed:

  • Digital Traceability Systems: Real-time data capture at each stage — from field visits to product labeling.
  • Open Data Platforms: Publicly accessible dashboards showing certified areas, farmers, and product details.
  • Randomized Independent Audits: Use of remote sensing, geo-tagging, and occasional third-party verification to maintain integrity.
  • Blockchain-Enabled Labels: QR codes that link consumers to verified farmer and certification data.
  • APIs to connect: with other applications farmer groups, FPOs or the enterprises using to avoid massive data entry burden every time.
  • Data for Multiple use: As the certification data is already a verified plot level data, with clear traceability, use it for impact assessment of programs, ecosystem services payments etc

Transparency must move from internal reporting to public accountability.

3. The New Confusion: “Natural Farming Certification” Under PGS

Recently, efforts to promote natural farming have introduced a new wave of confusion within India’s certification landscape. Some government initiatives have begun labeling natural farming as “certified under PGS”, often without clear differentiation or updated standards.

This has created three major problems:

  1. Dilution of Standards: The conflation of “natural” and “organic” undermines the rigor of organic certification. Natural farming emphasizes input substitution and ecological processes but lacks the defined standards and traceability of certified organic farming.
  2. Institutional Overlap: The same PGS groups are now being asked to manage dual systems — organic certification and natural farming validation — with no updated guidelines or training.
  3. Market Confusion: Consumers and retailers are now faced with labels that use the same PGS logo but represent different production philosophies and verification rigor.
  4. Legal conflict: Food Safety Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has not yet notified the PGS natural farming certification making it not transferable. Farmers can only sell the produce directly to consumers upto Rs. 12.00 lakhs per annum or Aggregators upto Rs. 50.00 lakhs per annum.

What’s Needed:

  • Clear Policy Delineation: Natural farming can have its own participatory verification process, but it must not be conflated with organic certification under PGS or it can be just another label variant following same set of standards.
  • Separate Standards and Databases: Develop distinct portals and certification templates for natural farming, ensuring transparency about what each label represents.
  • Stakeholder Consultation: Engage farmer organizations, certification bodies, and consumer groups to redefine the scope of PGS and prevent dilution of its credibility.

Without clarity, the inclusion of natural farming within PGS risks undoing two decades of progress in building trust around organic labels.

4. Farmer-Centric Certification: Reducing Burden, Increasing Ownership

For smallholders, certification often feels more like a bureaucratic obligation than an empowering process. Paperwork-heavy procedures and slow approvals discourage participation, especially when price incentives are minimal.

PGS, in its original design, was meant to be participatory — fostering local accountability and community validation. Yet in practice, it has become data-entry driven, with little ownership by farmers themselves.

What’s Needed:

  • Simplified and Tiered Frameworks: Introduce levels like “PGS-Local” for direct markets and “PGS-Plus” for organized or export-oriented supply chains.
  • Capacity Building: Train FPOs, SHGs, and local groups in record-keeping, internal control systems, and digital reporting.
  • Incentive Alignment: Link certification status to government procurement, e-commerce visibility, and premium pricing opportunities.

When farmers see value in certification, they maintain it with integrity.

5. Market and Consumer Trust: Closing the Loop

Certification loses meaning if it does not result in better market outcomes or consumer confidence. Misuse of “organic” labels and inconsistent quality have made buyers skeptical.

What’s Needed:

  • Unified Consumer Labeling: Clearly distinguish between organic, natural, and conventional produce.
  • Consumer Education: Campaigns explaining certification processes, authenticity checks, and how to read organic labels.
  • Market Integration: Connect certified farmer groups to urban organic markets, retail chains, and institutional buyers through transparent procurement systems.

Trust cannot be legislated — it must be earned through consistency, verification, and communication.

6. Funding and Institutional Strengthening

Certification systems require sustained investment — not just in farmer training but in institutional infrastructure. Currently, funding for audits, digital systems, and data management is inadequate.

What’s Needed:

  • National Organic Systems Fund: Pool resources from government, CSR, and donor agencies for long-term capacity building.
  • Performance-Based Grants: Reward certifying bodies that improve transparency, farmer outreach, and compliance quality.
  • Public–Private Partnerships: Encourage tech startups to co-develop traceability tools and integrate them with government databases.

This will ensure that certification systems evolve dynamically rather than stagnate administratively.

Conclusion: From Compliance to Credibility

India’s organic certification journey must evolve from a regulatory exercise to a trust-building ecosystem. This means aligning policies, modernizing digital systems, clarifying roles between organic and natural farming, and empowering farmers as co-owners of the process.

If we can build a certification framework that is scientifically credible, socially inclusive, and digitally transparent, India can set a global example — not just in organic production, but in organic integrity.

“Trust is not built by more forms or audits — it’s built when every actor in the chain, from farmer to consumer, knows that the system stands for honesty and fairness.”