T

his question is always asked because of the mantra that “we depend on Israel for seeds,” a topic that is constantly on Türkiye’s agenda. More than five years ago, I wrote an article titled “Seeds and Seed Production in Türkiye” in which I briefly addressed this question. In fact, the article made headlines in a national newspaper. On September 16, 2025, after Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu attempted to create the perception that the world depends on Israel for technology, citing mobile phones and cherry tomatoes as examples at a press conference, the question resurfaced. The message was directed at the whole world and, therefore, at Türkiye. Let us examine seed dependency in the global and Turkish contexts.

In recent years, food security has become one of the most strategic issues in international agricultural trade following the pandemic. Rather than competitive agriculture and maximizing food exports, food supply security policy has come to the fore. The Ukraine-Russia War, agricultural droughts caused by climate change, shrinking agricultural areas, and food inflation have subsequently led countries to reevaluate the concept of “self-sufficiency” in agriculture. Seeds, one of the most fundamental inputs for agricultural activity, are at the center of this debate.

In recent years, one of the most frequently discussed clichés in Türkiye has resurfaced, particularly after Netanyahu’s statement: the claim that Türkiye is dependent on Israel for seeds. This idea has spread through social media and some press outlets. But what does the data say? Does Israel really meet a significant portion of the world’s and Türkiye’s seed needs? Or is this claim merely a matter of perception management? In this article, we will attempt to answer these questions based on international data, trade figures, and sectoral realities.

Seed as a strategic input in agriculture

Although soil-less and seed-less farming have become more common in some production areas in recent years, seeds remain one of the most important inputs in mainstream agriculture. Seeds are the starting point of agricultural activity and, therefore, of the food supply chain. A country should produce the productive seeds it needs (certified or hybrid), preserve its heirloom seeds, and promote their use. Currently, farmers have difficulty accessing licensed hybrid seeds due to their high cost. Every country must take measures to overcome these difficulties to ensure food security. Based on this information, it is clear that a country’s control over seeds is important not only economically, but also strategically.

As mentioned earlier, seeds fall into three main categories: local (heirloom), standard, and hybrid. Heirloom seeds are produced naturally and have adapted to local production conditions over the years. They have a medium yield, are considered much tastier, are inexpensive, and have a short shelf life. Standard seeds are pure and selected through natural pollination. They have medium or high yields, good flavor, a medium price, and increased durability, though not as high as hybrid seeds. Hybrid seeds are obtained through the controlled crossbreeding of two parent lines of the same species.

They have high yields, are resistant to certain diseases, are expensive, are attractive in appearance, have low flavor, and have a high commercial shelf life. Standard and hybrid seeds are also produced in certified forms. Certified seeds are listed in the registry, produced by authorized producers, inspected during production, cleaned at the processing facility, tested in laboratories, and carry a certification label. They are traceable and come with a quality guarantee. Their use is supported by the state, and they are officially sold on the market.

Who holds the power in the global seed market?

Let’s narrow this question down a bit: Is Israel really the dominant player in international seed production, as is commonly believed? The short answer is no. Data on the seed industry categorically refute this claim. According to recent data, the top four seed companies control more than 50 percent of the international seed trade, i.e., the global seed market. Bayer-Monsanto leads the pack with a 23 percent share. Second is the U.S. company Corteva (Dow + DuPont) with 17 percent. China (Syngenta + ChemChina) and France (Limagrain) are in third and fourth place, with 8% and 5%, respectively. These figures vary slightly among different sources.

Based on these data and the unlisted figures that follow, it is clear that no Israeli company is among the top 10 in the world. Israel is best known for its research and development (R&D) of vegetable seeds and drip irrigation technologies, yet it does not hold a significant share of the global seed market. An important official in the seed industry stated, “The cherry tomato that Netanyahu cited as an example may have been an R&D success for Israel at one point. However, the picture has changed today.” Regarding tomato seeds specifically, it’s worth noting that Türkiye produced around 14 tons of tomato seeds in 2024 and exported tomato seeds valued at $16,568,000.

What is the state of seed production in Türkiye?

According to published official data, Türkiye has undergone a significant transformation in seed production over the past 20 years. Let’s take a closer look at this transformation using data.

Certified seed production rose from 145,000 tons in 2002 to 1.35 million tons in 2023.

• In 2023, seed exports totaled $264 million, while imports amounted to $219 million. With these figures, Türkiye has become a net exporter in the seed sector.
• Around 900 domestic seed companies operate in Türkiye, and the proportion of domestic seed varieties in total seed usage is steadily increasing.

The data shows that contrary to the perception that Türkiye is dependent on foreign seeds, it is a country with a developing seed sector and rapidly increasing seed production.

I

n an era marked by unprecedented global challenges, few issues resonate as profoundly as the quest for food security. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the grain shortage that followed showcased the grave vulnerability of existing systems. The imperative of ensuring that everyone, everywhere has access to safe, sufficient, and nutritious food looms large on the global stage. This month’s book bundle presents a curated selection of books that delve into food security, examining it from multiple angles, and offering insights, strategies, and solutions.

From the intricacies of international trade policies to the sustainability of food systems, and from the impacts of geopolitical conflicts to the strategic place of food, these books provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities in the realm of global food security.

Whether you are a policymaker, researcher, student, or simply a concerned global citizen, this collection provides valuable resources for understanding, navigating, and contributing to the discourse on global food security.

Food Security: Availability, Income and Productivity is a pertinent book that explores the pressing issue of global food security as our world population continues to grow. The author focuses on three key conditions necessary to achieve food security: food availability, adequate incomes, and increased agricultural productivity.

The book draws insights from history and contemporary contexts to thoroughly examine these conditions. It takes a close look at the obstacles preventing consistent food availability and discusses how to overcome these challenges. It also delves into the importance of ensuring sufficient incomes, highlighting programs like food stamps and food banks. Furthermore, the book provides valuable insights into the factors driving enhanced agricultural productivity.

Food Security caters to a broad audience, including agricultural experts, policymakers, and NGOs working in food aid. It’s also a valuable resource for students studying agriculture and public policy. The book not only informs but also encourages critical thinking about the complex task of feeding a projected nine billion people by 2050.

In a world where food scarcity is becoming increasingly worrisome, this book offers essential insights into the intricate web of food security. It provides a well-reasoned analysis that will contribute to ongoing discussions and efforts aimed at ensuring a sustainable food future for everyone.

