Potato has its origin in the border between Peru and Bolivia, and it became the main food staple in the Andes and in southern Chile. By the end of the 16th century, potatoes were introduced in several European countries and from there arrived to India in the early 17th century. Potato cultivation prospered in colonial home gardens of northern Indian, particularly in the Shimla and Nilgiri hills (Singh and Rana, 2014).

However, until 1941, potato production did not reach a prosperous growth in India due to:

• the unsuitability of potato varieties;
• inadequate storage that did not preserved the quality of the product during the hot Indian summers; and
• the fast degeneration of seed stocks caused by virus accumulation that contributed to low yields.

In the late 1990s, globalization brought significant changes to potato production and marketing in India, which became the second largest potato producer in the world, after China.

By signing the contract farming agreement, growers have an assured market for their production, but on the other hand, the uneven contractual conditions do not provide adequate protection to them as it does to the company. This is exemplified by the following:

1) The buyer requires exclusivity (growers have to sell 100 percent of their production to the company and if they wish to enter into an agreement with another party, they are obliged to receive prior consent by the company [2.5; 4.3.i)]) and can supervise and monitor at its sole discretion all farming activities, but does not finance any input. Only planting materials of the variety required by the company are provided, but only after the farmer has settled the payment [1.1; 1.2].

2) The fact that the payment of the planting materials delivered by the company must be settled before their actual delivery, for instance, expose growers to the following risks:

• A late delivery may negatively affect the production process and thus the money they receive (in terms of volumes and grades).
• Should the inputs provided by the company be defective, e.g. infected seeds, the grower still is requested to meet the quality and quantity requirements stipulated in the contract. Conversely, rejections of multiplied potatoes delivered by growers would be on their account [2.5].
• It appears that the price of the planting materials provided to the growers is unilaterally determined by the company.

3) As mentioned in 1), the company has the right to visit the production site and monitor all farming activities, which means that growers have to agree to the broad control over production that the company exercises, without gaining much in exchange [2.3; 2.4]. In contract farming operations such instructions normally come with certain correlated obligations, such as providing inputs, technical assistance and training on safe input use, record keeping and complying with administrative obligations, among others; but not in this case. This broad control over the production seems to diminish growers’ independence and make them and their working force de facto employees of the contractor, rather than an independent party, contrary to what stated in the contract [4.5] (UNIDROIT, FAO and IFAD, 2015).

4) Agricultural activity normally takes place over a certain portion of land that growers have actual ownership over or right to use. In some cases, the grower may lease the land from a private or public entity. There are also situations where individuals or communities do not hold any formal title on land under customary forms of tenure (ibid). Because of the risk related to secure tenure rights, the company considers the grower responsible for any damage that the company suffers with respect to inadequate land titling [4.1; 4.2].

5) The contract indicates the cases where the company is entitled to terminate the contract, but this right is not foreseen for the grower in case of company default.