World Agriculture
Developments, trade, data, and topics in world agriculture
-
(EU) EUDR Product List Finalized, with Implementation Due by Year-EndOn 17 September 2026, the European Commission Authorizing Regulation (EU)2026/2102 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union and entered into force on 18 September 2026, finalizing the list of products in Annex I of the EU Zero Deforestation Products Regulation (EUDR). As the European Parliament and the Council did not raise any objection before the deadline of the objection period on September 13, the product scope of this regulation, which has been postponed twice since its promulgation in 2023, will no longer change and enter the final stage before its formal implementation at the end of the year. This round of adjustment does both subtraction and addition. The items removed from the list include cow leather and hide, retreaded tires, seed soybeans, vulcanized rubber products, conveyor belts and transmission belts, aircraft and motor vehicle seats, etc. Instant coffee, some palm oil derivatives (including palm oil soap) and frozen cow tongue will be added. The new categories will only be applicable from December 30, 2027. The regulations also specify exemptions, covering waste, second-hand and used goods, packaging materials, medical uses, and samples and products for analysis and testing. The reasons for the adjustment given by the European Commission include limited economic value, insufficient influence of operators, and encouragement of recycling. The implementation schedule will remain unchanged: large and medium-sized enterprises and all downstream operators (regardless of scale) will be applicable from December 30, 2026; micro and small enterprises established before December 31, 2024 can be extended to June 30, 2027; Timber products governed by the original EU Timber Regulation will be applicable from December 30, 2026 regardless of the size of the enterprise. The deadline for determining whether a product is under control is December 31, 2024, and products harvested or born before June 29, 2023 are not subject to this Regulation. For China, the impact of EUDR is concentrated on three levels. First, compliance costs rise: seven types of controlled commodities and their derivatives to enter the EU market, must submit due diligence statements and land-level geographical coordinates, domestic rubber tires, wood furniture, paper packaging and other industries export enterprises have been asked by customers to provide origin coordinates information. Second, the trade pattern shift: on the one hand, the export of related products to the EU is blocked, on the other hand, high deforestation risk sources may be diverted to China and other markets, forming a double squeeze. Third, rule spillover: the zero deforestation requirement is evolving from an EU regional rule to the default standard for global commodity trade. In response, the Brazilian Chamber of Foreign Trade has launched an official socio-environmental analysis report for the country's soybean, beef, coffee, timber, palm oil, rubber and cocoa exporters. The follow-up focus is on the operation of the EU Information System (TRACES) and the enforcement efforts of member states after its implementation on December 30, as well as the availability of traceability data for China's relevant export industries. Source: Directorate-General for the Environment of the European Commission; Regulation of the Official Journal of the European Union (EU)2026/2102; Shanghai Securities News, September 2026.
-
(Indonesia) B50 Biodiesel Mandate Takes Effect, Lifting Palm-Oil DemandIndonesia has officially implemented the B50 biodiesel policy since July 1, increasing the blending ratio of palm oil-based biodiesel in diesel from 40% to 50%, becoming one of the countries with the highest mandatory blending ratio in the world (neighboring Malaysia's current standard is B15). The policy sets a three-month transition period. The national oil company Pertamina plans to clear B40 inventory within two months, and all distribution points will switch to B50 from October 1. The Indonesian government has incorporated B50 into the overall framework of energy security, import substitution and palm oil industry upgrading. The Ministry of Energy and Mines predicts that switching B50 in 2026 will reduce the consumption of fossil diesel by about 4 million kiloliters and save about 157.28 trillion rupiah (about US $8.8 billion) in foreign exchange for fuel imports. Indonesia also plans to stop importing diesel from July 1. On the raw material side, the Indonesian Palm Oil Association estimates that B50 requires about 16 million tons of crude palm oil (CPO) per year, an increase of about 3 million tons from about 13 million tons of B40. Indonesia's total palm oil production in 2025 is about 56.55 million tons, of which CPO is about 51.66 million tons. The focus of the policy after landing is on cost and suitability. B50 subsidies rely on palm oil export tax and export levy income, the recent fall in international crude oil prices, palm oil prices remain high, the spread between the two increased subsidy pressure. In terms of terminal adaptation, users of heavy diesel equipment such as mining and logistics reported that a high proportion of biodiesel may lead to an increase in fuel consumption (tests show about 3%-5%) and accelerated wear and tear of components, thus shortening the maintenance cycle. Indonesia's Ministry of Energy and Mines said that the durability test of B50 on heavy equipment has accumulated for more than 900 hours, and there has been no engine failure due to fuel quality, so it is technically ready for promotion. As the world's largest producer and exporter of palm oil, Indonesia's domestic demand expansion will reduce its export supply elasticity. Palm oil is China's largest import of vegetable oil varieties, the international price upward will be through the import cost and oil price difference, to the downstream transmission to soybean oil, vegetable oil alternative consumption. Source: Indonesian Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources; Antara News Agency; Xinhua News Agency, July 2026.
-
(EU) New Rules on NGT Crops AdoptedThe European Parliament and the Council of the European Union formally adopted a new regulation on new genome technology (NGT) crops (Regulation (EU) 2026/1388) on June 17, establishing a new framework for the regulation of gene-edited crops in the EU. The regulation will take effect 20 days after its publication in the official gazette of the European Union and will apply from July 17, 2028. Before it is officially applied, the relevant plants and their food and feed will still be managed according to the current genetically modified regulations. The new regulations divide NGT plants into two categories: one category of NGT plants is considered to be equivalent to varieties obtained from traditional breeding, and shall be regarded as conventional variety management after verification by member states. genetically modified regulations are not applicable. only seeds and other propagation materials need to be marked, and their offspring need not be checked again; The second category of NGT plants contains more complex genetic modifications, and the continued application of genetically modified regulations must be subject to risk assessment and authorization, and traceability and identification management. Plants with specific traits, such as herbicide tolerance or production of known insecticidal substances, are excluded from one category. The new rules also introduce patent transparency arrangements: developers of a class of NGT plants are required to submit relevant patent information to a public database and may voluntarily declare their intention to license; the European Commission will develop a code of conduct for patents and set up an expert group to assess the impact of patents on access to genetic resources and innovation, with the participation of the European Patent Office. Member States may opt out of the cultivation of Class II NGT plants on their territory; NGT plants may not be used for organic agriculture. The current EU genetically modified regulations were formulated in 2001, earlier than NGT technology. After the European Court of Justice ruled in 2018 that gene-edited crops should be managed according to genetic modification, the European Commission proposed this amendment in 2023. Supporters believe that the new regulations will help improve the competitiveness of the EU seed industry and agricultural sustainability, while opponents have doubts about patent and labeling arrangements. After the new regulations come into effect, the supporting authorization procedures and other implementation rules still need to be completed before the 2028 applicable date. Source: European Commission Directorate General for Health and Food Safety; EU Council press release; Science | Business, June 2026.