William A. Kerr, Food Security: Availability, Income and Productivity (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023) ISBN: 978 1 03531 270 2, 234 pages

Shadow Negotiators: How UN Organizations Shape the Rules of World Trade for Food Security by Matias E. Margulis is a groundbreaking exploration of the influence exerted by United Nations (UN) organizations within the World Trade Organization (WTO) despite their absence from the formal negotiation table. Margulis introduces the concept of “shadow negotiators,” illustrating how UN bodies strategically engage in political actions to shape multilateral trade negotiations.

The book’s primary focus is on the contentious issue of agricultural trade liberalization. It provides a detailed analysis of interventions by four UN organizations: the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Food Programme (WFP), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food (SRRTF).

Margulis unveils the innovative strategies these UN entities employ to influence global trade regulations. Importantly, he emphasizes that their motivation isn’t rooted in competition with the WTO or ideological opposition to trade liberalization. Instead, it stems from their concern that certain trade rules could negatively impact global food security, running counter to their core mission of addressing world hunger and safeguarding the right to food.

Shadow Negotiators is a meticulously researched work that offers fresh insights into the often-unseen dynamics of international trade. It’s essential reading for those interested in the intersection of trade policy and global welfare, making a valuable contribution to the field of international relations and trade studies.

Matias E. Margulis, Shadow Negotiators: How UN Organizations Shape the Rules of World Trade for Food Security (Stanford University Press, 2023) ISBN: 9781503633520, 292 pages

Universal Food Security: How to End Hunger While Protecting the Planet by Glenn Denning explores the path towards a world where hunger and malnutrition are eradicated, and everyone can access healthy and abundant food for a productive life. The book emphasizes the need to transform our food systems, focusing on sustainability and environmental restoration, from production to distribution.

Denning, drawing from his extensive experience in over fifty countries, offers a practical guide to making healthy diets accessible to all while ensuring sustainability. He identifies key priorities, including sustainable agriculture intensification, robust market infrastructure, responsible postharvest practices, promoting healthy eating, and establishing social safety nets. The book underscores the pivotal role of practitioner-leaders in driving this transformation, highlighting the importance of education and development in instigating change.

But beyond the roadmap, Denning reminds us that the engine driving this transformation is practitioner-leadership, underscored by education and development. This book stands as a testament to the potential for meaningful change when individuals and institutions commit to reshaping our world, making universal food security not merely a dream but a tangible and sustainable reality.

Glenn Denning, Universal Food Security: How to End Hunger While Protecting the Planet (Columbia University Press, 2023) ISBN: 9780231197618, 448 pages

The Russia-Ukraine Conflict and Global Food Security explores the global food security implications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which occurred during a period of already high food prices due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The book highlights the importance of the Black Sea region for global food production and Russia’s role in supplying natural gas and fertilizers.

The potential disruption of trade in this region posed a significant threat, with the potential to raise food prices and worsen poverty and hunger in vulnerable countries. The conflict primarily impacted trade in cereals and vegetable oils, fertilizer exports, and energy costs, potentially pushing millions into hunger and poverty.

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) responded swiftly by providing information and policy advice. They established a blog series and online resources to disseminate critical information rapidly. This book compiles these blog posts, offering an overview of the crisis’s progression, international responses, and lessons for ensuring food security in the wake of disruptions.

This book provides essential insights into a rapidly evolving crisis with far-reaching implications for global food security, making it valuable for policymakers and researchers.

Joseph W. Glauber, Ed. and David Laborde Debucquet. Ed., The Russia-Ukraine Conflict and Global Food Security (IFPRI, 2023) ISBN: 9780896294394, 196 pages

Bread and Autocracy: Food, Politics, and Security in Putin’s Russia offers a compelling analysis of the pivotal role food has played in Russian politics from the 1917 Revolution to the present under Putin’s leadership. The authors, Janetta Azarieva, Yitzhak M. Brudny, and Eugene Finkel, argue that Russia’s transition from a grain importer to a global food exporter was a deliberate, long-term strategy aimed at enhancing national security and regime stability. This focus on food self-sufficiency sets Russia apart from other autocracies, as it prioritizes domestic food production over imports, highlighting its significance in maintaining autocratic rule.

The book’s relevance is heightened in today’s world, where food issues are once again at the forefront of global concerns and nations are emphasizing self-reliance. Bread and Autocracy provides a timely and comprehensive exploration of Russia’s unique approach to food politics, shedding light on its implications for both domestic and international affairs. It is a valuable read for those seeking a deeper understanding of Russia’s distinctive stance on food and its impact on political power. The book will be available in hardcover on September 1, 2023.

Janetta Azarieva, Yitzhak M. Brudny, and Eugene Finkel, Bread and Autocracy: Food, Politics, and Security in Putin’s Russia (Oxford University Press, 2023) ISBN: 9780197684368, 525 pages

W

hile the long-term effects of climate change continue, the COVID-19 epidemic, which spread at the end of 2019 and continued for almost two years, and the Ukraine-Russia war that followed, have had significant negative effects on agriculture and food security. While these negative effects were gradually decreasing across the world, Turkey was shaken by two devastating earthquakes in the middle of winter. So much so that a “level 4” alarm and an international call for help was made to tackle their effects. In response to this call, aid offers were received from 100 countries, and around 80 countries participated or contributed to the search and rescue efforts with approximately 7,000 personnel.

The first of the earthquakes occurred at 04:17 on Monday, February 6, 2023, with a magnitude of 7.7, centered in the town of Pazarcık in Kahramanmaraş province. The second earthquake occurred on the same day at 13:24, centered in the town of Elbistan of the same province, with a magnitude of 7.6 and 80.2 km from the epicenter of the first earthquake. The most important feature of these earthquakes was that they were very close to the surface at a depth of 8.6 and 7.0 km, respectively, in addition to their magnitude.

Unlike other big earthquakes that have occurred across the world, the fact that these two earthquakes occurred at a depth very close to the Earth’s surface increased their destructiveness and caused the Anatolian peninsula to shift 3 meters to the west. The many images reflected in the media in the form of massive crevices and collapses in the fields reveal the possible effects of the earthquake on agriculture.

Possible effects of earthquakes on agriculture

Depending on their magnitude, earthquakes can have different effects such as delays and pauses in agricultural activities, as well as damage to production resources and difficulty in reaching them. Landslides, and cracks and breaks in agricultural lands caused by earthquakes make it difficult and even prevent the use of agricultural lands. In addition, agricultural irrigation systems, in other words agricultural structures such as irrigation channels and pipes, may be damaged. Migration due to the effects of earthquakes may also hinder agricultural production.

