IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

Research article
erd

Contribution of Organic Agriculture to Gross National
Happiness (GNH): Bhutan
SERKI WANGMO
Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
Email: serkiwangmo9@gmail.com

CHULEEMAS BOONTHAI IWAI*
Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
Email: chulee_b@kku.ac.th; chuleemas1@gmail.com
Received 31 December 2017

Accepted 20 October 2018(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract The objective of this review was to study the contribution of organic agriculture(OA) to the development paradigm of Bhutan, Gross National Happiness (GNH). This
study examined contributions of OA on GNH on each of the domains under four pillars.
The impacts of OA on GNH were assessed using the GNH Project Screening Tool ofAgriculture. The tool was developed based on four pillars and nine domains of GNH by
Centre for Bhutan Studies (CBS). Each of the screening variable consists of a 4-pointerscale: 1 (negative), 2 (uncertain), 3 (neutral), and 4 (positive). We found that OA and GNH
share comparable principles. The principles focusing on the sustainability, well-being of thepeople, and natural ecosystem while enhancing the economic growth. Further, the result
showed a positive score of 120 out of 136 scores. This is way beyond the neutral score of102. Scoring was from judgement based on the available literature. The apparent resultshows that Bhutan has chosen a viable option.
Keywords Bhutan, development, GNH, principles of OA, IFOAM norm

INTRODUCTION
Bhutan pursues Sustainable Development through GNH (National Environment Commission
Secretariat, 2012). GNH is a holistic development philosophy build upon four pillars consisting ofnine domains and 33 indicators. Bhutan is promoting organic agriculture (OA) due to the entailed
sustainable qualities of OA that is socially acceptable, economically sound, and environmentallybenign (Tashi and Wangchuk, 2016). The former Prime Minister of Bhutan Jigme Y. Thinleya ed, going o ganic i li ing GNH indica ing he i dom of Bh an pledging o be 100%organic by 2020. Furthermore, researchers claimed that the principles of OA are in alignment with
GNH (Tashi and Wangchuk, 2016). Thus, Bhutan is promoting OA following the guideline ofInternational Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) definition (McCraeHokenson, 2014),
OA is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems, and people relying
on ecological processes, biodiversity, and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the useof inputs with adverse effects. OA combines tradition, innovation, and science to benefit theshared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved.
Bhutan had been into OA practice since 2003 (Tashi, 2015). Since then, the various literatureand the talk by the leaders of Bhutan reveals the potential contribution of OA to GNH (Halberg andMüller, 2013; Setboonsarng and Gregorio, 2017; Seufert, 2012). However, no empirical studies
were done on the topic. Thus, the study was conducted to quantify the contributions of OA on
GNH based on the available literature.
METHODOLOGYⒸ ISERD

64

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

The study was examined based on the performance of OA in terms of four pillars and nine domains.
The pillars are (1) Sustainable and Equitable Socio-economic Development, (2) Preservation andPromotion of Culture, (3) Conservation of the Environment, and (4) Good Governance. Thedomains are (1) Living Standard; (2) Education; (3) Health; (4) Time Use; (5) Cultural Diversityand Resilience; (6) Community vitality; (7) Psychological Well-being; (8) Ecological diversity, and(9) Good Governance. The impacts of OA on GNH was assessed using the GNH Project Screening
Tool of Agriculture consisting of 34 variables (Table 1). The tool was developed based on fourpillars and nine domains by CBS. Each of the screening variable consists of 4-pointer scale: 1(negative), 2 (uncertain), 3 (neutral), and 4 (positive). The score was given based on the concept ofOA inscribed in IFOAM norm 2014, National Framework for Organic Farming in Bhutan, and thefindings from the scientific papers at our disposal.
Table 1 Variables of GNH project screening tools and the scores

345
6
7
8

Variables
Traditional resource management
knowledge
Traditional resource management
institutions
Farmland availability
Fallow land
Land degradation
Urban migration
Voluntary reciprocal labor
Labor-saving devices

91011121314151617181920212223
24

Rural credit
Manure and biomass inputs
Herbicide use
Pesticide use
Genetically modified species
Traditional crops
Traditional practices
Nutrition
Food self-sufficiency
Cereal self-sufficiency
Agricultural productivity
Crop damage
Agricultural biodiversity
Mono-cropping
Agricultural exports
Value-addition