-
U.S. House of Representatives Passes 2026 Farm BillThe U.S. House of Representatives passed the Agriculture, Food and National Security Act of 2026 (H.R. 7567) by a vote of 224 to 200 on April 30, the first new five-year farm bill passed by the U.S. Congress since the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018. The bill was introduced on February 13 and passed by the House Agriculture Committee on March 5, 34 to 17. The bill extends the authorization of related projects of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to fiscal year 2031, covering areas such as commodity support, crop insurance, conservation, agricultural credit, rural development, research and extension, trade promotion, forestry, energy, horticulture, livestock and foreign-owned agricultural land. A score released by the Congressional Budget Office on April 24 shows that the bill would increase mandatory spending by $0.162 billion in fiscal years 2026-2031 and remain largely budget-neutral over the 11-year cycle. The U.S. agricultural community generally welcomed the passage of the bill, believing that it provided policy certainty for farmers facing rising input costs and low agricultural prices. The controversy focuses on two aspects: first, the "annual sales of E15(15% ethanol gasoline)" clause originally proposed to be included was eliminated before the final vote, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives promised to arrange a separate vote on the matter within two weeks; Second, the amendment proposed by some members involving pesticide inputs has aroused concern in cotton and other industries. The next bill moves to the Senate. The Senate Agriculture Committee has not yet started its deliberation, and the extension arrangement of the current Agriculture Bill will expire at the end of fiscal year 2026, with some projects facing the risk of authorization interruption. In addition, the outdated legal provisions known as the "permanent law" will resume application to some commodities (dairy products take the lead) from January 1, 2027. If the new law is not implemented in time, it may push up relevant fiscal expenditures. Source: U.S. Congressional H.R. 7567 Legislative Record; Congressional Research Service (CRS); Press release from the Office of Senator Hyde-Smith, April 2026.
-
(Indonesia) Indonesia fully implements B40 biodiesel, palm oil domestic demand increasesIndonesia will increase the mandatory blending ratio of biodiesel from B35 to B40 from January 1, 2025, I .e. 40% palm oil-based biodiesel will be blended into diesel oil, and a transition period until the end of February will be set for the market to digest B35 stocks. This is the largest biodiesel blending upgrade program in the world. According to the quota arrangement issued by Indonesia's Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, the total distribution of B40 biodiesel in 2025 is about 15.62 billion litres, including 7.55 billion litres of compulsory diesel for public services, 8.07 billion litres for non-public sectors and 13.5 billion litres for the whole year. The government expects B40 to increase palm oil industry consumption by 2 million -3 million tons per year, and Indonesia's palm oil industry consumption is expected to reach about 14.7 million tons in 2024/25. There are multiple considerations behind the policy: reducing diesel imports and foreign exchange expenditures, digesting palm oil excess capacity, and supporting domestic palm oil prices. However, the market is also concerned about subsidy funds and implementation capacity-blending subsidies rely on palm oil export tax revenue, price and tax revenue fluctuations will directly affect the implementation rate. As the world's largest producer and exporter of palm oil, Indonesia's domestic demand expansion will correspondingly reduce its export supply, supporting global palm oil and vegetable oil prices, and the procurement cost structure of major importing countries such as China and India will also be adjusted accordingly. Source: Indonesian Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources; USDA FAS Jakarta Report; Antara News Agency, January 2025.
-
(Japan) Japan's "rice shortage", new rice prices hit a 20-year highSince mid-to-late August, supermarkets in many places in Japan have been out of stock and restricted in purchase of rice, and the "rice turmoil" has become a national topic. Since July, some brands of rice have taken the lead in cutting off their supplies. On August 8, after the Japan Meteorological Agency released a report on the huge earthquake in the South China Sea Trough, the tide of rice hoarding further spread, with large areas of rice shelves in Tokyo, Osaka and other places vacant. The tight supply is the result of the superposition of many factors: the production of rice in 2023 will be reduced due to the intense heat and the quality will decline; The price of rice rose moderately compared with that of alternative staple foods such as bread, and the demand for household rice rose for the first time in ten years. At the end of June, the stock of rice in circulation dropped to 1.56 million tons, the lowest since statistics were available. The surge in tourists visiting Japan also continued to push up the demand for rice for catering. In terms of price, the new rice produced in 2024 will be listed soon, and the predicted price of new rice in the main producing areas will rise by 20% to 40% year-on-year; in July, the Japanese rice consumer price index rose by 17.2 year-on-year, a new high of about 20 years. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries had previously decided not to put in government reserve rice on the grounds that the new rice would be listed in September and would disturb the market at this time. This statement caused controversy in Japan. Although the annual consumption of rice in Japan has shown a long-term downward trend, the "rice shortage" has exposed its vulnerability to extreme weather, inventory management and changes in demand structure. The market is concerned about whether rice prices can stabilize after the large-scale listing of new rice in September, and whether the reserve rice delivery system needs to be adjusted. Source: Japan's Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Kyodo News; USDA FAS, August 2024.
-
(EU) European Parliament adopts negotiating position on new rules for gene-edited cropsOn February 7, the European Parliament passed its negotiating position on the proposal of the new genome technology (NGT) regulation by 307 votes in favor, 263 votes against and 41 abstentions. The EU gene editing crop regulatory framework reform has taken a key step, but the dispute over labeling and patent issues will still run through the follow-up legislative process. The draft regulation proposed by the European Commission in July 2023 intends to differentiate gene editing and other new genome technology crops from traditional genetically modified organisms: "Class 1 NGT" equivalent to conventional varieties and with no more than 20 genetic differences will be exempted from the risk assessment, labeling and traceability requirements under the genetically modified regulations; "Class 2 NGT" still applies to the current genetically modified rules; All NGT products shall not be used in organic agriculture. This time, the European Parliament has added its position while maintaining the two classification frameworks: mandatory labeling of all NGT products and the establishment of a public registry, and a total ban on patents for NGT technologies. Industrial organizations such as the European Seed Association and Copa-Cogeca support the reform, believing that the new rules will help the EU breeding industry narrow the gap with the United States, Canada, Japan, etc., while organic agriculture and environmental groups have warned that deregulation will exacerbate the patent monopoly of large seed companies and impact the organic sector. The next step is for the European Parliament to start tripartite negotiations with the Council of the European Union. The Board has repeatedly failed to agree on a negotiating mandate, with some member states opposing the imposition of labeling obligations on Category 1 NGTs and others having reservations about the scientific basis for threshold setting. The EU seed industry expects the new regulations to be implemented as soon as possible so as not to continue to lag behind other major agricultural exporting countries in the biotechnology breeding competition. Sources: European Parliament press release; European Commission COM(2023) Proposition 411; USDA FAS, February 2024.
