Factors affecting member farmers’ participation: An evidence from Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) in Koppal district of Karnataka

Introduction

Indian agriculture continues to face structural constraints, including fragmented landholdings, rising operational input costs, price volatility and high post-harvest losses. Agriculture in India is largely dominated by the small and marginal landholdings, severely restricting the individual bargaining capacity of producers in input as well as product markets. To overcome these scale-induced disadvantages, organizing farmers into Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs), specifically Producer Companies under the Companies Act, has become a central agricultural policy strategy in India. Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) play an important role in helping farmers collectively market their produce, procure quality agricultural inputs at better prices, reduce the influence of intermediaries, and establish stronger market linkages. However, the long-term success and commercial sustainability of an FPO largely depend on the active involvement of its members. In many cases, farmers show limited interest in FPO activities and participate mainly when purchasing inputs, while their involvement in collective marketing, decision-making, governance, and value addition remains relatively low. Previous studies have shown that farmer's participation in collective enterprises is influenced by several factors, including economic benefits, transparency in institutional functioning, effectiveness of governance, and the availability of resources at the farm level. Error! Reference source not found.-Error! Reference source not found. Although the FPO institutional framework has expanded considerably in Karnataka, there is still limited empirical evidence on how farmers participate in different FPO activities and what factors influence their participation, particularly in the northern dry zone. Therefore, this study examines the extent of farmer's participation in various FPO activities and identifies the factors influencing their participation in FPOs across Koppal district of Karnataka.

Materials and Methods

Study Area and Sampling Framework www.extensionjournal.com

The study was conducted in Koppal district of Karnataka, which falls under the semi-arid northern dry zone of the state. The district is characterized by the cultivation of a variety of field crops as well as commercial horticultural crops such as pomegranate, mango, citrus, tomato, and onion. A descriptive cross-sectional research design was used for the study. A total of 250 farmers who were members of FPOs were selected from 12 operational FPOs across the district. The respondents were selected using a non-probability purposive sampling method, taking into consideration the available membership records and accessibility of farmers during the field survey. 4) and Very Highly Influential (5).

Data Collection Instrument and Measurement

Analytical Framework

The composite score (CS) for each item was calculated as:

where fᵢ is the frequency of respondents in the iᵗʰ category and wᵢ is the assigned numerical weight (1 to 5). The Mean Score (X ̄) was computed as:

where N is the total sample size (N = 250). Ranks were assigned based on descending mean values.

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent

Before conducting the interview, verbal informed consent was obtained from all participating farmers. The farmers were clearly informed about the purpose of the study and their participation was entirely voluntary. They were also assured that the information provided by them would be kept confidential and used only for research purposes.

Results

Socio-Economic Profile of Member Farmers

The socio-economic profile of the 250-member farmers showed that the majority of respondents were male (78.80%; n=197), while females accounted for 21.20% (n=53).

Regarding age, farmers aged 51 years and above represented the largest group (40.00%), followed by middle-aged farmers (36.00%) and younger farmers (24.00%). In terms of landholding size, marginal farmers with less than 1.0 ha accounted for 38.00% of the respondents, while small farmers with 1.01-2.0 ha constituted 34.80%, indicating that most FPO members belonged to the marginal and small farmer categories. Farming was the main occupation for a substantial majority of respondents (82.80%). Nearly half of the farmers (49.20%) reported an annual income ranging from ₹1,00,000 to ₹3,00,000. With regard to the duration of FPO membership, 38.00% of farmers had been members for 7-10 years, followed by 35.20% who had been associated with FPOs for 4-6 years and 26.80% for 1-3 years.

Member Participation in FPO Activities

Table 1 shows the statement-wise participation of respondents across the 13 evaluated activities. Purchasing farm inputs ranked first (X ̄ = 4.05), with no respondents indicating non-participation. Democratic participation via voting (X ̄ = 3.87) and AGM attendance (X ̄ = 3.76) followed. Produce marketing through the FPO secured the fourth rank (X ̄ = 3.55). In contrast, participation in exposure visits (X ̄ = 2.16), value addition/processing (X ̄ = 1.85) and leadership roles (X ̄ = 1.84) recorded the lowest mean scores. Direct economic benefits (X ̄ = 4.89) and profitability through collective marketing (X ̄ = 4.85) were identified as the leading drivers, followed by market access (X ̄ = 4.71) and input availability (X ̄ = 4.71). Exogenous and personal attributes such as past collective experience (X ̄ = 3.04), education level (X ̄ = 3.02), farm size (X ̄ = 2.94) and distance to the FPO facility (X ̄ = 2.84) exerted the least influence. Overall, 58.80% of respondents reported a medium level of factor influence, with 22.40% and 18.80% reporting high and low levels, respectively (Table 4).