25
26
27

Farmer income
Ecological impact
Values2829

Water supply
Water quality

30
31
32
3334

Water demand
Water pollution
Air pollution
EmploymentEquity

12Scores
4 (Will enhance traditional natural resource management
knowledge)
4 (Will enhance traditional natural resource management
institutions)
1 (Will encroach on farmlands)4 (Will decrease the number of fallow agricultural acres)
4 (Will reduce soil erosion and land degradation)
4 (Will decrease rates of rural-urban migration)
4 (Will strengthen voluntary reciprocal labor practices)
2 (Do not know the effects on the availability of labor-savingDevices)
4 (Will increase availability of rural credit)
4 (Will favor farmyard manure and biomass inputs)
4 (Will decrease the use of herbicides)
4 (Will decrease the use of pesticides)
4 (Will decrease importation and use of GM seeds and crops)
4 (Will favor the use traditional crop varieties)
4 (Will promote this variable)
4 (Will result in an improvement in nutritionally balanced diet)
2 (Do not know the effects on rural food self-sufficiency)
2 (Do not know the effects on national cereal self-sufficiency)
2 (Do not know the effects on the productivity of crop)
4 (Will result in a net decrease in crops lost to wildlife damage)
4 (Will result in an increase in agricultural biodiversity)
4 (Will result in a decrease in monocropping)
4 (Will result in increased diversification of agricultural exports)
4 (Will increase value addition through organic marketingstrategies)
4 (Will result in a net increase in rural income levels)
4 (Will enhance surrounding biodiversity)
4 (Will strengthen traditional values of respect for the naturalenvironment)
4 (Will result in greater availability of water supply for irrigation)
4 (Will result in an improvement in the quality of watersupply for irrigation)
4 (Will decrease the demand for water)
4 (Will decrease levels of water pollution)
2 (Do not know the effects on levels of air pollution)
4 (Will generate local employment)
4 (Will address rural equity)

Calculation: the score calculation was done based on the following equations:
Positive score = 4 X Number of screening questions
Neutral score = 3 X Number of screening questionsⒸ ISERD