-
(Russia) Russia announces no further extension of Black Sea grain shipment agreementOn July 17, Russia formally notified Turkey, Ukraine and the United Nations Secretariat not to extend the "Black Sea Food Initiative" that expired on that day ". Kremlin spokesman Peskov confirmed that the agreement had expired on the same day and said that Russia was willing to resume implementation immediately after the agreement involving Russia was implemented. The agreement was brokered by the United Nations and Turkey in July 2022 to open up Ukraine's Black Sea food transport channel in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. According to United Nations data, during the one-year operation of the agreement, Ukraine transported about 32.8 million tons of grain through the Black Sea Corridor, of which about 12.4 million tons were shipped to EU countries and 9.9 million tons to Turkey, which played an important role in stabilizing the global food market. After the news of the suspension of the agreement came out, the international wheat futures price rose for a time. The Russian side has repeatedly threatened to withdraw, with conditions including the re-access of the Agricultural Bank of Russia to the SWIFT system, the lifting of logistics and insurance restrictions on Russian food and fertilizer exports, and the resumption of the operation of the Togriati-Odessa liquid ammonia pipeline. Russia has been complaining that the agreement "only takes care of Ukraine" and that its food and fertilizer exports still face obstacles in terms of payment, shipping and insurance. The Black Sea Food Initiative is regarded as the most important food security arrangement since the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, and its trend is directly related to the countries of North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia that depend on the food source of the Black Sea. The United Nations said it would continue to communicate with all parties, while the market was concerned about the alternative capacity of Ukrainian food exports through the Danube ports and land routes. Source: UN Black Sea Food Initiative Bulletin; RIA Novosti; Reuters; EFE, 17 July 2023.
-
Good Book Recommendation: Contemporary World Agriculture SeriesThe Contemporary World Agriculture Series adheres to the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, implements General Secretary Jinping's important expositions on the "three rural" work, and better serves the national food security, the construction of a powerful agricultural country, and the "Belt and Road". Construction and agriculture "going out", expand agricultural foreign exchanges and cooperation, provide intellectual support for government departments, agricultural enterprises and scientific research personnel to understand the situation of foreign agriculture, learn from foreign agricultural development experience, and interpret the achievements and experience of China's agricultural modernization.
-
Saudi Arabia triples overseas agricultural investmentSaudi Arabia triples overseas agricultural investment Saudi Arabia triples agriculture investments abroad Abu Dhabi: Saudi Arabia's Agricultural Development Fund loans have grown by 300 per cent since 2016 to be worth more than 3.7 billion riyals, a senior official said. Munir bin Fahd Al Sahli, Director General of the Agricultural Development Fund, said part of the fund's investments abroad was to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, expecting that the fund will continue to support the agricultural sector in full coordination with the Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture and the National Development Fund to support the food security strategy in the Kingdom. While the programme to support Saudi investments abroad aims to diversify and stabilise sources of foreign food supplies as part of the Kingdom's food security initiative, and covers projects that produce eight basic crops, the investment portfolio of the Agricultural Development Fund abroad amounted to one billion riyals, an increase of about 55 per cent over its value in 2019, which amounted to 644 million riyals during the first year of the programme. Investments also more than tripled, as the fund began supporting Saudi investments abroad with 284.25 million riyals. First year The first for the foreign agricultural investment programme saw the approval of loans totaling 644 million Saudi riyals, with the aim of growing and supplying barley, wheat, corn, oilseeds, and soybeans from Ukraine, in addition to approving a project for one of the national companies specialised in agricultural investment and animal production in Sudan. New projects The fund has started supporting Saudi investments abroad with amounts of $75 million, on the condition that at least 50 per cent of the project's crops be exported to the Kingdom, as the loan will cover up to 60 per cent of the project's value. The loan provided by the fund ranges from $25 to $75 million that includes new projects, in addition to expanding existing projects. The fund stipulated that at least 50 per cent of the company requesting the loan be owned by a Saudi citizen, and that the company be registered in the Kingdom. Original source: Gulf News published: 2021-2-8 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
World Bank, EU ready to provide technical support for Ukraine to launch arable land reformWorld Bank, EU ready to provide technical support for Ukraine to launch arable land reform World Bank, EU ready to provide technical support for Ukraine to launch farmland reform A roadmap for further joint work within the Land Reform Steering Committee is expected to be finalized in early February. The World Bank and the European Union stand ready to provide technical support and other resources for Ukraine to successfully implement farmland reform. This was stated by Klaus Deininger, Lead Economist in the Sustainability and Infrastructure Team of the Development Research Group at the World Bank, according to Ukraine's Ministry for Development of Economy, Trade and Agriculture. In his words, Ukraine has all the prerequisites for the introduction of a transparent farmland market, which will increase the efficiency of the use of land resources, provide a basis for the development of agriculture, rural areas and the local population. Ukraine's Deputy Minister for Development of Economy, Trade and Agriculture Taras Vysotskyi, in turn, said that the introduction of the farmland market and the provision of all the necessary tools for its successful operation remains a priority for the government of Ukraine for 2021. "All the priorities of the Ukrainian government regarding the further implementation of the land reform remain operative in 2021, because in six months the farmland market will be launched. It is important for us to provide all the necessary prerequisites for the successful launch of the farmland market and its further operation," he said. In particular, these are the development and implementation of farmland legislation, the introduction of land deregulation, the transfer of land management powers to local communities, the introduction of a system of e-auctions, land monitoring. A roadmap for further joint work within the Land Reform Steering Committee is expected to be finalized in early February. Farmland reform in Ukraine: Facts in brief On April 28, 2020, President Volodymyr Zelensky enacted the law on amendments to certain legislative acts of Ukraine on agricultural land to launch the farmland market in Ukraine from July 1, 2021. The law provides for a gradual land reform: only citizens of Ukraine will be able to buy agricultural land with a limit of 100 hectares per individual as of July 1, 2021. At the second stage, as of January 1, 2024, land concentration will increase to 10,000 hectares, and legal entities will also be allowed to acquire farmland. In June 2020, President Zelensky said Ukraine would lift farmland purchase restrictions only after Ukrainian farmers were given access to low-interest loans for that purpose. On October 15, 2020, Zelensky signed a decree on the transfer of agricultural land from state to municipal ownership. On the same day, State Geocadastre head Roman Leshchenko said that about 750,000 hectares of land would remain in state ownership after the transfer of more than 2 million hectares of agricultural land to municipal ownership under the presidential decree. On November 9, 2020, the Cabinet of Ministers proposed new methods be introduced to evaluate farmland. On November 10, 2020, Deputy Minister for Development of Economy, Trade and Agriculture Taras Vysotskyi announced that the government would allocate UAH 500 million (US$17.8 million) in the 2021 budget for the first stage of the farmland reform. On November 11, 2020, the Cabinet of Ministers improved control over the concentration of agricultural land in the ownership of one person. On November 17, 2020, the Cabinet of Ministers approved a decree on the transfer of farmland to territorial communities. Original source: UNIAN published: 2021-2-8 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
