Imagine a farmer in a remote village in the Himalayas cultivating mandarins and vegetables without synthetic fertilizers or pesticides, relying solely on compost, cow manure, and traditional knowledge passed down through generations. By practice, her farm is organic. She makes jellies and dried herbs to earn a living and dreams of selling her organic products in international markets. Yet to a supermarket in Paris or New York, claims of being organic hold little value without formal certification. The system demands proof, not trust.

The concept of organic certification began taking formal shape in the 1970s, when consumer demand for credibility and transparency in organic labeling grew rapidly in the United States, Europe, and Japan. In 1972, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) was founded in France, marking the first global effort to define and standardize organic principles. Soon after, the California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) became one of the first formal certification bodies in the United States. By the 1980s and 1990s, the movement had gained legal and institutional recognition worldwide, with countries developing their own standards such as Japan’s Japanese Agricultural Standards (JAS), the U.S. Organic Foods Production Act (1990), and the European Union’s first organic regulation (1991), laying the foundation for the global certification system we know today.

Originally, organic certification was designed to ensure transparency and build consumer trust, assuring that food was produced in environmentally and socially responsible ways. However, what began as a mechanism to protect consumers has increasingly evolved into a market gatekeeping tool, one that systematically excludes the very farmers whose practices embody the essence of organic agriculture.

Across the Himalayas, from Nepal and Bhutan to northern India and the hill regions of Pakistan, smallholder farming dominates. These farmers typically cultivate less than one hectare of land, often fragmented across steep mountain slopes connected by narrow trails rather than roads. Inspectors must traverse challenging terrain to verify compliance, collect soil and crop samples, and review records. The resulting costs are prohibitively high, often exceeding what a farmer earns in an entire season.

The administrative burden compounds this inequity. Certification requires meticulous documentation, from seed selection and soil inputs to pest management and harvest records. Yet most mountain farmers lack access to digital tools, stable internet, or formal extension services. Their recordkeeping is oral, community based, and built on trust, systems that have sustained generations but do not fit into bureaucratic certification templates.

The result is a structural imbalance, what scholars term the organic divide. Compliance today favors capital and connectivity rather than ecological integrity. Large agribusinesses can easily navigate the paperwork, inspections, and costs, while smallholders who often use no synthetic inputs are left selling their produce as conventional, without recognition or premium pricing.

The paradox extends beyond individual farmers to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that work directly with them. At Khetipati Organics, for instance, we source a diverse range of agro produce from smallholder farmers across rural Nepal, farmers who cultivate without synthetic inputs, using compost and traditional farming wisdom. Despite knowing that our supply chain is genuinely organic in practice, we cannot label our products as organic in international markets without certification. This creates a double bind. On one hand, the cost of working with dispersed small farms in remote areas, where transportation, post harvest management, and traceability are already complex, is inherently high. On the other hand, international markets recognize and reward only certified organic products. As a result, what should be a niche, value driven product becomes burdened with additional administrative and financial hurdles simply to gain legitimacy. The irony is that the system designed to ensure ethical trade often penalizes those most committed to ethical sourcing.

In the Himalayan region, this imbalance is particularly concerning. The topography and remoteness make transportation and monitoring innately costly and inefficient. In this backdrop, organic certification, in its current form, risks reinforcing inequality instead of fostering sustainability. The very farmers who conserve biodiversity, maintain soil fertility, and use natural resources prudently are often excluded from formal recognition. Their knowledge systems, rooted in centuries of coexistence with nature, remain undervalued in global supply chains dominated by industrial models of verification.

Alternative frameworks such as Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS), recognized by IFOAM Organics International, offer a promising path forward. These community based certification systems rely on peer reviews, transparency, and social accountability rather than costly third party audits. For regions like the Himalayas, where farming is small-scale, diverse, and community driven, PGS could make organic recognition both accessible and credible. However, PGS may not be feasible in all circumstances. In many mountainous areas, farms are isolated and distant from one another, making regular peer visits and community monitoring logistically challenging. In such cases, hybrid models, regional aggregators, or support from ethical SMEs may be necessary to bridge the gap between smallholder realities and international market requirements.

Ultimately, the question is not whether smallholders in the Himalayas are organic in practice, but whether global certification systems are inclusive enough to recognize them. Policymakers, buyers, and ethical enterprises must consider alternative and context sensitive models that account for geography, scale, and cultural practice. Unless certification evolves, the world’s most authentic organic farmers, those working in some of the planet’s most vulnerable ecosystems, will remain invisible in the very markets that claim to celebrate sustainability. 

How can you, as a consumer, make a difference?
Find out in our next journal.