On the other hand, earthquakes have negative effects on crop and animal production activities as well. These may be in the form of delays or inability to carry out agricultural production activities, as well as loss of product, stored input, and livestock. Slips and collapses can make harvesting difficult or even impossible, and cause harvest losses. There may also be a shortage of feed due to the fact that the animal feeds are under the rubble. Crop and animal production processes that need energy can cause losses due to long-term power cuts and lack of fuel.

Decreases in the quantity and quality of crop and animal production, which may occur due to negative effects of earthquakes on agriculture, may increase prices. Disruptions that may occur in many stages of the food supply chain, such as transportation, storage, processing, and wholesale and retail trade, may cause loss of agricultural products and increase food prices. These developments may trigger food inflation and then general inflation.

The importance of the earthquake zone in Turkey’s agriculture 

Each of the eleven provinces affected by the earthquake has a high agricultural potential. Approximately 15 percent of the total agricultural land in Turkey, that is, 3.6 million hectares of 23.9 million hectares of total land, is located in the earthquake zone, primarily Şanlıurfa, Diyarbakır, and Adana. The number of registered agricultural enterprises and farmers in the earthquake area is around 270,000. The earthquake area accounts for about 20 percent of the total crop production in Turkey, and about 15 percent of Turkey’s livestock.

The eleven provinces affected by the earthquakes have 2.6 million hectares of field crops containing cereals and other crop products, representing 15.5 percent of Turkey’s crop production. Vegetable production areas in the earthquake zone amount to 15.2 percent of Turkey’s vegetable production area with 110,000 hectares. The eleven provinces in the earthquake zone produce 25 percent of Turkey’s fruit, beverages, and spices with planting areas of 930 million hectares. Şanlıurfa, Diyarbakır, and Adana are at the forefront in field crops, Adana and Hatay in vegetables, and Gaziantep in fruit.

On the other hand, approximately 20 percent of Turkey’s exports of agricultural and forestry products come from the earthquake zone. More than half of the agricultural exports of the earthquake region are from Gaziantep. While the eleven provinces affected by the earthquake have a rate of approximately 9 percent in Turkey’s gross domestic product, their share of the gross domestic product of the agricultural sector is 14.3 percent. These figures show that the income of the earthquake region is predominantly from agriculture.

The effects of the earthquake on agriculture and food security

According to the latest figures, the earthquake caused approximately 45,000 deaths, while we do not have clear figures on deaths in rural areas. It has been stated that there were significant casualties in many rural areas and villages, and this varies from one province to another. The significant loss of life in the elderly population, which is predominantly in rural areas and villages, may lead to a further decrease in the population engaged in agriculture, which is already inadequate, and to interruption of agricultural activities. Those who have lost their relatives may not be able to work efficiently for a while due to psychological difficulties. In addition to loss of life, migrations in rural areas might have occurred as a result of grievances and hardship.

The collapse of barns and other buildings besides houses in rural areas has also led to loss of livestock; damage to machinery, equipment, and tools; has reduced inputs such as seed and feed; and caused loss of quality of seed and feed. Therefore, there may be temporary problems in the use of tractors, machinery, and equipment, and regarding the adequacy of feed and seed. There may be difficulties in the supply of inputs such as diesel, fertilizer, seeds, and pesticides used in agricultural production, which will start gradually in March, and thus, there may be disruptions in crop production. The difficulties that arise in the transportation, processing, packaging, storage, and wholesale and retail trade stages of the food value chain, along with the losses of agricultural and food products caused by the massive destruction in cities will affect food security.

Since the earthquake did not occur during the cropping period, there is no loss due to slides and collapses in the fields or disruption of production processes such as planting, hoeing, and harvesting. From this point of view, the decrease in agricultural products and thus increase in food prices may be limited, as there will be no reduction in production except livestock losses and damage to the products in the warehouses. If the measures that need to be taken for the next production period are not implemented effectively, this might decrease production and trigger food inflation resulting from the disruption of production processes in the region with approximately 15 percent agricultural potential.

Turkey has played a very important role in reining in the repercussions of the Russia-Ukraine war, which has been on the world agenda for a year now. One of Ankara’s main objectives will be the extension of the Black Sea Grain Corridor Initiative, which will expire in March. Turkey engaged in long negotiations with Russia for the initiative, which was extended for a period of 120 days in December 2022. Depending on the results of the efforts by Turkey, which acts as a mediator between the parties and takes an active part in the solution of the global food crisis, in the post-earthquake period, the world food supply security may also be affected by the earthquake.

Agricultural support for the earthquake zone         

Similar to the cities, facilities such as tents, containers, and temporary houses provided for those living in the region’s rural areas will ensure that farmers and their families whose houses are uninhabitable will stay in their villages. Other than housing aid, which will improve living and working conditions, other aid will ensure farmers do not leave the countryside and stay in their villages, thus preventing the interruption of agricultural activities. In this context, in addition to public aid, the aid of non-governmental organizations, the public, and the international community has fulfilled an important function and will continue to do so. In addition, emergency aid such as government support of 15,000 TL for each of the earthquake victims and the declared agricultural support are of great importance. In addition to this short-term and temporary emergency support, it is essential that a long-term, permanent rural transformation that will improve the working and living conditions in the countryside is planned and implemented as soon as possible.

The Turkish government has declared that the farmers engaged in animal husbandry in the eleven provinces affected by the earthquake will be compensated in kind. In this respect, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will supply free of charge bovine and ovine breeders with the same number of cattle and small ruminant animals as those lost, poultry breeders with the same number as their lost poultry, and beekeepers will receive the same number of hives as those damaged in the earthquake. Meanwhile the presidential decision of providing feed support per animal to cattle and small ruminant animal breeders in the provinces damaged by the earthquake until the end of 2023 entered into force. On the other hand, the urgent sugar need for the 1,483,000 hives of 12,000 beekeepers in the eleven provinces will be met immediately.

For the farmers registered in the Farmer Registration System (ÇKS) in the eleven provinces declared as disaster areas, diesel and fertilizer support payments for the 2022 production year will be made immediately in cash. For the farmers who lost their lives in the earthquakes, the support payments will be paid in cash to their legal heirs if they apply to Ziraat Bank. The Turkish Grain Board (TMO) also announced that the products in the licensed warehouses damaged by the earthquake are insured and that the farmers who are in the earthquake zone and registered with the ÇKS can sell their grain and pulses products to TMO without any type or quota limit.