65

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
We fo nd ha OA ha po i i e impac on GNH a pe he e amina ion h o gh GNH P ojec
Sc eening Tool. OA con ib e o enhancing GNH i h he po i i e co e of 120 o of 136 co e .
Thi ia be ond he ne al co e of 102. Thi highl ignifican e l co ld be d e o hecompa able p inciple be een he OA and GNH. Thi indica e ha he adop ion of o ganic
ag ic l e in Bh an i he igh choice. The food elf- fficienc , ce eal elf- fficienc ,ag ic l al p od c i i , labo - a ing de ice , e i emen of mo e fa mland, and ai poll ion
emained a con en io i e . Some
die e ealed po i i e hile ome e ealed nega i e
impac on he e opic .
Sustainable and Equitable Socio-Economic Development
Living standard: OA is climate resilient and gives better yield to the changing climate (Reganoldand Wachter, 2016; Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017). Moreover, the production is feasible at theminimal cost (Department of Agriculture, 2007) on which the farmers fetch premium priceresulting the higher income (Annunziata and Vecchio, 2016; Cocka et al., 2016; Jouzi et al., 2017;
Meng et al., 2017). The labor-intensive nature of OA has provided employment opportunities in therural areas building financial security (Department of Agriculture, 2007; Finley, Chappell et al.,2018; Jouzi et al., 2017; Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017; Tashi and Wangchuk, 2016). Further, OA
restore the degraded land (Jouzi et al., 2017) and improving other social issues (e.g., public health)(Migliorini and Wezel, 2017). The creation of accessibility to the diversity of crops is anotheradvantage of OA (Reganold and Wachter, 2016). Thus, it will minimize the risk of having todepend on a single crop (Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017). Collectively, these studies showed its
contribution to the sustainable local economy and thus, enhancing the living standard. However,the potential of OA to feed the growing population (Reganold and Wachter, 2016) and its impact
on the environment (Gomiero, 2018) still remains controversial debate among researchers.
Education: OA is a knowledge-intensive system (Siddique et al., 2014). It lures participation offarmers with the other actors such as re ea che , fa mea ocia ion , con me e c., focollective management (Ortolani et al., 2017). This encourages social learning on the values,tradition, culture, and the environment (Mercati, 2016; Padel et al., 2015). Thus, OA provides aholistic educational platform to all involved in the system. The concept is still evolving with theconstant search for multiple solutions to the challenges (Migliorini and Wezel, 2017; Rahmann etal., 2017).
Health: OA has an opportunity to enhance physical, mental and social wellbeing (IFOAM, 2017;Tashi and Wangchuk, 2016). It produces safe and nutritious food (Gomiero, 2018; Seufert andRamankutty, 2017). The risk of farmers exposure to the chemical is also reduced due to the bannedof chemical inputs (Brantsæter et al., 2017; Jouzi et al., 2017). However, the production of safe andnutritious food depends on the management practice (Jouzi et al., 2017; Mie et al., 2017).
Preservation and Promotion of CultureTime use: Since OA i a labo -in en i e fa mingem (Finle e al., 2018; Siddi e e al., 2014),
he famil and lei e ime ill ha e o be comp omi ed if he e i labo ho age. Ho e e , hepeople o king oge he on he fa m ill ha e eno gh ime o ge oge he . We concl de hapeople o king oge he ill ge mo e ime o e change kno ledge f om each o he .
Cultural diversity and resilience: A pe he IFOAM no m 2014, he di e e and ni e e ofc l al and adi ional p ac ice ho ld be emb aced i h inno a ion and cience (IFOAM, 2017).
Mo eo e , locall adap ed c l i a a e con e ed hich a e highl adap able o changing clima e(Miglio ini and We el, 2017; Ta hi and Wangch k, 2016). Th , OA can en e c l al di e iand e ilience.
Community vitality: OA ha an opponio inc ea e he en e of belongingneⒸ ISERD66o he g o pIJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2(Ann n ia a and Vecchio, 2016; Reganold and Wach e , 2016). I p o ide an oppo ni o o koge he , and e change kno ledge and e pe ience among he ide akeholde (Tahe i e al.,2017; Ta hi and Wangch k, 2016). Al o, he fa me a e able o gain c ome
once hep od c i ce ified (Rahmann e al., 2017).
Psychological wellbeing: I i an in in icall al able and de i ed a e of being defined beflec i e and affec i e elemen (U a e al., 2012). OA add e e he (1) heal h of he oil, plan ,animal , h man fo a heal h plane ; (2) p o ec na alem ; (3) p o ide e i , e pec andj ice fo ho e in ol ed in OA; and (4) ca e fo he c en and fe gene a ion , and heen i onmen (IFOAM, 2017; Miglio ini and We el, 2017). Th , e concl de ha OA ha hepo en ial o add e bo h eflec i e and affec i e elemen (IFOAM, 2017).
Conservation of Environment
Ecological diversity and resilience: OA i he en i onmen all f iendl p ac ice ha p o ec hep blic goodch a p e en ion of ai and a e poll ion, and enhance a eali (Je pe en eal., 2017; Me ca i, 2016). Al o e o e deg aded land, inc ea e biodi e i and ecoeme ice (Ma k e ka and K backa, 2017; Me ca i, 2016; Se fe and Ramank , 2017; Tahe ie al., 2017). OA c ea e fa o able condi ion fo li ing o gani m o h i e hich a e good fo oilfo ma ion (Meng e al., 2017). Ho e e , o fa no die e e cond c ed fo he impac of OA andildlife damage o he c op .
Good GovernanceGood governance: IFOAM norm of version 2014 requires OA to inculcate transparency,autonomy, equity, and equality (IFOAM, 2017). Also, OA can promote empowerment of the smallscale farmers and women (Jouzi et al., 2017; Parrott et al., 2006; Rahmann et al., 2017; Taheri et al.,2017). Also, every individual can work in the farm irrespective of age and gender. Even thepregnant women and children can work on the farm since the exposure to the chemicals is reduced(Parrott et al., 2006). Further, the transparency is ensured through certification (Parrott et al., 2006;Rahmann et al., 2017).
CONCLUSIONOA i e panding p og e i el de pi e ome con en io i e . The hi d pha e of OA O ganic
Ag ic l e 3.0 i Inno a ion i h Re ea ch i in place o add e
he challenge of OA b
incorporating the principles of OA. The principles which are comparable to GNH principle. The
study revealed various contributions of OA to every domain of GNH. OA scoring positive scoresof 112 from Screening Tool and further indicate that AO has the high potential to contribute toGNH. The positive impact of OA on GNH will ultimately benefit the country. However, Bhutan
should work more on contentious issues: productivity, requirement of more farmland, organic
manure production and reduction of air pollution.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors would like to thank Thailand International Cooperation Agency (TICA) for the funding
and Integrated Water Resource Management Research and Development Center in Northeast
Thailand, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.
REFERENCES
Annunziata, A. and Vecchio, R. 2016. Organic farming and sustainability in food choices: An analysis ofconsumer preference in Southern Italy. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 8, 193-200.
Ⓒ ISERD67