Indonesia begins development of controversial food industry projectIndonesia begins development of controversial food industry project Indonesia starts developing controversial food estate project Indonesia has started developing a food estate to grow rice, corn and other crops that should eventually span the archipelago and aims to curb reliance on food imports in the world's fourth most populous country, President Joko Widodo said on Wednesday. The project, which is spearhead by the president's former rival turned minister Prabowo Subianto, is expected to cover an area of 770,000 hectares (1,903,000 acres), or more than ten times the size of Singapore. The estate will allocate 148,000 hectares to rice and 622,000 hectares of non-irrigated land for crops like maize, said the president, who is widely known as Jokowi. The food estate will be first located in Central Kalimantan on Borneo island and in North Sumatra, and will be extended to West Papua, East Nusa Tenggara and South Sumatra, Jokowi said in a televised cabinet meeting. “Infrastructure support and road access will also be carried out in the field immediately so that... large modern agricultural tools will not experience difficulties," he said. Self-sufficiency in food, sometimes via ambitious projects, has long been a target for Indonesian politicians, given the country is a top importer of wheat and rice. In the case of rice, a high-profile attempt by former autocrat Suharto to restore Indonesia's self-sufficiency in the 1990s under Central Kalimantan's Mega Rice Project proved disastrous due to the ill-suited peat land. Green groups have also criticised the latest plan and warned of the risk that dried out peatland could trigger devastating forest fires. Defense minister Prabowo said after the announcement the project was needed now due to food scarcity warnings by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations amid the COVID-19 pandemic. He also said the government wanted to “ensure that we don't depend on foreign supplies ”. Prabowo said the project would initially grow 30,000 hectares of cassava and this would rise to 1.4 million by the end of 2025 with its flour used as an ingredient of staples like bread and noodles. Original source: Reuters published: 2020-10-8 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
UAE agricultural giant to invest 100000 hectares, (Indonesian) Minister of Environment and Forestry to prepare landUAE agricultural giant to invest 100000 hectares, (Indonesian) Minister of Environment and Forestry to prepare land UAE agricultural giant invests in 100,000 hectares, Minister of Environment and Forestry will prepare the land by Sugiharto (Translation from original in Bahasa) Minister of Environment and Forestry Siti Nurbaya said she would prepare the land needed for investment by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) agricultural giant, Elite Agro LLC. "The Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK) is ready to facilitate the provision of this land, because the government is indeed preparing a food estate agenda," said Siti Nurbaya while in a virtual meeting with the Indonesian Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Husin Bagis, Friday (25 / 9/2020). Based on a press release from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Elite Agro LLC, an agricultural sector company from the UAE, has initiated a collaboration with the Research and Development Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture since 2019 regarding "Research and Development Collaboration for Agricultural Crops Commercialization" in Lembang, West Java on an area of ??19 ha, but is constrained by the land supply. Elite Agro LLC has also started exploring cooperation in the agricultural sector or Food Estate in Central Kalimantan which requires 100,000 hectares of land, and is facing the same problem, namely access to land. Regarding the need for land for research, Minister Siti offered to use the Special Purpose Forest Area (KHDTK), in this case specifically for agricultural research, whose permits could be processed relatively quickly. Meanwhile, for production investment, Minister Siti explained, the food estate in Central Kalimantan has begun to be implemented by the Ministry of Public Works in ex-transmigration areas. Approximately 148,000 hectares have begun to be prepared with an irrigation scheme. "We are also preparing around 31,000 hectares of land for food estate and in strategic food management for the Ministry of Defense in the form of borrowing from areas that no longer function properly as forests," he said. Husin Bagis expressed his gratitude and appreciation to Minister Siti Nurbaya for providing solutions to accelerate the implementation of the UAE-Indonesia government cooperation. Husin thinks this cooperation will benefit both countries. "We are sure that investing in Indonesia will encourage other investors from the Middle East such as Qatar to also invest in Indonesia," he said. Original source: Agro Indonesia published: 2020-10-8 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
UAE Agricultural Firm to Invest in Subang (Indonesia)UAE Agricultural Firm to Invest in Subang (Indonesia) UAE Agro Companies Will Invest in Subang by Monica Wareza, CNBC Indonesia Jakarta, CNBC Indonesia - A producer and distributor of fresh fruit and vegetables from Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Elite Agro will invest in Indonesia, to be precise in Subang, West Java. This cooperation plan was conveyed during a meeting between Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi and Minister of State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN) Erick Thohir during a visit to the country. Retno said that this is a continuation of the bilateral cooperation between Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates which continues to grow. Currently ongoing cooperation is in the energy sector and will be continued with cooperation in the health and agriculture sectors. "In the agricultural sector, Elite Agro has an agribusiness investment plan in Subang, West Java and is expected to be realized as soon as possible," said Retno in a virtual press conference, Saturday (22/8/2020). Erick Thohir said that this is part of increasing food security in the country so that it can improve the quality of domestic food products so that they have a selling value abroad. According to him, with this cooperation it is hoped that domestic food products will then be able to enter the African and Middle Eastern markets. "We see that there is a large market potential, not only in Indonesia and the UAE, but the UAE is a distribution center for Africa and the Middle East. We want to make sure the standardization is good. This is what we lack in producing food products, we are still inferior to neighboring countries. So, through cooperation with the UAE, we want to increase the quality of food production while at the same time securing food needs in Indonesia," Erick explained at the same opportunity. Previously, Erick also explained that the government would also attract investment in the energy sector, especially renewable energy. "We know that oil imports are still high. We don't want to just be a market, but we also want to get additional technology from a big country like the UAE, especially in the energy sector. We are not only cooperating in oil, but we are also working together to explore renewable energy sources. "Therefore, one of the meeting points we will conduct is how PLN can transform with Masdar's partners to build solar energy, which is currently in Cirata and we will explore it again in several other areas," said Erick. Original source: CNBC Indonesia published: 2020-9-3 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