A

fghanistan was the hub of opium poppy cultivation in the 1990s. The Afghan government sought to meet the supply gap; however, the government’s inadequacy and the lack of law enforcement brought about the loss of control over the countryside.

The cultivation in the countryside reached its prime when its control by the state was lost. According to the World Bank’s 2004 Social Development Paper, this was an effect of the decline in “credible law enforcements hindering the growth of the opium economy.” The situation resembles the present-day Afghanistan under Taliban rule.

Since the Taliban’s recent takeover, “the group has been trying to amend its image in the hope of earning international recognition and the easing of sanctions” reported Dilara Ozer for Politics Today. She added, “Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Salam Hanafi asked international donors for cooperation to help find alternative businesses for farmers and treat drug addicts.”

Given the poor economic circumstances, parents have resorted to sedating their hungry children by giving them medication, a report claims. Poverty reaching a record high with parents selling their daughters and organs for money. Drug consumption has become a preferred coping mechanism in the country, which cultivates 80 percent of the world’s opium.

The lack of social and public services meant that old buildings like the U.S military camps were being transformed into rehabilitation centers. In a recent documentary, Arte.tv reported the terrible conditions there as the centers lack any medical aid and safety.

The conditions reflect an inhumane treatment of patients and the poor social and economic structure of the country. Some patients are unable to leave the treatment centers, having no contact with their families, while others are unable to survive drug withdrawals due to lack of medicine and medical assistance. There are reports of infested blankets and lack of food.

Echoing the opium bans in 2000 and 2001, the Taliban’s ban, announced in 2022, aimed to earn international recognition. There were already sanctions and lack of humanitarian aid. The effect of the opium ban caused opium sales to triple from $425 million in 2021 to $1.4 billion in 2022.

There is a 32 percent increase in opium cultivation for 2022, and what these figures will look like for the 2023 report will be a deciding factor for the reliability of the recent ban and Taliban’s efforts in administration

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) questioned whether the ban will be enforced by the Taliban as the cultivation season has approached, while other sources have cited that farmers have already began cultivation – but the Taliban turn a blind eye.

The Failure of the War on Terrorism as a War on Drugs

The opium economy because of opium’s addictive nature and demand is a booming endeavor that has been used to fund warlordism, state power, and narcoterrorism. The lack of law enforcement, and the limited economic stability and support of societal development have the potential to create further issues for the crackdown on opium trafficking, cultivation, and consumption. John F. Sopko wrote that the “eradication efforts had no lasting impact on opium poppy problem” while alternative cultivation programs that did not incorporate larger security and developmental strategies ultimately become short-lived for counternarcotic goals.

Between 2000 and 2020, the UK has provided £3.5 billion to Afghanistan as “humanitarian aid”; however, it was reported in the recent Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) that most of these funds had been used towards security agencies, such as the police.

Since the primary task of the police was not civilian policing but counterinsurgency operations, the appropriation of the UK aid funds was “unwilling to challenge the U.S. approach.” Furthermore, financial flows have been reported to serve a geostrategic and military agenda in the aftermath of the NATO-led occupation. According to Jean Shaoul, institutions like the World Bank, the United Nations, and various NGOs “mobilized in this endeavor” rather than providing humanitarian aid and relief.

Narcoterrorism

A distinction between criminal activity and terrorism is important. As Emma Bjornehed, senior lecturer at Swedish Defense University writes by referencing to the work of UNCRI member Tamara Makarenko stating that, “The most common criminal activity that terrorist organizations are involved in is the international drug trade, thus although organized crime may involve different criminal activity such as arms trade, human trafficking, racketeering, by viewing the crime aspect of the continuum as solely narcotics trade, the continuum can be used as a tool to view the concept of narcoterrorism.”

Afghanistan now faces with instabilities and increasing poverty due to insufficient control of the opium trade and other challenges. Alongside drug trafficking, the routes are also used for other illicit criminal activities. Given that the routes have been identified, Co-Chair of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals Csaba Kőrösi further mentions that the “threat from drug trafficking is linked with the threat of terrorism, regional and global security.”

The opium economy produces shocking effects on the states that oppose it. The opium economy has allowed Afghanistan to maintain its state power and the Taliban to remain warlords, but the strength of the opium economy has dismantled the state’s morality while it has remained a huge source of financial gain.

Prices have loomed and farmers are more prone to remain in the cultivation given its profit. Given this situation and the fact that the other means of production suggested for farmers have not shown to be successful under the assistance of other nations and organizations, the threat of narcoterrorism persists.

Pressure remains for counter efforts to manage the opium trade routes which vary from land, sea, and air. Given the recently announced ban and the poor law enforcement, opium prices have spiked and the Balkan Route is likely to be under more stress.

I

n 1798, Thomas Robert Malthus said that the world population increases in geometric progression while the food production in arithmetic progression, and predicted that hunger, disease, death, and wars might occur due to insufficient food. However, Malthus could not have predicted the unprecedented productivity increase achieved due to the use of technology in agriculture as mechanical, electrical, biological, chemical, and digital technology has tremendously increased agricultural productivity.

Vertical and soilless agriculture has also reduced the land constraint to a certain level, and the hunger-based diseases, deaths, and wars that Malthus predicted did not occur with food production having become more than enough to meet needs. In some parts of the world, the reason for food shortage and hunger is not insufficient food production, but its ineffective distribution to the people in need.

Dilemma in agriculture

The increasing use of inputs from new technologies in agriculture contributes to a faster increase in greenhouse gas emissions. It is estimated that 17% of this contribution is directly from agricultural practices, while an additional 7-14% from changes in land use.

Agricultural greenhouse gases comprise nitrous oxide from grazing animals, tillage, fertilizer use, and urine, and methane gases produced by ruminants and rice cultivation. These gases have the potential to increase global warming at a higher rate than carbon dioxide. Therefore, agriculture is potentially an important part of both the problem and the solution to climate change.

The concept of sustainable agriculture entered the world agenda years ago with the promise of transferring natural resources and the environment to future generations in a secure way. Implementing policies that increase sustainable productivity and, at the same time, reduce input-intensive practices that cause climate change have become the priority targets.

Supporting sustainable, climate-friendly, and productive agriculture that does not harm natural resources and the environment as well as ameliorating wrong incentives at all levels have come to the fore.