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

Brantsæter, A.L., Ydersbond, T.A., Hoppin, J.A., Haugen, M. and Meltzer, H.M. 2017. Organic food in thediet: Exposure and health implications. Annual Review of Public Health, 38, 295-313.
Cocka, L.D., Dessein, J. and de Krom, M.P. 2016. Understanding the development of organic agriculture inFlanders (Belgium): A discourse analytical approach. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 79,1-10.
Department of Agriculture. 2007. National framework for organic farming in Bhutan. Department ofAgriculture, Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Government of Bhutan.
Finley, L., Chappell, M.J., Thiers, P. and Moore, J.R. 2018. Does organic farming present greater
opportunities for employment and community development than conventional farming? A survey-based
investigation in California and Washington. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 42 (5), 552-752.
Gomiero, T. 2018. Food quality assessment in organic vs. conventional agricultural produce: Findings andissues. Applied Soil Ecology, 123, 714-728.
Halberg, N. and Müller, A. 2013. Organic agriculture for sustainable livelihoods. London. Routledge, UK.
IFOAM. 2017.The IFOAM norms for organic production and processing. IFOAM-Organics International.
Jespersen, L.M., Baggesen, D.L., Fog, E., Halsnæs, K., Hermansen, J.E., Andreasen, L., Strandberg, B.,
Sørensen, J.T. and Halberg, N. 2017. Contribution of organic farming to public goods in Denmark.
Organic Agriculture, 7 (3), 243-266.
Jouzi, Z., Azadi, H., Taheri, F., Zarafshani, K., Gebrehiwot, K., Van Passel, S. and Lebailly, P. 2017.
Organic farming and small-scale farmers: Main opportunities and challenges. Ecological Economics, 132,144-154.
Markuszewska, I. and Kubacka, M. 2017. Does organic farming (OF) work in favour of protecting thenatural environment? A case study from Poland. Land Use Policy, 67, 498-507.
McCrae-Hokenson, M. 2014. Organic agriculture in Bhutan: Barriers going to 100%. SIT Digital Collections.
Meng, F., Qiao, Y., Wu, W., Smith, P. and Scott, S. 2017. Environmental impacts and production
performances of organic agriculture in China: A monetary valuation. Journal of Environmental
Management, 188, 49-57.
Mercati, V. 2016. Organic agriculture as a paradigm of sustainability: Italian food and its progression in theglobal market. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 8, 798-802.
Mie, A., Andersen, H.R., Gunnarsson, S., Kahl, J., Kesse-Guyot, E., Rembia ko ka, E., Q aglio, G. andGrandjean, P. 2017. Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture: A
comprehensive review. Environmental Health, 16 (1), 111.
Migliorini, P. and Wezel, A. 2017. Converging and diverging principles and practices of organic agriculture
regulations and agroecology. A review, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37 (6), 63.
National Environment Commission Secretariat. 2012. Bhutan: In pursuit of sustainable development.
National Report for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Thimphu: National
Environment Commission Secretariat, Bhutan.
Ortolani, L., Bocci, R., Bàrberi, P., Howlett, S. and Chable, V. 2017. Changes in knowledge management
strategies can support emerging innovative actors in organic agriculture: The case of participatory plant
breeding in Europe. Organic Farming, 3 (1), 20-33.
Padel, S., Vaarst, M. and Zaralis, K. 2015. Supporting innovation in organic agriculture: A European
perspective using experience from the SOLID project. Sustainable Agriculture Research.
Parrott, N., Olesen, J.E. and Høgh-Jensen, H. 2006. Certified and non-certified organic farming in thedeveloping world. In Halberg, N., Alrøe, H.F. Knudsen, M.T. and Kristensen, E.S. (Eds.), Gobal
Development of Organic Agriculture, Challenges and Prospects, 153-179. CABI, Wallingford.
Rahmann, G., Ardakani, M.R., Bàrberi, P., Boehm, H., Canali, S., Chander, M., David, W., Dengel, L.,
Erisman, J.W. and Galvis-Martinez, A.C. 2017. Organic agriculture 3.0 is innovation with research.
Organic Agriculture, 7 (3), 169-197.
Reganold, J.P. and Wachter, J.M. 2016. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature Plants, 2,15221.
Setboonsarng, S. and Gregorio, E.E. 2017. Achieving sustainable development goals through organic
agriculture: Empowering poor women to build the future.
Seufert, V. 2012. Organic agriculture as an opportunity for sustainable agricultural development. Research toPractice Policy Briefs.
Seufert, V. and Ramankutty, N. 2017. Many shades of gray, The context-dependent performance of organicagriculture. Science Advances, 3 (3), e1602638.
Siddique, S., Hamid, M., Tariq, A. and Kazi, A.G. 2014. Organic farming: The return to nature. In Ahmad, P.,
Wani, M., Azooz, M. and Tran L.P. (Eds.), Improvement of Crops in the Era of Climatic Changes, 249281. Springer, New York.

Ⓒ ISERD

68

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

Tahe i, F., A adi, H. and D Hae e, M. 2017. A world without hunger: Organic or GM crops? Sustainability,
9 (4), 580.
Tashi, S. 2015. The prospects of organic farming in Bhutan. Ph. D. Dessertation, University of Bonn,Germany.
Tashi, S. and Wangchuk, K. 2016. Prospects of organic farming in Bhutan: A SWOT analysis. Advances inAgriculture, 2016.
Ura, K., Alkire, S., Zangmo, T. and Wangdi, K. 2012. An extensive analysis of GNH index.

Ⓒ ISERD69