Since 2010, the World Bank's International Finance Corporation (IFC) has injected $1.8 billion into factory farming operations.Since 2010, the World Bank's International Finance Corporation (IFC) has injected $1.8 billion into factory farming operations. World Bank's IFC pumped $1.8b into factory farming operations since 2010 The World Bank's private investment arm has channeled more than $1.8 billion into major livestock and factory farming operations across the world over the past decade, despite calls for the global reduction of meat and dairy consumption due to its environmental and health impacts. International Finance Corporation (IFC) data reviewed by Mongabay and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism show that since 2010 the corporation has financed the expansion of major multinational meat and dairy firms across Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Middle East. While the World Bank primarily lends directly to governments, the IFC provides funds for private companies in the form of loans, direct equity investments and other financial vehicles. The IFC says by providing capital to the livestock industry, it is stimulating job growth and reducing poverty while meeting greater demand for meat and dairy products in countries where incomes are rising. “IFC has made agribusiness a priority because of its potential for broad development impact and especially strong role in poverty reduction," the IFC said in an email to Mongabay. But Mongabay's analysis of the data shows most of the beneficiaries of its livestock investments were large multinational corporations with plans to ramp up industrial-scale animal farming in their countries of operation, and in some cases expand into new markets. Among the projects approved by the IFC is an $85 million loan and equity investment for Brazilian cattle giant Minerva, which has been dogged for years by alleged links to deforestation and associated greenhouse gas emissions in the Amazon and Cerrado. Other major beneficiaries of IFC funding include Ukrainian billionaire Yuriy Kosyuk; Saudi businessmen Prince Sultan bin Mohammed bin Saud Al Kabeer and Abdullah bin Mohammed Noor Rahimi; Chinese venture capital firm CDH Investments; Scandinavian multinational Arla Foods; and New Hope Group, the biggest animal feed producer in China. Livestock production is associated with a litany of environmental and biosecurity risks, including the pollution of waterways, rainforest destruction, and the emergence of new diseases. While according to some estimates global food production capacity must increase by more than half to meet demand by 2050, critics argue that expanding the megafarm model of food production will deepen inequality and damage the environment. “What they're mainly trying to do is replace the production that's done by small-scale producers and food systems, and transform or almost steal that market share and impose a corporate industrial system," said Devlin Kuyek, a researcher with the farmers' advocacy group GRAIN. Of the $1.8 billion of IFC investments reviewed by Mongabay, the largest share went to dairy companies ($686 million), followed by producers of pork ($563 million) and poultry products ($353 million). The remainder was lent to or invested in companies specializing in cattle production, fisheries, and livestock feed. Campaigners say that by helping large corporations consolidate their control over food supply chains, the IFC is advocating an unsustainable model that contributes to climate change while hurting smaller producers. “They don't seem to be considering that they have a role in shaping the food system," said Daniel Jones, senior campaign manager at Feedback, a U.K.-based organization that promotes reform in food production. Reducing poverty or building a better balance sheet? Since its inception in 1956, the IFC has provided financing for private companies to expand their operations around the world. As a member of the World Bank Group, it played a crucial role in pushing for global deregulation and enabling venture capitalists to enter “emerging markets," a phrase coined by one of its economists in 1981. The IFC was also instrumental in establishing stock exchanges around the world, and it has provided seed money for burgeoning industrial titans such as the South Korean conglomerate LG. The IFC is owned by its 185 member-state shareholders, with the U.S. accounting for the largest share, at 22%. Unlike other development banks in the World Bank Group, the IFC is a profit-making enterprise. This profit motive, critics say, has led to a blind spot when it comes to the way it judges impact. Until recently, the IFC didn't evaluate the role of its investments in meeting development goals in the countries where they were located. “Investment officers at the IFC don't get an end-of-year bonus like bankers do, but what's really prized in career progression there is closing the deal, making a lot of money, and getting money out the door," said Luiz Viera, coordinator of the Bretton Woods Project, a watchdog organization that monitors international financial institutions. The IFC's largest investment into the livestock industry was $150 million in financing for a Dutch conglomerate to take a controlling share in a Pakistani dairy producer. Many others were made in middle- and upper-middle-income countries, including $350 million for nine companies in China. Only three countries where the IFC has invested in livestock over the past decade - Uganda, Madagascar and Ethiopia - are classified by the World Bank as low-income. Viera said this reflects a troubling pattern of the IFC investing primarily in companies that have a low risk of failure and which are more likely to bring higher returns. “I personally believe in the role of public banks," Viera said. “But the role of those banks is theoretically to take risks and provide capital for projects that provide a public good or have a developmental purpose where normal capital markets would be unwilling to invest ." The IFC points to job creation and increased incomes for farmers as a primary benefit of its investments in the sector. Many of the livestock corporations receiving funds from the IFC rely on medium- and small-sized farms to supply them with animals, entering into production contracts with the operators of those farms. “Our investments span different sizes of types of agriculture companies, and often include components to strengthen smallholder farmers and improve their capabilities and output, while promoting resource efficiency and savings for the farmers," the IFC said. But Shefali Sharma, director of the European branch of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, says the power dynamics between big companies and smaller contract farmers often don't favor the farmers. In the U.S., many have razor-thin profit margins and have been forced to shoulder hefty debts. Sharma said the same dynamic is likely playing out with the IFC's investments. “There's evidence that the more concentrated these markets become, the producers lose in that situation. It's clear that farmer indebtedness is going up, and that's because the price paid to producers is below their cost of production," she said. “You're actually catering to the upper-middle class that's over-consuming dairy products rather than looking at how you can help small and marginalized producers be able to diversify and have a sustainable future," she added. Kuyek of GRAIN said that the companies the IFC is investing in will encourage increased consumption of meat and dairy products, but that the resulting profits will be directed away from smaller farmers. “What this model really excels at is shifting agriculture towards a system where all that natural wealth can be concentrated and redistributed at the top," he said. An industry known for environmental degradation Production of meat and dairy products is one of the primary drivers of climate change, causing nearly 15% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Large-scale factory farming has also been associated with air pollution and toxic runoff into rivers. Experts say that overuse of antibiotics in factory farming reduces their effectiveness in treating human illnesses. In 2016, a review found that Suguna Foods, an Indian poultry producer that received more than $200 million from the IFC between 2007 and 2010, was using antibiotics that are typically prescribed to people suffering from pneumonia and other infections. Suguna was approved for an additional $67.2 million loan by the IFC in late March this year. To reduce the environmental and social damage caused by companies they invest in, the IFC requires that they release an environmental and social action plan prior to receiving funds. In addition, they must comply with a set of “performance standards ." “All IFC clients have an obligation to adhere to IFC's Performance Standards, which we monitor regularly," the IFC said. Philippe Le Houérou, the IFC's chief executive, has also written that the corporation should be more responsive