Exchange of farm land. The perspective of the Farm Group

Before Auroville was officially founded in 1968 and before the final location of Auroville was decided by the Mother, disparate plots of land had been bought in the surrounding region. Many of these plots have been stewarded by Aurovilians for many decades. In recent years, there has been a move to exchange some of these outlying plots for land in the City and the Greenbelt area. Such a move, even though it may serve a greater purpose, has not always been welcomed by the stewards. From the perspective of the Farm Group, exchanging outlying farms can be detrimental to food security.

Auroville has 365 acres of land that is managed by the Auroville Farm Group. The Auroville Farm Group consists of 19 farms, and almost half of the 365 acres of farm land lies outside the City and Greenbelt areas. The farms in the Greenbelt often comprise severely eroded laterite soil, while some of our outlying farms such as Annapurna, Auro Annam, Service Farm and Brihaspathi have more fertile soil, and thus a greater capacity for food production. The outlying farms are also much bigger in size, which leads to economies of scale that are not possible with small holdings. Certain field crops, such as grains, are best grown in large areas. These are main reasons for protecting farm land in the outlying areas.

Members of the Town Development Council (TDC) and the Funds and Assets Management Committee (FAMC) state that they subscribe to a vision of protecting farm land. In the rare cases when they do exchange outlying farm land, they seek to allocate an equal acreage of land for farming within the greenbelt area. While in theory this seems like a reasonable principle, a closer analysis reveals that land exchange has led to a decrease in the amount of Auroville farm land. Also, sadly, in the experience of the Farm Group, implementation of land exchange has always proven to be an unpleasant experience, resulting in bitterness among individuals, among working groups, and irresolvable conflicts. Even without convoluted interpersonal dynamics that tend to plague group processes in Auroville, it is debatable if an equal acreage of contiguous land in the city’s greenbelt can ever be made available to the Farm Group to compensate for the lost farm, for as one farmer pointed out, there are only small parcels of land available for sale in the greenbelt. The Auroville Farm Group doesn’t want to take up Greenbelt land for farming if it is less than 5 acres, for they believe that economies of food production do not work on small plots. Below we examine, with reference to specific examples, some of the challenges with farm land exchange.

Land: General issues

For farmers, land is their most prized asset. Over years, with observation and experimentation, one learns in detail about the lay of the land, the health of the soil and the flow of the surface water. And out of this knowledge, evolves a deeper understanding of how best to develop the land – not just where to plant the crops, but also how to catch the run-off from the land, maintain the catchment ponds, and locate needed infrastructure.

Good farmers (as well as foresters) live in a close symbiotic relationship with the land. The depth of this relationship can be hard for outsiders to fathom, because it is a living connection, born out of years of observing and understanding the land.

Given the state of ecological erosion of the Auroville bioregion, regenerating the soil and establishing a healthy, relatively pest-free ecosystem takes a few years when one starts food cultivation for the first time. It is difficult, if not impossible, to calculate the ecological value of regenerating soil or establishing a healthy ecosystem. As is true all over the world, natural capital or ecological value is easily overlooked in annual balance sheets that show only financial income and expenses. But organic farmers know that protecting and replenishing the health of the soil ensures food productivity in the long run. Food productivity can be dramatically increased in the short term by unsustainable cultivation, as India did with the Green Revolution, but in the long run, as again seen in the Green Revolution experiment, this leads to a total depletion of the soil and aquifers.

Besides cultivating soil for producing food, farmers require substantial investments into immovable assets, such as infrastructure for energy and water, cow sheds, storage sheds, nurseries, small food-processing centre, etc. In Auroville, such investments are sometimes made out of community funds, but more often out of the personal funds of individuals. When a viable farm is exchanged, additional financial resources for investments are often not planned for. If the farmer is relocated from an existing farm to a new but poorly managed farm, it basically diminishes our food production for an indeterminate period of years as the farmer struggles to invest in the necessary infrastructure, build up the health of the soil again, and re-start cultivation. As the more fertile agricultural land lies outside of the city limits, exchanging or selling outlying farms does not make any sense from the perspective of the farmer.