Discussion

The findings suggest that member engagement in FPOs in Koppal district is largely focused on services that provide immediate and direct benefits rather than on long-term governance and value-addition activities. Participation was highest in farm input purchases (X ̄ = 4.05), supporting earlier studies that identify input supply as one of the main entry points for farmers into collective organizations. Error! Reference source not found.-Error! Reference source not found. Bulk procurement of agricultural inputs not only helps farmers obtain inputs at relatively lower costs but also provides greater assurance regarding their quality and reduces the risk of purchasing spurious agrochemicals. At the same time, relatively high participation in voting (X ̄ = 3.87) and attendance at Annual General Meetings (AGMs) (X ̄ = 3.76) indicates that members are interested in participating in the democratic and oversight functions of their FPOs. In contrast, participation in leadership responsibilities (X ̄ = 1.84) and value-addition and processing activities (X ̄ = 1.85) was comparatively low. This may be associated with the financial and infrastructural limitations faced by FPOs, particularly in semi-arid regions, where limited access to capital and inadequate primary processing facilities can restrict opportunities for members to become involved in value-addition activities. Error! Reference source not found. In addition, strategic decisions may remain concentrated among a relatively small group of directors, which could explain the moderate levels of participation in meetings (X ̄ = 2.90) and sharing of ideas (X ̄ = 2.88).

The results further indicate that economic benefits are the major factors influencing farmer's participation in FPO activities. Direct economic benefits (X ̄ = 4.89) and profitability from marketing (X ̄ = 4.85) emerged as the strongest motivating factors. Error! Reference source not found.-Error! Reference source not found. When FPOs are able to provide farmers with better prices or higher returns than those offered by local intermediaries, members are more likely to remain engaged in collective marketing activities. Error! Reference source not found.- Error! Reference source not found. On the other hand, factors such as landholding size (X ̄ = 2.94) and geographical proximity (X ̄ = 2.84) had comparatively less influence on participation. This suggests that even small and marginal farmers are willing to actively engage with FPOs when the organizations provide consistent and reliable economic benefits.

Conclusion

Member farmers in Koppal district showed a moderate overall level of participation in FPO activities, with economic www.extensionjournal.com benefits, quality inputs, and better marketing opportunities emerging as the major factors encouraging their involvement.

Although participation was relatively high in input procurement and statutory governance activities, farmer's involvement in post-harvest value addition and leadership roles remained limited. These findings suggest that FPOs need to move beyond their traditional focus on input distribution to achieve greater operational and commercial sustainability. FPO management should focus on developing local primary processing facilities, forming decentralized commodity-based sub-committees, and strengthening transparent digital communication with members. Greater opportunities for member-led value addition, along with reliable and profitable market linkages, can help strengthen farmer participation and contribute to the development of FPOs as commercially viable and farmer-owned enterprises.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors express their gratitude to the Chief Executive Officer, Board of Directors and staff of Kapilathirtha Horticulture Farmers Producer Company Limited, Kushtagi, Koppal district, Karnataka, for their institutional cooperation and field support during data collection.

References

1. Aditi, Birthal PS, Roy D. Participation of farmers in Farmer Producer Organizations in India: Evidence from the Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households. Food Policy. 2025;132:102840.
2. Bikkina N, Turaga RMR, Bhamoriya V. Farmer producer organizations as farmer collectives: A case study from India. Dev Policy Rev. 2018;36(6):669-687.
3. Datta KK, Singh K, Singh S. Determinants of farmer's membership and participation in Farmer Producer Organizations in Assam. Agric Econ Res Rev. 2018;31(Conf):101-110.
4. Kumar S, Sharma R. Participation behaviour of farmers in Farmer Producer Companies: An empirical analysis. Indian J Ext Educ. 2020;56(3):95-101.
5. Markelova H, Meinzen-Dick R, Hellin J, Dohrn S. Collective action for smallholder market access. Food Policy. 2009;34(1):1-7.
6. Patil S, Chavan R, Kulkarni M. Participation of member farmers in Farmer Producer Companies in Karnataka. Indian J Ext Educ. 2022;58(4):54-60.
7. Salokhe S, Patil BL, Hirevenkanagoudar LV. Factors affecting the performance of Farmer Producer Organizations in Karnataka. Indian J Ext Educ. 2021;57(4):72-76.
8. Shah D, Shah T. Determinants of farmer's participation behaviour in Farmer Producer Organizations: Evidence from India. Indian J Ext Educ. 2022;58(3):97-103.
9. Sharma VP, Singh R, Meena MS. Institutional and socioeconomic determinants of farmer's participation in Farmer Producer Organizations. J Community Mobilization Sustain Dev. 2021;16(3):685-692.
10. Singh R, Meena HR, Sharma P. Member participation in collective marketing organizations: Determinants and implications for farmer producer organizations. J Community Mobilization Sustain Dev. 2021;16(2):456463.
11. Trebbin A, Hassler M. Farmer's producer companies in India: A new concept for collective action? Environ Plan A. 2012;44(2):411-427.
12. Verma AR, Patel D, Singh R. Role of Farmer Producer Organizations in improving technology adoption and member participation in Bihar. Indian J Ext Educ. 2019;55(4):72-77.