to communities impacted by its investments and “do much better at meaningfully engaging with them ." But advocates say that while the IFC's performance standards look strong on paper, its record of enforcement is poor. “The performance standards have been very effective if you are looking at it from the standpoint of how widely they've been adopted and how much they've permeated the discussions on corporate accountability," Kristen Genovese, senior researcher at SOMO, a Netherlands-based organization that monitors corporate conduct, told Mongabay. “But I don't think that they have been very successful at doing what they're meant to do, which is protecting communities and the environment ." The IFC has a semi-independent internal watchdog body called the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman, but even when it finds wrongdoing by IFC clients, its authority is narrowly limited to making private recommendations to the president of the World Bank. If it finds that a company has violated the IFC's performance standards, it can't withhold funds or order it to pay compensation. There is also no obligation for the IFC or the companies it funds to inform communities and workers that the CAO exists. Without the assistance of civil society groups, most are unlikely to know a complaint process is available, let alone how to navigate it. “The clients are meant to disclose to project affected communities what the adverse impacts of their projects are, so why wouldn't they then also be able to communicate to those people the availability of the CAO?" Genovese said. “Why have a CAO if you can't tell anybody about it ?" For those living under authoritarian governments, this means that the CAO is effectively toothless. In China, for example, restrictions on internet use along with fears of retaliation by state officials or corporate executives would likely be significant barriers to whistleblowers looking to raise the alarm over pollution or abuse of workers. Even in countries with more open access to information and fewer legal restrictions on civil society groups, engaging with the CAO can be dangerous. A 2015 report by Human Rights Watch documented numerous examples of intimidation and reprisals against community members and activists who brought complaints about IFC investments to the CAO. The requirement for the IFC's clients to implement their environmental and social action plans also appears to be spottily enforced. Some of the livestock companies funded by the IFC have implementation deadlines that are years old, with no information about whether or not the required actions were successfully completed. Sharma said that given the poor track record of the livestock industry in protecting workers and the environment, there is reason for concern. “I think companies use the performance standards as a fundraising exercise. If you say, 'we conform to the IFC standards,' it's easier for you to get money and lowers your risk profile. But as far as making sure companies are accountable to them? It's very low ." Original source: Mongabay published: 2020-8-3 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
Kazakhstan seeks foreign investors to develop agro-industrial complexKazakhstan seeks foreign investors to develop agro-industrial complex Kazakhstan Seeks Foreign Investors to Develop Agro Industrial Complex By Aidana Yergaliyeva Kazakhstan has an immense potential to diversify and develop its economy through the agro industrial complex. The nation's vast agricultural resources can produce goods meeting the needs of both its population and foreign countries. Its strategic location grants it access to a combined market of more than 500 million people. The investment opportunities in the agroindustrial business in Kazakhstan were one of the key topics during the June 17 webinar for investors from Kuwait hosted by Kazakh Invest, which provides legal consultancy and support to all investors interested in working in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is the world's ninth-largest country with more than 210 million hectares of arable land and nearly 20 percent of the population employed in agriculture. “Agriculture remains the flagship of Kazakhstan's economy which boasts vast swaths of arable land as well as direct access to major trading partners - China and Russia. Kazakhstan has the potential to play an important role in addressing the challenges of global food security," said Diana Ablyakimova, the webinar moderator and a senior manager at Kazakh Invest national company. The most promising agribusiness projects are in the production and processing of oilseeds, meat, poultry, fish and vegetables. Kazakh Invest proposes projects worth anywhere from $12 million to $114 million for the construction of flax oil, sunflower oil, vegetable oils, and soybean processing plants. There is a great demand in Europe for flax seeds grown in Kazakhstan, which made the country a leading flax seed producer over the last few years. “Now they (Kazakh government) are ready to invest in the next stage - the conversion of flax seeds to vegetable oil. But they need expertise in processing, an understanding of the flaxseed oil market because this is an export product, additional sources of financing to make the project competitive. Now we are looking for foreign investors," Madi Kanafin told The Astana Times. In addition to this, the Kazakh government supports agricultural entrepreneurship in “developing new agricultural technologies, subsidizing the cost of fertilizers, and building irrigation," he said. The government also exempts investors from corporate income tax and land taxes for up to 10 years, as well as from property tax for up to eight years. The investment priority projects will receive a 25 percent standard rate of investment subsidy. Kazakh Invest is looking for “foreign investors who can share industry best practices in the field of agricultural science," he said. According to Kanafin, Dutch investors and agronomists have been working with local farmers in a potato processing project during the last two years. The project uses Dutch experience, standards, and technologies to get high yields of more than 100 tons per hectare, he said. Kazakh Invest operates based on the one window principle, where they clarify local laws and procedures, provide transparency on decision-making, and reduce the administrative burden. Original source: Astana Times published: 2020-7-5 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
EPP proposes laws to protect small farmers from oligarchsEPP proposes laws to protect small farmers from oligarchs EPP proposes law to protect small farmers against oligarchs The European People's Party group called on Wednesday (13 May) for an EU law to prevent oligarchs and land-grabbers drawing on EU subsidies at the expense of small and medium-sized farming businesses. The practice is widespread in countries in Eastern Europe and Italy. The New York Times published in November 2019 a massive and well-documented cross-border investigative story titled" The Money Farmers: How Oligarchs and Populists Milk the EU for Millions". It illustrates how EU farm subsidies, worth €65 billion per year, help underwrite a form of modern feudalism in which small farmers are beholden to politically connected land barons. It says Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has auctioned off land to political allies and family members, with the subsidies following the land. And that a company formed by the Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš collected at least €37 million in subsidies last year. In Bulgaria, similar practices have also been reported. According to the EPP, the new law should cap subsidies per natural person, introduce a clear register of real company owners and prevent land theft”, said the EPP Group's Monika Hohlmeier MEP, who chairs the European Parliament's Budgetary Control Committee. “EU funds are systematically abused by wide-spread oligarchic or criminal structures in some member states. The conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister Babiš and other possible oligarchic structures are the ultimate call for a change in EU rules on how much money one single person can receive from the EU budget”, said Hohlmeier, who has authored a parliamentary report on the European Commission's management of EU funds. “The EU must also offer a direct reporting mechanism for small farmers, whose land, eligible for subsidies, has been stolen by criminal networks, as the European Anti-Fraud Office reported on cases in Slovakia and Italy”, she added. Her report will be voted on by Parliament today and