In parallel with these trends, measures at the global and regional level have entered the global agenda. Policies that came into being following the United Nations Paris Agreement (2015) and the latest European Green Deal (2019) after the Kyoto Protocol (1997) regulate economic activities to protect natural resources and the environment.

The emission reduction strategies in the Paris Agreement provide the chance for agriculture and the food chain to be an active part in the solution to climate change. The Green Deal aims to end net greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 2050. However, these limitations are approached with suspicion due to the COVID19 pandemic and the food insecurity that emerged following the Russia-Ukraine War.

Conventional agriculture represents one end of agriculture, while sustainable agriculture represents the other. Sustainable/organic agriculture is a production system that emphasizes the health of soils, ecosystems, and people. Based on ecological processes, biodiversity and natural cycles adapted to local conditions. Thus, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects, organic farming combines tradition, innovation, and science.

Sustainable agriculture is a more holistic approach to farming than conventional agriculture, as it relies on ecosystem services and causes much less damage to the land used. It is a natural way of producing food and provides a range of social, economic, and environmental benefits.

Which agriculture – sustainable, good, ecological, natural, or organic?

Sustainable agriculture is given different names with slightly different meanings such as good, ecological, natural, or organic. In fact, all refer to agriculture that minimizes or completely removes synthetic inputs from the ecosystem. However, there are differences between them. Good agriculture refers to agriculture that does not harm health, animal welfare, or the environment, and uses only necessary chemical inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides at the lowest level to ensure that chemical residues do not penetrate the product.

Natural and ecological agriculture can be defined as growing in a natural environment, where no chemicals are used. Organic agriculture refers to the agriculture with a certification process, which rejects the use of any chemical at every stage from production to consumption. However, the concepts of natural, ecological, and organic farming are often used interchangeably.

In sustainable agriculture, farmers combine a variety of crops to provide biodiversity and prevent pests and pathogens, rather than using synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers to produce food. While conventional systems promote uniformity, and depend on synthetic chemicals for protection against disease and pests, sustainable systems rely on biodiversity as a safeguard against these risks.

Preventive agriculture works too

One of the sustainable agricultural practices that emphasizes economic benefits and environmental health is preventive agriculture. By increasing the organic matter content and moisture holding capacity of the soil, it can double the subsistence crop yield in areas where the use of fertilizers is not economical and sustain production in low rainfall years. Preventive agriculture focuses on producing high yields without compromising environmental integrity.

The organic farming practices of the Amish people in the U.S. states of Pennsylvania and Ohio are examples of preventive agriculture. Utilizing the power of horses instead of tractors and mostly engaging in organic farming away from chemical inputs, the Amish produce more productive corn than the farms in the vicinity that use chemicals by providing organic matter and moisture accumulation in the soil.

Comparison of conventionality and sustainability

A comparison of conventional and sustainable agriculture could be made in terms of (1) production, (2) biodiversity, (3) soil composition/erosion, (4) water use, (5) energy use, and (6) greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental impact and production levels of each method determine its overall applicability as a solution to emerging trends.

It is necessary to make these comparisons to determine the best farming method that can sustainably meet the needs of the current population. Although these comparisons are based on scientific data, studies that consider local conditions in detail are needed to make a definitive judgment.

Conventional agriculture, despite its detrimental effects to the environment, is a viable way to provide food for more people. Population growth and the increasing consumption of high-calorie and meat-intensive diets are expected to double human food demand by 2050. Production levels become a serious benchmark for this rapid growth. Organic yields might be on average 25% lower than conventional yields globally, but varying by crop and farming system, according to a recent meta-analysis, is much better in the long run. For example, under drought conditions, organic farming tends to produce higher yields because of more water retained in the soil. Although production levels decline in sustainable agriculture, research shows that higher biodiversity levels are linked to healthier crops.

Biodiversity plays a big role, as it is a determinant of healthy food and performance. The greater the biodiversity, the more immune the plants are to pests and diseases. This is important because conventional agriculture discourages biodiversity and instead uses synthetic chemicals to maintain the health of crops.

The Russia–Ukraine war threatens global food security, especially in Asia and the MENA region, which heavily rely on Russian and Ukrainian wheat, oilseeds, and fertilizers. The world, already hit by the COVID19 global pandemic and struggling with the climate crisis, now faces another serious problem: food insecurity. Nihan Duran of Politics Today interviewed Caitlin Welsh, the director of the Global Food Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C., on the alarming consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the road ahead to address future global shocks on food security.

Q. On February 24, 2022, the Russian invasion of Ukraine started and the war doesn’t appear to be ending anytime soon. Meanwhile, the war has started to threaten food security globally. But, let’s start at the very beginning: what do we mean by food insecurity?

Food insecurity means the lack of access to a diet that allows for an active and healthy lifestyle. So, it is not only the lack of access to sufficient food but the lack of access to food of the right nutritional quality, which will encourage physical and cognitive development.

There are multiple ways to improve food security; such as long-term agricultural development and short-term humanitarian emergency assistance, as we are seeing in response to the Ukraine crisis right now. Ukrainians fleeing the country—and also populations inside Ukraine—are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance, as they are currently experiencing food insecurity due to the existing conflict situation.

Q. Apart from Ukrainians experiencing food insecurity due to the ongoing war, there are increasing concerns that the war will impact food security globally. Many countries heavily rely on Russian and Ukrainian wheat and oilseeds. What is this situation like?

It is true that Russia and Ukraine produce a significant amount of the world’s grains and oilseeds, in addition to fertilizers. So, a lot of agricultural commodities are not just produced there, but also exported from there. Worth noting is that Russia and Ukraine combined account for a substantial portion of the exports of those commodities around the world.

We have to consider that wheat is the most important part of the diets in the Middle East and North Africa. There are 26 countries that rely on imports from Russia and Ukraine to meet at least 50% of their wheat imports. And then, there are 50 countries that rely on Russia and Ukraine for 30% of their wheat imports. Therefore, the countries that are going to be most affected are the ones that import their wheat needs mostly from Russia and Ukraine.

Q. I understand that the situation may get worse and become dire for the MENA region. What would be the short- and long-term consequences of the Ukraine war on food security there?

The best-case scenario will be, of course, one in which the war ends quickly. However, even if there could be a ceasefire tonight, the damage will take some time to repair. There is a significant amount of infrastructure that has been damaged; we see fields plowed over by tanks, railroads destroyed, ports closed export facilities due to bombardments, and so on.