Exchange of farm land: past lessons

In 2010, the Funds and Assets Management Committee and the Land Management Task Force decided to exchange two outlying farms – Service Farm and Auro Annam – for land in the city area. Many in the Farm Group felt that this would be detrimental to Auroville’s food security and there were heated discussions around this. But in the end, according to Priya, a farmer and note-taker of the Farm Group, the Farm Group was not given a choice in the matter. The two farms were put up for exchange, and the stewards were told they would be relocated.

Says Priya, “Over the next few years various pieces of land were offered to both farm stewards to set up new farms. The steward of Auro Annam would not accept any of these or any offers of temporary accommodation (knowing well that permanent accommodation may not ever be forthcoming). They were either too small to compensate for the 7 acres of Auro Annam or they did not have the necessary road access.

“Eventually the steward of Auro Annam was allowed to continue living on a small piece of the Auro Annam land where the farm house and some infrastructure was located. This land was fenced and the rest of Auro Annam was used for land exchange.

“In the case of Service farm, the FAMC instructed the steward of the land to cease farming as soon as it decided to use the farm for land exchange. Since then, the 14-acre farm has steadily deteriorated. The steward was promised temporary accommodation by the FAMC but this was not forthcoming. The steward and her family continued living in their deteriorating accommodation and no longer did any necessary maintenance work in view of the planned exchange. Concerned by the delay in the exchange, the Farm Group requested the FAMC to revoke the decision and take back Service Farm, but this was refused as were requests to improve the accommodation. In 2012, the steward was offered 4 acres of land, which was accepted to create New Service Farm. Money was requested from the FAMC to build up the farm, but only the very minimum was provided. Auroville did not provide for an access road and for water to New Service Farm, without which farming cannot start and the steward cannot be relocated. According to the current Land Board, Service Farm is still earmarked for land exchange and negotiations about this are ongoing but are complex. Recently there have been renewed efforts to make the New Service Farm operational.

“But, all in all, given the fact that relocating stewards is such a long and messy process and still not entirely resolved after 6 years in the case of Service Farm, the farmers question if the exchange was worth the financial and human cost. In addition to these two farms, the Farm Group gave up 20 acres of cultivated farms for land exchange but received only four acres in return, on which farming is yet to begin. Sufficient investment was not provided to set up even one new farm. In short, exchanging farm land has resulted in a decrease of food production.”

Exchange of farm land: current negotiations

At present, a new land exchange involving part of the outlying farm of Brihaspatihas been proposed by the Land Board. The Farm Group has asked for the original promises to be honoured and two new farms established, in exchange of Auro Annam and Service Farm, before they would consider such a request. The Land Board has replied that they do not have the authority to grant such a request, as it is the FAMC that makes such decisions. The issue is compounded by the fact that many members of these working groups have been replaced, and often there is a lack of continuity in the implementation of decisions from one group to the next. Given their past experience and their lack of trust in the working groups in granting them a fair deal, the Farm Group recently unequivocally stated:

“Given that losing farm land puts the future food security of Auroville at risk, the Farm Group will not willingly give up farm land for land exchange or any other purpose. Past experience has shown that Auroville farm land, once lost to land exchange, is not replaced. The Farm Group acknowledges that there might be exceptional circumstances in which a case could be made for giving up either a farm or farm land for land exchange. If such a case arises, this has to be agreed by the whole community. In such a case, the Farm Group expects a replacement farm to be provided. In practice this means that sufficient land be made available and resources provided in a separate account to create another farm. These resources have to be made available to the Farm Group before the land exchange negotiations begin. This will ensure that, in the future, farm land is not lost to Auroville because of land exchange, as has happened in the past.”

The Farm Group’s stance deserves to be discussed by the community at large and approved by other working groups. But the lack of trust is not one-sided. There is also criticism that farm land is not optimally used or a farm is not well-managed. Members of the FAMC in recent discussions voiced the opinion that when a farm is not performing well due to poor management or large swathes of land in an existing farm are not being utilised, then the group feels justified to exchange such farm land.

This is an extreme view. It would be better to investigate why a farm does not function optimally, and if needed, set in place processes to replace the steward. For if we truly wish to implement a vision of maximum food productivity and self-sufficiency, we need to have a well thought-out approach for protecting the viable agricultural land of Auroville. A lot needs to be done to ensure the food security of Auroville, but, as always, we first need to have a common vision regarding food production in Auroville.