tomorrow. “That a few businesses receive the vast majority of Union subsidies in some countries is neither fair nor in line with the intentions of EU structural funding. The majority of EU taxpayers should benefit from EU funds rather than see their contributions being paid out to oligarchs”, continued Hohlmeier. “This will be part of our requests in the upcoming negotiations of the long-term EU budget. The European Commission must propose budgetary rules setting a maximum amount that natural persons and big holdings owning several companies can receive from EU cohesion and agricultural funds”, she said. According to the EPP, the anti-oligarch measures should be accompanied by a register of final beneficiaries and their real owners to create transparency on who receives EU funds. “We want a reporting standard for who the natural persons behind the final beneficiaries of EU funds are across all пember яtates. If one person owns a parent company, it must be visible that funds received by the subsidiaries end up in the same hands”, explained Hohlmeier. Hohlmeier's parliamentary report on the European Commission's financial management pays special attention to land-grabbing practices too. “Farmers must know that they are protected by the EU if national authorities fail to act. The EPP Group therefore calls for a mechanism through which affected farmers can lodge complaints directly with the Commission”, concluded Hohlmeier. Original source: Euractiv published: 2020-6-7 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
The United States-Kenya Free Trade Agreement and the Right to Land and FoodThe United States-Kenya Free Trade Agreement and the Right to Land and Food U.S.-Kenya FTA and the rights to land and food By Karen Hansen-Kuhn, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (Washington, DC) and Catherine Gatundu, ActionAid International You might be surprised to learn that while we're all sheltering in place and wondering what comes next, trade negotiations that could set labor, environmental and climate rules for decades to come are moving forward. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has announced plans to negotiate a free-trade agreement with Kenya. This would be the first free-trade agreement the U.S. has negotiated with an African nation. The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked some important new conversations about how to ensure access to food, some more sincere than others. In the U.S., meatpacking companies assert that they are essential industries and must be allowed to operate despite coronavirus outbreaks among their workers, neatly omitting the fact that they have millions of pounds meat in cold storage. Breakdowns in supply chains all over the world have exposed the fragility of systems dominated by just a few major corporations. While solutions must involve strengthening and diversifying local food production, trade in agricultural products - especially countries like Kenya that still depend on food imports - will remain an important part of the equation. Getting trade rules right matters. But trade agreements govern much more than exchanges of food or other products. The rules set in recent deals like the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) limit governments' abilities to regulate risky pesticides or agricultural technologies or to shelter local production from volatile prices or supplies. After intense pressure from civil society and the U.S. Congress, the final USMCA left out unfair new patent protections on innovative biologic medicines, but there is every reason to believe those proposals will reemerge in other trade talks, potentially including this agreement with Kenya. Kenya already has access to most U.S. markets under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). We could certainly argue about the harsh economic conditions for participation in that agreement, but it does provide unilateral access to U.S. markets for many African exports. Given the economic disparities between the U.S. and Kenya, it seems extremely risky to insist on opening Kenya's market indiscriminately to U.S. goods. But that is exactly what various U.S. companies are demanding in their comments on negotiating objectives for this deal. More than 5,000 organizations, companies and individuals submitted comments on the negotiating objectives for the U.S.-Kenya FTA. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) submitted comments calling, first of all, for the suspension of talks during the pandemic. In fact, ActionAid, IATP and NFFC joined more than 400 organizations around the world to call for a halt in all trade talks until the COVID-19 emergency has passed. In IATP and NFFC's comment on the U.S.-Kenya deal, we also insisted that the AGOA benefits be made permanent. If the talks do continue, we insisted that they omit rules that undermine food sovereignty, rural economies and efforts to address climate change. The African trade network SEATINI also submitted comments, including one on the potential of a U.S.-Kenya deal to undermine the East African Community, an important regional effort at economic integration. All comments are available at regulations.gov and provide a useful overview of who's asking for what in these trade talks. USTR has also stated what it sees as problem areas in its annual National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. The section on Kenya lists restrictions in the Kenyan constitution banning foreign ownership of land as an investment barrier (somehow ignoring the fact that six U.S. states have similar restrictions). Kenya has a painful history of land grabs, including by foreign investors, that have robbed local farmers and their families of their homes and lands and undermined food production for the sake of speculative land investments. Immovable property and related property rights are included as a form of investment in USMCA and other U.S. free trade agreements, subject to binding dispute settlement. The question of foreign ownership of land in Kenya has a long history dating back to colonialism, which resulted in foreigners acquiring large swaths of land for a song and on ridiculously long leases of 999 years. The land debate was one of the main reasons the negotiations for a new constitution became a protracted 20-year battle. Communities whose land was leased for 999 years, had neither been compensated, nor consulted, and the demand for redress resulted in the compromise reduction of the lease period for up to 99 years. This is included in both the 2010 constitution and the 2009 National Land Policy. The process the USTR, in its trade report, now calls cumbersome and opaque is anything but. The constitution requires public consultation on such matters as large-scale land acquisition. It actually falls short of requiring Free, Prior and Informed Consent, which would better protect communities dependent on the land. This is the practice in most countries around the world and is also provided in most international instruments such as the Committee on World Food Security's Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT) and the African Union's Guiding Principles on Large Scale Land Based Investments in Africa. Land, like food, is not just one more commodity to be bought and sold. It is the basis of livelihoods, cultures and communities. Land or real estate should be excluded from the definition of covered investment in any trade agreement. National-level land tenure reforms must be driven by national-level democratic institutions, with an extensive process of community-based consultation with rights-holders, and in line with international law and standards such as the VGGT and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, which Kenya has endorsed. In the U.S., this agreement would mainly serve to lock in an approach to trade that would carry over to future administrations. In Kenya, the stakes are even higher. Original source: ActionAid, IATP published: 2020-6-7 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