If the war were to end now, then two important things could happen in the agriculture cycle. One would be that the current crop of cereals, which is in the ground right now, could be cultivated and harvested in the summertime, and the next crop of cereals, which would be planted in late summer, could be put in the ground for harvest in 2023. Then those grains could be exported to global markets, which, as I mentioned, is critical for the countries that are dependent on Ukrainian wheat.

Q. What would the international response to such a threat be?

We actually already see some coordination among multilateral organizations. The G7 put out a call advising countries around the world not to impose export bans. The head of the World Trade Organization also said that the organization is calling member states and advising them against export bans.

When it comes to sanctions on Russia, most countries have so far avoided putting sanctions on Russian agricultural products. It remains critical for countries to continue not to attack Russia’s agriculture sector with sanctions.

Relatedly, it is incredibly important to keep fertilizer markets open. It is not just the grain that is being exported from Russia and Ukraine, it is also fertilizer. Russia and Belarus together are the main exporters of low-cost fertilizer. Threatening those exports would make farming more expensive for all types of farmers, from the poorest farmers to large industries.

Q. What about local responses to support the food and agriculture sector in war-torn Ukraine, and other countries that rely on imports from Russia and Ukraine?

It is crucial to support Ukraine’s agricultural sector even in the midst of the war. Ukraine’s Ministry of Agriculture did a survey about the input needs of its farmers. Listening to Ukraine’s Ministry of Agriculture and supporting their agriculture industry is vital at this very moment.

Equally important is to support the countries that rely on imports from Russia and Ukraine and to find other sources for food imports. This is a time to boost investments and social safety net systems to help the poorest of the poor to still access food during price increases.

Q. My last question will be a lessons-learned one. The world was trying to handle the climate crisis, was then hit hard by the COVID19 global pandemic in early 2020, and now the Ukraine war and global food insecurity! What lessons should we draw?

Right now, what we are seeing is another recognition that food systems are global, and that an event happening in one part of the world can affect food security in other countries that have nothing to do with that particular event. Two years ago, when COVID19 hit, we saw shocks throughout the supply chain with significant impacts on household food insecurity. The shock that we had during COVID19 had nothing to do with supply. Supply was there; it just had to do with markets.

When we probably thought that there would be several more years out from another shock like this, now we have the war in Ukraine. But this shock is completely different in nature.

As we are thinking about short-term responses to address the impact of this particular crisis, we also need to be prepared for other global shocks of different types and magnitudes. This current crisis is a reminder that we need to continue to be prepared for shocks of different natures. The former one had to do with a pandemic, this current one has to do with a war, and the next could be due to climate change and a severe weather event. We might not be able to anticipate what the nature of the shock would be, but in the longer term, we need to be looking at how we can strengthen our own national and global systems, so that we can withstand these shocks.

The ongoing impact of the COVID19 pandemic and the long-term adverse effects of climate change have led to significant increases in food prices. Declining productivity in many parts of the world, rising global demand, and food supply chain problems have led to reduced stocks of grains and oilseeds. Prices reached the highest levels in the last decade.

Declining soybean yields in South America, reduced palm oil supply in Malaysia, and the use of palm and soybean oil for biodiesel production are driving vegetable oil prices to a record high. On the other hand, prices of energy-intensive basic inputs such as fuel, fertilizers, and pesticides continue to increase rapidly. Finally, the war in Ukraine is giving new impetus to food and input prices.

Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine is threatening world agriculture and thus food security. Ukraine and Russia are agricultural powerhouses that make up a very important share of the world’s wheat, corn, oilseed, and fertilizer exports. The Ukraine war negatively affects all aspects of agriculture in the country and slows down exports from Russia.

Twenty-six countries across the world import at least half of their wheat from Russia and Ukraine. Low supply and high prices are likely to hit these most food-insecure countries first. On the other hand, the low supply and high prices of maize, oilseeds, and fertilizers play an increasing role in the prices of other commodities with their expansionist effects.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) announced that the global Food Price Index for March 2022 reached an all-time high with steady gains. In addition to the effects of climate change, the UN estimates that the number of people experiencing food insecurity worldwide could be at its highest level of the last 15 years due to the effects of the COVID19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

FAO’s moderate scenario shows that wheat prices may increase by about 9% in the short term, and over 21% in the severe scenario. Undernutrition scenarios show that the additional increase in the number of undernourished people in the world could reach more than 13 million in a few years. In short, war threatens the food security of millions of people.

Figures on agricultural trade

Over the past 30 years, the Black Sea region has become a major global supplier of grains and oilseeds, including vegetable oils. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, in the early 1990s, the region was a net importer of grain, while Russian and Ukrainian exports today account for about 12% of the total calories traded in the world. The two countries are among the top five global exporters of many important grains and oilseeds, mainly wheat with 34.1%, barley with 26.8%, sunflower with 23.9%, and corn with 17.4%.

Ukraine is also an important source of sunflower seed oil, providing about 49.6% of the global market. When we add Russia to this figure, this share rises to 72.7%. Many importing countries depend on these products from Ukraine and Russia. North Africa and the Middle East import more than 50% of their grains from these two countries, and most of their wheat and barley. Ukraine is an important supplier to many North African markets, including Egypt and Libya, as well as the EU and China.

Risks created by the Russia-Ukraine war

The war causes a decrease in the agricultural production of the region, problems in the food supply chain, and logistics disruptions, as well as risks that have already reflected on the whole world and negatively affect global food security. These risks can be examined both globally, in terms of Ukraine and Russia, and in terms of Turkey, which imports substantial amount of agricultural products and inputs from these two countries.

The most obvious risks are the trade-related ones. Due to the sudden and sharp decline in shipments between and by Russia and Ukraine, as already seen, countries importing wheat from Russia and Ukraine will definitely find alternative sources, pay higher prices or, worst of all, face shortages of supply. The war has already caused the closure of ports, oilseed processing plants, and other critical commercial facilities. In this sense, Turkey also experienced difficulties in the shipment of sunflower oil.

Price risk is also one of the leading risks. The global Food Price Index published by FAO averaged 159.3 points in March 2022, up 17.9 points (12.6 percent) from February, making a giant leap to a new highest level since its inception in 1990. The latest increase reflects new all-time highs for vegetable oils, cereals and meat sub-indices, while those of sugar and dairy products also rose significantly. The price increases in food supplies such as flour and sunflower oil in March added to the constantly increasing food prices and increased Turkey’s March food price index by 4.73 percent.