Saudi Arabia buys wheat from overseas farmland investment for first timeSaudi Arabia buys wheat from overseas farmland investment for first time Saudi Arabia makes first wheat purchase from overseas farmland investment by Maha El Dahan DUBAI (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's state grain buyer SAGO on Monday said it bought 60,000 tonnes of Ukraine wheat from investment firm SALIC, marking its first purchase from agricultural investments overseas aimed at enhancing the country's food security. The Ukraine wheat cargo was bought at $248 a tonne, after the kingdom asked Saudi private investors with farmland overseas on April 6 to supply it with around 10% of its local needs this year. The Saudi call comes as regional food importers scramble to beef up reserves as coronavirus lockdowns up-ended supply chains. The world's top oil exporter has long encouraged its private investors to pour money into agricultural investments abroad to shore up the country's food security, without tangible results - until Monday's purchase in terms of imports for SAGO. The state grain buyer had originally estimated it would need 355,000 tonnes from private investors this year. “The 60,000 tonnes were purchased from SALIC," a SAGO official told Reuters. The Ukraine wheat that was sourced is of 11% to 12% protein content. SALIC, the Saudi Agricultural and Livestock Investment Co, was formed in 2011 to secure food supplies for the desert kingdom through mass production and foreign investments. It is an arm of the kingdom's sovereign wealth fund, the Public Investment Fund. Gulf states, dependent on imports for around 80% to 90% of their food, have poured cash into buying tens of thousands of hectares of cheap farmland and other agricultural assets elsewhere to enhance their food security for over a decade. SAGO renewed on Sunday its call for investors to subscribe to supply it with the remaining quantity of wheat. “This first round, the two companies that registered were SALIC and Al Rajhi International for Investment," SAGO said. “We will still buy more ." Investors who register with SAGO to sell wheat from their investments abroad have to be at least 51% Saudi-owned, according to regulations published by SAGO. The wheat produced abroad also has to abide by all of SAGO's wheat import specifications and the quantity produced from one origin country can't be less than 5,000 tonnes. Saudi Arabia normally imports wheat from the United States, South America, Australia and Europe. SAGO relaxed its bug-damage specifications for wheat last year, a move designed to allow for more imports of the grain from the Black Sea region. Its first Russian wheat purchase was shipped earlier this month. Original source: Reuters published: 2020-5-11 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
The United States-Kenya Free Trade Agreement and the Right to Land and FoodThe United States-Kenya Free Trade Agreement and the Right to Land and Food U.S.-Kenya FTA and the rights to land and food By Karen Hansen-Kuhn, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (Washington, DC) and Catherine Gatundu, ActionAid International You might be surprised to learn that while we're all sheltering in place and wondering what comes next, trade negotiations that could set labor, environmental and climate rules for decades to come are moving forward. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has announced plans to negotiate a free-trade agreement with Kenya. This would be the first free-trade agreement the U.S. has negotiated with an African nation. The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked some important new conversations about how to ensure access to food, some more sincere than others. In the U.S., meatpacking companies assert that they are essential industries and must be allowed to operate despite coronavirus outbreaks among their workers, neatly omitting the fact that they have millions of pounds meat in cold storage. Breakdowns in supply chains all over the world have exposed the fragility of systems dominated by just a few major corporations. While solutions must involve strengthening and diversifying local food production, trade in agricultural products - especially countries like Kenya that still depend on food imports - will remain an important part of the equation. Getting trade rules right matters. But trade agreements govern much more than exchanges of food or other products. The rules set in recent deals like the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) limit governments' abilities to regulate risky pesticides or agricultural technologies or to shelter local production from volatile prices or supplies. After intense pressure from civil society and the U.S. Congress, the final USMCA left out unfair new patent protections on innovative biologic medicines, but there is every reason to believe those proposals will reemerge in other trade talks, potentially including this agreement with Kenya. Kenya already has access to most U.S. markets under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). We could certainly argue about the harsh economic conditions for participation in that agreement, but it does provide unilateral access to U.S. markets for many African exports. Given the economic disparities between the U.S. and Kenya, it seems extremely risky to insist on opening Kenya's market indiscriminately to U.S. goods. But that is exactly what various U.S. companies are demanding in their comments on negotiating objectives for this deal. More than 5,000 organizations, companies and individuals submitted comments on the negotiating objectives for the U.S.-Kenya FTA. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) submitted comments calling, first of all, for the suspension of talks during the pandemic. In fact, ActionAid, IATP and NFFC joined more than 400 organizations around the world to call for a halt in all trade talks until the COVID-19 emergency has passed. In IATP and NFFC's comment on the U.S.-Kenya deal, we also insisted that the AGOA benefits be made permanent. If the talks do continue, we insisted that they omit rules that undermine food sovereignty, rural economies and efforts to address climate change. The African trade network SEATINI also submitted comments, including one on the potential of a U.S.-Kenya deal to undermine the East African Community, an important regional effort at economic integration. All comments are available at regulations.gov and provide a useful overview of who's asking for what in these trade talks. USTR has also stated what it sees as problem areas in its annual National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. The section on Kenya lists restrictions in the Kenyan constitution banning foreign ownership of land as an investment barrier (somehow ignoring the fact that six U.S. states have similar restrictions). Kenya has a painful history of land grabs, including by foreign investors, that have robbed local farmers and their families of their homes and lands and undermined food production for the sake of speculative land investments. Immovable property and related property rights are included as a form of investment in USMCA and other U.S. free trade agreements, subject to binding dispute settlement. The question of foreign ownership of land in Kenya has a long history dating back to colonialism, which resulted in foreigners acquiring large swaths of land for a song and on ridiculously long leases of 999 years. The land debate was one of the main reasons the negotiations for a new constitution became a protracted 20-year battle. Communities whose land was leased for 999 years, had neither been compensated, nor consulted, and the demand for redress resulted in the compromise reduction of the lease period for up to 99 years. This is included in both the 2010 constitution and the 2009 National Land Policy. The process the USTR, in its trade report, now calls cumbersome and opaque is anything but. The constitution requires public consultation on such matters as large-scale land acquisition. It actually falls short of requiring Free, Prior and Informed Consent, which would better protect communities dependent on the land. This is the practice in most countries around the world and is also provided in most international instruments such as the Committee on World Food Security's Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT) and the African Union's Guiding Principles on Large Scale Land Based Investments in Africa. Land, like food, is not just one more commodity to be bought and sold. It is the basis of livelihoods, cultures and communities. Land or real estate should be excluded from the definition of covered investment in any trade agreement. National-level land tenure reforms must be driven by national-level democratic institutions, with an extensive process of community-based consultation with rights-holders, and in line with international law and standards such as the VGGT and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, which Kenya has endorsed. In the U.S., this agreement would mainly serve to lock in an approach to trade that would carry over to future administrations. In Kenya, the stakes are even higher. Original source: ActionAid, IATP published: 2020-5-11 | Editor: Xie Jinli