On the other hand, logistical risks also come to the fore. These include damages to roads, ports, storage, and processing facilities as well as port blockades. Ninety percent of exports from Ukraine take place through ports. In other words, there is a risk of loss of more than 15 million tons of different commodities that Ukrainian farmers cannot export. The capacity of the Western Ukraine border and the railway connection is around 300,000 tons per month. Ukraine, which usually exports around 4-5 million tons of goods in the spring, will not be able to do this. Therefore, Ukrainian trade logistics are at risk.

Meanwhile, production risk threatens the next production period. Considering the livelihoods of the Ukrainian farmers, their families, and those living in the countryside, the situation is alarming. What will be the output of the harvesting of crops currently planted? Will farmers be able to plant next spring? According to a field study, farmers in Ukraine have only 20% of the diesel fuel needed and 65% of the other inputs. Multinational companies that stop their operations for the safety of their employees, for example, cannot process sunflower into oil. Damages caused between the fields and the processing facilities, production logistics problems, and labor supply difficulties are important production risks.

The energy risk is one of the most common risks raised by those concerned. Agriculture is completely dependent on energy for, among others, the production of fuel, electricity, fertilizers, pesticides, and lubricants. These risks concern not only the war zone, but the whole world. Russia is a very important supplier of agricultural inputs, especially fertilizers and natural gas. This fact creates an additional layer of risk. Turkey, which imports a significant amount of these inputs from Russia, is also at significant risk.

Exchange rates, borrowing, and economic growth risks increase due to war. There is already a significant loss of value in currencies that will adversely affect investments. There are significant decreases in money conversion speed. Agriculture is the backbone of the economy in many developing countries of the world that borrow in U.S. dollars. The permanent appreciation of the dollar against the currencies of these countries due to the war causes very serious risks for these economies. The depreciation of the Turkish lira in the last three months gained a new momentum with the effect of the war and became a very serious source of risk.

Of course, the most important are human-centered risks. In this sense, besides the fact that Ukrainians are refugees in excess of three million, the risks to their lives and livelihoods come to the fore. Before the war, one in four Eastern Ukrainians was already receiving international support as they were food insecure.

We are entering a period in which the purchasing power of a whole nation will decrease with the decrease in agricultural production, decrease in economic activity, and increase in prices. It is clear that these developments will increase food insecurity and malnutrition in Ukraine.

The consequences of the Russia-Ukraine war will not only revise the geography of Eastern Europe and the chessboard of international politics, but will also have an impact on the global economy.

While Europe is trying to reduce its dependency on Russian gas, the Middle East and North African (MENA) countries could experience a serious food crisis due to their high dependence on Ukrainian and Russian wheat and other grains.

Russia is the top global exporter of wheat, while Ukraine is the fifth global exporter. Both countries have a 25% share of global wheat export.

Wheat is fundamental to the diet of MENA countries as it represents 37% of caloric consumption in the region. Across the Middle East and Africa, bread represents 18% of the total diet, according to Euromonitor data, while wheat price saw a 17% increase since Russian tanks entered Ukrainian soil.

The Russia-Ukraine war may cause severe shortages or even a food security crisis in the MENA region.

MENA’s Dependency on Russian and Ukrainian Wheat

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, several MENA countries announced that the war could cause a wheat shortage as most of them import wheat and other types of grain from Russia and Ukraine.

Lebanese Minister of Economy and Trade Amin Salam said that the country—which is cash-strapped— has wheat reserves sufficient for six weeks to two months.

The Tunisian government reportedly asked officials not to address the media regarding an impending wheat crisis. However, on February 25, the ministry of agriculture had stated that it was able to secure enough wheat for three to four months.

Egypt, the largest wheat importer globally, said it has no wheat shortage. Still, it banned the export of flour, lentils, and wheat to safeguard its food, and it is exploring alternative wheat sources amid the Ukraine crisis.

Turkey has said it wouldn’t experience wheat and sunflower oil shortages. However, the war in Ukraine sparked panic buying of sunflower oil in the last week.

In Turkey, last year, 78% of wheat imports came from Russia and 9% from Ukraine. The devaluation of the Turkish lira exacerbates the country’s food insecurity. Furthermore, the rising cost of fuel and fertilizers and sanctions on Russia may disrupt the food supply chain.

Turkey’s government had reduced the import duty on sunflower oil to zero earlier in 2021. As a further precaution, Turkey has extended the customs tax exemption on sunflower oil to the end of June 2022 and on wheat, rye, barley, oats, maize, chickpeas, and lentil imports to the end of 2022.

Afghanistan is facing the collapse of essential services as food aid runs out, according to U.N. agencies, who released a rapid appeal for more than $600 million on October 5, 2021 to sustain approximately 11 million people across the crisis-plagued country until the end of the year.

Due to security concerns, staff evacuations, closures, and legal difficulties, most of the former Afghan government is no longer operating due to the recent Taliban takeover. Humanitarian relief and other assistance given by the U.N. agencies and civilian groups as a result have been severely restricted. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said on August 31, 2021 that “a humanitarian catastrophe looms” in Afghanistan and asked donor countries to “dig deep” to support an emergency flash appeal. The United States and the European Union have declared that humanitarian help will continue to be provided to Afghanistan.

Following the Taliban’s takeover, the U.S. froze $7 billion in Afghan reserves, while the International Monetary Fund (IMF) froze  funding to the country, including hundreds of millions of dollars in Special Drawing Rights, which may be turned into currency during times of crisis, according to the IOM. The Central Bank of Afghanistan can only get a fraction of the money it needs. As a result, Afghan banks’ coffers are unable to be easily replenished, resulting in ATMs running out of cash and the imposition of withdrawal limitations.

The developing situation has created a significant disturbance and threatens Afghanistan’s critical winter wheat season, which is about to start.

An IMF spokesperson stated, “As is always the case, the IMF is guided by the views of the international community. There is currently a lack of clarity within the international community regarding recognition of a government in Afghanistan, as a consequence of which the country cannot access SDRs [special drawing rights] or other IMF resources.”

The developing situation has created a significant disturbance and threatens Afghanistan’s critical winter wheat season, which is about to start, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) warned of a major fundraising conference.

The complex set of sanctions imposed on the Taliban by the United Nations Security Council, as well as sanctions imposed by the United States, the European Union, and many other governments, should be reviewed to ensure that they do not obstruct the delivery of humanitarian aid by nongovernmental organizations.

Uncertainty looms about the type of administration the Taliban will form; it’s a crucial concern for both international actors holding Afghanistan’s reserves and humanitarian organizations halting programs and financing. However, at what cost will withholding the Taliban monetary assets negatively impact Afghan food scarcity and a growing humanitarian crisis?

Three new farm laws – The Farmers Produce, Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation Act), 2020; Farmers’ (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Service Act, 2020; and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 – were hurriedly enacted by the Indian Parliament during the COVID-19 pandemic in September 2020 following an earlier ordinance in June of the same year.

However, these laws do not address the structural challenges of Indian agriculture such as landlessness, the growing cost of agriculture, agricultural indebtedness, and farmers’ suicide. They do away with restrictions of selling to the agricultural big markets (mandis). They do away with middlemen in the sale of agricultural produce whereby farmers can directly sell to the buyers, both state and market-based. The removal of the middlemen in the laws is a welcome step. The new laws also do away with the state’s ability to levy fees on these sales which infringe on the state’s rights, and continue the dangerous trend of increasing centralization and destruction of the fragile culture of federalism in India.

The law on contract farming facilitates the latter but it is much more biased towards big landlords and corporations rather than small, marginal, and landless farmers. Contract farming seems to be a guise for corporate farming. The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 removes food stuffs such as cereals, pulses, potatoes, etc. from essential commodities which gives rise to a fear that the trade of these commodities might lead to hunger and famine.

The lack of a statutory minimum support price (MSP) in the bills is a matter of grave concern for the farmers especially in Punjab and Haryana where 65% of wheat is procured through the MSP by the Food Corporation of India and state agencies. But experts challenge us to realize that legalization of an MSP in the bills is not necessarily helpful and it could lead to depression of agricultural markets forcing farmers to sell at below MSP prices as private buyers may go where prices are cheap.

Farmers have been protesting against these laws since September 2020.  Farmers’ protests have a long genealogy in India. Upon assuming office in 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi tried to change the Land Acquisition Act, easing corporate and state acquisition of lands which followed huge popular protests leading to halting the move. The three farm laws were enacted in both houses of the Indian Parliament without following due process of parliamentary procedures such as sending the bills to the relevant Select Committee of the parliament.

These laws continue the hurried and authoritarian promulgation of laws and ordinances such as the demonetization of currencies in 2016 by PM Modi and the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir in August 2019 by acts of the Parliament of India.

Indian farmers have been striking by sitting at the Delhi border in Sindhu and Tikri since November 26, 2020 amidst biting cold and a lot of difficulties.

But while the Supreme Court of India is still sitting on the constitutional validity of the government’s new laws on Jammu and Kashmir, in the case of the new farm laws, the Supreme Court has held the ruling government accountable to some extent. It has raised some questions. It appointed an Expert Committee for consultation on these issues, but members of the committee do not have the trust and confidence of the protesting farmers.

The new farms laws in India and the handling of the issue by the ruling government reflect the breakdown of trust between the ruling establishment and the people of India at large, and especially the farmers and non-corporate India.

Farmer leaders such as Rakesh Tikait are holding Mahapanchayat meetings in Haryana, which are made of people from different villages, in Haryana and they want to hold panchayat-level local meetings all over the country. This helpfully would galvanize the people’s protests against the policies of the ruling regime which is bent on the corporatization and privatization of India.

The budget just presented by the government has reduced allocation for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and for women and child development programs, and is on a mad spree of privatization of public sector assets and companies.

The Indian government’s handling of the protests has been authoritarian and draconian. The farmers’ protests have been deliberately painted as linked to anti-national elements such as the Khalistan movement. Since the beginning of the protests, international leaders such as Canadian PM Justin Trudeau have supported the movement and have called for a dignified dialogue between the government and the farmers. Support has recently grown with endorsing declarations by pop singer Rihanna and young Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg who shared a tool kit for non-violent grassroots protests on Twitter.

The Delhi Police has filed a report against Thunberg. Furthermore, the Delhi Police and a number of Indian states have filed reports against politicians and journalists such as Shashi Tharoor and Rajdeep Sardesai for their reporting on the violence in Delhi on January 26. The Indian Supreme Court has fortunately come to their rescue by preventing any arrests. Sedition charges are also being slapped on critical thinkers and journalists. Such measures continue the regime’s efforts to create a state of fear and terror so that nobody can publicly dissent.

Modi himself has termed international concern over the farmers as “foreign destructive ideology” (FDI), calling the protestors “andolana jeevi” (living off the protest) and “parajivee” (parasites). Farmer leader Rakesh Tikait and others have responded by calling Modi and others “corporate jeevi” (living off corporate funding).

Nearly one thousand people have died in the farmers’ protests including people committing suicide in protest. Protesting farmers treat the latter as martyrs and the government’s calling them “andolana jeevi” is seen as disrespectful. Those who make such accusations are, in turn, considered para rakta jeevi (parasites thriving on other people’s blood).

Modi has argued that these agriculture laws would be a watershed moment in Indian agriculture leading to prosperity in the way the Green Revolution, which had also faced opposition, was a watershed moment for India sixty years ago. However, the Green Revolution was possible because of the collaboration of the state, the scientific community, and the banking sector.

It was a state-driven project. We now need a new Green Revolution—an “Evergreen Revolution” as Dr. M.S. Swaminathan, the father of India’s Green Revolution, articulated, creating bio-happiness, food security, and cultural and bio-diversity. We need transformative initiatives in agriculture, economy, technology, science, and people’s movements. These new laws, however, are corporation-driven. Instead of corporatization of agriculture and privatization of both agriculture and industry, we need more initiatives by the state and the people.

We need land reforms and land for the landless as was articulated by the Gandhian people’s movement Ekta Parishad. Ekta Parishad organized the Jan Satyagraha 2012, a non-violent foot march, from Gwalior to Delhi on October 2. Back then, the ruling establishment under the dispensation of then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed an agreement with Ekta Parishad that it would enact a law that grants land to the landless.

But this agreement has been on the shelf since then. The present government could have built on such transformative initiatives rather than promulgate the new farm laws which do not address the root causes of agrarian distress or poverty and misery in rural India.

The slogan of doubling farmers’ income seems to be an empty one. Real prosperity in India depends upon transformative initiatives such as an Evergreen Revolution creating sustainable and ecological agriculture, the creation of farmer-producer organizations, greater public investment in agriculture, a new extension of education, and the creation of a culture of dissent, dialogue, and diversity.